12/1. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [13 pages in PDF] in Rossi v. MPAA, a state tort case in which a web site operator (Rossi) alleged that a copyright holder (MPAA) wrongfully served a DMCA notice and take down letter upon his internet service provider. The District Court granted summary judgment to the MPAA. The Court of Appeals affirmed. In particular, it held that the notice and take down provisions require only a subjective good faith belief on the part of the copyright holder, and good faith can be present even where the copyright holder is mistaken.

Michael Rossi operated a web site that stated that subscribers could download full length movies. It also included graphics from some copyrighted movies of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

The MPAA did not actually download any copyrighted movies from Rossi's web site. In litigation, Rossi argued that contrary to the claims in his web site, no movies were available for download.

The MPAA followed the notice and take down procedure of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which procedure is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A). It served its notice on Rossi and Rossi's internet service provider (ISP). The ISP notified Rossi that it would terminate his service. He then moved his web site to another ISP.

Nevertheless, Rossi filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DHawaii) against the MPAA and others alleging tortious interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, libel and defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Federal jurisdiction was based upon diversity of citizenship.

The District Court found that the MPAA had a good faith basis for its DMCA notice, and that the notice and take down communication was privileged. It granted summary judgment to the MPAA.

Rossi appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It addressed at length the meaning of the term "good faith belief".

Section 512 requires that a notice and take down notification must include, among other things, "A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law".

Rossi argued that this imposes upon the copyright claimant the duty to conduct a reasonable investigation into the allegedly offending website. The Court rejected this. It reasoned that "good faith belief" imposes no objective standard or review. Rather, it creates a subjective standard. The Court stated that it found no DMCA cases on this point. Hence, it relied on cases that construed "good faith" requirements found in other statutes.

Then, the Court found that Rossi raised no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the MPAA acted with good faith. And, since the MPAA's actions were justified, all of Rossi's tort claims must fail.

The Court of Appeals concluded, "When considered in the context of informative case authority, the statutory structure of § 512(c) supports the conclusion that the ``good faith belief´´ requirement in § 512(c)(3)(A)(v) encompasses a subjective, rather than objective, standard of conduct. Applying this subjective good faith standard and viewing the record in the light most favorable to Rossi reflects the absence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding MPAA’s violation of the DMCA. Because the MPAA acted in compliance with the DMCA and was otherwise justified in its response to Rossi's website, Rossi's tortious interference claims must fail. Because the MPAA’s communications were privileged and were well within the bounds of decency, his defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims must fail as well."

This case is Michael Rossi v. Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, No. 03-16034, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, D.C. No. CV-02-00239-BMK, Judge Barry Kurran presiding. Judge Johnnie Rawlinson wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Jerome Farris and John Noonan joined.

12/1. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its opinion [32 pages in PDF] in Global Relief Foundation v. New York Times, a defamation case. The Appeals Court affirmed the District Court's summary judgment for the New York Times (NYT) and other defendants.

Background. The Global Relief Foundation, Inc. (GRF) states that it was an Islamic charity. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the NYT, the Boston Globe, the Daily News, ABC, the Associated Press, and Hearst all reported that the U.S. government was investigating the GRF for links to terrorism, and was considering freezing its assets. Contributions to the GRF immediately decreased.

On December 14, 2001, the Department of the Treasury's (DOT) Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) blocked the assets of the GRF pending investigation. See, OFAC notice. On October 18, 2002, the DOT designated the GRF a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT). The SDGT list also includes Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and Hamas.

The defendants reported the government's investigation of the GRF before the government publicly announced the investigation.

The GRF, which was based in Illinois, filed a complaint on November 15, 2001 in U.S. District Court (NDIll) against the NYT, the other news reporting entities, and the individual reporters involved, alleging defamation. The GRF sought a large award of damages. Federal jurisdiction was based upon diversity of citizenship.

(The GRF also filed a separate lawsuit against the government.)

The District Court concluded that the GRF offered only blanket denials. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the basis that their reports were true or substantially true. The GRF appealed.

Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It concluded that everything that the defendants published was true or substantially true. It held that "Truth is an absolute bar to recovery for defamation".

The Appeals Court wrote that "To prove a claim of defamation, a plaintiff must show that a defendant made a false statement concerning the plaintiff, that there was an unprivileged publication of the defamatory statement to a third party by the defendant, and that the plaintiff was damaged."

