6/9. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts the Internet and Intellectual Property (CIIP) held a hearing titled "H.R. 2795, The Patent Act of 2005". This was the CIIP's third hearing this year on proposed revisions to the Patent Act.

The first two hearings pertained to patent law reform generally, and the earlier Committee Print [52 pages in PDF] of the "Patent Act of 2005". See, story titled "Summary of the Committee Print of the Patent Act of 2005" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,122, April 25, 2005.

On June 8, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) (at right), the Chairman of the CIIP Subcommittee, and others, introduced HR 2795 [63 pages in PDF], which makes numerous changes to the Committee Print.

This bill switches to a first inventor to file system (Section 2), limits the availability of injunctions of patent infringement (Section 7, at page 40), makes changes in the availability of damages for infringement, imposes duties of candor on persons associated with the filing and prosecution of patents, and creates new post grant opposition procedures.

35 U.S.C. § 283 currently provides that "The several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable."

HR 2795 would add the following language: "In determining equity, the court shall consider the fairness of the remedy in light of all the facts and the relevant interests of the parties associated with the invention. Unless the injunction is entered pursuant to a nonappealable judgment of infringement, a court shall stay the injunction pending an appeal upon an affirmative showing that the stay would not result in irreparable harm to the owner of the patent and that the balance of hardships from the stay does not favor the owner of the patent."

For opponents of changing current law, this is an improvement. The Committee Print had provided that "A court shall not grant an injunction under this section unless it finds that the patentee is likely to suffer irreparable harm that cannot be remedied by the payment of money damages. In making such a finding, the court shall not presume the existence of irreparable harm, but shall consider and weigh evidence that establishes or negates any equitable factor relevant to a determination of the existence of irreparable harm, including the extent to which the patentee makes use of the invention."

TLJ intends to write a more detailed summary of HR 2795 in a forthcoming issue.

This hearing, like prior hearings in the House and the Senate, demonstrated that there remain significant interests with strong opposition to some of the fundamental changes to patent law contained in the bill, particularly the limitation on the availability of injunctions, and switching to the first inventor to file rule.

The CIIP heard from witnesses who criticized the injunctive relief provisions. Other witnesses at other hearings have criticized this also. In contrast, many others adamantly support limiting the availability of injunctions.

For the opponents the argument is basic. Patents are a form of intellectual property. The most important of the attributes of any property right is the right to exclude others from using the property. A property owner enforces exclusivity with an injunction. Hence, limiting the availability of injunctive relief goes to the heart of patent rights.

Gary Griswold testified at this hearing on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). He wrote in his prepared testimony that "AIPLA strongly opposes this provision. It would devalue the property right of patentees by undercutting their traditional right to injunctive relief against adjudged infringers. The impact would appear to be especially harsh on independent inventors who already face great difficulty in commercializing their patented inventions. It would likewise be equally harsh on universities which are precluded in many, if not most, cases from directly commercializing their inventions and which must therefore rely on licensing or selling their inventions. It would also set an extremely unfortunate precedent internationally for the United States by suggesting to other nations that there need be no patent exclusivity for all inventions - that other nations can also pick and choose the patented inventions for which they wish to grant exclusivity."

Carl Gulbrandson testified that the proposed legislation would inhibit university technology transfer systems. He opposed the section on injunctive relief, and other sections.

He also wrote in his prepared testimony [PDF] that "Elements of the Patent Act of 2005 represent the interests of a narrow group of companies from one or two industry sectors ..." (See, page 12.)

At the hearing, Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the CIIP Subcommittee, began his five minutes for questions by scolding Gulbrandson. He said this statement is "preposterous" and "gets under my skin".

Gulbrandson is from the state of Wisconsin, and represents the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. Two of the eighteen members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), and the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), represent the state of Wisconsin.

The House Judiciary Committee, and its CIIP Subcommittee, have a history of approving bills that are not approved by the full House and/or the Senate.

