10/21. The House Commerce Committee (HCC) approved the "Digital Television Transition Act of 2005" by a vote of 33-17.

This is Title I [33 pages in PDF] of a larger bill that also includes provisions related to Medicaid, Katrina health relief, and Katrina and Rita energy relief.

This title sets a date of January 1, 2009 for the return of television broadcasters' spectrum in 700 MHz band now being used for analog broadcasting. 24 MHz of spectrum would be made available for public safety uses. 60 MHz would be for advanced wireless services.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the Chairman of the HCC, stated on Tuesday, October 25, that "Enactment of this legislation by December would give us three years to prepare for the transition. That is more than enough time for manufacturers and retailers to move low-cost digital televisions and converter-boxes into the market, for the FCC to complete the channel allocation process, for broadcasters to finalize their digital facilities, and for government and industry to prepare consumers for the transition."

On Thursday, October 20, 2005, the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) approved related language titled the "Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005" by a vote of 19-3. See, bill language [PDF] and SCC release. See also, story titled "Senate Commerce Committee Approves DTV Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,238, October 24, 2005.

The SCC language provides for a transfer date of April 7, 2009.

The House language provides $990 Million for a "Digital Television Conversion Fund", to fund a digital-to-analog converter box program. It provides for a consumer education program and mandates. It also provides that new televisions of 13 inches or more must include a digital tuner by March 1, 2007.

The House language also requires cable systems with a capacity greater than 550 MHz to transmit a standard definition version of a must carry broadcast signal as well as an analog version of that signal for five years after the hard deadline. After five years, all cable systems must transmit whatever digital version of a station is sent to them by a broadcaster.

Neither the House nor Senate language currently contains a broadcast flag provision.

Janice Obuchowski, Executive Director of the High Tech DTV Coalition, praised the HCC in a release. She said that "We congratulate the House Commerce Committee on taking another giant step towards bringing the benefits of wireless broadband and public safety communications to the American public ... We are gratified that there is bipartisan support of the high common ground of the hard date and confident that differences in implementation details will be worked through as this legislative process unfolds."

Rep. Barton also said that this legislation will create a "renaissance of television".

10/20. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced in a notice [PDF] that it will violate the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals (11thCir) announced in its May 10, 2005 opinion [22 pages in PDF] in American Bankers Insurance Group v. US.

Introduction. This case concerns 26 U.S.C. § 4251, which imposes a 3 percent excise tax on some, but not all, communications services. This tax is sometimes referred to by its opponents as the "Spanish American War tax", since it was originally imposed to help fund that war. 26 U.S.C. § 4252 contains the applicable definitions. This case involves interpretation of these definitions.

This case is not about the constitutionality of the excise tax on phones. The tax remains legal. This case is about which phone services are subject to the tax. American Bankers Insurance Group (ABIG) purchased a communications service from AT&T that it asserted was not covered by the statute. The IRS said that it was, and continued to collect taxes. The Court of Appeals, applying the plain meaning of the statute, held that the service in question falls outside of the definition of taxable services.

The IRS did not petition to Supreme Court for writ of certiorari in the ABIG case. Nor can it point to a split between the various circuits on this issue. Yet, it stated in its notice that it will continue to collect excise taxes on "communications services similar to those at issue" in the ABIG case. Moreover, it will collect these taxes in all circuits, including the 11th Circuit.

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in 1803 in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." The IRS now rejects this principle. (This case is reported at 5 U.S. 137.)

This IRS notice may have significance beyond the collection of excise taxes on communications services not covered by the statute. The IRS has also announced an interest in expanding the scope of this excise tax to include information services. See, story titled "IRS Publishes Advance NPRM Regarding Expanding the Excise Tax on Telephones to Include New Technologies" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 931, July 6, 2004.

Since the IRS has ignored the plain meaning of the statute excise tax statute, and the holding of the Court of Appeals, in one tax scenario (toll telephone service that does not vary with distance), it may be inclined to ignore the plain meaning of the statute in another scenario (information services).

The Statute. § 4251 imposes a tax on certain "communications services". § 4251(b) provides that the term ''communications services'' means "(A) local telephone service; (B) toll telephone service; and (C) teletypewriter exchange service".

The ABIG case concerns "toll telephone service".

