3/2. The Senate approved the conference report [PDF] on HR 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005", by a vote of 89-10. See, Roll Call No. 29.

The House approved this conference report in December of 2005. See, story titled "House Approves Conference Report on PATRIOT Act Extension Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,273, Thursday, December 15, 2005.

President Bush will sign the bill. He stated in a release that "I applaud the Senate for voting to renew the Patriot Act and overcoming the partisan attempts to block its passage. The terrorists have not lost the will or the ability to attack us. The Patriot Act is vital to the war on terror and defending our citizens against a ruthless enemy. This bill will allow our law enforcement officials to continue to use the same tools against terrorists that are already used against drug dealers and other criminals, while safeguarding the civil liberties of the American people."

The ten votes against approval were cast by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Sen. Leahy offered his understanding of the legislative history of this bill, and his reasons for voting against it. He said that "Today's vote marks another stage in reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act. Our goal has always been to mend the PATRIOT Act, not to end it. To that end we passed a bipartisan bill with better provisions last July after it was unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee."

But, he said, "the House-Senate conference was hijacked. Democratic conferees were excluded at the request of the Bush-Cheney administration, and congressional Republicans wrote the bill. I worked to get that process and the bill back on track and, working with Chairman Specter, we were able to make some progress and get some helpful additions and changes. But the conference report that was insisted upon by the Bush-Cheney administration and passed by Republican leaders through the House was still flawed."

He added that "Last December, I worked with a bipartisan coalition of Senators to oppose final passage of that conference report and create some additional opportunities for improvements. That led to the Sununu bill which is in essence an amendment to the conference report." Sen. Leahy voted for Sen. Sununu's bill, S 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006", which the Senate approved on March 1.

However, Sen. Leahy argued that even with the changes to current law in the conference report "falls far too short and impinges too greatly on the liberties of Americans." And, he added that "We now see the Bush-Cheney administration seeking to twist the authorization for use of military force against al-Qaida into a justification for the secret, warrantless wiretapping of Americans' e-mails and telephone calls."

Sen. Feingold stated that the conference report "leaves the Patriot Act's expanded surveillance and law-enforcement powers largely intact. It does not accommodate legitimate concerns raised by both liberals and conservatives about inadequate checks on those powers."

He argued, for example, that the bill "should do away with the automatic, permanent gag orders that allow investigators to hide forever their demands for records from banks, libraries, doctors and other sources."

He continued that "When Congress approved the Patriot Act, it put its trust in prosecutors and investigators to use their expanded powers responsibly. It now appears that trust was misplaced. Authorities have gone on a snooping frenzy since 2001, issuing more than 30,000 secret demands for records per year, according to the Washington Post. And unless the law is changed, no one will ever know whether those records should have been gathered, or what has been done with them."

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) stated in the Senate that "the PATRIOT Act has helped to protect our homeland from subsequent terrorist attack. Reauthorizing this effective piece of legislation is an important victory in the continued war on terror. The PATRIOT Act safeguards freedoms of American citizens while aggressively curtailing the opportunities terrorists have to strike. We have added many provisions designed to ensure that our civil liberties remain unaffected despite the fact that civil libertarians were completely unable to point to one incident or provide any example of abuses under the original PATRIOT Act."

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stated in a release that "Today, the Senate faced a decision whether we continued to wage the war on terror or whether we retreated to a pre-9/11 security approach. Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of the Senate voted to extend the most critical anti-terrorism legislation enacted since 9/11. The 89-to-10 bipartisan vote illustrates an understanding that the PATRIOT Act has kept us safer while protecting the civil liberties we cherish."

Referring to Sen. Feingold, he added that "I remain thoroughly disappointed, though, that one of my state's Senators continued to play political games right until the end. His single-minded obsession with blocking this anti-terror law -- despite over 30 new civil liberty safeguards -- was categorically rejected by 89 Senators who chose to put our national security first."

3/1. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released its annual report to the Congress titled "2006 Trade Policy Agenda and the 2005 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program".

See, hyperlinks to PDF copies of the components of the report:

Table of Contents [4 pages in PDF].
I. 2006 Trade Policy Agenda [15 pages in PDF].
II. World Trade Organization [115 pages in PDF].
III. Regional & Bilateral Negotiations [86 pages in PDF].
IV Other Multilateral Activities [19 pages in PDF].
V. Trade Enforcement Activities [23 pages in PDF].
VI. Trade Policy Development [15 pages in PDF].
Annex I: U.S. Trade in 2005 [23 pages in PDF].
Annex II: WTO Background [PDF].
Annex III: List of Trade Agreements [PDF].