See also, prepared testimony of Josh Lerner of Harvard Business School. He and Adam Jaffe co-authored the book titled Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It. [Amazon].

The fourth witness was David Ravicher of the Public Patent Foundation. See, prepared testimony [10 pages in PDF]. He asserted that he speaks for the public interest on patents.

The photocopy of HR 2795 distributed to reporters at the hearing lists only one sponsor, Rep. Smith. Rep. Berman and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) praised and defended the bill at the hearing. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) praised the bill, but said that it is "not the final product". Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) said that he is a cosponsor, but went on to describe the bill as "a first cut". He also advocated changes not in the bill. For example, he said that patent specialization in the federal courts should be in the trial courts, not the appellate court. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) stated that he supports "a lot" of the bill. Rep. William Jenkins (R-TN) and Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) attended, but did not express their views about the bill. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), who is usually active on technology and intellectual property issues, did not attend this hearing.

Rep. Smith announced at the conclusion of the hearing that the CIIP Subcommittee will mark up the bill on June 30.

6/8. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) held a hearing titled "Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act". This was another in a long series of hearings held by the HJC, or its Crime Subcommittee.

The only witness was James Comey (at right), the Deputy Attorney General. See, prepared testimony [PDF]. He asked that the Congress permanently extend the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. He opposed proposals to include any further sunsetting provisions. He asserted that the Congress can conduct effective oversight without the presence of sunsetting provisions.

Many members of the Committee advocated the inclusion of further sunsetting provisions, arguing that it is only the presence of those clauses that incents the Department of Justice (DOJ) to cooperate with the HJC in its oversight activities.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the Chairman of the HJC, presided. He said that the DOJ has been more forthcoming in the past year and one half than it was in previously years. He commended Comey and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for this, and stated, "I hope that that continues".

While the DOJ's cooperation and relations with the HJC have improved recently, the DOJ remains secretive on a number of PATRIOT Act issues. For example, Comey's written testimony regarding the various pen register and trap and trace device (PR&TTD) provisions was vague on what information is available to the DOJ under a PR&TTD order in the context of e-mail and use of the internet. Previous DOJ witnesses have also been vague.

See also, story titled "House Crime Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Pen Register and Trap and Trace Device Authority" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,125, April 29, 2005.

As another example, Comey said nothing about DOJ access to the content of VOIP communications. At the April 21 hearing on this subject, a DOJ witness ducked questions. On April 21, Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) asked questions, and asked that the DOJ to respond to written questions. Rep. Delahunt told TLJ after the hearing on June 8 that he has yet to receive responses.

See also, story titled "House Crime Subcommittee Holds Hearing on § 209 of PATRIOT Act, Stored Communications and VOIP" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,125, April 29, 2005.

Much of the questions and discussion at the June 8 hearing focused on the non-technology related sections of the PATRIOT Act. Representatives asked about immigration, immigration related procedures, and library records.

Comey's testimony and responses differed from those of many DOJ witnesses before him, to the extend that he was more open and self-deprecating. For example, in prior hearings DOJ witnesses have forcefully argued, in response to questions about limiting DOJ authority, or increasing safeguards against DOJ abuse of authority, that DOJ personnel are highly dedicated professionals whose work in fighting crime and terrorism would be hampered by such changes. In rebuttal, Representatives and Senators have raised the FBI's wiretapping of civil rights leaders, the FBI's transfer of hundreds of FBI files of leading Republicans to the Clinton White House, and Ruby Ridge.

Comey, in contrast, said that the DOJ personnel need oversight, and the knowledge that they are being watched. He said that "we need a check on our power", and that there is a potential for abuse. He added, "we have a history of it happening."

Nevertheless, like other DOJ witnesses, he argued against creating any new sunset provisions. He also rejected all of the legislative proposals advanced by Committee members at the hearing.