26 U.S.C. § 4252(b) provides that "toll telephone service" means

"(1) a telephonic quality communication for which
   (A) there is a toll charge which varies in amount with the distance and elapsed transmission time of each individual communication and
   (B) the charge is paid within the United States, and
(2) a service which entitles the subscriber, upon payment of a periodic charge (determined as a flat amount or upon the basis of total elapsed transmission time), to the privilege of an unlimited number of telephonic communications to or from all or a substantial portion of the persons having telephone or radio telephone stations in a specified area which is outside the local telephone system area in which the station provided with this service is located."

(Parentheses in original.)

That is, to be taxable, a "toll telephone service" must include a "toll charge which varies in amount with the distance and elapsed transmission time". The key word here is "and". The ABIG asserted that "and" means "and". The IRS asserted that, in this case, "and" means "or".

ABIG v. IRS.  The Court of Appeals recited the pertinent facts. "Between October 1, 1998, and March 31, 2002, taxpayer, ABIG, purchased interstate, international, and (in five states) intrastate long distance service from AT&T. ABIG paid a uniform toll rate for all interstate calls made within the United States, uniform toll rates for all intrastate long distance calls made within the five states in which it purchased service, and toll rates for international calls (other than calls to and from Mexico) that varied only according to which country the calls were being placed." (Parentheses in original.)

That is, this is a charge that does not vary with distance, but that does vary with elapsed time.

AT&T collected from ABIG federal excise taxes on these services pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 4252(b)(1) and then gave the money to the IRS.

AIBG filed refund claims with the IRS. The IRS ignored these refund claims.

ABIG then filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDFl) seeking a refund of its money. The District Court granted summary judgment to the IRS. ABIG appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, and directed the District Court to enter judgment for ABIG.

The IRS argued that, notwithstanding the statute's use of the word "and", it could collect the tax on any service that either varies with distance or varies with elapsed time. And since ABIG's service varied with elapsed time, it did not matter that is did not vary with distance. It was covered by the statute.

The gist of the IRS's argument is that "telephone toll service", at the time of the Spanish American War, and when the statutory language was amended in 1965, meant long distance service. The AT&T monopoly charged on the basis of distance and time, and the statute reflected this. However, the IRS argues, if a service provider now offers a service for which it bills on the basis of time, but not distance, it should still be covered, notwithstanding the statutory language.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the word "and" means "and", not "or". It held that the meaning of the word "and" is not ambiguous. Therefore, it held that the District Court erred, and that the IRS is wrong.

See also, story titled "IRS Loses Appeal Over 3% Excise Tax on Communications" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,133, May 11, 2005.

This case is American Bankers Ins. Group v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 04-10720, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, D.C. No. 03-21822 CV-PCH. Judge Dubina wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judge Anderson and Black joined. The Court of Appeals opinion is also reported at 408 F.3d 1328. The District Court opinion is also reported at 308 F. Supp. 2d 1360.

IRS Notice. The IRS announced that it "will continue to assess and collect the tax under § 4251 on all taxable communications services, including communications services similar to those at issue in the cases. Collectors should continue to collect the tax, including from taxpayers within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit."

The IRS added in its notice that "Persons paying for taxable communications services (taxpayers) are required to pay the tax to a collecting agent (the person receiving the payment on which tax is imposed), and collecting agents are required to pay over the tax to the United States Treasury and to file the required returns. Taxpayers may preserve any claims for overpayments by filing administrative claims for refund with the Service pursuant to § 6511. Taxpayers are advised, however, that these claims, including claims for which appellate venue would lie in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, will not be processed while there are pending cases in other United States Courts of Appeals." (Parentheses in original.)

This notice also concedes that "The government did not seek review by the United States Supreme Court in American Bankers Insurance Group."

It continues that "the government will continue to litigate this important issue. The government is prosecuting appeals in five different circuits. The appeal in Office Max v. United States, 309 F. Supp. 2d 984 (N.D. Ohio 2004), has been briefed and argued, and the parties are awaiting a decision.

It also states that "The principal author of this notice is Barbara B. Franklin of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel".

The IRS notice is numbered "Notice 2005-79". It is undated. However, an index in the IRS web site associates this notice with the phrase "20-Oct-2005". Although, it is not clear if this is the effective date, publication date, adoption date, or what.

