10/19. Five book publishing companies filed a complaint [35 pages in PDF] in U.S. District Court (SDNY) against Google alleging that its Google Print Library Project infringes copyrights.

The plaintiffs are McGraw Hill, Pearson Education, Penguin, Simon & Schuster, and John Wiley & Sons. All are members of the Association of American Publishers (AAP).

In a related matter, on September 20, 2005, the Author's Guild and others filed a similar complaint in the same District Court against Google alleging copyright infringement in connection with the same Google project. The plaintiffs in that action seek class action status. See, story titled "Author's Guild Sues Google for Copyright Infringement" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,218, September 21, 2005. See also, story titled "University Publishers Accuse Google of Systematic Infringement of Copyright on a Massive Scale" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,142, May 25, 2005.

The plaintiffs in the present action also attach as an exhibit to the complaint a 17 page list of copyrighted works, along with their authors, copyright registration numbers, and publishers, that Google may have infringed.

The complaint names only one defendant, Google. It does not name any of the five libraries that have agreed to allow Google to scan books in their collections. The complaint does state that two of the libraries (Oxford and the New York Public Library) have stated that they will allow Google to scan only those works that are in the public domain. The complaint states that two others (Harvard and Stanford) have not stated clearly what they plan to do. Finally, the complaint states that the University of Michigan has stated that it will make available all books, including those under copyright. The complaint does not name Michigan as a party, or otherwise assert vicarious infringement by Michigan.

The one count complaint alleges copyright infringement, and seeks a declaration that Google has infringed copyrights, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys fees. It does not seek damages.

More specifically, the plaintiffs seek "A Final Order that permanently enjoins Google from, in any manner, reproducing, publicly distributing and/or publicly displaying all or any part of any Publisher's copyrighted works as port of the Google Library Project, or otherwise, except upon the express prior authorization of the Publisher owning or controlling the copyrights in such works."

They further seek "An Order that requires Google to delete or otherwise destroy all unauthorized copies made by Google through the Google Library Project of any copyrighted works, whether in whole or in part, owned by Publishers (a) from any computers or web servers owned by Google or that are under its control, or (b) that are otherwise in the possession of Google."

The complaint states that "Publishers bring this action to prevent the continuing, irreparable and imminent harm that Publishers are suffering, will continue to suffer and expect to suffer due to Google's willful infringement, to further its own commercial purposes, of the exclusive rights of copyright that Publishers enjoy in various books housed in, among others, the collection of the University Library of the University of Michigan ... "

The complaint further alleges that "Using the rubric of a ``Google Library Project,´´ Google has announced that it has begun and will continue a commercial program under which it will digitally scan, or copy, the entirety of each of the books supplied to it by Michigan, without regard to whether (a) any or all of those books are protected by copyright and (b) any of the Publishers (or any other publisher or owner of copyright, for that matter) consents to having its copyrighted books included in the project)." (Parentheses in original.)

The complaint continues that Google "proposes to make a digital copy of each book that it scans and then provide that copy to Michigan for Michigan's own use. Google also proposes to (a) store, in perpetuity, one or more of the resulting digital copies on Google's computer servers, (b) offer to the public the ability to search, and have access to, the copies of the books stored on Google's servers and to retrieve excerpts of those books and (c) publicly display excerpts of the books to any person in the world whose search, through Google, has retrieved that book. All of these steps are taken by Google for the purpose of increasing the number of visitors to the google.com website and, in turn, Google's already substantial advertising revenue."

The complaint alleges that Google's project is "entirely commercial". It further anticipates that Google will plead the affirmative defense of fair use. It states that "Neither (a) the fair use provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 107 nor (b) the narrow provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 108, which in very different circumstances would allow a library but, in no event, Google, to make digital copies of these works in a library's collection, excuse Google's wholesale unauthorized copying." (Hyperlinks added.)

Patricia Schroeder, President of the AAP, stated in a release that "The publishing industry is united behind this lawsuit against Google and united in the fight to defend their rights ... While authors and publishers know how useful Google's search engine can be and think the Print Library could be an excellent resource, the bottom line is that under its current plan Google is seeking to make millions of dollars by freeloading on the talent and property of authors and publishers."

Schroeder is a former member the House of Representatives. She represented a Colorado district, and at the end of her House career, was the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.

