Intel Accepts Recommendation of Japanese FTC
Regarding Anticompetitive Marketing Practices |
3/31. Intel announced that its Japanese
subsidiary, Intel Kabushiki Kaisha (IJKK), accepts the March 8, 2005
recommendation from the Japan Fair Trade
Commission (JFTC).
The JFTC wrote in a March 8 English language
release [3 pages in PDF] that it "requires IJKK to cease and desist its
conducts which violate Section 3 of the Antimonopoly Act".
The JFTC stated that IJKK sells Intel X86 central processing units (CPUs) to
Japanese original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). It continued that IJKK has
made these OEMs refrain from buying CPUs from Intel's competitors through its
use of rebates and a market development fund.
The recommendation compels IJKK to stop certain practices related to these
rebates and fund.
Intel added in its March 31 statement that "Although IJKK accepts the
Recommendation, the company does not agree with the facts underlying the JFTC's
allegations and the application of law in the Recommendation. IJKK continues to believe
its business practices are both fair and lawful, but the company believes that the cease
and desist provisions of the Recommendation will not impair it from continuing to meet
customer requirements."
|
|
|
USTR Releases Report on Anti-Competitive
Regulations in Telecom Sector |
3/31. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
(USTR) released a
document [10 pages in PDF] titled "Results of the 2005 Section 1377 Review of
Telecommunications Trade Agreements".
Peter Allgeier (at
right), the acting USTR, stated in a
release that "We are deeply concerned by the tepid commitment some of our
trade partners have shown to competition in the telecommunications sector. This
is especially true in countries such as China, India and Japan where national
operators are already competing on a global level, but remain protected at home
by relatively closed markets. It is very hard to see a legitimate reason why
these markets should not be open to full and effective competition".
The report focuses on the costs of interconnecting calls
to wireless networks, restrictions on access to leased lines and submarine cable
capacity, regulatory requirements, burdensome testing and certification
requirements, and the governmental mandate of particular technical standards.
The report criticizes the People's Republic of China's burdensome
regulations. It states that the "USTR has serious concerns regarding licensing
requirements maintained by China that severely restrict the ability of U.S.
telecommunications companies to compete in the Chinese marketplace. USTR urges
China to take steps as soon as possible to: (a) eliminate burdensome
capitalization requirements; (b) specifically authorize the offering of basic
services on a purely resale basis; and (c) eliminate restrictions on the
entities with whom a foreign licensee can partner." The PRC requires a domestic
capitalization of about $240 Million, which the USTR states has no
justification.
The report criticizes India regarding access to use of submarine cable
capacity. It states that "problems persist based on the continued control by
India’s dominant international operator, VSNL, over access to all but one
submarine cable landing station in India. Commenters argue that VSNL’s
persistent refusal to permit interconnection at its cable landing stations, and
its failure to activate additional capacity on these cables, result in
artificial shortages of bandwidth into and out of India and inflate prices,
hampering the provision of robust global telecommunications services."
The report criticizes Japan's high mobile interconnection rates, which are
"about 11 to 13 cents per minute, depending on the point of interconnection".
The report states that "These rates represent a 3 percent annual decrease and
follow last year’s 4 percent cut, which shows a slowing rate of change that may
soon put Japan’s rates well above most OECD levels. These rates are already
three times the level of its neighbor, Korea."
The report also addresses the lack of technology neutrality in wireless
standards. First, it addresses the PR China, and its Ministry of Information
Industry (MII). The report states that "By the end
of this year, MII is expected to announce terms and conditions for new mobile
wireless licenses in the 2 GHz band. Despite MII’s repeated assurances that it
will award licenses on a technology-neutral basis, there is widespread concern
that MII will reserve up to two of the likely four licenses for China’s
home-grown 3G standard, TD-SCDMA. USTR continues to urge China to leave
technology choice decisions to operators and not use these decisions as
an opportunity to exercise protectionist industrial policy."
The report also states that "Korea’s regulator, the Ministry of
Information and Communications (MIC), recently awarded three licenses for a
broadband wireless service (“WiBro”) and established a requirement that all
licensees use a single standard selected by the Korean Government. This has had
the effect of limiting the scope of technology that can be marketed in Korea,
thus limiting licensee and consumer choice, as well as the ability of U.S. and
other firms with proven technologies to compete in this dynamic market."