Legal Options for the IRS. Were the IRS to conduct its operations in accordance with law, it would have several options. First, it could have petitioned for writ of certiorari to the 11th Circuit. Had it done so, and obtained a reversal, it could collect excise taxes on ABIG type services. The time limit for filing such a petition has lapsed.

Second, the IRS could recommend and obtain from the Congress an amendment to the statute that brings ABIG type services within the scope of the statute. It has not obtained such an amendment. Nor is it likely to obtain such a change. There are bills pending in the Congress that would abolish the tax, not expand it.

For example, on April 27, 2005, Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA), and 39 other Representatives, introduced HR 1898, the "Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2005". See also, story titled "Rep. Miller Introduces Bill to Repeal Excise Tax on Phones" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,128, May 4, 2005. See also, S 1321, the "Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2005".

There were similar bills in the 105th, 106th, 107th, and 108th Congresses. None became law. See, HR 3648 in the 105th Congress, HR 3916 in the 106th Congress, HR 236 in the 107th Congress, and HR 2957 in the 108th Congress. The House approved HR 3916 (106th) on a roll call vote of 420-2, on May 25, 2000. See, Roll Call No. 233. However, the full Senate did not approve the bill. HR 236 (107th) had 149 sponsors.

This legislative history suggests that there is not enough support to move the law in either direction, but that there is more support for abolishing the excise tax than for expanding it.

There other legal option for the IRS would be to follow the plain meaning of the statute, as interpreted by the Court of Appeals, and cease collecting excise taxes on ABIG type services.

Reaction. Steve Largent, P/CEO of the CTIA, wrote in a release that "I'm outraged that the IRS ignored the 11th Circuit Court's clear ruling on the FET in American Bankers Insurance Group, Inc. v. United States, and in doing so robbed America’s 200 million wireless subscribers of needed tax relief."

Largent (at right) also argued as a matter of policy that the entire excise tax, and not just the IRS's attempt to extend it to the services at issue in the ABIG case, is wrong. He wrote that "Having been put in place more than 100 years ago to finance a war that has long since been won, the FET is now an outdated and unnecessary tax that has no place in a 21st century high-technology economy."

He continued that "The American wireless consumer is buried under a heap of taxes and fees, and last week's news from the IRS merely adds insult to injury. As of right now, the average wireless consumer in America pays more than 17% of his or her monthly bill in taxes and fees. This is a completely unjustifiable rate of taxation, and I strongly encourage the IRS to reverse course and protect the wireless consumer from paying what is clearly an illegal tax."

10/26. Peter Allgeier, of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), wrote a letter [PDF] to Sun Zhenyu, the People's Republic of China's ambassador to the World Trade Organization (WTO), requesting information regarding "specific cases of IPR enforcement that China has identified for the years 2001 through 2004".

The letter states that this request is made "pursuant to Article 63.3 of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights", which is also know as the TRIPS Agreement [33 pages in PDF].

Article 63.3 provides, in full, that "Each Member shall be prepared to supply, in response to a written request from another Member, information of the sort referred to in paragraph 1. A Member, having reason to believe that a specific judicial decision or administrative ruling or bilateral agreement in the area of intellectual property rights affects its rights under this Agreement, may also request in writing to be given access to or be informed in sufficient detail of such specific judicial decisions or administrative rulings or bilateral agreements."

In addition, Rob Portman, the USTR, wrote in a release that "The United States is deeply concerned by the violations of intellectual property rights in China ... The development of intellectual property is one of the driving forces of U.S. economic competitiveness, and we will utilize all tools at our disposal to ensure that U.S. intellectual property rights are protected."

Portman (at right) added that "Based on all available information, piracy and counterfeiting remain rampant in China despite years of engagement on this issue. If China believes that it is doing enough to protect intellectual property, then it should view this process as a chance to prove its case ... Our goal is to get detailed information that will help pinpoint exactly where the enforcement system is breaking down so we can decide appropriate next steps."

Robert Holleyman, P/CEO of the Business Software Alliance (BSA), stated in a release that "Ambassador Portman recently requested greater transparency from the Chinese government on IPR infringement levels and enforcement activity. BSA sees this level of engagement as critical to the progress we must make on the ground in China to reduce piracy levels from the current 90 percent and applauds Ambassador Portman for his commitment to addressing this ongoing problem. Greater transparency will provide the world community with the information it needs to better assist Chinese authorities to live up to the letter and the spirit of their WTO Trips agreements and chip away at China’s severe and persistent intellectual property piracy problem."

