12/7. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that the FTC and Alyon Technologies, Inc. and Stephane Touboul entered into a Stipulated Final Judgment [29 pages in PDF] that settles the FTC's claims that the defendants engaged in unauthorized billing of consumers for purportedly accessing pormographic videotext services on the internet.

On May 13, 2004, the FTC filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (NDGa) against Alyon, Touboul, and Telcollect, Inc., alleging violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 53(b), and 57b, and the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 1992, 15 U.S.C. § 5701, et seq., in connection with their alleged illegal billing and collection for pormographic videotext services accessed on the internet.

The FTC summarized the defendants actions in a release announcing the settlement. It states that "the defendants downloaded a modem-dialing program onto consumers' computers, allegedly after consumers clicked on a button to agree to the terms and conditions for such a download. The dialing program then disconnected consumers from their own Internet service providers and reconnected them to the defendants’ network. The defendants captured the telephone number used by the modem and matched it against databases of line subscriber information. The line subscribers identified as responsible for the captured telephone numbers later received bills charging them $4.99 a minute for each minute the defendants claimed videotext services were purchased, regardless of whether the line subscribers authorized the purchase."

Under the Stipulated Final Judgment the defendants will drop $17 Million in consumer bills, and forgive another $22 Million in bills if consumers challenge the charges. The Stipulated Final Judgment further imposes limitations upon defendants' business practices. It imposes no fines. Moreover, the defendants admit no wrongdoing.

Alyon and Touboul are represented by the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery in this proceeding.

12/7. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and other groups wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in which they requested the FTC to compel credit reporting agencies (CRAs) to redesign the web site that they have created to comply with free annual credit report requirement imposed by the FACT Act.

The EPIC argues that the CRAs have blocked access to the web site via hyperlinking from most web sites, and have incorporated a number of design features that cause the web site to obtain low rankings in search engine results.

Introduction. The EPIC and the other signatories of the letter are advocacy groups involved in privacy policy. However, this letter illustrates a larger phenomenon. As the American public has increasingly come to rely upon the web for communications, commerce, and obtaining services, the Congress has enacted statutes that require government agencies, and regulated entities, to create web sites that contain certain information, or provide certain services. Moreover, regulatory agencies are promulgating rules that impose further and more detailed web site requirements upon regulated entities.

Yet, as the conduct of the three American CRAs in this matter might illustrates, regulated companies can create a web site that nominally complies with statutory and regulatory requirements, but nevertheless is not accessible to the public by the methods that consumers are accustomed to using.

In the present matter, the Congress enacted a statute in late 2003 (HR 2622, the FACT Act) that requires the CRAs to create a web site at which consumers can once per year obtain a free credit report on themselves. The CRAs have created such a web site. But, they designed it in a manner that makes it inaccessible by ordinary methods, including hyperlinks from news websites, and high rankings in search engine results.

For example, TLJ's web page titled "Reference" contains a hyperlink to the CRAs' new web site for free credit reports. When clicked late on Tuesday, December 7, it generated only an error page. However, clicking in a hyperlink in an e-mail from TLJ did not produce an error page.

Similarly, late on December 7, entering the search phrase "free credit report" (in quotations) in several search engines produced no high rankings for the CRAs' new web site. Google provided a ranking of 52.

Statute and Regulations. The Congress enacted the original Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in 1970. It was Public Law No. 91-508. It is now codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq.

The current Congress, the 108th, amended the FCRA with HR 2622, the "Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003", which is also known as the FACTA or FACT Act. President Bush signed the bill on December 4, 2003. It is now Public Law No. 108-159.

Section 211 of HR 2622 provides that "All consumer reporting agencies described in subsections (p) and (w) of section 603 shall make all disclosures pursuant to section 609 once during any 12-month period upon request of the consumer and without charge to the consumer." It also provides that the FTC "shall prescribe regulations applicable to each consumer reporting agency described in section 603(w) to require the establishment of a streamlined process for consumers to request consumer reports ..."

Section 211 further provides that the FTC "shall prescribe regulations applicable to consumer reporting agencies ... to require the establishment of ... a centralized source through which consumers may obtain a consumer report from each such consumer reporting agency, using a single request, and without charge to the consumer ..." It further provides that "The centralized source for a request for a consumer report from a consumer required by this subsection shall provide for ... (B) use of an Internet website for such purpose ..."

The FTC published a notice [36 pages in PDF] in the Federal Register on June 24, 2004 that describes and sets out its new rule for free credit reports. See, Federal Register, June 24, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 121, at pages 35468 - 35502.

