FCC Announces that Verizon Petition for
Forbearance is Deemed Granted |
3/21. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) issued a
release that states that the FCC, by operation of law has granted Verizon's
December 20, 2004, petition for forbearance from Title II of the Communications
Act, and the FCC's Computer Inquiry rules.
The FCC adopted no order or decision upon a majority vote of the members of
the Commission. The FCC issued only a short release, and Commissioners wrote
separate statements.
The release states as follows: "The Verizon telephone companies (Verizon)
filed a petition for forbearance from Title II of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, and the Commission's Computer Inquiry rules on December 20,
2004. On December 19, 2005, the Commission extended the forbearance deadline to
March 19, 2006. Verizon amended its petition on February 7 and February 17th,
2006. Section 10(c) provides that a forbearance petition ``shall be deemed
granted if the Commission does not deny the petition for failure to meet the
requirements for forbearance under subsection (a) within one year after the
Commission receives it, unless the one year period is extended by the
Commission.´´ This is to inform the public that,
pursuant to section 10(c), the relief requested in Verizon’s petition was deemed
granted by operation of law, effective March 19, 2006."
See, Verizon's December 20, 2004,
petition [29 pages in PDF], its letter of February 7, 2006 (part
I [25 pages in PDF] and
part II [PDF]), and its February 17, 2006,
letter [1 page in PDF]. This proceeding is Docket No. 04-440.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and
Commissioner Deborah Tate wrote in a
joint
statement
[2 pages in PDF] that "Broadband
access is essential to an expanding Internet-based information economy.
Promoting broadband deployment is one of the highest priorities of the FCC. To
accomplish this goal, the Commission seeks to establish a policy environment
that facilitates and encourages broadband investment, allowing market forces to
deliver the benefits of broadband to consumers. Today, we take another step in
establishing a regulatory environment that encourages such investments and
innovation by granting Verizon’s petition for regulatory relief of its broadband
infrastructure and fiber capabilities. This relief will enable Verizon to have
the flexibility to further deploy its broadband services and fiber facilities
without overly burdensome regulations."
They also wrote that Verizon's petition and
clarifications seek forbearance for broadband services, including
"packet-switched broadband services, such as Frame Relay and Asynchronous
Transfer Mode Cell Relay (ATM) as well as non-time division multiplexing-based
(non-TDM-based) optical networking, optical hubbing, and optical transmission
services."
The added that Verizon's request "excludes traditional special access
services (DS1 and DS3 services) and excludes TDM-based optical networking.
Verizon also stated that it would continue to make these services available as
wholesale common carrier services. Finally, Verizon also narrowed its petition
by stating that it ``does not seek forbearance of federal universal service
obligations for the services at issue in this petition.´´"
Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein wrote in a separate
statement
[PDF] that the FCC now "abdicates oversight of the
telecommunications services used by America’s most technology-dependent
consumers. This course raises the specter of price hikes and fewer choices for
businesses, banks, universities, government agencies and other high volume users
of communications services, in addition to consumers in Rural America."
He added that the "Congress has given the Commission a powerful
tool in our section 10 forbearance authority, but the Commission must wield this
tool responsibly. By allowing this petition to grant by operation of law, and
without a shred of analysis, the Commission prejudges important open proceedings
and ignores precedent. It helps one telecommunications giant at the expense of
virtually everyone else, including small and rural telephone companies, and
business users of all sizes."
Commissioner Michael Copps wrote in a separate
statement [PDF] that "I am deeply disappointed at the outcome of this
proceeding. This is not the way to make environment-altering policy
changes."
Copps continued that "this sweeping outcome is unaccompanied by
any regulatory footsteps. Here we permit a forbearance petition go into effect
that erases decades of communications policy in a single stroke. In effect, we
provide industry the pen and give it the go-ahead to rewrite the law."
He also argued that "the contribution
base for universal service could be put in jeopardy. Rural America relies on the
universal service fund to ensure they have telecommunications on a par with the
rest of the country. Without it, too many places would not have phone service,
much less the possibility of broadband. By pulling a whole swath of services out
of the obligation to contribute, universal service could be on newly shaky
ground."