Eric Smith, President of the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), praised the USTR. He stated in a release [PDF] that "Over the almost four years since China entered the WTO, the enforcement authorities, to the best of our knowledge, have brought, at the most, a handful of criminal cases against infringers of our members’ copyrights and convicted even fewer. As an inevitable consequence of this failure, the theft of U.S. copyright material continues unabated. IIPA conservatively estimates that losses due to piracy of U.S. copyrights in China in 2004 exceeded $2.5 billion and that piracy levels continue at around 90% of the market".

Myron Brilliant, of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stated in a release that "We hope that China will view today’s requests by the United States, Japan, and Switzerland as an opportunity to demonstrate to the world its strong commitment to enforce IPR ... China needs to shed light on what it is doing to enforce its IPR laws and provide evidence that its current enforcement is actually deterring IP theft."

10/20. The International Publishers Association (IPA) and PEN USA issued a Joint Declaration [PDF] that criticizes Google, on copyright grounds, for its Google Print Library Project.

The declaration states that "The IPA and PEN USA are alarmed about the deliberate and continued disregard of the interests and concerns that they and their members have repeatedly raised with Google regarding the operation of the Google Print Library Project."

Google has already been sued in two actions brought by the Authors Guild and by a group of five book publishing companies. For further background on this program, see, story titled "Google, Publishers and Authors Debate Google's Print for Libraries Program" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,239, October 25, 2005.

The declaration states that "The digitisation of an entire work is an act which requires authorization by the author, or the publisher whichever owns or controls the relevant rights. It remains the unassailable, inalienable fundamental right of the author to decide whether -- and if so, to what extent -- someone should digitise, index and make their works available through search engines and the Internet, and to decide whether the additional exposure and availability through the Internet is sufficient consideration, or not."

Second, it states that "The act of first digitisation, like virtually no other act of copying, is a highly significant step that enables with great ease onward copying, distribution and making available. It does not matter whether Google's stated present plans are limited. The mere existence of an (unauthorised) digital copy of a copyrighted work put the author's ability to control the further use of her or his works at risk."

Third, it states that "Requiring authors or publishers to search and enquire whether potentially thousands of organisations are using their work, and to object to each such use, does in practice destroy their fundamental right to determine the way their works are exploited. ``Opting out´´ of the Google Print Library programme amounts to an unreasonable burden, and as a practical matter destroys the essence of reproduction right and of copyright generally."

The IPA and PEN USA conclude that "Google should digitise works only once permission has been granted by the rightsholding creator, i.e., either the author or the publisher; Google should respect that silence does not amount to authorisation.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It may take up HR 420, the "Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005", a bill that addresses FRCP Rule 11 violations, and forum shopping. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet 9:30 AM. It will resume consideration of HR 3010, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill.

9:00 AM. The House Armed Services Committee's (HASC) Asymmetric and Unconventional Threats Panel will hold a hearing titled "Cyber Security, Information Assurance and Information Superiority". The witnesses will include Eugene Spafford (Purdue University and the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee). Location: Room 2118, Rayburn Building.

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee may hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of several Department of Justice (DOJ) nominations, including Thomas Barnett (to be an Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division), Steven Bradbury (AAG for the Office of Legal Counsel), and Wan Kim (AAG for the Civil Rights Division). The agenda also includes two bills related to personal data and privacy, including S 1789, the "Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005", and S 751, the "Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act". The agenda also includes three bills pertaining to trademarks and counterfeiting: S 1699, the "Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act", S 1095, the "Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005", and HR 683, the "Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005". Most of these bill have been listed on many previous agenda. The SJC rarely follows the agenda for its business meetings. The SJC frequently cancels of postpones meetings without notice. See, 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. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

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.

POSTPONED. 10:00 AM. The House Financial Services Committee's (HFSC) Subcommittee on Financial Institutions will hold a hearing on HR 3997, the "Financial Data Protection Act of 2005." Location: Room 2128, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will meet. See, FCC notice and agenda [PDF], 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).