The FTC rules provide that "The purpose of the centralized source is to enable consumers to make a single request to obtain annual file disclosures from all nationwide consumer reporting agencies".

The EPIC's letter asserts that the CRAs have violated Section 610(g)(2) of these rules. Section 610(g) provides, in full as follows:

(g) Communications provided by centralized source.
  (1) Any communications or instructions, including any advertising or marketing, provided through the centralized source shall not interfere with, detract from, contradict, or otherwise undermine the purpose of the centralized source stated in paragraph (a) of this section.
  (2) Examples of interfering, detracting, inconsistent, and/or undermining communications include:
    (i) A website that contains pop-up advertisements or other offers or promotions that hinder the consumer's ability to complete an online request for an annual file disclosure;
    (ii) Centralized source materials that represent, expressly or by implication, that a consumer must purchase a paid product in order to receive or to understand the annual file disclosure;
    (iii) Centralized source materials that represent, expressly or by implication, that annual file disclosures are not free, or that obtaining an annual file disclosure will have a negative impact on the consumer’s credit standing; and
    (iv) Centralized source materials that falsely represent, expressly or by implication, that a product or service offered ancillary to receipt of a file disclosure, such as a credit score or credit monitoring service, is free, or fail to clearly and prominently disclose that consumers must cancel a service, advertised as free for an initial period of time, to avoid being charged, if such is the case.

The FTC's discussion of this language suggests that subsection (g)(2) does not pertain to inhibiting access to the central web site, but rather pertains to ads and other communications that the consumer encounters while using the central web site. See, page 35486 of Federal Register notice.

Hence, neither the statute, nor the regulations, provide a clear prohibition of the web site design features used by the CRAs that frustrate consumer access to the site by customary methods.

EPIC Letter. The groups joining in the letter are the EPIC, Consumers Union (CU), Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (PRC), Consumer Federation of America (CFA), US PIRG, and Privacy Times.

They wrote that "Congress required the national credit reporting agencies to operate a free, central source for obtaining credit reports. They have done so, but in creating the site, http://www.annualcreditreport.com/, the credit reporting agencies have blocked web links from reputable consumer sites such as Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (http://privacyrights.org/) and Consumers Union (http://consumer.org), and from mainstream news web sites." The letter states that if web users click on such a link, they get the following error message.

For security purposes, www.AnnualCreditReport.com can be accessed by typing the web address "www.annualcreditreport.com", or from links from the Federal Trade Commission (www.ftc.gov), Equifax (www.equifax.com), Experian (www.experian.com) and TransUnion (www.transunion.com) websites.

AnnualCreditReport.com is the only web source authorized by all three nationwide consumer credit reporting companies from which free annual credit file disclosures can be requested.

The letter continues that "Links from consumer groups and news sites reduce the risk of phishing. In fact, by blocking the links and requiring consumers to type in the URL, the credit reporting agencies are creating new security risks. In typing in "www.annualcreditreport.com," an individual may misspell the URL, and thereby be directed to a fraudulent website with a similar URL."

The blocking of access via clicking on hyperlinks, in turn, also frustrates the method by which the better search engines operate. The EPIC letter states that "Many search engines treat links as an indicator of relevance. The more links to a website present, the easier it is to find on a search engine. Therefore, if the credit reporting agencies block the links, they reduce the likelihood that individuals will find the free source."

The letter also delves in the CRAs' failure to employ meta keyword tags in the source code of web pages in a manner that would maximize consumer access through search engine results.

Finally, the EPIC letter asserts that the CRAs' web site "is not Section 508 compliant", because "the most basic requirements for access to the site for people with disabilities are absent". There is a Section 508 in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. It was enacted as HR 1385 in the 105th Congress. It is Public Law No.105-220. However, while it imposes requirements regarding disability access, it only applies to federal departments and agencies. The CRAs are not federal departments or agencies.

The EPIC letter does not advance the argument that the CRAs' free credit report web site violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which does apply to the private sector. However, there is scant authority or argument for the proposition that the ADA, which applies to public accommodations, would apply to the web site in question.

The EPIC letter concludes that "every subtle and not so subtle web design tactic has been employed to make www.annualcreditreport.com difficult to find and use".

See also, the EPIC's web page titled "The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Privacy of Your Credit Report".

12/6. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Cynthia Glassman gave a speech in San Francisco, California in which she suggested that some of the 1930s era restraints on the offering of securities are obsolete in the context of internet based communications.

Glassman (at right) stated that "just because a rule represents the way it has always been done, doesn't necessarily make it right now. Over time, rules can become obsolete or outlive their original purpose."