This report does not examine U.S. telecommunications regulators.
The USTR has also published in its web site the public
comments, and
reply comments, that it received.
|
|
|
Bush Seeks Extension of Trade Promotion
Authority |
3/31. President Bush wrote a
letter
to the Speaker of the House, and the President of the Senate, in which he asked
the Congress to extend trade promotion authority (TPA) for two years. The
current TPA expires on July 1, 2005. The request was anticipated.
TPA gives the President the authority to negotiate trade agreements that the
Congress can approve or reject, but not amend.
Bush wrote that "We must continue to pursue bilateral and regional agreements
to open new markets, and we must complete negotiations in the World Trade
Organization to reduce global barriers to trade. We will continue to enforce
vigorously the trade laws so that American businesses and workers are competing
on a level playing field."
|
|
|
Bush to Nominate Alice Fisher to Head DOJ's
Criminal Division |
3/29. President Bush announced his intent to nominate Alice Fisher to be
Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's (DOJ)
Criminal Division. She is currently an
attorney at the law firm of Latham & Watkins.
If confirmed by the Senate, she will replace Christopher Wray. See, White House
release.
She began her legal career as an associate attorney at the law firm of
Sullivan & Cromwell. She then worked as
Deputy Special Counsel to the U.S. Senate Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater
Development and Related Matters. Sen. Hillary
Clinton (D-NY), whom she investigated, will have the opportunity to vote for or
against her confirmation. In 1996 she went to work for Latham & Watkins. However,
from 2001 through 2003, she was one of the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General in the
Criminal Division.
The DOJ's Criminal Division is important for technology for several reasons.
First, there is the USA PATRIOT Act. Title II of the Act contains many provisions related
to electronic surveillance and new technologies. Also, many of the sections of Title II
sunset at the end of this year. The Congress will extend the terms of, and perhaps make
substantive amendments to, many of these sections. The Criminal Division will likely
represent the DOJ and the Bush administration during this legislative process.
The Criminal Division also includes the
Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS),
which prosecutes crimes related to computer hacking, unauthorized access to
computers, and related activities.
The CCIPS is also responsible for criminal enforcement of intellectual property laws.
Note on Terminology. TLJ uses the phrase "Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal
Division" to describe the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) who leads the Criminal Division.
TLJ uses similar terminology for other AAGs. The positions of
"Assistant Attorney General" exist by statute. However, there is no statutory
position of "Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division". Nor
are there similar positions for other DOJ divisions. By practice, one AAG is in
charge of Criminal Division. Moreover, Presidents announce at the time of a
nomination of a person to be an AAG which division that person will lead.
Hypothetically, someone who is an AAG, and in charge of the Criminal Division,
could be reassigned to lead the Antitrust Division, or another division. Although, some Senators would
complain loudly.
|
|
|
More People and Appointments |
3/29. President Bush announced his intent to nominate
Rachel Brand to
be Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office
of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice (DOJ).
She is now the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the OLP. She has previously
worked as Associate Counsel to the President, for the law firm of Cooper Carville &
Rosenthal, which is now Cooper & Clark,
and for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The responsibilities of the OLP relate
to, among other things, the screening, selection and confirmation of judicial nominees.
See, White House
release.
3/29. President Bush announced his intent to nominate Regina Schofield
to be Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office
of Justice Programs (OJP) at the Department of Justice (DOJ). She is currently Director
of Intergovernmental Affairs and White House Liaison at the Department of Health and Human
Services. See, White House
release.
3/29. President Bush announced his intent to nominate Philip Perry to
be General Counsel at the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). If confirmed by the Senate, he will replace Joe Whitley.
Perry is an attorney in the Washington DC office of the law firm of
Latham & Watkins. He is a partner in the litigation
section, where he focuses on government contracts. He has also worked in short stints at
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), where
he was General Counsel, and before that, at the Department of Justice (DOJ), where he was
briefly the acting Associate Attorney General; that is, he oversaw several of the key
non-criminal divisions at the DOJ, including the
Antitrust Division and the Civil Division. See, White
House release.