See also, USTR release.

The report, at Section I, states that "The Administration has focused on tangible progress on the bilateral, regional, and multilateral levels to expand trade opportunities. Our new and comprehensive agreements are tailored to reflect a world of high technology, complex new intellectual property standards", and other considerations.

The report states that "The Administration will continue to use all available tools to ensure that our trading partners live up to their obligations as WTO Members and FTA partners." In cites as an example that "the United States prevailed in a case involving unfair subsidies provided to a Korean semiconductor maker by the Korean government. In that case, the United States won the right to maintain countervailing duties on the illegally-subsidized semiconductors."

The report also states that "The Administration will also continue its Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!) initiative, in which nine U.S. government agencies work together and reach out to trade partners in Europe, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea in an effort to work together to confront the global scourge of intellectual property theft."

The report acknowledges that "There is concern that the U.S.-China trade relationship lacks balance in ... the protection of intellectual property".

It adds that "Intellectual property theft, counterfeiting, and copyright infringement in China continue to be a source of serious concern for the Administration. Chinese officials have made some progress to protect intellectual property, but the United States will continue to work with the Chinese government to demonstrate more reliable and consistent progress in this area."

The report, in Section V, addresses the success in getting China to remove its discriminatory tax on semiconductors.

This section continues that "IPR protection and enforcement in China remained a top priority of the Administration's trade policy in 2005. USTR carried out an OCR in 2005 to evaluate China’s implementation of various IPR commitments, including those made at the 15th annual Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) meeting held April 2004. The OCR revealed that China had not resolved critical deficiencies in IPR protection and enforcement and, as a result, infringements remain at unacceptably high levels. Based on information collected in the OCR, the United States concluded that China had not achieved its key commitment at the April 2004 JCCT meeting to significantly reduce IPR infringements throughout China."

The report outlines other actions that the U.S. has taken with respect to the lack of IPR protection and enforcement in China.

Section V also reviews IPR related actions pertaining to other nations. For example, with respect to Russia, the report states that "The 2005 Special 301 Report noted that Russia remained on the Priority Watch List due to serious and continuing concerns with Russia’s IPR regime, including weak IPR enforcement, rampant production of pirated optical media products, and an increasing problem with Internet piracy of copyrighted works. USTR announced in April 2005 that it would conduct an" out of cycle review (OCR).

It adds that "We are continuing to work with other governments, and consult with U.S. industry, to develop the best strategy to address Internet piracy. An important first step in the fight against Internet piracy was achieved at WIPO when it concluded two copyright treaties in 1996: the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) ..." And now, "We are also seeking to heighten standards of protection for intellectual property by incorporating standards of the WIPO Internet Treaties as substantive obligations in the bilateral and regional trade agreements that we negotiate. Our proposals in the on-going our FTA negotiations will continue to include up-to-date copyright and enforcement obligations to reflect the technological challenges we face today as well as those that may exist at the time negotiations are concluded."

The report, at Annex I, includes some statistics on trade. It states that "U.S. trade (exports and imports of goods and services, and the receipt and payment of earnings on foreign investment) increased by over 15 percent in 2005 to a value of approximately $4.3 trillion." (Footnote omitted. Parentheses in original.)

It states that total estimated exports of goods in 2005 was $893.8 Billion. The subcategory of "High Technology" was $214.3 Billion. In contrast, estimated exports of "Agriculture" goods amounted to a comparatively smaller $65.4 Billion. Yet, it is disputes over agricultural trade that dominate many trade negotiations.

On the services side, the report states that "U.S. exports of services grew roughly 11 percent in 2005 to $380 billion", and that "Services imports by the United States increased in 2005 by 9 percent to $323 billon". That is, the U.S. is a net exporter of services.

The report also provides data on trade in services. It states that estimated U.S. exports of services in 2005 in "computer and information services" amounted to $8.5 Billion. In contrast, estimated imports of "computer and information services" amounted to $5.8 Billion.

This data may be significant for several reasons. Importation of services in the category of "computer and information services" is one measure of IT outsourcing, which has been the subject of much debate in Washington DC. Yet, the U.S. is a net exporter of services in the category. Hence, protectionist policies implemented in the U.S., if reciprocated abroad, could impact U.S. exports more than U.S. imports. Moreover, the total amount of imports in this category constitutes less that 2% of all imports. ($5.8 Billion divided by $323 Billion.)

3/3. President Bush gave a speech, and answered questions, at the Indian School of Business in Hyderabad, India. See, transcript. Bush was asked a question about globalization and information technology (IT) outsourcing.