Copps also criticized this action for its likely impact upon
regulation of privacy, disability access, interconnection,
CALEA. Copps wrote that "By failing to act, national and
local law enforcement agencies charged with protecting the American people could
find that key networks are no longer subject to the Communications Assistance
for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)."
Adelstein wrote that "We also put at risk the law enforcement
access protections under section 229 and the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act (CALEA). Just last fall, we adopted a very complicated legal
analysis to keep wireline broadband Internet access services within the scope of
CALEA, a decision that is currently subject to appeal. Here, the Commission
fails to take any such preemptive action, potentially pushing these services
outside the scope of CALEA's protections."
In contrast, Martin and Tate wrote in a footnote that "Our
action today does not constitute a failure to ensure adequate law enforcement
access to Verizon’s broadband services Rather, as we made clear in our CALEA
decision last summer, broadband internet access services, and the facilities
used to provide such internet access, are subject to the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act."
The just announced deemed granted disposition is not a final order of the FCC subject
to judicial review. The FCC's order of August 5, 2005, is subject to judicial review, and
has been challenged. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(DCCir) will hear oral argument on May 5 in ACE v. FCC. Moreover, a plain
reading of the relevant statutes would lead the Court to overturn the August 5 CALEA order.
See, story titled "FCC Amends CALEA Statute" in
TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert No. 1,191, August 9, 2005. The FCC released the
text [59
pages in PDF] of this item on September 23, 2005. It is FCC 05-153 in ET Docket No. 04-295
and RM-10865. See also, story titled "FCC CALEA Order Challenged" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.
1,240, Wednesday, October 26, 2005. See also,
ACE
brief [71 pages in PDF] and
FCC brief
[52 pages in PDF]. This case is American Council on Education, et al. v. FCC and USA,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, App. Ct. Nos. 05-1404, 1408,
1438, 1451 and 1453.
|
|
|
Verizon Seeks Access to Cablevision
Programming |
3/21. Verizon announced in a release that it filed a complaint with the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against
Cablevision Systems Corp. and its
wholly owned subsidiary, Rainbow Media
Holdings, "to secure Rainbow's sports programming for Verizon's FiOS TV
customers in New York and New England".
The complaint states that "This case involves the paradigmatic abuse of
monopoly power that the program access rules were adopted to prevent. It
presents the Commission with an opportunity to take quick and decisive action
against a particularly egregious example of the cable industry’s efforts to
block telephone companies from competing in video services."
It continues that "Apparently to make it more
difficult for Verizon to compete effectively and to protect Cablevision’s
dominant position, Cablevision and Rainbow are refusing to negotiate terms for
Verizon’s distribution of Rainbow’s valuable regional sports networks. Although
Rainbow provides that programming to all other major MVPDs in the New York City
metropolitan area and Massachusetts, including of course Cablevision, Rainbow
will not sell to Verizon -- its largest potential wireline competitor."
The complaint alleges violation of 47 U.S.C. §§ 548(b) and (c)(2)(B), and §§
76.1001 and 76.1002(b) of the FCC's rules.
Verizon's Terry Denson stated that "Cablevision's consistent refusal to
negotiate carriage terms clearly is an attempt to block competition and preserve
its market position ... and the 1992 Cable Act specifically prohibits this type
of refusal to deal."
Gigi Sohn, head of the Public Knowledge,
a Washington DC based interest group, responded in a release that "Verizon certainly
has the right to complain about access to Rainbow's programming. But it is extremely curious
that Verizon, by opposing an enforceable net neutrality law, would not grant the same rights
to others to gain access to its broadband system. Verizon appears to favor
government rules to enforce competition to benefit Verizon, but not when others
could benefit. Verizon's complaint demonstrates that a properly tailored
government rule (whether program access or net neutrality) can promote
competition and restrain the abuse of market power." (Parentheses in original.)
|
|
|
More FCC News |
3/21. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) released the
text
[30 pages in PDF] of its "Eighth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" regarding public
safety communications in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz bands. The FCC adopted, but did
not release, this item at its meeting of Friday, March 17, 2006. See, story titled
"FCC Adopts NPRM Re Public Safety Communications in the 700 MHz Band" in TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,332, March 20, 2006. See also, FCC
release
[PDF] that describes this item. Initial comments will be due 60 days after
publication of a notice in the Federal Register. Reply comments will be due 90 days after
publication. This item is FCC 06-34 in WT Docket No. 96-86.