It concluded that the "GRF has raised a genuine issue of material fact related to damages by showing that donations to the organization diminished after the publication of these statements. A statement is considered defamatory if it tends to cause such harm to the reputation of another that it lowers that person in the eyes of the community or deters third persons from associating with that person. ... Again, there is no real argument about whether the statements at issue tended to harm the reputation of GRF in a way that deterred third parties from dealing with the group."

The Appeals Court thus concluded that the issues are "are whether the statements were false, whether the defendants had some privilege to publish them, and whether the defendants had any other defense that would entitle them to judgment as a matter of law."

The Court continued that "Ultimately, all of the reports were either true or substantially true recitations of the government’s suspicions about and actions against GRF. ``When determining the `gist´ or `sting´ of allegedly defamatory material, a trial court must look at the highlight of the article, the pertinent angle of it, and not to items of secondary importance which are inoffensive details, immaterial to the truth of the defamatory statement.´´" (Citation omitted.)

"Any inaccuracies which do no incremental damage to the plaintiff’s reputation do not injure the only interest that the law of defamation protects", the Court wrote. "We will thus ignore inaccuracies that do no more harm to GRF than do the true statements in the articles. The gist or sting of each article was that the President had issued a blocking order on September 24, 2001 against a number of organizations suspected of providing financial assistance to terrorist groups, and the government was now contemplating adding other charities and non-governmental organizations to the list of blocked entities. Each article named GRF as one of the charities being investigated by the government, and a few noted that GRF had appeared on a list of organizations with suspected ties to terrorism years earlier. Many of the articles included GRF’s denials and none of the articles concluded that GRF was actually guilty of the conduct for which it was being investigated."

The Appeals Court concluded that "The only inaccuracy in the articles is the timing of the government's official actions against GRF and this inaccuracy does no more harm to GRF than the true statements in the articles. Recall, too, that GRF had already appeared two years earlier on the Clinton-era list of thirty organizations with suspected ties to terrorism. Moreover, for a number of the reports, GRF has no evidence demonstrating the falsity of the report and thus fails to make out an essential element of its claim. For the remainder of the cases, where something in the report was not technically true (such as the timing of the government’s accusations and actions), the defendants are entitled to judgment on the defense of substantial truth." (Parentheses in original.)

The Court also held that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the issue of falsity. But, once falsity is established, the defendant bears the burden of proving substantial truth. It wrote that "The Supreme Court has held that when a private-figure plaintiff seeks damages against a media defendant for speech on matters of public concern, the plaintiff must bear the burden of showing that the speech at issue is false before recovering damages". It added that "To establish the defense of substantial truth, the defendant need only show the truth of the “gist” or “sting” of the defamatory material."

The Appeals Court also rejected the GRF's argument that the defendants had to be able to prove the truth of their reports before publication. This is significant, because the defendants reported the investigation of the GRF before the government announced the investigation, placed the GRF on a block list, placed the GRF on the SDGT list, or raided the GRF's offices.

The Appeals Court opinion does not discuss each of the defendants' sources of information. However, this was confidential communications with government officials. The Appeals Court affirmed the District Court on the basis that the published reports were later proven to be true by the public actions of the government.

Had the Court followed the GRF's argument, it would have provided news reporting entities a huge disincentive to publish reports based on confidential sources.

On the other hand, by not accepting the GRF's argument, the Court facilitated the government's ability to destroy organizations without any formal action, let alone due process of law. But then, the government was not a party to this case.

9-11 Commission Report. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission) commented on terrorist financing in its report. It wrote that "Vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain front and center in U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The government has recognized that information about terrorist money helps us to understand their networks, search them out, and disrupt their operations. Intelligence and law enforcement have targeted the relatively small number of financial facilitators -- individuals al Qaeda relied on for their ability to raise and deliver money -- at the core of al Qaeda's revenue stream. These efforts have worked. The death or capture of several important facilitators has decreased the amount of money available to al Qaeda and has increased its costs and difficulty in raising and moving that money. Captures have additionally provided a windfall of intelligence that can be used to continue the cycle of disruption."

The report also states that "Public designation of terrorist financiers and organizations is still part of the fight, but it is not the primary weapon. Designations are instead a form of diplomacy, as governments join together to identify named individuals and groups as terrorists. They also prevent open fundraising. Some charities that have been identified as likely avenues for terrorist financing have seen their donations diminish and their activities come under more scrutiny, and others have been put out of business, although controlling overseas branches of Gulf-area charities remains a challenge."

