7/19. The U.S. District Court (DConn) unsealed an indictment [14 pages in PDF] that charges Syed Talha Ahsan with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, and providing material support to terrorists, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2339A, and other crimes, in connection with his alleged providing of "material support and resources to persons engaged in acts of terrorism in Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere ... through the creation and use of various internet websites, e-mail communications, and other means" and by providing "expert advice and assistance, communications equipment ... financial services" to recruit, raise funds, and provide assistance.

The indictment, which was returned (issued) but sealed (kept secret) on June 28, 2006, also charges Ahsan with conspiracy to kill/injure persons abroad in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 956, conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2.

The indictment states that Ahsan is a resident of the United Kingdom. The Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut stated in a release that UK law enforcement authorities arrested him on July 19, 2006, at the request of the US.

The District Court previously returned an indictment of Babar Ahmed and Azzam Publications in 2004. Babar Ahsan remains incarcerated in the UK pending resolution of extradition proceedings.

The just unsealed indictment alleges that Syed Talha Ahsan also participated in the operation of Azzam Publications and its family of web sites. The indictment states that Ahmed and Ahsan "helped create, operate and maintain, and caused to create, operate and maintain" web sites located in "Connecticut, Nevada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Malaysia and elsewhere".

The indictment further alleges that "These websites, and other forms of internet communications, posted and transmitted materials which were designed and intended to: recruit mujahideen, raise funds for violent jihad, recruit personnel for the Chechen Mujahideen, the Taliban and associated groups, and give instructions for travel to Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight with these groups, provide instructions for the surreptitious transfer of funds to the Taliban, and solicit military items for these groups, including gas masks and night vision goggles."

The indictment further alleges that Ahsan and Ahmed "established, maintained and used various e-mail accounts associated with the websites to administer the websites, hide their identities, communicate with other individuals also involved in the operation and administration of the websites, communicate with members of the Taliban, Chechen Mujahideen, and associated groups, communicate with members of the public who sought to support violent jihad activities depicted on the websites, communicate with those who responded to the internet solicitations for material support and individuals who wished join these groups, solicit donations to support violent jihad and coordinate the transfer of money, and communicate with and provide to those who sought to purchase items advertised on the websites. These items included videotapes depicting and promoting violent jihad in Chechnya, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and other lands of jihad, and the torture and killing of captured Russian troops."

Finally, it alleges that "Members of the conspiracy also utilized certain e-mail accounts associated with the websites to communicate with a U.S. Naval enlistee on the U.S. Navy destroyer the U.S.S. Benfold which was operating within a U.S. Naval battle group in the Straits of Hormuz in the summer of 2001. Through these e-mail accounts, members of the conspiracy communicated with the enlistee, who was sympathetic to the causes espoused on the Azzam family of websites ..."

The indictment Ahsan used web sites and e-mail. It does not enumerate any other information or communications technologies, such as voice over internet protocol (VOIP) services. However, it does reference "other forms of internet communications", and "other internet media".

The Connecticut US Attorney's Office (USAO) also stated in its release that the US will seek to extradite Ahsan from the UK to the US.

The USAO also stated that this case is being prosecuted by numerous of its attorneys, with assistance from Andrew Levchuk from the Department of Justice's Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) and Alexis Collins from the Counter-Terrorism Section. The USAO also stated that the investigation is ongoing, and that the investigating entities include the FBI, Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) Electronic Crimes Program, Immigration of Customs Enforcement (ICE), Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), and Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). It also references "several additional law enforcement partners here in the United States and overseas".

See also, IRS web page titled "Why is IRS Involved in Electronic Crimes".

There is nothing in the indictment or USAO release regarding cooperation from, or subpoenas, warrants, orders, or letters directed to, internet service providers, communications carriers, or other service providers.

This case is United States of America v. Syed Talha Ahsan, U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The web site for Bahria University, Karachi Campus, lists in its Computer Science and Engineering faculty a "Syed Talha Ahsan". The web site states that this Ahsan received a "MS Electrical Engineering (Communications & Signal Processing)" from "Ohio State University".

