12/6. On December 3, 2004, the Supreme Court issued an order [1 page in PDF] in which it granted petitions for writ of certiorari in NCTA v. Brand X Internet Services, No. 04-277, and FCC v. Brand X Internet Services, No. 04-281. The Court also consolidated the two cases. On December 6, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, without opinion, in National League of Cities v. FCC, No. 04-460. See, Order List [9 pages in PDF] at page 2.

All of these petitions for writ of certiorari pertain to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) March 14, 2002, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [75 pages in PDF], and the October 6, 2003, opinion [39 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) (which is also published at 345 F.3d 1120) vacating the FCC's declaratory ruling.

See also, story titled "9th Circuit Vacates FCC Declaratory Ruling That Cable Modem Service is an Information Service Without a Separate Offering of a Telecommunications Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 754, October 7, 2003; and story titled "Reaction to 9th Circuit Opinion in Brand X Internet Services v. FCC" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 756, October 9, 2003.

The Declaratory Ruling states that "we conclude that cable modem service, as it is currently offered, is properly classified as an interstate information service, not as a cable service, and that there is no separate offering of telecommunications service." This item is FCC 02-77 in Docket No. 00-185 and Docket No. 02-52.

The NCTA (in No. 04-277) and the FCC (in No. 04-281) filed petitions for writ of certiorari. The National League of Cities (in No. 04-460) filed a Conditional Cross Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

The NCTA and FCC seek review of the Court of Appeals' holding that cable modem service is partly an information service and partly a telecommunications service.

That is, the Court of Appeals, without applying Chevron deference, vacated the FCC's declaratory ruling, on the basis that it was bound by its June 22, 2000 opinion in AT&T v. Portland, which is also reported at 216 F.3d 871). Neither the Appeals Court's Portland opinion, nor its Brand X opinion, held that cable modem service is a cable service within the meaning of the Communications Act. The portion of the FCC's declaratory ruling that states that cable modem service is not a cable service, remains unchallenged by the Appeals Court.

The Appeals Court's proceeding was a consolidation of numerous petitions for review filed in several different circuits. (The 9th Circuit won the lottery.) The National League of Cities, along with the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues, and others argued that cable modem service is both an information service and a cable service, and therefore is subject to regulation by local authorities as a cable service.

The National League of Cities petition seeks Supreme Court review of the Appeals Court holding to the extent that it holds that cable modem service is not a cable service. One aspect of this cross petition that is notable is that since the Appeals Court agreed with the FCC that cable modem service is not a cable service, there is no issue of failure to apply Chevron deference. Had the Court granted certiorari on this issue, the FCC would not have been able to rely upon its Chevron argument.

In contrast, the FCC's case rests heavily on the argument that the 9th Circuit failed to apply Chevron deference. See, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari [37 pages in PDF] filed by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the DOJ's Antitrust Division, and the FCC on September 3, 2004 states that "This case is likely to determine the regulatory classification under the Communications Act that will apply to broadband (i.e., “high-speed”) Internet access services in the United States. The Federal Communications Commission concluded that broadband service provided over cable television facilities, known as “cable modem” service, should be classified as an “information service” under the Communications Act, a classification that would presumptively keep cable modem providers free from regulation as telecommunications common carriers under the Act."

The petition continues that "the Ninth Circuit, acting in a series of cases that had been filed in various circuits but consolidated and by lottery assigned to that court, rejected the FCC's conclusion without evaluating the substance of the agency’s decision or applying the standards for administrative deference set forth in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Instead, the court held that stare decisis compelled adherence to its own circuit precedent -- dating from before the FCC had reached its conclusion on the issue -- that classified cable modem service as partly an information service and partly a telecommunications service. See AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2000). Absent this Court's review, therefore, a vastly important aspect of national telecommunications policy will have been settled in the Ninth Circuit, and for all practical purposes throughout the country, without any evaluation whatever of the FCC’s contrary interpretation of the statute it is charged with administering."

The petition argues that "The Ninth Circuit has incorrectly overridden the expert agency responsible for administering and interpreting the Communications Act with respect to a communications policy issue of immediate and compelling national importance: the regulatory framework under the Act that will apply to, and thus either promote or retard, the timely and universal deployment of broadband Internet access services in the United States. If the court of appeals’ decision stands, the FCC will be required to regulate cable modem service -- and likely other forms of broadband Internet access service -- as a telecommunications service under the Communications Act, even though the Commission has concluded that such regulation is inconsistent with, and would directly threaten, the important federal policy of promoting access to those services."

See, story titled "Office of the Solicitor General Backs FCC in Brand X Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 968, September 2, 2004.

The Supreme Court announced that it granted the FCC's and NCTA's petitions on Friday, December 3, 2004. See, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Brand X Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,029, December 3, 2004.