3/20. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) issued a
notice
[PDF] announcing that its Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) and the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau will hold a public demonstration on March 30 of changes to be
made to Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS).
|
|
|
SEC Chairman Cox
Addresses Internet Proxy Proposal |
3/21. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) Chairman Chris Cox
gave a speech in
Washington DC. He discussed, among other topics, the SEC's internet proxy
proposal.
The SEC released its
notice of proposed rulemaking [109 pages in PDF] on December 8, 2005. It
states that "We are proposing amendments to the
proxy rules to update our regulatory framework to take advantage of
communications technology and provide an alternative proxy model that could
reduce the printing and mailing costs associated with furnishing proxy materials
to shareholders. The proposed amendments would provide an alternative
method for furnishing proxy materials to shareholders based on a ``notice and
access´´ model. Under the proposals, an issuer would be able to satisfy its
obligations under the Commission’s proxy rules by posting its proxy materials on
a specified, publicly-accessible Internet Web site (other than the Commission’s EDGAR
Web site) and providing shareholders with a notice informing them that the materials are
available and explaining how to access those materials." (Parentheses in original.
Footnotes omitted.)
See also,
comments that have
been submitted to the SEC in response to this NPRM.
See also,
story
titled "SEC Proposes to Allow Internet Delivery of Proxy Materials" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,263, December 1, 2006.
Cox stated in his March 21 speech that the SEC's electronic proxy proposal "is
another step we're taking to make the Internet a more efficient forum for communication
with shareholders. By giving investors more, and importantly, more usable
information, we can enable increased participation by better informed
shareholders."
He continued that "A postcard-sized notice would apprise shareholders of the
availability of their proxy materials on the Web. By going online, they could
search the proxy statement for the items they want, and follow links to other,
more detailed information. They could do everything they do now with paper
proxies, just more of it, and faster and more efficiently. Investors who want
paper in addition, or instead, would simply call a toll free number."
He concluded that "With more than 75% of Americans having access to the
Internet -- and spending an average of 25% of their waking hours online -- it's
high time to bring this revolutionary technology to the world of shareholder
democracy. When progress is about to overtake you, you either ride the wave or
get wiped out -- or at least that's how it is in Southern California."
|
|
|
Bhatia Addresses Threat of
Protectionism in US and China |
3/21.
Karan Bhatia, a Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, gave a
speech [7 pages in PDF] to the Shanghai Institute of Foreign Trade, in Shanghai, China.
He said that "we face the threat of protectionism on both sides of the Pacific".
He reviewed protectionist trends in the U.S., and then turned to China.
He said that "There are worrisome trends in China as well. There are numerous voices
calling for new policies and regulations to restrict market access by foreign
firms, particularly in high technology and service sectors. There are growing
calls to provide protection, and other forms of government support to domestic
companies. And there signs that the government is listening to these requests
and is increasingly experimenting with mercantilist policies that seek to direct
markets rather than opening them."
He argued that "This is a mistake. Not only will these efforts
generate trade frictions, but they will also prevent the market from selecting
optimal technologies, reducing the efficiency and raising the cost structure of
the entire Chinese economy."
He continued that "From the U.S. perspective, there are several concerns. There
is concern that, while the United States has fulfilled its commitment to open its market to
Chinese companies, China is not fulfilling its part of the bargain. There is
growing frustration that China is not ``playing by the rules.´´"
For example, he said that "Americans do not believe that China is competing
fairly when rampant piracy, counterfeiting, and copyright infringement cost
businesses billions of dollars each year. The movie, music, publishing, software
and electronic entertainment industries are areas where the U.S. is especially
competitive, and China's weak enforcement of copyright laws has a
disproportionately heavy impact on our sales to China. IPR enforcement problems
in China also affect us in markets outside of China. Last year, for example, 69
percent of IPR infringing goods seized by U.S. customs at the U.S. border had
originated in China.