3/31. President Bush announced his intent to nominate Gordon England
to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. He is currently Secretary of the Navy. He
has also been Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. Before coming to Washington
DC, he worked for General Dynamics. See, White House
release.
3/31. President Bush announced his intent to nominate Eric Edelman to
be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. He is a career Foreign Service officer. See,
White House
release.
3/29. Mark Hurd was named P/CEO of Hewlett
Packard. He previously worked for NCR, most recently as P/CEO. See, HP
release.
|
|
|
|
Notice |
There was no issue of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert on Thursday,
March 31, 2005. |
|
|
Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red. |
|
|
Friday, April 1 |
The House will not meet. It will return from its Spring recess at 2:00 PM on
Tuesday, April 5. See,
House calendar.
The Senate will not meet. It will return from its Spring recess at 2:00 PM on Monday, April
4. See,
Senate calendar.
12:15 PM. The
Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA)
Wireless Practice Committee will host a luncheon. The topic will be "Intercarrier
Compensation". The speakers will be Diane Cornell (CTIA), Charles McKee
(Sprint), James Ramsey (National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners), and Gerry Duffy (Alliance). The price to attend
is $15. Send RSVP's and/or cancellations to Wendy Parish at
wendy@fcba.org by 5:00 PM on Wednesday,
March 30. For more information, contact Adam Krinsky at akrinsky at wbklaw dot com.
Location: 6th Floor, Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, NW.
Day four of a four day conference of the American Bar Association's
Section on Antitrust. See,
agenda [PDF]. Location: JW Marriott Hotel and Willard Hotel.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) [54
pages in PDF] regarding the children's programming obligations of digital
television broadcasters. This item is FCC 04-221 in MM Docket 00-167. See,
story titled "FCC Adopts Report and Order Re Children's Programming
Obligations of DTV Broadcasters" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 975, September 13, 2004.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response
to BellSouth's petition for pricing flexibility for switched access services. See,
FCC
Public
Notice DA 05-740 in WC Docket No. 05-148.
|
|
|
Monday, April 4 |
The Senate will return from its Spring recess. See,
Senate calendar.
The Supreme
Court will begin a recess. It will return on Monday, April 18. See,
Order List [12 pages in PDF] at page 12.
The American Bar Association's Section on Public Utility,
Communications and Transportation Law will host a one day conference. At 10:45 AM
there will be a panel titled "Voice Over Internet: Molding a Regulatory Structure
from Legacy Regulations". The scheduled speakers include William Banks Wilhelm
(counsel for Vonage), Chris Libertelli, and Keith Epstein (SBC). At 3:15 PM
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) is scheduled to speak.
See, agenda [PDF].
Location: PEPCO Holdings Conference Center, 701 9th Street, NW.
11:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Advisory Committee for the 2007
World Radiocommunication Conference will meet. Location: FCC, Room TW-C305 (Commission
Meeting Room), 445 12th St., SW.
|
|
|
Tuesday, April 5 |
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of
Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in VM Tech v. Compaq Computer,
No. 04-1436. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's
International
Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for the
Organization of American States' (OAS)
Inter-American
Telecommunication Commission's (CITEL) Permanent Consultative Committee II
meeting in Guatemala to be held in April 2005. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December 30, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 250, at
Pages 78515-78516. For more information, including the location, contact
Cecily Holiday at
holidaycc@state.gov or Anne Jillson
at jillsonad@state.gov. Location:
undisclosed.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association
will host a continuing legal education (CLE) program titled "Legal Beat:
How to Use Music Legally in a Business". The scheduled speaker is Joy
Butler (Sashay Communications). See,
notice. Prices vary from $70 to $124. For more information, call 202
626-3488. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.
|
|
|
Wednesday, April 6 |
9:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The
Department of Commerce (DOC) will host
a half day workshop on radio frequency identification (RFID)
technology. See, DOC
notice
[PDF]. Location: DOC, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(FedCir) will hear oral argument in Network Commerce v. Microsoft,
No. 04-1445. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(FedCir) will hear oral argument in Hynix Semiconductor v. U.S.,
No. 04-1417. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(FedCir) will hear oral argument in In Re Steelbuilding.com, No.