More groups and companies have since commented on the Supreme Court's decision.

The Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) wrote in a joint release that "We are confident that when the Court examines the facts, it will decide to uphold the 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruling that affirmed the critical principle of open, non-discriminatory networks as the cornerstone of competition in communications markets." The CFA was a party to the 9th Circuit proceeding.

They added that "The principles of non-discrimination in communications have been a cornerstone of our democracy and dynamic economy since the founding of our republic. Indeed, it is a fundamental part of common law that reaches back to the earliest days of capitalism. We are confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the principle, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has done twice, and put an end to the legal gymnastics at the FCC that has denied consumers choice and slowed the spread of broadband."

The Media Access Project (MAP) wrote in a release that "we're disappointed that the Supreme Court has decided to hear the government’s appeal of the Brand X internet open access case." The MAP was involved in the 9th Circuit proceeding as counsel for the Center for Digital Democracy.

The MAP asserted that this case "is an important test of the First Amendment in the age of the Internet." It elaborated that "The right of citizens to send and receive any content over the Internet depends on rules which allow them to take full advantage of the open architecture of the Internet. If the Supreme Court rules against Internet open access, cable companies will be able to block content at will for political or financial reasons, and deny the public the ability to choose among competing Internet providers."

BellSouth stated in a release that "The Supreme Court's decision to hear these cases is a positive step. The high court's resolution of the cases in favor of the FCC's previous determination will clear the way for the Commission to finish work on modernizing regulations to allow all internet service providers -- phone companies, cable companies, satellite companies and independents -- to compete under the same rules as they bring high-speed internet services to their customers."

12/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari, without opinion, in Martin Pruitt v. Comcast Cable Holdings, No. 04-308, a case regarding privacy and cable converter boxes. See, Order List [9 pages in PDF] at page 2.

Martin Pruitt, and other subscribers of Comcast's digital cable service, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DColo) against Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC alleging violation of the 1984 Cable Communications Privacy Act, which is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 551, et seq., in connection with its alleged retention of personally identifiable information in its cable converter boxes without notice or consent.

The District Court granted summary judgment to Comcast. Pruitt and other plaintiffs appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals (10thCir) affirmed in its June 3, 2004 Order and Judgment. And now, the Supreme Court has declined to take the case, letting stand the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

Subsection 551(a) provides, in part, that "At the time of entering into an agreement to provide any cable service or other service to a subscriber and at least once a year thereafter, a cable operator shall provide notice in the form of a separate, written statement to such subscriber which clearly and conspicuously informs the subscriber of ... the nature of personally identifiable information collected or to be collected with respect to the subscriber and the nature of the use of such information".

In addition, subsection 551(e) provides, in part, that "A cable operator shall destroy personally identifiable information if the information is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected and there are no pending requests or orders for access to such information under subsection (d) of this section or pursuant to a court order."

The plaintiffs alleged violation of both subsections (a) and (e). The District Court granted summary judgment on the basis that the boxes retained no personally identifying information.

The Appeals Court wrote that "The heart of this dispute is whether the information stored within Comcast's converter boxes is personally identifiable information. ... Appellants concede the information in the converter boxes does not contain the name, address or any information regarding the customer. However, they maintain the unit address enables Comcast to identify a customer's viewing habits by connecting the coded information with its billing or management system. Because the information in any given converter box is not eradicated when it is recycled to another customer, they conclude the converter boxes contain personally identifiable information which may never be purged."

The Appeals Court continued that "the district court distinguished the information in the converter boxes from that contained in the billing system. It noted the converter box code -- without more -- provides nothing but a series of numbers."

The Appeals Court agreed with the District Court's analysis. "Without the information in the billing or management system one cannot connect the unit address with a specific customer; without the billing information, even Comcast would be unable to identify which individual household was associated with the raw data in the converter box. Consequently, it is the billing system that holds the key to obtaining personally identifiable information, not the converter box. Appellants made no claim in their briefs or at oral argument that the collection of information in the billing system violates the Cable Act. Moreover, Comcast's privacy notice to subscribers clearly states the retention policies related to information in the billing system".

This case is Martin Pruitt, et al. v. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, Sup. Ct. No. 04-308, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The Appeals Court case is No. 03-1297. The District Court case is D.C. No. 00-N-1250.

12/6. The Supreme Court issued its opinion [7 pages in PDF] in San Diego v. Roe, a First Amendment free speech case involving the government's ability to impose restrictions upon the speech of government employees. The Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir).