2:00 PM. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing titled "The Status of World Trade Organization Negotiations". The witnesses will be Peter Allgeier (Deputy U.S. Trade Representative), Jim Jarrett (Intel), Craig Lang (Iowa Farm Bureau Federation), Jeffrey Shafer (Citigroup), and Ed Gresser (Progressive Policy Institute). See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

POSTPONED. 2:30 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold an oversight hearing titled "An Investigation into the FBI's Use of Confidential Informants". Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

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.

The House may meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. See, agenda [PDF]. The event will be webcast by the FCC. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).

RESCHEDULED FROM SEPTEMBER 30. 12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Legislative Practice and Wireless Telecommunications Practice Committees will host a lunch titled "DTV Transition". The speakers will include Rudy Baca (Precursor Group), Kathy Gramp (Congressional Budget Office), and Alice Tornquist (Qualcomm). The price to attend is $15. Registrations and cancellations are due by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, October 25, 2005. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, NW., 6th Floor.

Day two 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.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding eliminating Part 23 of the FCC's rules governing International Fixed Public Radiocommunication Services (IFPRS), and instead regulate IFPRS pursuant to Part 101. This NPRM is FCC 05-130 in IB Docket No. 05-216. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 28, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 187, at Pages 56620 - 56621.

Deadline to submit nominations to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireline Competition Bureau for seven positions on the Board of Directors of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). See, FCC release [PDF].

Day three 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.

9:00 AM - 5:30 PM. Day one of a two day public workshop hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the vulnerability of the NIST approved cryptographic hash algorithm, Secure Hash Algorithm-1 (SHA-1). See, notice in the Federal Register, June 14, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 113, at Pages 34451 - 34452. Location: NIST, Green Auditorium, Building 101, Gaithersburg, MD.

10:00 AM. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, No. 04-885. This is a bankruptcy case involving the authority of the Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity. State sovereign immunity is also involved in the context of Congressional legislation regarding intellectual property. See, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in State Sovereign Immunity Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,109, April 5, 2005.

Day one of a five day conference sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Networks and Information Integration (OSD NII) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff titled "DoD Spectrum Summit 2005". See, notice.For more information, contact Patty dot Hopkins at osd dot mil or 703 607-0613. Location: Radisson Hotel, Annapolis, MD.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding amending the FCC's amateur radio service rules to eliminate the requirement that individuals pass a telegraphy examination in order to qualify for any amateur radio operator license. This NPRM is FCC 05-143 in WT Docket No. 05-235. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 31, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 168, at Pages 51705 - 51707.

Deadline to submit reply 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 reply comments regarding Alltel's related petition. See, notice [PDF] in WT Docket No. 05-287. This is also the deadline to submit reply comments regarding Sprint Nextel's related petition. See, notice [PDF] in WT Docket No. 05-286.

9:00 AM - 5:30 PM. Day two of a two day public workshop hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the vulnerability of the NIST approved cryptographic hash algorithm, Secure Hash Algorithm-1 (SHA-1). See, notice in the Federal Register, June 14, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 113, at Pages 34451 - 34452. Location: NIST, Green Auditorium, Building 101, Gaithersburg, MD.

2:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold a hearing on pending nominations. 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. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Patent Damages: Discovery, Pre-trial and Litigation Strategies". The speakers will be Andrew Aitken (Venable), Charles Fish (AOL Time Warner), and Clifton McCann (Venable). The price to attend ranges from $70-$125. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

Day two of a five day conference sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Networks and Information Integration (OSD NII) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff titled "DoD Spectrum Summit 2005". See, notice.For more information, contact Patty dot Hopkins at osd dot mil or 703 607-0613. Location: Radisson Hotel, Annapolis, MD.

? The Senate Commerce Committee may meet to mark up S 1063, the "IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005". This bill had previously been scheduled for mark up on October 19 and 20, 2005. 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: ___?

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "Trade with China: What Next?". The speakers will include David Stewart (aide to Rep. Phil English (R-PA)), Haiying Jiang (Embassy of the Peoples Republic of China), Patricia Mears (National Association of Manufacturers), John Greenwald (Wilmer Cutler), and Keith Loken (Department of State). 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.

Day three of a five day conference sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Networks and Information Integration (OSD NII) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff titled "DoD Spectrum Summit 2005". See, notice.For more information, contact Patty dot Hopkins at osd dot mil or 703 607-0613. Location: Radisson Hotel, Annapolis, MD.