The questioner stated that 'India and China have experienced a lot of growth because of globalization and outsourcing, in general -- IT outsourcing, in particular". She added that in the U.S. "there is a lot of resistance in the media and also in the industry about outsourcing". She asked if the U.S. government has "a political strategy on how to manage, do a balancing act?"

Bush responded that "People do lose jobs as a result of globalization, and it's painful for those who lose jobs. But the fundamental question is, how does a government or society react to that. And it's basically one of two ways. One is to say, losing jobs is painful, therefore, let's throw up protectionist walls. And the other is to say, losing jobs is painful, so let's make sure people are educated so they can find -- fill the jobs of the 21st century. And let's make sure that there's pro-growth economic policies in place. What does that mean? That means low taxes; it means less regulation; it means fewer lawsuits; it means wise energy policy."

He added that he stated in his January 31, 2006, State of the Union address that "the United States of America will reject protectionism. We won't fear competition, we welcome competition, but we won't fear the future, either, because we intend to shape it through good policies."

He concluded that "that's how you deal in a global economy. You don't retrench and pull back. You welcome competition and you understand globalization provides great opportunities. And the class opportunity for our American farmers and entrepreneurs and small businesses to understand, there's a 300-million-person market of middle-class citizens here in India, and that if we can make a product they want, then it becomes -- at a reasonable price -- and then all of a sudden, people will be able to have a market here. And so -- and people in America should, I hope, maintain their confidence about the future."

3/2. President Bush traveled to India, where he met with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The two released statements regarding trade negotiations, intellectual property rights (IPR), and promoting innovation.

President Bush and Prime Minister Singh issued a U.S.-India Joint Statement on Trade. It first states that "We fully share the goal of completing the WTO Doha Development Agenda (DDA) before the end of 2006, and agree to work in partnership to help achieve this outcome."

The trade statement also addresses bilateral negotiations, and intellectual property rights specifically. It states that "While working for a successful Doha Round, we also reaffirm our commitment to strengthen and deepen bilateral trading ties."

"We agree to promote innovation, creativity and technological advancement by providing a vibrant intellectual property rights regime. As two dynamic economies with many complementary interests, the U.S. and India will seek to enhance bilateral trade and investment ties by expanding private sector contacts, dismantling barriers to trade, building trade capacities and strengthening trade-promoting institutions."

Bush and Singh also released a longer U.S.-India Joint Statement that includes a section on "Innovation and the Knowledge Economy". First, it announces "the establishment of a Bi-National Science and Technology Commission which the U.S. and India will co-fund. It will generate collaborative partnerships in science and technology and promote industrial research and development."

Second, it states that the U.S. and India will "work together to promote innovation, creativity and technological advancement by providing a vibrant intellectual property rights regime, and to cooperate in the field of intellectual property rights to include capacity building activities, human resource development and public awareness programs."

Third, it states that the U.S. and India "continue exploring further cooperation in civil space, including areas such as space exploration, satellite navigation, and earth science. The United States and India committed to move forward with agreements that will permit the launch of U.S. satellites and satellites containing U.S. components by Indian space launch vehicles, opening up new opportunities for commercial space cooperation between the two countries."

Finally, the statement welcomes "the U.S. Department of Commerce's plan to create a license exception for items that would otherwise require an export license to end-users in India engaged solely in civilian activities."

3/3. President Bush gave a speech, and answered questions, at the Indian School of Business in Hyderabad, India. See, transcript. Bush was asked a question about U.S. regulation of the export of electronic components to India. The questioner also pointed out that Indian importers acquire the same components from Europe, but at a higher price. Bush then spoke at length, but said little. He did say that "We're constantly reviewing what's called the Export Control List." and that "as this relationship changes, as a strategic partner, the folks involved with the Export Control List will be taking that into account."

3/2. Scott Hammond, presented a paper titled "Charting New Waters in International Cartel Prosecutions" at a conference in San Francisco, California. Hammond is the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division.

3/1. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced in a release that "The United States and Ukraine have concluded bilateral negotiations on market access issues related to Ukraine’s World Trade Organization (WTO) accession. Trade Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk will join U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman in Washington on March 6, 2006 to formally sign the agreement."

3/2. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) approved HR 2955, the "Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Clarification Act of 2005", by voice vote, without amendment.

This bill addresses the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) following the 2002 decision of the Supreme Court in 2002 in Holmes Group v. Vornado Air Circulation, 535 U.S. 826. It seeks to maintain federal control over intellectual property law and cases.

First, HR 2955 would amend 28 U.S.C. § 1338, which provides for jurisdiction in the U.S. District Courts. Currently, 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) provides that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent, plant variety protection and copyright cases."