The indictment contains little information about Ahsan. It states only that "At all times material to the Indictment, the defendant, SYED TALHA AHSAN was a resident of the United Kingdom living in London, England". The USAO release adds that he is "age 26 (DOB 09/21/79)", and that he is British citizen. TLJ spoke with two DOJ employees regarding whether the defendant received a degree from Ohio State University. Neither has provided a responsive answer.

7/18. The U.S. Court of Appeals (11thCir) issued its opinion [25 pages PDF] in Almeida v. Amazon.com, a case involving the interactive computer service immunity provision of 47 U.S.C. § 230. The District Court held that Amazon is immune under § 230 from Florida right of publicity and invasion of privacy claims for listing a book and picture in its web site.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, but solely on state law grounds. In a long but not always clear opinion, it wrote that whether § 230 provides immunity against claims for violation of state intellectual property laws, including the right of publicity, misappropriation, and invasion of privacy, remains an open question. It concluded that it was unnecessary for the District Court to apply § 230.

Background. Amazon sells books through a web site. It lists books, describes them, and provides pictures of the cover of books, among other things.

In 1991 fashion photographer Fabio Cabral obtained a signed authorization from the mother of Thais Almeida, who was then a minor, to take and publish photographs of Thais Almeida. Cabral took photographs, and included them in a book titled "Anjos Proibidos", which in English means "Forbidden Angels". This book included pictures of girls aged 10 through 17. Cabral and his publisher were prosecuted in Sao Paulo, Brazil, for publishing child pornography. However, both were acquitted.

In 2000 a second publisher published a second and revised edition. This edition placed Almeida's picture on the cover. This edition was offered for sale at Amazon's web site, which displayed the cover of the book.

Almeida demanded that Amazon pay damages to her. Amazon promptly removed its listing of the book from its web site. A Google search reveals that other web sites sell this book, review this book, and/or display a picture of the cover. See for example, Tuscon Weekly review.

Almeida filed a complaint in state court in Florida against Amazon alleging violation of the state of Florida's right of publicity statute, Fla. Stat. § 540.08, violation of the state of Florida's civil theft statute, Fla. Stat. § 772.11, and violation of the state of Florida's common law invasion of privacy doctrine.

Amazon removed the action to U.S. District Court (SDFl) based upon diversity of citizenship.

Notably, Amazon did not raise § 230 as a defense in the District Court.

Nevertheless, the District Court held that the right of publicity claim fails both because it is preempted by § 230, and because Almeida consented to the use of the photographs. The District Court held that the invasion of privacy claim is also preempted by § 230. The District Court dismissed the civil theft count because Almeida failed to establish felonious intent.

Almeida brought the present appeal.

Statute. The Congress enacted § 230 as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which was made a part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While parts of the CDA have been held unconstitutional, § 230 has not. There is now a long string of cases applying § 230 to immunize internet service providers, interactive computer services, and others from liability for statements of others. See, section titled "Other § 230 Opinions", below.

47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) provides that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

§ 230(f)(2) provides that "The term ``interactive computer service´´ means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions."

§ 230(e)(2) provides that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property."

§ 230(e)(3) provides, in part, that "No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."

Court of Appeals. Almeida argued that § 230(c)(1) does not immunize Amazon from the right of publicity claim because it is an intellectual property claim, and § 230(e)(2) excludes IP claims from § 230(c)(1) immunity.

The Court of Appeals wrote that "Whether the CDA immunizes an interactive service provider from a state law right of publicity claim is an issue of first impression for this Court." It added that "it is clear that ``any law pertaining to intellectual property´´ at least refers to the three traditional forms of intellectual property: copyright, patent, and trademark". (The Court cited various District Court opinions on this point.)

The Court noted that the U.S. District Court (CDCal) held in Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC, that "the CDA does not apply to California’s statutory and common law right of publicity claims". That case is reported at 340 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (2004).