04-1447. This is an appeal from the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office's (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 's (TTAB)
disposition [28 pages in PDF] affirming the denial of an application to register the
mark Steelbuilders.com. The TTAB held that it "is merely descriptive and generic for
the services recited in the application and that applicant has not demonstrated that it
has acquired distinctiveness". Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison
Place, NW.
|
|
|
Thursday, April 7 |
10:00 AM. The
U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in AT&T v.
Microsoft, No. 04-1285. This is an appeal from the
U.S. District Court
(SDNY) in a patent infringement case. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison
Place, NW.
12:15 - 2:00 PM. The
Forum on Technology and Innovation
will host a panel discussion titled "The Future of U.S. Manufacturing -
Does Making Anything Matter in the 21st Century". See,
notice
and registration
pages. Lunch will be served. Location: Reserve Officers Association, 5th
floor, One Constitution Ave., NE.
|
|
|
Friday, April 8 |
9:30 AM. The
U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear
oral argument in Program Suppliers v. Librarian of Congress, No. 04-1070.
Judges Sentelle, Randolph and Tatel will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333
Constitution Ave., NW.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of
Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Korszun v. Public Technologies
Multimedia, No. 04-1504. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DConn)
in a software patent case. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.
12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The
Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will
host a panel discussion titled "The Indecency Debate: Should Congress
Extend Broadcast Rules to Other Media?". The speakers will include
Adam Thierer (PFF), Marsha
MacBride (National Association of Broadcasters), Jill
Luckett (National Cable Telecommunications
Association). See,
notice
and
registration pages. Location: Room B389, Rayburn Building, Capitol Hill.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response
to its notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) [460 pages in PDF] in its proceeding titled "In the
Matter of: Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act
of 2004 Implementation of Section 340 of the Communications Act". See also, FCC
release
[PDF]. This NPRM is FCC 05-24 in MB Docket No. 05-49. The FCC adopted this NPRM on
February 4, 2005, and released it on February 7, 2005. See, story titled "FCC
Releases SHVERA NPRM Regarding Significantly Viewed Signals" in TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,073, February 9, 2005.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
assist it in preparing its annual report to the Congress regarding
progress made to achieve the objectives and carry out the purposes and
provisions of Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International
Telecommunications Act (ORBIT Act). See, FCC
notice [PDF]. This proceeding is IB Docket No. 04-158.
|
|
|
5th Circuit Dismisses Appeal of Class Action
Certification Order in Baldridge v. SBC |
3/29. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(5thCir) issued an
opinion [PDF] in Baldridge v. SBC Communications, a class action
case brought by employees of Cingular Wireless seeking overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). The Appeals Court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Lindsey Baldridge and other named plaintiffs are employees of Cingular Wireless.
(Cingular is a joint venture of SBC and BellSouth.) The filed a complaint in
U.S. District Court (EDTex) alleging violation
of the FLSA. They also sought class action status. The District Court issued an order
certifying the class, pursuant to the class action provision of the FLSA, which is codified at
29 U.S.C. § 216(b), but narrowed its scope. The District Court also
scheduled a further hearing on class certification.
The District Court did not certify its order for appeal. The plaintiffs
nevertheless brought this interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1291 provides in part that "The courts of appeals ... shall have
jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United
States ..." That is, the general rule is that the Court of Appeals can only hear
an appeal from a "final decision". The Court of Appeals wrote that "an
order conditionally certifying a class and authorizing notice is not a final decision,
terminating the litigation and allowing appeal under § 1291."
The Court continued that this interlocutory appeal does not fit the
collateral order exception to the final judgment rule of of Section 1291
articulated by the Supreme Court in its 1949 decision in
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, because the District
Court's order does not conclusively determine the disputed question.
Rule 23(f) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides, in part, that "A court of
appeals may in its discretion permit an appeal from an order of a district court
granting or denying class action certification under this rule if application is
made to it within ten days after entry of the order. ..." However, the Appeals
Court held that Rule 23 is inapplicable, because the present action is based
upon the class action language of the FLSA.
The case proceeds in the District Court.
This case is Lindsey Baldridge, et al. v. SBC Communications, et al.,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, App. Ct. No. m 04-10819, an appeal
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (NDTex).
|
|
|
About Tech Law Journal |
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 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All
rights reserved. |
|
|