Gigi Sohn, President of the Public Knowledge, stated in a release that "The publishers' suit against Google is truly unfortunate and short-sighted. Those who produce books should be heartened to see a project that has as its goal the legal distribution of knowledge and insight. The publishers also stand to gain increased exposure for their books. Instead, they are taking to court a program that would only fully digitize public-domain work and would give readers only a glimpse of copyrighted material. That Google project falls squarely within the boundaries of fair use, and the publishers should recognize that."

Public Knowledge is a Washington DC based interest group that advocates the weakening of intellectual property rights protection, especially in copyright.

The plaintiffs are represented by Bruce Keller of the New York City office of the law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton.

This case is McGraw Hill Companies, Inc., Pearson Education, Inc., Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Simon & Schuster, Inc. and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Google Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, D.C. No. 05-CV-8881.

10/13. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filed a letter brief [PDF] with the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) in the Brand X case. It responds to the Court's inquiry to the parties regarding whether any issues remain outstanding.

The FCC wrote that "There is no need for further proceedings in this case" and that "the Court should dismiss or deny the petitions for review and enter judgment for the federal respondents in this case".

On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court issued its opinion [59 pages in PDF] upholding the FCC's determination that cable broadband internet access service is an information service, reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and overturning its 2003 opinion [39 pages in PDF]. See, story titled "Supreme Court Rules in Brand X Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,163, June 28, 2005.

The FCC wrote in its letter brief that "In October 2003, this Court ruled that the FCC erred in failing to classify the transmission component of high-speed cable Internet access service (or "cable modem" service) as a telecommunications service. Brand X Internet Services v. FCC, 345 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2003). After granting certiorari on this issue, the Supreme Court reversed this Court’s ruling in a decision rendered on June 27, 2005. National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services, 125 S. Ct. 2688 (2005). In that decision, the Court held that the FCC lawfully construed the Communications Act when the agency classified cable modem service as an ``information service´´ with no separate ``telecommunications service´´ component. The Supreme Court remanded the case “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.´´"

10/19. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) held a hearing titled "Reporters' Privilege Legislation: An Additional Investigation of Issues and Implications". While the motivation for holding this hearing was recent abuses of subpoena power to obtain testimony from reporters for the New York Times and others publications, the discussion also focused on to what extent any statutory protection would affect cyber reporters and bloggers.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) wrote in his opening statement that "We also need to have a serious discussion of what constitutes the term ``reporter.´´ Media consumers no longer rely exclusively on traditional media outlets to obtain information. Today’s technology allows for anyone to report information to a vast audience virtually instantaneously, thus creating a new generation of ``cyber reporters´´ or those we know today as bloggers."

He added that bloggers may be the "modern day equivalent of the revolutionary pamphleteer who passed out news bulletins on the street corner." However, "the relative anonymity afforded to bloggers, coupled with a certain lack of accountability, as they are not your traditional brick-and-mortar reporters who answer to an editor or publisher, also has the risk of creating a certain irresponsibility when it comes to accurately reporting information."

He concluded that "it is also important to consider whether bloggers, or reporters for entities such as al Jazeera, or others whose associations perhaps are questionable or even cause for concern, ought to be covered under this type of law."

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wrote in his opening statement that "Efforts have been made from time to time to codify a reporters’ privilege in federal law, but these attempts failed, in part because supporters of the concept found it difficult to agree on how to define the scope of what it means to be a ``journalist.´´ With bloggers now participating fully in the 24-hour news cycle, we might face similar challenges in defining terms today."

See also, prepared testimony of Chuck Rosenberg (U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas), prepared testimony of Judith Miller (The New York Times), prepared testimony of David Westin (President of ABC News), prepared testimony of Joseph diGenova (diGenova & Toensing), prepared testimony of Anne Gordon (Managing Editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer), and prepared testimony of Dale Davenport (Editorial Page Editor of the The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania).

On July 18, 2005, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and others introduced S 1419, the "Free Flow of Information Act of 2005", a bill to limit the compelled disclosure of information by certain persons.

It provides that "A Federal entity may not compel a covered person to testify or produce any document in any proceeding or in connection with any issue arising under Federal law unless a court determines by clear and convincing evidence, after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to the covered person
  (1) that the party seeking to compel production of such testimony or document has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain such testimony or document from all persons from which such testimony or document could reasonably be obtained other than a covered person;
  (2) that -- (A) in a criminal investigation or prosecution, based on information obtained from a person other than a covered person -- (i) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred; and (ii) the testimony or document sought is essential to the investigation, prosecution, or defense; or (B) in a matter other than a criminal investigation or prosecution, based on information obtained from a person other than a covered person, the testimony or document sought is essential to a dispositive issue of substantial importance to that matter; and
  (3) in any matter in which the testimony or document sought could reveal the identity of a source of information or include any information that could reasonably be expected to lead to the discovery of the identity of such a source, that -- (A) disclosure of the identity of such a source is necessary to prevent imminent and actual harm to national security; (B) compelled disclosure of the identity of such a source would prevent such harm; and (C) the harm sought to be redressed by requiring disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in protecting the free flow of information."