HR 2955 provides that "Section 1338(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the second sentence and inserting the following: `No State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights.´"

Second, HR 2955 would amend 28 U.S.C. § 1295, regarding the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit. Currently, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) provides that "(a) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction -- (1) of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States ... if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338 of this title, except that a case involving a claim arising under any Act of Congress relating to copyrights, exclusive rights in mask works, or trademarks and no other claims under section 1338 (a) shall be governed by sections 1291, 1292, and 1294 of this title; ".

HR 2955 provides that "Section 1295(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: `(1) of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States ... in any civil action in which a party has asserted a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents or plant variety protection;´"

Third, HR 2955 would add a new Section 1454 to Title 28 regarding removal of cases to the U.S. District Court. It provides, in part, that "A civil action in which any party asserts a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights may be removed to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending".

For a detailed summary and analysis of this bill, see story titled "CIIP Subcommittee to Mark Up Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Clarification Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,162, June 27, 2005.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property (CIIP), introduced this bill on June 16, 2005.

The CIIP Subcommittee held a hearing on this issue on March 17, 2005. The CIIP Subcommittee approved HR 2955 on June 28, 2005. See also, story titled "CIIP Subcommittee to Mark Up Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Clarification Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,162, June 27, 2005.

See also, story titled "8th Circuit Holds That It Has Jurisdiction Over Patent Counterclaims" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.1,176, July 18, 2005.

The House will not meet. It will next meet on March 6.

The Senate will meet at 9:45 AM. It will resume consideration of S 2320, the LIHEAP funding bill.

9:30 AM. There will be an event titled "eBay Media Roundtable". For more information, contact Jean Shim at 202 295-4114 or jshim at foley dot com. Location: National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Committee will host a lunch. The topic will be "Consumer Litigation in the Wireless Industry". The speakers will be Laura Buckland (T-Mobile USA), Sue Haller (Sprint), and Michael Altschul (CTIA). The price to attend is $15. Registrations and cancellations are due by 12:00 NOON on February 28. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Sidley Austin, 1500 K Street, 6th Floor.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a forum on the book titled An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths [Amazon], by Glenn Reynolds. See, notice and registration page. Lunch will be served. The event will be webcast by Cato. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

2:30 PM. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing on the U.S. Oman Free Trade Agreement. See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Ethics and the Internet". The speaker will be J.T. Westermeier (DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary). The topics to be covered include web based advertising, unauthorized practice of law, formation of attorney client relationships, attorney client confidentiality, online referral services and directories, online bids for legal services, and class action communications. 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.

8:30 AM - 5:15 PM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 17, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 33, at Page 8566. The public must request permission to attend by March 2. Location: Employees Lounge, Administration Building, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in AT&T (formerly SBC) v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 05-1186. This is a petition for review of a final order of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) denying a petition for forbearance from applying Title II regulatory obligations to certain services characterized by SBC as internet protocol services. See, brief [40 pages in PDF] of the FCC. Judges Randolph, Tatel and Williams will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Rural Telecommunications". See, notice. Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202 224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. The hearing will be webcast by the SCC. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Competitive Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Fujitsu, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDCal) in patent infringement case involving plasma display panels (see, U.S. Patent Nos. 4,866,349 and 5,081,400), and 11th Amendment immunity of state universities. This is App. Ct. No. 05-1237 and D.C. No. C-02-1673 JCS. Previously, the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See, June 30, 2004, opinion. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 3, 2005. See, Order List [84 pages in PDF], at page 14. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:00 NOON. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold an oversight hearing titled "White Collar Enforcement (Part l): Attorney-Client Privilege and Corporate Waivers". The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. The witnesses will be James Lambright (acting President of the Ex-Im Bank), Gerald Rama (SVP of PNC Bank), and Al Merritt (President of MD International). See, notice. Location: Room __, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in LG Electronics v. Bizcom Electronics, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDCal) in a case involving the issue of patent misuse. This is App. Ct. No. 05-1261. Location: Courtroom 210, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 - 11:30 AM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 17, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 33, at Page 8566. The public must request permission to attend by March 2. Location: Employees Lounge, Administration Building, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

2:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property will hold a hearing on the Copyright Office's report [133 pages in PDF] titled "Report on Orphan Works". See, story titled "Copyright Office Recommends Orphan Works Legislation" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,302, February 2, 2006. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism, and Economic Development will hold a hearing titled "Piracy and Counterfeiting in China". Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202 224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.