This case involves a police officer's sale of homemade pornographic DVDs on eBay. This is nevertheless a significant case for technology. While few public employees will wish to sell sordid DVDs of themselves online, many public employees engage in discussions in blogs, chat rooms, bulletin boards, and other interactive fora, in which they disclose information about, or offer criticisms of, the activities and operations of the agencies for which they may or may not work.

The 9th Circuit's opinion, if it had been allowed to stand, might have essentially eliminated, in the 9th Circuit, the requirement that public employees speak on a matter of "public concern" before their speech can be considered protected by the First Amendment against restriction by the government.

The Supreme Court made no new law. Rather, the 9th Circuit issued an opinion [42 pages in PDF] that failed to follow Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court once again reminded the 9th Circuit that it is an inferior court. The Supreme Court's opinion is short, brutish and per curiam.

The 9th Circuit's opinion purported to rely upon the Supreme Court's 1995 opinion in United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454, which is also known as the NTEU case. The Supreme Court wrote that the 9th Circuit's "reliance on NTEU was seriously misplaced". The Supreme Court added that "We have little difficulty in concluding" that the 9th Circuit erred. The Court concluded with a nasty comment: "this is not a close case".

It is also notable that the Supreme Court wrote this opinion without bothering to receive briefs or hear oral argument. In one action, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the 9th Circuit, and issued its opinion.

The plaintiff below is identified only as John Roe. He was a police officer for the City of San Diego, California. He made DVDs of himself removing a police uniform and masturbating. He then sold these DVDs on eBay's auction web site. Roe also failed to follow orders from his superiors to remove items from eBay. San Diego terminated his employment.

Roe filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDCal) against San Diego alleging that it violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment free speech rights. The District Court granted summary judgment to San Diego. Roe appealed. The 9th Circuit reversed. It held that what Roe did was protected free speech, and that is was "commentary on matters of public concern", protected by the First Amendment, as construed by the NTEU opinion.

This case involves the scope of the government's power to impose certain restraints on the speech of government employees. The leading cases on point are Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) and Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). The Supreme Court reaffirmed that these case are still good law.

The Supreme Court wrote in the present opinion that "a governmental employer may impose certain restraints on the speech of its employees, restraints that would be unconstitutional if applied to the general public. ... The Court has recognized the right of employees to speak on matters of public concern, typically matters concerning government policies that are of interest to the public at large, a subject on which public employees are uniquely qualified to comment." But, the Supreme Court held that what Roe did was not commentary on matters of public concern.

The NTEU case involved the federal government's efforts to restrict federal employees' income from outside speaking and writing on topics unrelated to their employment. The Supreme Court wrote in the present case that Roe's activities were not unrelated to his work. He wore a uniform, and identified himself as a law enforcement officer, thereby bringing disrepute upon police officers. Moreover, Roe's activities did not meet the "public concern" test.

The Court wrote that the Pickering case requires "a court evaluating restraints on a public employee's speech to balance ``the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.´´" And then, the Court wrote that the Connick case clarifies that "in order to merit Pickering balancing, a public employee's speech must touch on a matter of ``public concern.´´"

The Court then applies the facts of the Roe case to Supreme Court precedent, and concluded that Roe's "expression does not qualify as a matter of public concern under any view of the public concern test. He fails the threshold test and Pickering balancing does not come into play."

Judge Raymond Fisher wrote the opinion of the 9th Circuit, in which Judge Dorothy Nelson joined. Judge Kim Wardlaw wrote a vigorous dissent.

12/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Phonometrics v. ITT Sheraton, No. 04-543, a patent case involving phone technology. See, Order List [9 pages in PDF] at page 2. See also, opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir).

12/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Colida v. Motorola, No. 04-6633, a design patent case. See, Order List [9 pages in PDF] at page 7. Motorola prevailed below. See, October 8, 2003 opinion [PDF] of the U.S. District Court (FedCir). Tony Colida has sued several cell phone manufacturers. Also, on December 2, 2004, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion [PDF] in another case, affirming the District Court's judgment of non-infringement for Sanyo North America Corporation.

12/6. The Supreme Court announced that "The Court will take a recess from Monday, December 13, 2004, until Monday, January 10, 2005. See, Order List [9 pages in PDF] at page 9.

11/30. The U.S. District Court (DMass) published in its web site its October Memorandum and Order [23 pages in PDF] in TouchPoint Solutions, Inc. v. Kodak, a trade secret misappropriation case involving software. The District Court granted in part TouchPoint's motion for a preliminary injunction. This case is TouchPoint Solutions, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, D.C. No. 04-11014-NMG, Judge Nathaniel Gorton presiding.

12/6. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) announced that he will be named to the Senate Finance Committee, and will therefore give up his seat on the Senate Commerce Committee.

Sen. Wyden (at right) is one of the leading technophiles in the Senate. Much of the technology and communications related legislation considered by the Senate falls within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee.