Comment on Jurisdiction and Selection of Forum. The Court of Appeals opinion does not address personal jurisdiction. However, the defendants brought a FRCP 12(b)(2) motion in the District Court, which the District Court denied.

It is perhaps notable that the GRF brought this action in the U.S. in the first place. Since the complaint was filed in the U.S., it floundered under U.S. defamation law, which accords protection to speech, and especially speech regarding public affairs and the activities and operations of the government.

On the other hand, had the GRF prevailed, it would have been able to avail itself of the U.S. judicial system's generous awards in tort cases. Moreover, the GRF would have been able to collect on its judgment, since the corporate defendants have substantial assets in the U.S. that are subject to execution.

The GRF would have been more likely to obtain a judgment for defamation by suing in another country that accords lesser protection to speech, and is less concerned about fighting terrorism, such as France. The NYT and other defendants also publish online. Courts in several countries, including France, have taken the position that an online publisher can be sued anywhere in the world where there is a web connection.

Had the GRF sued in France, or any one of many other countries, it likely would have overcome a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and would have stood a better chance of obtaining a judgment of defamation.

Three recent court opinions from foreign courts illustrate this. First, two French organizations, LICRA and UEJF, sued Yahoo in a French court, and obtained a judgment ordering Yahoo to stop publishing certain material in its web site located in the U.S. Yahoo has also filed an action in the U.S. against the LICRA and UEJF seeking a declaratory judgment that the French judgment is unenforceable in the U.S. because it violates the First Amendment. The LICRA and UEJF asserted in the French action that a French court can exercise jurisdiction over the California based Yahoo, but that the District Court in California cannot exercise jurisdiction over the LICRA and UEJF. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [34 pages in PDF] on August 23, 2004 holding that the U.S. court lacks jurisdiction. See, story titled "9th Circuit Reverses in Yahoo v. LICRA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 965, August 24, 2004.

Second, on December 10, 2003, the High Court of Australia issued its opinion in Dow Jones v. Gutnick, a tort action brought in Australia for an allegedly defamatory news story published on the internet by Dow Jones, a U.S. publisher. The Court held that because of publication on the internet, the Australian courts have jurisdiction, that Australian law applies, and that the case should proceed in the trial court in the Australian state of Victoria. See also, story titled "High Court Rules Australia Has Jurisdiction Over Dow Jones Based on Web Publication" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 564, December 10, 2002.

Third, on January 27, 2004, the Superior Court of Justice in the province of Ontario, in the nation of Canada, released an opinion in Bangoura v. Washington Post, in which it denied the Washington Post's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Canadian Court held that there was personal jurisdiction because someone in Ontario could read the Washington Post in Ontario. See also, story titled "Canadian Court Rules It Has Jurisdiction Over Washington Post Based on Web Publication" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 856, March 1, 2004. This case is Cheickh Bangoura v. The Washington Post, William Branigin, James Rupert, Steven Buckley, the United Nations and Fred Eckhard, Case No. 03-CV-247461CM1.

Parties who wish to restrain speech by U.S. news reporting entities that they find offensive, or who seek damages for its publication, can sue in the U.S. If they do, they face the possibility of failing to obtain a judgment because of the U.S. legal traditions of freedom of speech. Alternatively, they can sue abroad, if the publisher also puts its stories in its web site. If they do this, they are more likely to prevail on the substantive issues. However, they face the possibility of being unable to collect on any judgment, or enforce any injunctive remedy.

The present case is Global Relief Foundation, Inc. v. New York Times Company, et al., App. Ct. No. 03-1767, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, D.C. No. 01 C 8821, Judge David Coar presiding. Judge Rovner wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judge Evans and Judge Williams joined.

Michael Conway of the Chicago office of the law firm of Foley & Lardner has represented the NYT and some other defendants in this action.

The House will not meet until Monday, December 6. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will not meet until Tuesday, December 7.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Rainbow Push Coalition v. FCC, No. 01-1072. Judges Henderson, Rogers and Tatel will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. Bob Liscouski, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Infrastructure Protection, will give a speech at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) meeting titled "Protecting the Financial Sector: A Public and Private Partnership". Location: George Washington University, Media and Public Affairs Building, 805 21st St. NW.

The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "18th Annual Chairman's Dinner". The reception will begin at 6:00 PM. The dinner begins at 7:30 PM. Location: Washington Hilton, 1919 Connecticut Ave., NW.