He added that "the failure to protect intellectual property also hurts
innovative Chinese companies, and could undermine China’s efforts to continue to
foster an even more dynamic, knowledge-based economy."
|
|
|
More Trade News |
3/20. Deputy U.S. Trade Representative
Susan Schwab gave a
speech [PDF] at Thunderbird University in Glendale, Arizona. She reviewed the status
of ongoing trade negotiations, advocated free trade, and rebutted the arguments for
"protectionism", "economic isolationism", and "xenophobia".
3/21. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(7thCir) issued its opinion [8
pages in PDF] in U.S. v. Connors, a case that demonstrates the
lengths that the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
will go to prosecute people who bring Cuban cigars into the U.S., in violation of the
Trading with the Enemy Act [PDF], which is codified at 50 U.S.C. Appendix.
Richard S. Connors for years brought Cuban cigars into the U.S. in his luggage when he
returned from trips to Cuba (via Toronto or Cancun). He also has an ex-wife, who for
years collected evidence for the CBP. Court of Appeals Judge Evans wrote that
"marital splits get nasty when an ex-spouse decides to dish out a little dose of
discomfort", but "the havoc visited on Chicago lawyer Richard Connors by his
ex-wife would win a gold medal for creativity". The CBP spent over three
years investigating Connors. The prosecution, after an 11 day trial, obtained a
guilty verdict, and a 37 month prison sentence. The ex-wife's activities were
not disclosed to Connors. The prosecution did not call her as a witness. After
trial the ex-wife informed Connors, and testified in a post trial hearing. Judge
Evans wrote that she testified that the CBP "not only asked her to cozy up to Connors
but also suggested that she obtain incriminating documents from his house and place them
in the trash" where the CBP would retrieve them. Connors asserted that this constituted
unreasonable government searches and seizures in violation of the 4th Amendment, and that
failure to disclose violated his Due Process rights. The District Court found this testimony
to be not credible, and rejected these arguments. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Judge
Evans wrote that "When a friend is false, blame the friend, not the government."
Also, citing
"The
Betrothed" by Rudyard Kipling, he wrote that a "woman is only a woman, but a
good cigar is a Smoke."
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Rules in SLUSA Pre-emption
Case |
3/21. The Supreme Court released
its opinion
[PDF] in Merrill Lynch v. Dabit, holding that the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act's (SLUSA) pre-emption provision applies to class action claims
asserted by holders of securities, notwithstanding the SLUSA's language, "in
connection with the purchase or sale".
Shadi Dabit, a former Merrill Lynch broker, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court
(WDOkla) against Merrill Lynch alleging violation of Oklahoma securities law. Dabit, who
also sought class action status, pled that Merrill Lynch breached the fiduciary duty and
covenant of good faith and fair dealing that it owed its brokers by disseminating misleading
research, and manipulated stock prices.
That is, Dabit did not plead Section 10b-5 fraud or any other
cause of action under federal securities law. Nor did he technically plead fraud
"in connection with the purchase or sale". He plead fraud in connection with
holding on to already held securities -- the decision not to sell.
Dabit argued that the broker class was injured by Merrill
Lynch's actions because these actions caused them to hold on to overvalued
securities, and because they lost commission fees when their clients made bad
investments and took their business to other brokers.
Other similar actions were filed in other district courts.
They were consolidated in the U.S. District Court (SDNY).
Merrill Lynch argued that the SLUSA preempts these state law claims. The
District Court agreed. Dabit appealed.
The U.S. Court of
Appeals (2ndCir) held that the claims asserted by the class of holders did
not allege fraud "in connection with the purchase or sale" of securities within
the meaning of the preemption language of the SLUSA.
The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the Court of Appeals. It wrote that
"The holder class action that respondent tried to plead, and that
the Second Circuit envisioned, is distinguishable from a typical Rule 10b-5
class action in only one respect: It is brought by holders instead of purchasers
or sellers. For purposes of SLUSA pre-emption, that distinction is irrelevant;
the identity of the plaintiffs does not determine whether the complaint alleges
fraud "in connection with the purchase or sale" of securities. The misconduct of
which respondent complains here -- fraudulent manipulation of stock prices --
unquestionably qualifies as fraud "in connection with the purchase or sale" of
securities ..."