The bill further provides that a "covered person" includes "an entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that -- (i) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; (ii) operates a radio or television broadcast station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or (iii) operates a news agency or wire service;"

Chuck Rosenberg complained at the October 19 hearing, on behalf of the Department of Justice, that "the definition arguably could include any person who sets up an Internet blog".

The Congress has often enacted legislation that categories institutional media, and offers some promotion, benefit or immunity, often for the stated purpose of implementing protections guaranteed by the First Amendment. See, for example, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). There is also the Communications Act, the underlying purpose of which is to categorize, license, and regulate communications, which is another word for speech.

In contrast, the Supreme Court has generally adhered to the principle that any categorization of institutional media is itself contrary to the First Amendment. Although, the Court has carved out an exception for FCC regulated communications; see, NBC v. US, 319 U.S. 190 (1943) and Red Lion v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).

Rotunda and Nowak sum up the Supreme Court's general interpretation. "The Court has refused to draw any constitutional distinction between speech and ``the press,´´ or between speech and the ``institutional press,´´ or between speech and the ``organized media.´´ The reason for the judicial unwillingness to make such a differentiation lies, in part, in the fact that there is no principled way of doing so." See, Ronald Rotunda and John Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law, 2nd ed., at vol. 4, pages 112-113, ¶ 20.19.

See also, the concurring opinion of former Chief Justice Warren Burger in FNB v. Bellotti, which is reported at 435 U.S. 765 (1978). He wrote that "The very task of including some entities within the ``institutional press´´ while excluding others, whether undertaken by legislature, court, or administrative agency, is reminiscent of the abhorred licensing system of Tudor and Stuart England -- a system the First Amendment was intended to ban from this country."

"Because the First Amendment was meant to guarantee freedom to express and communicate ideas, I can see no difference between the right of those who seek to disseminate ideas by way of a newspaper and those who give lectures or speeches and seek to enlarge the audience by publication and wide dissemination", wrote Burger. "In short, the First Amendment does not ``belong´´ to any definable category of persons or entities: It belongs to all who exercise its freedoms."

And see, the 1972 opinion of the Supreme Court in Branzburg v. Hayes, which is reported at 408 U.S. 665. The Court wrote that "Freedom of the press is a `fundamental personal right´ which `is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. ... The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.´ ... The informative function asserted by representatives of the organized press ... is also performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists. Almost any author may quite accurately assert that he is contributing to the flow of information to the public ..."

10/19. Matt Niemeyer was named Counselor at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). He is currently Assistant USTR for Congressional Affairs. In this capacity he worked to secure Congressional approval of the free trade agreements (FTAs) with Central American nations and the Dominican Republic, Australia, Chile, Morocco and Singapore. He previously worked for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Independent Insurance Agents of America, former Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-NY), the National Republican Congressional Committee, and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). See, USTR release.

10/19. James Mendenhall was named General Counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). He has been the acting General Counsel since February of 2005. Before that, he was Assistant USTR for Services, Investment, and Intellectual Property. He worked on the intellectual property rights provisions of FTAs and the Doha round. He has worked for the USTR since 2001. Before that, he was a partner in the law firm of Powell Goldstein Fraser & Murphy. See, USTR release.

10/19. Justin McCarthy was named Assistant USTR for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison. He is a new hire at the USTR. He previously was Director of Government Relations for Pfizer. Before joining Pfizer in 2001, he was Legislative Director for Mayer Brown & Platt's international trade practice. And before that, he worked for former Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-IL). See, USTR release.

10/19. The Senate Commerce Committee announced the postponement of its mark up of S 1063, the "IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005", to Wednesday, November 2, 2005. The SCC will hold a mark up session on October 20, 2005, at 2:00 PM to mark up S __, a DTV bill, S 1753, the "Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act", and S 967, the "Truth in Broadcasting Act of 2005".