The HJC's Crime Subcommittee has held a long and detailed series of hearings. This was the first full Committee hearing on the PATRIOT Act in two months. It provided insight into the thoughts of members of the full Committee who are not also member of the Crime Subcommittee. This is significant because most of the members of the full Committee who tend to focus on technology related issues, and promote technology, are not members of the Crime Subcommittee.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) participated in the June 8 hearing. He used his time to defend the PATRIOT Act, including § 217, titled "Interception of Computer Trespasser Information". Peter Swire, a law professor at Ohio State University, testified in April that the PATRIOT Act created a serious potential for abuse of the legitimate expectations of privacy of the law abiding customers of ISPs. See also, story titled "House Crime Subcommittee Holds Hearing on § 217 of PATRIOT Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,125, April 29, 2005.

Similarly, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), another technophile, attended the hearing, but said nothing about any of the technology related provisions of the PATRIOT Act.

6/9. On June 5, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave a speech to the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations in which he addressed the USA PATRIOT Act. Then, on June 9, President Bush gave a speech to the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy in Columbus, Ohio, in which he discussed the PATRIOT Act.

Bush said that "16 critical provisions of the Patriot Act are scheduled to expire. Some people call these ``sunset provisions.´´ That's a good name -- because letting that -- those provisions expire would leave law enforcement in the dark. All 16 provisions are practical, important, and they are constitutional. Congress needs to renew them all -- and this time, Congress needs to make the provisions permanent."

He said that the Act has "improved our ability to track terrorists inside the United States."

He elaborated that "We need to renew the Patriot Act because it strengthens our national security in four important ways. First, we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act authorize better sharing of information between law enforcement and intelligence. Before the Patriot Act, criminal investigators were separated from intelligence officers by a legal and bureaucratic wall."

Second, he said that "we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act that allow investigators to use the same tools against terrorists that they already use against other criminals. Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to track the phone contacts of a drug dealer than the phone contacts of an enemy operative. Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to get the credit card receipts of a tax cheat than an al Qaeda bank-roller. Before the Patriot Act, agents could use wiretaps to investigate a person committing mail fraud, but not to investigate a foreign terrorist. The Patriot Act corrected all these pointless double standards -- and America is safer as a result."

He focused on roving wiretaps. "Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap. That means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism investigators to use the same wiretaps that were already being using against drug kingpins and mob bosses. The theory here is straightforward: If we have good tools to fight street crime and fraud, law enforcement should have the same tools to fight terrorism."

Third, Bush said that "we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act that updated the law to meet high-tech threats like computer espionage and cyberterrorism. Before the Patriot Act, Internet providers who notified federal authorities about threatening e-mails ran the risk of getting sued. The Patriot Act modernized the law to protect Internet companies who voluntarily disclose information to save lives." This is a discussion of Section 212, titled "Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb".

Fourth, Bush argued that the PATRIOT Act already contains protections of civil liberties, citing judicial approval provisions, and Congressional oversight.

Gonzales, who accompanied Bush to Ohio, also gave a speech on June 5. He said that "We must continue to provide law enforcement with the tools it needs to take the fight to our terrorist enemies. One of these critical tools is the USA PATRIOT Act. Over the past few months, I and others at the Department of Justice have testified before Congress about the importance and effectiveness of the authorities granted in this law. Federal prosecutors from around the country have shared stories from the front lines of the Act’s usefulness in the war on terror."

"This is all part of our effort to focus on the facts. That’s why we have declassified information about the frequency with which we’ve used some of the authorities in the Act. We have rebutted many charges and exposed many misconceptions. We have focused on the truth, and the truth about the PATRIOT Act is that there has not been one single verified violation of privacy rights or civil liberties in its three-and-a-half year history", said Gonzales.

He added that "I am open to suggestions or clarifications. I am open to debate. But what I cannot nor will not accept are changes to our laws that would leave Americans less safe from terrorism and crime."