This case is Sup. Ct. No. 04–1371.
|
|
|
Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red. |
|
|
Wednesday, March 22 |
The House will not meet. It will next meet on
Tuesday, March 28. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will not meet. It will next meet on Monday, March 27
at 1:00 PM.
12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "FCBA
Mentoring Luncheon". The price to attend is $20. See,
registration form
[PDF]. Location: Arnold & Porter, 10th floor, 555 12th St., NW.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a continuing legal education (CLE)
seminar titled "DTV: The Hard Date is Set -- What’s Next?" The speakers
will include Eloise Gore (Assistant Chief of the FCC's Media Bureau's Policy Division),
David Donovan (MSTV), John Orlando (CBS), and Peter Tannenwald (counsel to the Community
Broadcasters Association). See,
registration form
[PDF]. The price to attend ranges from $75-$150. Reservations and cancellations are due by
5:00 PM on March 20. Location: Dow Lohnes &
Albertson, Suite 800, 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW.
Day two of a four day event hosted by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST)
Optical Technology Division titled "Spectroradiometry Short Course". See,
notice.
Location: 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.
|
|
|
Thursday, March 23 |
12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) State and Local Practice Committee will host
a brown bag lunch titled "Network Neutrality". The speakers will be
Greg Sidak (Georgetown University Law Center),
Randolph May (Progress and Freedom
Foundation), and Jason Oxman (CompTel),Jim
Kohlenberger (Voice on the Net Coalition), and Harold Feld
(Media Access Project). For more information,
contact Erick Soriano at 202 939-7921 or esoriano at fw-law dot com. Location: Fleischman
and Walsh, Suite 600, 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
Day three of a four day event hosted by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST)
Optical Technology Division titled "Spectroradiometry Short Course". See,
notice.
Location: 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.
|
|
|
Friday, March 24 |
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court
of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Bruce Gilmore v. FCC, App.
Ct. No. 05-1413. See, brief
[PDF] of FCC. Judges Ginsburg, Sentelle and Brown will preside.
Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
DATE CHANGE. 12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The
Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a
program titled "The White Space: What to Do With It". See,
notice.
This program relates to permit the use of smart technology to allow advance wireless
services to operate in the white spaces of the broadcast bands. The FCC has a open
rulemaking proceeding. See,
story titled
"FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Unlicensed Use of Broadcast TV Spectrum" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.
898, May 14, 2004. This NPRM is FCC 04-113 in ET Docket Nos. 04-186 and 02-380. Press
contact: Patrick Ross at 202 289-8928. Location: Room B-369, Rayburn Building.
(This event had previously been scheduled for Friday, April 28, 2006.)
12:00 NOON. Deadline to submit written comments to the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
regarding the proposed free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea.
The USTR seeks comments on, among other topics, "electronic commerce issues"
and "trade-related intellectual property rights issues that should be
addressed in the negotiations". See,
notice in the Federal Register: February 9, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 27, at
Pages 6820-6821.
Day four of a four day event hosted by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST)
Optical Technology Division titled "Spectroradiometry Short Course". See,
notice.
Location: 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.
|
|
|
Monday, March 27 |
The Senate will meet at 1:00 PM. It will resume consideration of of
S 2349,
the "Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006".
10:00 AM. The Senate
Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The SJC
frequently cancels or 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.
Effective date of the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office's (USPTO) interim rule revising the rules of practice relating
to the filing date requirements for ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings. See,
notice in the Federal Register, February 23, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 36, at
Pages 9260-9262.
|
|
|
Tuesday, March 28 |
The House will return from its St. Patrick's Day District Work Period.
It will meet at 2:00 PM. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
8:30 AM - 12:30 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a continuing legal education (CLE)
seminar titled "Privacy and Data Security for Communications & Media
Companies". See,
registration form [PDF]. The price to attend ranges from $50 to $200.
Location: Covington & Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
9:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee (SJC) may hold a partially closed hearing to examine war time
executive power and the FISA Court. The SJC
frequently cancels or postpones hearings 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 219, Hart Building.
9:00 AM - 5:15 PM. The Catholic University Law School's Journal of
Communications Law and Policy will host its annual communications law symposium. See,
agenda. Location:
Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, 3600 John McCormack Rd., NE.