She elaborated that "A good example is the Commission's recent release soliciting comments on proposed changes to the implementation of the Securities Act of 1933 that, among other things, would make it easier for issuers, especially the largest issuers, to disseminate information to investors during the securities offering process. This proposal arose, at least in part, from the recognition that the internet and other means of communications have revolutionized the flow of information, rendering some of the Commission's information restrictions outdated, if not outright impediments to the offering process."

She said that "The goal of the proposed rule is to promote the delivery of information to investors in a more transparent and efficient manner by streamlining the offering process and removing restrictions that at one time were appropriate but may no longer be necessary."

The SEC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It states, for example, that "Significant technological advances over the last three decades have increased both the market's demand for more timely corporate disclosure and the ability of issuers to capture, process, and disseminate this information. Computers, sophisticated financial software, electronic mail, teleconferencing, videoconferencing, webcasting, and other technologies available today have replaced, to a large extent, paper, pencils, typewriters, adding machines, carbon paper, paper mail, travel, and face-to-face meetings relied on previously. Our evaluation of the securities offering process and procedural enhancements seeks to recognize the integral role that technology plays in timely informing the markets and investors about important corporate information and developments."

Public comments in response to this NPRM are due by January 31, 2005.

See also, TLJ story titled "Can Securities Registration Survive the Internet?", November 13, 1998.

12/7. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its opinion [18 pages in PDF] in Salton v. Philips, three consolidated appeals in related cases pertaining to misappropriation of trade secrets and copyright infringement. However, this case is primarily about some of the many procedural issues that can arise when multiple parties, from multiple nations, bring multiple suits, in multiple courts to resolve their intellectual property disputes.

Salton, which is based in Illinois, and Philips, which is based in the Netherlands, both make consumer appliances. This case involves coffee makers. Electrical & Electronics Ltd. (E&E) is a Hong Kong based manufacturer. Both Salton and Philips contracted with E&E to make coffee makers. Philips provided Salton with proprietary information, on how to make coffee and coffee makers, including software. Its contract with E&E prohibited E&E from revealing proprietary information to third parties. The contract also included a choice of forum clause, which designated Hong Kong. E&E was also hired by Salton to make coffee makers, and Philips asserts that E&E passed proprietary information to Salton.

In another action, Philips filed a complaint in a court in Hong Kong against E&E alleging misappropriation of proprietary information. Philips also sued E&E in Hong Kong for copyright infringement.

But, before Philips could sue Salton, Salton, which based in Chicago, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (NDIll) against Salton seeking declaratory relief. Jurisdiction was based upon diversity of citizenship. However, the District Court held that E&E is an indispensable party, and diversity is therefore defeated, because both Philips (Netherlands) and E&E (Hong Kong) are foreign corporations. Philips counterclaimed for copyright infringement, but a counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction. Philips appeals the dismissal.

Philips also filed a separate complaint in the U.S. District Court (NDIll) against Salton alleging copyright infringement, the same claim as its counterclaim in Salton's suit. E&E intervened. But, since jurisdiction in this case was based upon a federal question, E&E participation did not affect jurisdiction. The District Court nevertheless dismissed this complaint also. Philips appeals this dismissal also.

Finally, in a third suit in the U.S. District Court (NDIll) E&E sought injunctive relief barring Philips from suing it anywhere but Hong Kong. The District Court denied E&E's request. E&E appeals.

Thus, the Court of Appeals was presented with appeals in three related cases. The 7th Circuit of late has randomly assigned most of its interesting intellectual property cases to Judge Richard Posner, who has taken a keen interest in the subject, and has just co-authored a book, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law [Amazon].

This case perplexed and frustrated Judge Posner to no end. He could not figure out why the parties took the actions that they did. For example, it was Salton that rushed to the court in Chicago with a declaratory judgment action, but it is Philips that seeks to keep the case there. Posner also expresses frustration with counsel's unfamiliarity with Hong Kong law. And, he was left stuck writing an entire complicated opinion on civil procedure, rather intellectual property law.

This opinion is about federal question jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, indispensable parties, and appellate procedure.

In the end, Posner affirmed the District Court's denial of E&E's request for an injunction against litigation in Chicago. Otherwise, he reversed the District Court's dismissal of the two other suits. The case is remanded to the District Court, and Philips can litigate its copyright claims against Salton. Although, Posner suggested that Salton might still file a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens. This would bring all of the litigation, including Hong Kong suits, together in Hong Kong.