10/19. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC), gave a speech in Washington DC on legislation relating to a transition to digital television (DTV), and the SCC's mark up session scheduled for October 20.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will consider several non-technology related items. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet at 9:30 AM. It will resume consideration of HR 3058, the transportation & treasury appropriations bill.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs's (OJP) Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative Federal Advisory Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 16, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 157, at Page 48195. Location: Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The SJC frequently cancels of postpones meetings without notice. Press contact: Blain Rethmeier (Specter) at 202 224-5225, David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242 or Tracy Schmaler (Leahy) at 202 224-2154. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM - 12:00 PM. The House Science Committee will hold a hearing titled "Science, Technology, and Global Economic Competitiveness". The witnesses will be Norman Augustine, former Ch/CEO of Lockheed Martin, Roy Vagelos, former Ch/CEO of Merck & Co., and William Wulf, President of the National Academy of Engineering and Vice-Chair of the National Research Council. Press contact: Joe Pouliot at Joe dot Pouliot at mail dot house dot gov or 202 225-6371. Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee will hold a hearing titled "VA's IT Management -- Is it Ready for the 21st Century?". The witnesses will be Gordon Mansfield (Department of Veterans Affairs), Robert McFarland (VA Assistant Secretary for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer), Robert Lynch (Veterans Health Administration), Jack McCoy (Veterans Benefit Administration), Linda Koontz (Director of Information Management at the Government Accountability Office), and Paul Wohlleben (Information Technology Association of America). See, notice. Press contact: Jeff Schrade 202 224-9093. Location: Room 418, Russell Building.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "Federal and State Regulation of the U.S. Wireless Telecom Industry: Striking the Right Balance". The speakers will include Chuck Davidson (former Florida PUC Commissioner), Debra Berlyn (AARP), John Rogovin (Wilmer Cutler Hale & Dorr, former FCC General Counsel). The price to attend ranges from $15-$25. For more information, call 202 626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

DATE, TIME AND LOCATION CHANGE. 2:00 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee will meet to mark up four bills: S __, a DTV bill, S 1753, the "Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act", S 967, the "Truth in Broadcasting Act of 2005", and S 1063, the "IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005". See, notice. Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) 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 325, Russell Building.

2:00 - 4:30 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy (ACICIP) will meet. The agenda for this meeting includes "industry input for the first meeting of the newly-formed U.S.-India Information and Communications Technologies Working Group" and "a status report on preparations for the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, which will take place in Tunis, Tunisia from November 16-18, 2005. Contact Robert Watts at wattsrm at state dot gov by 5:00 PM to request permission to attend. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 30, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 189, at Page 57350. Location: Loy Henderson Auditorium, Truman Building, DOS, 2201 C Street, NW.

4:00 PM. The House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces  and Intelligence Committee's Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence will hold a joint hearing on the Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) program. This program involves the development of a long range manned aircraft for surveillance and intelligence gathering operations, including communications intelligence (COMINT), electronic intelligence (ELINT), electro optical (EO), infrared (IR), synthetic aperture radar (SAR), and moving target indicator (MTI). The scheduled witnesses include Claude Bolton, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology). Location: Room 2118, Rayburn Building.

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "Annual Fall Reception with the FCC Bureau Chiefs". The price to attend ranges from $20-$75. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: J.W. Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Verizon v. FCC, No. 04-1331. Judges Ginsburg, Rogers and Griffith will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the joint petition filed by CTIA and the Rural Cellular Association (RCA) requesting relief of the FCC's requirement that wireless licensees that employ a handset based Enhanced 911 (E911) Phase II location technology achieve 95% penetration of location capable handsets among their subscribers by December 31, 2005. See, FCC notice [4 pages in PDF]. This proceeding is WT Docket No. 05-288. This is also the deadline to submit initial comments regarding Alltel's related petition. See, notice [PDF] in WT Docket No. 05-287. This is also the deadline to submit initial comments regarding Sprint Nextel's related petition. See, notice [PDF] in WT Docket No. 05-286.

12:00 NOON. Adam Mossoff (Michigan State University College of Law) will deliver a paper titled "Who Cares What Thomas Jefferson Thought About Patents: Reconsidering the Patent 'Privilege' in Historical Context". This event is a part of the George Washington University Law School's (GWULS) intellectual property workshop series. RSVP by Tuesday, October 18, to Rosalie Kouassi at rkouassi at law dot gwu dot edu. Location: GWULS, Faculty Conference Center, 5th Floor Burns, 716 20th St., NW.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Engineering & Technical Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be a discussion of upcoming activities. RSVP to Deborah Wiggins at dwiggins at g2w2 dot com. Location: Goldberg Godles Wiener & Wright, 1229 19th Street, NW.