6/10. President Bush announced his intent to nominate Carol Dinkens and Alan Charles Raul to be the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. He also announced his intent to appoint Lanny Davis, Ted Olson, and Francis Taylor to be members of the Board. See, White House release.

Dinkens is a partner in the Houston office of the law firm of Vinson & Elkins. She was the Deputy Attorney General during part of the Reagan administration. She also became the de facto Attorney General when Attorney General William Smith, in ill health, announced his intent to step down, and moved back to California. The Senate delayed confirmation of the new Attorney General, Ed Meese, thus leaving Dinkins in charge of the Department of Justice.

Raul is a partner in the Washington DC office of the law firm of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood. He was General Counsel at the Department of Agriculture from 1989 to 1993. Before that, he worked at the Office and Management and Budget, from 1988 to 1989. And before that, he was Associate Counsel to the President. His law firm biography states that his "intellectual property and information law practice focuses on trademark, copyright, advertising, and unfair competition law, as well as privacy, data protection and information security". He is also the author of Privacy and the Digital State: Balancing Public Information and Personal Privacy [Amazon].

Davis is a partner in the law firm of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. He was Special Counsel to the President from 1996 to 1998.

Olson recently stepped down as the Solicitor General, and returned to his long time law firm, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. He was a protégé of William Smith, and worked for him as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel early in the Reagan administration.

Taylor is the Chief Security Officer for General Electric. Before that, he was as Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security and Director of the Office of Foreign Missions. And before that, he was Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the Department of State.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was created by Section 1061 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, pursuant to the recommendations contained in the report of National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. This bill was S 2845 in the 108th Congress. It is now Public Law No. 108-458.

Section 1061 provides, in part, that "The Board shall continually review (A) regulations, executive branch policies, and procedures (including the implementation of such regulations, policies, and procedures), related laws pertaining to efforts to protect the Nation from terrorism, and other actions by the executive branch related to efforts to protect the Nation from terrorism to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are protected; and (B) the information sharing practices of the departments, agencies, and elements of the executive branch to determine whether or not such practices appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties and adhere to the information sharing guidelines under subsections (d) and (f) of section 1016 and to other applicable laws, regulations, and executive branch policies regarding the protection of privacy and civil liberties."

Section 1061 provides that the Board shall have five members, who serve at the pleasure of the President. The positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman require Senate confirmation.

Bush commented on these nominees in a speech on June 9, 2005 in Columbus, Ohio. He stated that "Congress has recently created a federal board to ensure that the Patriot Act and other laws respect privacy and civil liberties. And I'll soon name five talented Americans to serve on that board."

President Bush delayed in making these selections. Then, he picked some busy people.

The House will not meet. It will next meet on Monday, June 13, 2005.

The Senate will not meet. It will next meet on Monday, June 13, 2005.

The Supreme Court is in recess until Monday, June 13, 2005. See, Order List [13 pages in PDF] at page 13.

8:30 AM. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) will hold a hearing titled "Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act". The witnesses will be Carlina Ruano (American Immigration Lawyers Association), James Zogby (Arab American Institute), Deborah Pearlstein (U.S. Law and Security Program), Chip Pitts (Amnesty International USA). The hearing will be webcast by the Committee. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. This hearing will be webcast by the HJC. See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer Advisory Committee will hold a meeting. See, FCC notice [PDF] and notice in the Federal Register, June 1, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 104, at Pages 31469 - 31470. Location: Commission Meeting Room (TW-C305), 445 12th Street, SW.

The House will meet at 12:30 PM.

The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM. It will begin consideration of the nomination of Thomas Griffith to be Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

The Supreme Court will meet. It is possible that it will issue opinions in MGM v. Grokster (regarding copyright and P2P systems), NCTA v. Brand X (regarding regulation of broadband internet services), and/or Merck v. Integra (regarding a research exemption to patent infringement).

10:00 AM. The Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Homeland Security will meet to mark up HR 2360, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Location: Room S-128, Capitol Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the Bush administration's program titled "Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy" or "STOP". Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.