Deadline to submit comments to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding its (1) notice of proposed rulemaking, and (2) proposed revenue procedure, pertaining to tax return preparers' use and disclosure of tax return information in an electronic environment. See, IRS notice in the Federal Register that describes and recites proposed changes to its rules implementing 26 U.S.C. § 7216, Federal Register, December 8, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 235, at Pages 72954 - 72964. See also, IRS web site notice [16 pages in PDF] that describes and contains the proposed revenue procedure. And see, story titled "IRS Releases Proposed Rules Regarding Electronic Tax Preparation" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,268, December 8, 2005.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a day long conference titled "The Digital Age Communications Act: Towards a New Market-Oriented Communications Policy in 2006". See, agenda and registration page. Location: Capitol Hilton, 1001 16th St., NW.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Cato Institute and the Brookings Institution will jointly host a one day event titled "The Marketplace of Democracy: A Conference on Electoral Competition and American Politics". The agenda includes a panel discussion from 10:30 - 11:45 AM that includes Brad Smith, who is a professor at Capital University Law School, a former member of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and an opponent of FEC regulation of internet based speech. See, notice, agenda and registration page. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

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).

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Nash v. Microsoft. This is App. Ct. No. 05-1385. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

TIME? The Board of Directors of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) will meet. Location: AIPLA, Headquarters Board Room, Arlington, VA.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Patent Office Professionals Association v. FSLA, App. Ct. No. 05-1173. Judges Henderson, Garland and Edwards will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

5:00 PM EST. Deadline to submit requests to testify at the Copyright Office's hearings on possible exemptions to the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 23, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 36, at Pages 9302-9303. See also, stories titled "Copyright Office Announces Proceeding on DMCA Anti-Circumvention Exemptions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,229, October 7, 2005, and "Copyright Office Announces Hearings on Exemptions to Anti-Circumvention Provisions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,318, February 27, 2006.

3/3. The Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a report titled "Interference Potential of Ultrawideband Signals Part 3: Measurement of Ultrawideband Interference to C-Band Satellite Digital Television Receivers".

The NTIA web site contains a web page with hyperlinks to each chapter and appendix of the report. The NTIA also published in one document [11 MB in PDF] the entire report. Michael Cotton, Robert Achatz, Jeffery Wepman, and Roger Dalke wrote the report.

The report states that it "provides results from tests that measured digital television (DTV) susceptibility to ultrawideband (UWB) interference." It adds that the "secondary objective is to determine if DTV susceptibility can be predicted from UWB signal parameters and the bandwidth of the victim receiver as well as band-limited metrics such as BD and BI. The final objective is to determine if continuous and gated Gaussian noise can be used in place of DS and MB signals, respectively, in susceptibility tests."

The introduction to the report offers this brief overview of results. "Results showed that the UWB signals could be categorized into three signal sets of common DTV susceptibility behavior. Interestingly, the categorized signals, band-limited by the DTV receiver filter, also had common characteristics. Set 1 consists of signals whose DTV susceptibility and band-limited signal characteristics resemble Gaussian noise. Set 2 consists of signals more deleterious than Gaussian noise interference. Notably, these signals had a wide range of band-limited signal characteristics and susceptibilities. Set 3 consists of a signal that is relatively benign. Results also showed that measurable band-limited characteristics, e.g., burst duration (BD), burst interval (BI), fractional on-time ..., and peak-to-average ratio (P/A), of the interfering signal are useful for predicting susceptibility. Finally, it was determined that continuous and gated noise signals can be used to emulate the interference effects of DS and MB signals for the DTV victim receiver and operational scenarios tested in this study. This might not be true, however, for testing the susceptibility of other victim receivers operating in narrower bandwidths as indicated by amplitude probability distributions as a function of frequency for MB signals band-limited to relatively narrow bandwidths." (TLJ omitted the mathematical symbol expression of "fractional on-time". It would have appeared differently in different e-mail readers.)

The FCC released its First Report and Order [118 pages in PDF] in the proceeding titled "In the matter of Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Ultra Wideband Transmission Systems" on April 22, 2002. This item is FCC 02-48 in ET Docket 98-153.

3/3. President Bush named Sean O'Hollaren to be Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs. He previously worked in government relations for Honeywell International. See, White House release.

3/3. President Bush named Lisa Epifani to be Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. She previously worked for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. She is a lawyer, not an economist. See, White House release.

3/3. President Bush named Brian McCormack to be Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Public Liaison. He previously worked as Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics at the Department of Defense. See, White House release.

3/2. Matthew Broderick, Director of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Operations Directorate, announced his resignation, effective March 31, 2006. See, DHS release.

3/2. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) approved HR 4709, the "Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act of 2006", by voice vote, without amendment.

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.