Day one of a two day conference hosted by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) titled "18th Annual Update 2005 Conference on Export Controls and Policy". See, conference web site. The price to attend ranges from $550-675. Location: Renaissance Hotel, Washington DC.

Day one of a three day conference hosted by the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) titled "4th  International Judges Conference on Intellectual Property Law". The only event on Monday, October 24 is a dinner and reception at the Library of Congress. See, conference brochure [PDF].

The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will host a one day event titled "Competition and Real Estate Workshop". On September 8, 2005, the DOJ filed a complaint in District Court against the National Association of Realtors (NAR). See, story titled "DOJ Sues National Association of Realtors for Obstructing Internet Based Brokers" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,210, September 9, 2005. See, FTC notice and notice in the Federal Register, September 8, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 173, at Pages 53362 - 53364. Location: FTC, Satellite Building Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on several pending nominations, including Matthew Slaughter and Katherine Baicker (to be members of the Council of Economic Advisors). See, notice. Location: Room 538, Dirksen Building.

11:30 - 2:00 PM. The Heritage Foundation will host a panel discussion titled "Hanging Up on Regulation: The Case for Telecom Reform". The speakers will be Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), James Gattuso (Heritage), and Michael Franc (Heritage). See, notice. Location: Lehrman Auditorium, Heritage, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers and Diversity Committees will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be "Welcome to the Communications Bar". The speakers will include FCBA President Michele Farquhar (Hogan & Hartson), Russell Frisby (Kirkpatrick Lockhart Nicholson Graham). RSVP to Wendy Parish at wendy at fcba dot org. For more information, contact Natalie Roisman at 202 418-1655 or Jason Friedrich at 202 354-1340. Location: Akin Gump, 1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW, 10th Floor.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Laboratory Division will hold a round table titled "Radiofrequency Exposure Compliance Procedures for evaluating 3-G Portable Devices". For more information, contact Patricia Wright at 301 362-3001 or patricia dot wright at fcc dot gov. See, notice [PDF]. Location: Conference Room, FCC Laboratory, 7435 Oakland Mills Road, Columbia, MD.

Day two of a two day conference hosted by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) titled "18th Annual Update 2005 Conference on Export Controls and Policy". See, conference web site. The price to attend ranges from $550-675. Location: Renaissance Hotel, Washington DC.

Day two of a three day conference hosted by the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) titled "4th  International Judges Conference on Intellectual Property Law". Jon Dudas, head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), will deliver the luncheon address. See, conference brochure [PDF]. Location: Mandarin Oriental Hotel, between Maine and Maryland Avenues, and 12th and 14th Streets, SW.

Deadline to submit recommendations to the Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service (NTIS) regarding candidates to be members of the NTIS Advisory Board. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 26, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 165, at Page 50303.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "How to Handle Opposition and Cancellation Actions Before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board". The speakers will include Judge Karen Kuhlke (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board), Judge Jeffrey Quinn (TTAB), Gary Krugman (Sughrue Mion), and Leigh Ann Lindquist, (Sughrue Mion). The price to attend ranges from $70-$105. For more information, call 202 626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Foreign Investment in FCC Licensees". The price to attend ranges from $50-$125. See, notice and registration form [MS Word]. For more information, contact Brian Weimer 202 371-7604. Location: Skadden Arps, Conference Room 11A, 700 14th Street, NW.

Day three of a three day conference hosted by the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) titled "4th  International Judges Conference on Intellectual Property Law".  Judge Paul Michel of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will deliver the luncheon address. See, conference brochure [PDF]. Location: Mandarin Oriental Hotel, between Maine and Maryland Avenues, and 12th and 14th Streets, SW.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in In Re Core Communications, Inc., Nos. 04-1368, 04-1423, and 04-1424, petitions for review of an FCC order regarding forbearing from applying certain interim intercarrier compensation rules. See, FCC brief [65 pages in PDF]. Judges Sentelle, Tatel and Garland will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 25, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 57, at Page 15316, and notice in the Federal Register, October 5, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 192, at Pages 58221 - 58222. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Commission Meeting Room (TW-C305).

Day one of a three day convention of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). See, convention web site. Location: Marriott Wardman Park, 2660 Woodley Park Road, NW.

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.