8:30 AM - 3:15 PM. The Chamber of Commerce will host a program titled "The Global Potential of Radio Frequency Identification". The speakers will include Daniel Caprio (Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy, and Chief Privacy Officer, at the Department of Commerce), Claus Heinrich (SAP Executive Board Member), Bill McDermott (P/CEO of SAP America), and Patrick Gauthier (SVP of Visa USA). The price to attend ranges from free to $195. For more information, contact Andrew Persson at 202 463-5500. See, notice and agenda [PDF]. Location: Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H Street, NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a luncheon. The speaker will be Dan Glickman, P/CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). For more information, contact Brooke Emmerick at 202-289-8928 or bemmerick at pff dot org. Press contact: Patrick Ross at 202 289-8928 or pross at pff dot org. See, notice and registration page. Location: Rotunda Room, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) WRC-07 Advisory Committee's Informal Working Group 5 (Regulatory Issues) will meet. See, notice [PDF]. Location: Boeing, 1200 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. The nearest Metro is Rosslyn.

2:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's (SJC) Subcommittee on Intellectual Property will hold a hearing on "injunctions and damages relating to patent law reform". The SJC frequently cancels meetings without notice. Location: Room 224, Dirksen Building.

6:00 PM. The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will host a reception for its Inventor of the Year Award winners. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) will present the awards. For information call 202 466-2396. Location: Caucus Room, Cannon House Office Building.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "An Introduction to Copyright Law". The price to attend ranges from $25-$35. For more information, contact 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

8:30 AM - 5:30 PM. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 1, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 104, at Pages 31545 - 31546. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 730, Arlington, VA.

9:00 AM - 4:30 PM. Day one of a two day conference hosted by the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) titled "Pirates, Thieves and Innocents: Perceptions of Copyright Infringement in the Digital Age". Registration has closed. The event will be webcast. See, webcast registration page. Location: UMUC, 3501 University Blvd. East, Adelphi, MD.

9:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) WRC-07 Advisory Committee's Informal Working Group 4 (Broadcasting and Amateur Issues) will meet. See, notice [PDF]. Location: Shaw Pittman & Pillsbury, 2300 N Street, NW, Conference Room 1E/F.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on federal legislative solutions to data breach and identity theft. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) will preside. The witnesses will be the five Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Deborah Majoras, Orson Swindle, Thomas Leary, Pamela Harbour, and Jonathan Leibowitz, and William Sorrell (Vermont Attorney General, and President of the National Association of Attorneys General). Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456 or Melanie_Alvord at commerce dot senate dot gov, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546 or Andy_Davis at commerce dot senate dot gov. See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

2:00 AM. The Senate Appropriations Committee will meet to mark up HR 2360, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Location: Room 106, Dirksen Building.

2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on the nominations of William Jeffrey (to be Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology), Ashok Kaveeshwar (Administrator of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration), Edmund Hawley (Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for the Transportation Security Administration), and Israel Hernandez (Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director General of the U.S. Foreign and Commercial Service). Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456 or Melanie_Alvord at commerce dot senate dot gov, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546 or Andy_Davis at commerce dot senate dot gov. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

TIME? The Department of State's International Telecommunication Advisory Committee's (ITAC) ITU-T Study Group 3 (Tariff and accounting principles including related telecommunication economic and policy issues) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 7, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 108, at Page 33253. Location: AT&T, 1133 21st Street, Suite 210.

Deadline to submit comments, and notices of intent to participate, to the Copyright Office in response to its proposed rules containing a proposed settlement of royalty rates for the retransmission of digital over-the-air television broadcast signals by satellite carriers under the statutory license. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 17, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 94, at Pages 28231 - 28233.

8:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. Day two of a two day meeting of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 1, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 104, at Pages 31545 - 31546. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 730, Arlington, VA.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. Day two of a two day conference hosted by the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) titled "Pirates, Thieves and Innocents: Perceptions of Copyright Infringement in the Digital Age". Registration has closed. The event will be webcast. See, webcast registration page. Location: UMUC, 3501 University Blvd. East, Adelphi, MD.

Deadline to submit comments to the Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) in response to the AMC's request for public comments regarding (1) treble damages, (2) prejudgment interest, (3) attorneys' fees, (4) joint and several liability, contribution, and claim reduction, (5) remedies available to the federal government, (6) private injunctive relief, and (7) indirect purchaser litigation. See, notice in the Federal Register: May 19, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 96, at Pages 28902-28907.

6/9. Following an agreement in the Senate regarding procedures for ending filibusters, the Senate has proceeded to end filibusters on several pending nominations, and confirm the nominees.

On June 8, the Senate confirmed Janice Brown to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) by a vote of 56-43. See, Roll Call No. 131.

Democrats and liberals have opposed Judge Brown (at right), and others, for reasons unrelated to technology. However, Judge Brown did write the August 25, 2003 opinion [54 pages in PDF] of the Supreme Court of the State of California in DVD Copy Control Association v. Bunner, a case regarding California trade secret law, free speech, and the publication of the DeCSS program in web sites.

The Senate has yet to give confirmation votes to two other nominees for the DC Circuit, Brett Kavanaugh and Thomas Griffith.

On June 9, the Senate confirmed William Pryor to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (11thCir) by a vote of 53-45. See, Roll Call No. 133.

On June 9, the Senate confirmed David McKeague to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir) by a vote of 96-0. See, Roll Call No. 135.

On June 9, the Senate confirmed Richard Griffin to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir) by a vote of 95-0. See, Roll Call No. 134.

6/9. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC), announced in a release that Christine Kurth "has withdrawn herself from consideration for appointment to the vacant Commissioner position on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). She is Deputy Staff Director of the SCC. Sen. Stevens stated that "her husband, who consults for telecommunications companies, would have been required to cease work on behalf of his clients; or Kurth, as a Commissioner, would have been required to recuse herself from various matters under the FCC’s jurisdiction ..." Stevens added that she will continue to coordinate the legislative work of the SCC, where she is "responsible for handling telecommunications policy".

6/9. The House approved HRes 307. This resolution appoints Rep. Debbie Schultz (D-FL) to the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS) to the House Science Committee. Earlier in the day, Rep. Schultz was permitted to participate in the HJC's hearing on the USA PATRIOT Act by unanimous consent of the HJC.

6/8. President Bush nominated John Richard Smoak to be a  Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. See, White House release.

6/8. President Bush nominated Kenneth Wainstein to be the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for the term of four years. See, White House release.

6/9. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing titled "Issues before The U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade". See, prepared testimony [15 pages in PDF] of Jon Dudas, head of the U.S Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

6/8. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness held a hearing titled "Manufacturing Competitiveness in a High-Tech Era". See, prepared testimony of Albert Frink (Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services at the Department of Commerce), prepared testimony of Wayne Clough (President of Georgia Institute of Technology), prepared testimony of Sebastian Murray (P/CEO of FPI Thermoplastic Technologies), and prepared testimony of Thomas Howell (Dewey Ballantine).

6/8. The Senate Commerce Committee's (SCC) Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction held a hearing on the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) recent World Trade Center report, and other issues, including the National Science Foundation's (NSF) research in information technology, cyber security and data mining. Arden Bement (Director of the NSF) addressed several information technology issues, at pages 4-6, in his prepared testimony [PDF] including cyber war gaming, cyber security, its Cyber Trust program, and data mining based anomaly detection techniques. See also, prepared testimony [PDF] of Hratch Semerjian (acting Director of the NIST). NIST cyber security activities are addressed at pages 3-4. And see, prepared testimony of Conrad Lautenbacher (Administrator of the NOAA).

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.