The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over most tax matters and social security. However, it does possess some technology related jurisdiction, particularly with respect to trade and taxation of technology.

Sen. Wyden issued a release that states that he will "continue to promote robust and responsible Federal technology policy as a member of the Finance panel. As the author of the ban on unfair and discriminatory taxation of the Internet, he will maintain a major role in the creation of technology tax law; he will also seek to increase the growth and economic impact of the U.S. technology sector."

12/6. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell issued a statement [PDF] in which he commented on HR 5419.

This is a composite bill that includes the "Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act" (CSEA), the "ENHANCE Act", and the "Universal Service Antideficiency Temporary Suspension Act". See, story titled "House Approves Bill that Includes the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,025, November 24, 2004.

Powell wrote that "I understand that Congress is close to moving on a package of telecommunications provisions-namely a spectrum relocation trust fund, an exemption to the Anti-Deficiency Act, and E911 legislation. The trust fund legislation is a vital step to release valuable spectrum for wireless broadband services. Similarly, the E911 provisions provide critical resources to America's first responders."

He added that "USAC recently filed its projections of demand and total contribution base for the first quarter of 2005 for the universal service support mechanism. These filings demonstrate that the temporary Anti-Deficiency Act exemption is necessary to mitigate unnecessary increases to our contribution factor as well as to ensure our school children have continued access to computer resources. I hope that Congress is able to pass this legislation before adjourning."

The House approved this bill on November 20, 2004. The Senate returns on Tuesday, December 7, 2004.

The House may meet at 10:00 AM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet at 9:30 AM.

Hannukah.

8:30 AM. The Cyber Security Industry Alliance (SCIA) will host a news conference regarding "Cybersecurity Priorities for Administration". For more information, contact Elizabeth Saggese at 703 556-6838. Location: Lisagor Room, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

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].

The House may meet at 10:00 AM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

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.

The House may meet at 10:00 AM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

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.

9:00 AM. The U.S. District Court (DC) will hold a status conference in Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Defense, No. 1:2004-cv-01219-CKK, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case. On July 21, 2004, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a complaint [7 pages in PDF] seeking records pertaining to Verity K2 Enterprise. See, story titled "GAO Reports on Data Mining at Federal Agencies" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 907, May 28, 2004, and story titled "EPIC Files FOIA Complaint Against DOD Seeking Records Regarding Data Mining Project" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 945, July 26, 2004. Location: Courtroom 11, Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., 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.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) ETP Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The speaker will be Ed Thomas, Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Office and Engineering and Technology (OET). Location. FCC, Room 6-B516.

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.

The House may meet at 10:00 AM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Savannah College of Art and Design v. FCC, No. 04-1024. Judges Ginsburg, Garland and Williams will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), Panel I, will hear oral argument in Collegenet v. Applyyourself (No. 04-1202). See, FedCir calendar. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), Panel J, will hear oral argument in Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham (No. 04-1191) and Watson Industries v. Murata Electronics (No. 04-1235). See, FedCir calendar. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a panel discussion titled "Grokster and the Supreme Court: The Case For and Against Consideration". The speakers will include James DeLong (PFF), Solveig Singleton (PFF), and Mitch Glazier (RIAA). See, notice and online registration page. The PFF filed an amicus curiae brief [12 pages in PDF] on November 8. Press contact: Patrick Ross at 202 289-8928 or pross@pff.org. Lunch will be served. Location: Room B369, Rayburn Building, Capitol Hill.

2:00 - 3:00 PM. The North American Numbering Council (NANC) will hold a meeting by conference call.

The Supreme Court will begin a recess that will last through Monday, January 10, 2005. See, Order List [9 pages in PDF] at page 9.

TIME CHANGE. 10:00 AM - 1:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a program titled "The Proper Direction for Telecommunications Reform Legislation". The speakers will include Harold Furchtgott-Roth (former FCC Commissioner), Robert Crandall (Brookings), Greg Sidak (AEI), Robert Hahn (AEI Brookings Joint Center) and John Mayo (Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business). Duane Ackerman, Chairman of BellSouth, will give the luncheon address, optimistically titled the "The Telecommunications Act of 2005". See, notice and registration page. Press contact: Veronique Rodman at 202 862-4871 or vrodman@aei.org. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., 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 2 -- Copyright, Trademark and Internet". The speakers will be Brian Banner (Banner & Witcoff), Beckwith Burr (Wilmer Cutler & Pickering), and and Terence Ross (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher). 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.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the high cost universal support mechanisms for rural carriers and the appropriate rural mechanism to succeed the five year plan adopted in the Rural Task Force Order. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 3, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 171, at Pages 53917 - 53923.

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.