2:00 PM. The
House Appropriations Committee's
Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and
Related Agencies will hold a hearing on the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Location: Room 2359, Rayburn Building.
2:30 PM. The Senate
Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold a hearing on pending judicial nominations. The SJC
frequently cancels or postpones hearings 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.
Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [26 pages in PDF] regarding Section 621(a)(1)'s
directive that local franchising authorities (LFAs) not unreasonably refuse to award
competitive franchises. The FCC adopted this NPRM on November 3, 2005, and released
it on November 18, 2005. It is FCC 05-189 in MB Docket No. 05-311. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December 14, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 239, at Pages 73973
- 73980. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Local Franchising of Video
Services" in TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert No. 1,247, November 4, 2005. See, FCC
notice [MS Word] of March 7, 2006.
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 29 |
9:30 AM. The Copyright Office
will hold one is a series of 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. Location: Mumford Room, LM-649, James Madison Building, Library of
Congress, 101 Independence Ave., SE.
10:00 AM. The
Supreme Court will hear oral argument in eBay v. MercExchange, Sup. Ct.
No. 05-130. See, Supreme Court
calendar [PDF], Supreme Court
docket, March 16, 2004,
opinion [31 pages in
PDF] of the Court of Appeals (FedCir),
and story
titled "Supreme Court to Consider Availability of Injunctive Relief in Patent
Cases" in TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,261, November 29, 2005. Arguments begin at 10:00 AM. This case
is second on the schedule. 90 minutes has been scheduled for the first case.
12:00 NOON. The
Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA)
Engineering and Technical Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The FCBA notice
states that "Staff of the Office of Engineering and Technology to discuss how counsel
can more effectively and efficiently represent their clients to the Commission, and how
the FCC’s staff can better serve the practitioners' needs. This discussion will include
management and staff from the OET front office and from the Laboratory
Division." Location: FCC, Room 5-B516, 445 12 St., SW.
12:00 NOON. The
Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will
host a luncheon. The speakers will be Frank Ahrens (Washington Post), Edie Herman
(Communications Daily), Jennifer Kerr (AP), Paul Kirby (Telecommunications Reports), Jeremy
Pelofsky (Reuters), and Amy Schatz (Wall Street Journal). The price to attend ranges from
$10-$40. Reservations and cancellations are due by 5:00 PM on March 23. See,
registration form
[PDF]. Location: Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, NW.
2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee's (SJC) Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and
Property Rights may hold a hearing on state regulation of violent video games and the
First Amendment. The SJC
frequently cancels or postpones hearings 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.
2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce
Committee's (SCC) Subcommittee on Technology will hold a hearing titled
"Importance of Basic Research to United States' Competitiveness". The
hearing will address "basic research in the physical sciences impacts both long-term
economic development in the United States and the ability of American industry to remain
globally competitive". See,
notice.
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) will preside. 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.
2:30 - 3:30 PM. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce will host an event titled "Intellectual Property
Roundtable featuring Julie Myers". Myers is the new Assistant Secretary for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS). See,
notice.
For more information, contact Scott Eisner ncfevents at uschamber dot com or
202 463-5500. Location: U.S. Chamber, 1615 H St., NW.
5:15 PM. Deadline to submit to the
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)
requests to appear at its April 20, 2006, hearing on the probable economic effects
of the proposed U.S.-Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement. See,
notice in the Federal Register, February 28, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 39, at
Pages 10066-10067.
|
|
|
More News |
3/21. Microsoft announced that it has delayed the scheduled release of its next
generation of operating system, Vista, until January of 2007. See, Microsoft
release.
3/17. The Supreme Court issued an order
in eBay v. MercExchange, Sup. Ct. No. 05-130. It wrote that "The motions
of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for
divided argument are granted." See, March 17, 2006,
Order
List [PDF]. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on March 29, 2009.
See, Supreme Court
calendar [PDF], Supreme Court
docket, March 16, 2004,
opinion [31 pages in
PDF] of the Court of Appeals (FedCir),
and story
titled "Supreme Court to Consider Availability of Injunctive Relief in Patent
Cases" in TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,261, November 29, 2005.
|
|
|
About Tech Law Journal |
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
information page.
Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Privacy
Policy
Notices
& Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All
rights reserved. |
|
|