This case is Salton, Inc. v. Philips Domestic Appliances, Philips v. Salton, and Salton v. Philips, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 04-1042, 04-1359 and 04-2994, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Joan Lefkow presiding. Judge Richard Posner wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Ripple and Rovner joined.

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.

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.

CANCELLED. 2:00 - 3:00 PM. The North American Numbering Council (NANC) will hold a meeting by conference call. See, notice of cancellation [PDF].

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.

8:30 AM - 4:00 PM. The CTIA will host a one day seminar on the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Nationwide Programmatic Agreement [PDF] and the FCC/USET Tribal Best Practices Agreement. These pertain to the FCC's historic preservation review process. The price to attend is $200 for CTIA members and $300 for non-members. The deadline to register is December 10. See, notice. Location: CTIA, 1400 16th Street, NW.

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.

12:00 NOON. The Americans for a Secure Internet (ASI) will host a luncheon and panel discussion titled "Why Santa Shops Online". The speakers will be Steve DelBianco (NetChoice), Wayne Crews (Competitive Enterprise Institute), Raynor Dahlquist (VeriSign), and Jonathan Zuck (Association for Competitive Technology). Register by December 13. See, registration page. For more information, contact Abigail Phillips at 202 331-2130 ext. 107. Location: Phoenix Park Hotel, 520 North Capitol Street, 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.

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).

Day one of a two day workshop hosted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) titled "Peer to Peer File-Sharing Technology: Consumer Protection and Competition Issues". November 15 is the deadline to submit comments and requests to participate. See, FTC release and notice [13 pages in PDF] to be published in the Federal Register. Location: FTC Satellite Building, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The WRC-07 Advisory Committee's Informal Working Group 3: IMT-2000 and 2.5 GHz Sharing Issues will meet. See, FCC notice [PDF]. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 7-B516 (7th Floor South Conference Room).

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "New Frontiers in Digital Video: Recent Developments in Copyright Law and The FCC’s Role in Content Protection". The speakers will be Fritz Attaway (Motion Picture Association of America), Sarah Deutsch (Verizon Communications), Gigi Sohn (Public Knowledge) and James Burger (Dow Lohnes & Albertson), and Rick Chessen (FCC). To register, contact Ann Henson or Heidi Kurtz at 202-293-4000. Prices range from $50 to $125. Location: Dow Lohnes & Albertson, 8th Floor, 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW.

12/7. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein took the oath office for a new five year term that expires June 30, 2008. Outgoing Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), Adelstein's former employer, administered the oath. Former Senate Republican leader Trent Lott (R-MS) was in attendance. Adelstein stated in a release [PDF] that "It was particularly touching to be sworn in with the same bipartisan spirit that led to my confirmation by the U.S. Senate." When Adelstein was nominated the first time, Senate Republicans delayed his confirmation, because Senate Democrats were delaying other nominees.

12/7. Pamela Arluk was promoted to the position of Legal Counsel in the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB). She will be responsible for matters addressed by the WCB's Competition Policy Division (CPD) and Industry Analysis and Technology Division (IATD). Arluk joined the FCC in 2002. She was a Senior Attorney Advisor in the CPD. She has been a team leader for the Triennial Review Reconsideration Orders, and team leader for the Section 271 proceedings for the states of Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio and Nevada. Before joining the FCC, she worked Focal Communications. See, FCC release [PDF].

12/7. Jeremy Marcus was promoted to the position of Legal Counsel in the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB). He will be responsible for the development and oversight of policy in the WCB's Telecommunications Access Policy Division (TAPD). He joined the FCC in 2002, and has been a Senior Attorney Advisor in the WCB's Pricing Policy Division (PPD), and a team leader on the pricing portion of the Virginia arbitration proceeding and of the ongoing reexamination of the TELRIC pricing rules. Before joining the FCC he was an attorney at the former law firm of Blumenfeld & Cohen. Many of the former B&C attorneys are at the law firm of Piper Rudnick Gray Cary. He also previously worked for MCI. See, FCC release [PDF].

12/7. Federal Reserve Board (FRB) Governor Susan Bies gave a speech at a conference in Geneva, Switzerland in which she addressed, among other things, the history of the use of information technology in interest risk management. She said that back in the early 1980s, "One of the first challenges bankers faced in this environment was developing the information and analytical systems needed to manage the institution's overall interest rate sensitivity. So, in the early 1980s, taking advantage of the newly emerging computer technology and software, they developed asset-liability management models that integrated information on deposit and loan repricing." She also stated that "computer technology facilitated rapid innovation in financial instruments".

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.