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The event will be webcast by the FCC. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).

5:00 PM. Pamela Samuelson (UC Berkeley) will give a lecture titled "Copyright and Consumer Protection". There will be a reception at 5:00 PM. The lecture will be at 6:00 PM. The lecture is hosted by the American University Washington College of Law's (AUWCL) Program on Intellectual Property in the Public Interest. RSVP to Steve Roberts at iplecture at wcl dot american dot edu or 202 274-4148. Location: AUWCL, 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Room 603.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will meet to mark up HR 4127 [16 pages in PDF], the "Data Accountability and Trust Act". Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) will preside. The meeting will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202 225-5735 or Paul Flusche (Stearns) at 202 225-5744. See, notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON. The House Homeland Security Committee's (HHSC) Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity will hold a hearing titled "The Future of TSA’s Registered Traveler Program". Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.

Day one of a two day event sponsored by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Standing Committee on Law and National Security titled "15th Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law". Location: Crystal City Marriott, Arlington, VA.

Day four of a five day conference sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Networks and Information Integration (OSD NII) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff titled "DoD Spectrum Summit 2005". See, notice.For more information, contact Patty dot Hopkins at osd dot mil or 703 607-0613. Location: Radisson Hotel, Annapolis, MD.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a panel discussion titled "Interconnection Without Regulation: Lessons for Telecommunications Reform from Four Network Industries". The speakers will be Richard Levine (PFF), Bill Hunt (Level 3 Communications), Lyman Chapin (Interisle Consulting Group), and Donald Baker (a former AAG for the Antitrust Division). >Randolph May (PFF) will moderate. Lunch will be served. See, notice. Press contact: Patrick Ross at 202 289-8928 or pross at pff dot org or Amy Smorodin at 202 289-8928 or asmorodin at pff dot org. Location: Room B369, Rayburn Building, Capitol Hill.

Day two of a two day event sponsored by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Standing Committee on Law and National Security titled "15th Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law". Location: Crystal City Marriott, Arlington, VA.

Day five of a five day conference sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Networks and Information Integration (OSD NII) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff titled "DoD Spectrum Summit 2005". See, notice.For more information, contact Patty dot Hopkins at osd dot mil or 703 607-0613. Location: Radisson Hotel, Annapolis, MD.

10/26. President Bush gave a speech on economic issues. He discussed, among other topics, using electronic records in health care, and the Doha round trade negotiations.

He stated that "we're working to expand information technology in the field of medicine. If you've ever looked at the -- the IT part of medicine, you'll be amazed at how backwards it is. It's easier to get information on buying a car than it is on health care items. And that doesn't make any sense. So we've got a goal to computerize medical records that will help make America's health care more transparent and more efficient, which will help patients make rational choices and help doctors save lives."

He later addressed trade negotiations. He said that "To continue to open up new markets for goods and services and farm products, we have got to work for a free and fair global trading system. The United States has taken a leadership role in working toward a successful conclusion to the Doha trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization. A successful Doha round will reduce and then eliminate tariffs and other barriers on farm and industrial goods, will phase out unfair agricultural subsidies, and open up global markets for services and products and leave all nations better off. The Doha negotiations are now at a critical point."

The World Trade Organization (WTO) will hold its Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong, China, on December 13-18, 2005. See, WTO notice.

Bush also said that "I'm going to continue to pursue trade agreements on a bilateral, regional and global level, to open up markets and to maintain our position as a strong economy in the world."

"It's important that people in Washington not use trade as a political issue", said Bush. "I've been disappointed with how the trade debates have gone in Washington. In the 1990s, many Democrats supported important trade agreements such as NAFTA. Fewer and fewer Democrats today are willing to stand by that position and support trade bills that are good for American workers. It's time to get politics out of trade policy and focus on what's best for the United States of America."

10/25. Lynn Starr was named federal regulatory vice president at Qwest Communications. She has previously worked for Issue Dynamics (IDI), SBC, Ameritech, and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA). See, Qwest release.

10/26. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property postponed its mark up of HR 4093, the "Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act of 2005", which had been scheduled for October 26 at 3:00 PM. This bill would split the 9th Circuit, and create new judgeships for the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Bankruptcy Courts.

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.