Day one of a two day event hosted by the Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) and the Practicing Law Institute (PLI) titled "22nd Annual Telecommunications Policy and Regulation Conference". The price to attend ranges from $1,165.50 to $1,295.00. See, registration form [PDF]. Location. Watergate Hotel, 2650 Virginia Ave., NW.

Day two of a two day event hosted by the Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) and the Practicing Law Institute (PLI) titled "22nd Annual Telecommunications Policy and Regulation Conference". The price to attend ranges from $1,165.50 to $1,295.00. See, registration form [PDF]. Location. Watergate Hotel, 2650 Virginia Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a panel discussion titled "The Myths and Realities of Universal Service: Revisiting the Justification for the Current Subsidies". The speakers will be Howard Waltzman (House Commerce Committee Senior Majority Counsel), Robert Crandall (Brookings Institution), Jerry Ellig (George Mason University), Randolph May (PFF), Joseph Kraemer (PFF), and Richard Levine (PFF). See, notice and online registration page. Press contact: Patrick Ross at 202 289-8928 or pross@pff.org. Lunch will be served. Location: Room B369, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a brown bag lunch titled "Telecom Act Rewrite: Following the Money Trails". The speakers will be Rudy Baca (Precursor Group), Jonathan Askin (General Counsel of Pulver.com), James Gattuso (Heritage Foundation), Lawrence Movshin (Wilkinson Barker & Knauer), and Carolyn Brandon (CTIA). See, notice. Prices to attend range from $15 to $30. For more information, call 202 626-3463. Location: CTIA, 1400 16th Street, NW.

The House will meet at 2:00 PM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in James A. Kay v. FCC, No. 02-1175. This is a case pertaining to the finder's preference rule, 47 C.F.R. § 90.173(k)(2)(1992). See, FCC brief [pages in PDF]. Judges Edwards, Sentelle and Randolph will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), Panel A, will hear oral argument in Designing Health v. Erasmus (No. 03-1438), Northpoint Technology, Ltd v. MDS America, Inc. (No. 04-1249), and Taylor v. DaimlerChrysler (No. 04-1319). The Northpoint Technology case is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (SDFl) involving claims infringement of patents pertaining to use of DBS spectrum for terrestrial wireless services. See, FedCir calendar. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), Panel B, will hear oral argument in ISCO International v. Concuctus, Inc. (No. 04-1007) and Bellehumeur v. Bonnett (No. 04-1258). See, FedCir calendar. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC) will meet. See, notice [PDF]. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room).

Deadline to submit comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking by the Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) regarding telecommuting by federal contractors. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 5, 2004, Vol. 69, No.192, at Pages 59701 - 59702.

The Senate will meet at 9:30 AM.

Hannukah.

10:00 AM. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Granholm v. Heald, No. 03-1116, Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers v. Heald, No. 03-1120, and Swedenburg v. Kelly, No. 03-1274. See, schedule [PDF]. These cases involve constitutional challenges to state restraints on the direct sales of alcoholic beverages, including internet wine sales.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), Panel C, will hear oral argument in Stambler v. RSA Security (No. 04-1129) and AT&T v. Microsoft (No. 04-1285). See, FedCir calendar. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), Panel D, will hear oral argument in Block Financial v. Yodlee, Inc. (No. 04-1087) and McKenchnie Vehicle Components v. Lacks Industries, Inc. (No. 04-1278). See, FedCir calendar. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) program titled "2004 Intellectual Property Law Year in Review Series: Part 1 -- Patent Update". The speakers will be Bradley Wright (Banner & Witcoff) and Kevin Duncan (Hunton & Williams). See, notice. Prices vary from $70 to $115. For more information, call 202 626-3488. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 21. Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling (NPRM & DR) [100 pages in PDF] regarding imposing Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) obligations upon broadband internet access services and voice over internet protocol (VOIP). This NPRM is FCC 04-187 in ET Docket No. 04-295. The FCC adopted this NPRM at its August 4, 2004 meeting, and released it on August 9. See, story titled "Summary of the FCC's CALEA NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 960, August 17, 2004. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 23, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 184, Pages 56976 - 56987. See also, notice of extension [PDF].

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), Panel E, will hear oral argument in Sunny Fresh Foods v. Michael Foods (No. 04-1059) and Schreiber Foods v. Beatrice Cheese (No. 04-1279). See, FedCir calendar. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), Panel F, will hear oral argument in Jore Corp. v. Kouvato, Inc. (No. 04-1163) and Lisle Corp. v. AJ Manufacturing (No. 04-1275). See, FedCir calendar. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to advise the DOS on policy and technical issues with respect to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and in particular, the December 15-17, 2004 meeting of ITU's Telecommunications Development Advisory Group (TDAG) in Geneva, Switzerland. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 5, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 214, at Page 64620. Location: DOS, Room 2533A.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) Foundation Board of Trustees will meet. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1776 K St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a luncheon program titled "Intellectual Property Considerations in Strategic Alliances". The speakers will be Linda Alcorn and Marvin Guthrie (both of Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox). See, notice. Prices vary from $8 to $18. For more information, contact Tracy Muller at 202 772-8697 or tmuller@skgf.com. Location: SKGF, 8th Floor, 1100 New York Ave., NW.

3:00 PM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (1stCir) will hear oral argument, en banc, in USA v. Councilman, a case regarding the applicability of the Wiretap Act to e-mail in storage. See, opinion of the three judge panel, and story titled "1st Circuit Holds Wiretap Act Does Not Apply to E-Mail in Storage" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 930, July 1, 2004. Location. En Banc Courtroom, John Joseph Moakley Courthouse, Boston, MA.

8:30 - 10:30 AM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Practice Committee will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar and breakfast titled "Spectrum Management 101: Nuts and Bolts of Spectrum Management -- Engineering, Legal, and Economic Perspectives". The speakers will include Julius Knapp (Deputy Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology), Evan Kwerel (Senior Economic Advisor in the FCC's Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis), and Christopher Wright (Harris Wiltshire & Grannis). See, registration form [PDF]. The price to attend ranges from $50 to $125. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1776 K St., NW.

RESCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 15. 9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The event will be webcast. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).

10:00 AM. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold a meeting, part of which will be closed to the public. The agenda includes oral argument in its proceeding pertaining to Rambus, Inc., Docket No. 9302, and consideration of the Rambus matter. For more information, contact Mitch Katz at the FTC's Office of Public Affairs at 202 326-2180. Location: FTC Building, Room 532, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), Panel G, will hear oral argument in Israel Bio-Engineering (No. 04-1153 and 04-1301). See, FedCir calendar. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), Panel H, will hear oral argument in Eolas Technologies v. Microsoft (No. 04-1234) and Morton v. The First Years (No. 04-1308). See, FedCir calendar. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The DC Bar Association's Computer and Telecommunications Law Section will host a social event titled "A CTLS Evening Gathering And Keynote With Jeff Pulver". The speaker will be Jeff Pulver. See, notice. Prices vary from $25 to $40. For more information, call 202-626-3463. Location: 21 Hundred Restaurant, Westin Embassy Row, 2100 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

11/29. BellSouth announced that, effective January 1, 2005, Mark Feidler will be Chief Operating Officer, Dick Anderson, who is now President -- Customer Markets, will be Vice Chairman -- Planning and Administration, and Ike Harris will be President -- BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Group.

12/1. Michael Gallagher, head of the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) commented on President Bush's November 30, 2004 memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies titled "Improving Spectrum Management for the 21st Century". Gallagher stated that Bush "has institutionalized innovation excellence". Gallagher also used his statement to praise outgoing Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans. He said that "Under his leadership, we paved the way for the deployment of ultrawideband and broadband over power lines; identified 90 MHZ of spectrum for advanced wireless services; doubled the spectrum available for unlicensed WiFi connections; and supported the President's efforts to design a spectrum policy for the 21st Century and to make broadband accessible to every American." Steve Largent, P/CEO of the CTIA, also praised the President's memorandum, stating in a release that he "took the next crucial step in developing a sound spectrum policy not only for today’s information age, but for years to come." See also, story titled "Bush Issues Memorandum Regarding Spectrum Management" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,028, December 1, 2004.

11/30. William Donaldson, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) gave a speech in Minneapolis, Minnesota in which he discussed business ethics and technology. He said that "Some managers will pursue questionable activity right up to technical conformity with the letter of the law, and some will step over the red line either directly or with crafty schemes and modern financial technology that facilitates deception."

11/29. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released an Order on Reconsideration [25 pages in PDF] that addresses several petitions for reconsideration filed in response to the rules adopted in the 1997 First Report and Order and 1997 Fourth Order on Reconsideration regarding universal service. This item states that the FCC adopted this item on October 1, 2004, but did not release it until November 29, 2004. This item is FCC 04-237 in CC Docket No. 96-45.

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for journalists, federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2004 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.