But, in the end, the Court of Appeals concluded that whether § 230(e)(2) applies to IP law claims based upon state law remains an open question, and one that it would not resolve in this case. It concluded that "it was unnecessary for the district court to determine whether the CDA preempts Almeida's state law right of publicity claim, and we do not reach any of Almeida's challenges to the district court’s application of the CDA here."

The Court of Appeals went on to apply the language of the Florida right of publicity statute to the facts of this case. It concluded, following a lengthy analysis, that Amazon did not violate the state statute. Hence, it affirmed the District Court's judgment for Amazon on the right of publicity claim, but without also ruling on the application of § 230.

The District Court ruled that § 230 also immunizes Amazon on the common law privacy claim. The Court of Appeals wrote briefly in a footnote that the statutory right of publicity claim and the common law privacy claim may be plead separately, but are nevertheless "substantially identical". Hence, it wrote that "we do not address this claim separately from Almeida’s statutory right of publicity claim".

Finally, the Court of Appeals wrote that "Almeida contends that the CDA does not immunize Amazon because it is not an ``information content provider´´ as that term is defined by the CDA." (At page 7.) It then wrote that "Almeida does not dispute that Amazon is an ``interactive computer service,´´ but she does argue that Amazon is not entitled to immunity because it is an ``information content provider.´´" (At page 8.)

Other § 230 Opinions. The landmark case on § 230 is Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1124 (E.D.Va. 1997); affirmed by U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 129 F.2d 327 (1997); certiorari denied. The Courts applied § 230(c)(1) in holding AOL not liable for defamatory statement contained in posting in various AOL bulletin boards by an AOL subscriber. See, Court of Appeals opinion, and TLJ summary of Zeran v. AOL.

On March 24, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its opinion [2 pages in PDF] in Noah v. AOL, affirming the opinion of the U.S. District Court (EDVa) that § 230 immunizes AOL from claims that it violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it provided chat rooms in which subscribers mocked Noah's religious beliefs. See, story titled "4th Circuit Affirms That Section 230 Immunity Extends to Federal Civil Rights Action", in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 863, March 25, 2004.

On October 21, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its opinion [12 pages in PDF] in Doe v. GTE. The District Court dismissed the complaint against a pair of interactive computer service providers (or ISPs) who had merely provided web hosting services to smut merchants who had surreptitiously videotaped the plaintiffs, and then sold the videotapes through their web sites. The Appeals Court affirmed. The Court also held that the ISPs are not liable under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) when their users sell videotapes that were made in violation of the ECPA. See, story titled "7th Circuit Interprets Section 230 Immunity and ECPA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 763, October 22, 2003.

On August 13, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [12 pages in PDF] in Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, a case regarding application of Section 230 interactive computer service immunity to an online dating service. The District Court had held that the online dating service, which wrote the questionnaire to be used by persons who post their profiles, did not have § 230 immunity for a false posting, because it contributed to the content. The Appeals Court held that the service does have § 230 immunity. See, story titled "9th Circuit Applies Section 230 Immunity to Online Dating Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 718, August 14, 2003.

On June 24, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [41 pages in PDF] in Batzel v. Smith, a case involving the application of California's Anti-SLAPP statute to a suit alleging defamation on an internet listserv. The District Court denied a defendant's motion to dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP statute. The Appeals Court, relying upon the federal interactive computer service immunity provision of § 230(c)(1), vacated and remanded. See, story titled "9th Circuit Construes Section 230 Immunity in Suit Against Listserv Operator" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 687, June 25, 2003. On December 3, 2003, the Appeals Court issued an order [16 pages in PDF] denying the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. See, story titled "9th Circuit Denies Petition for Rehearing En Banc in Section 230 Immunity Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 792, December 4, 2003. Then, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. See, story titled "Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Section 230 Immunity Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 913, June 8, 2004.

The state courts of Florida also construed § 230. In Doe v. America Online, Inc., Trial Court Case No. CL 97-631 AE; Decision: 1997 WL 374223 (Fla. Cir. Ct. June 26, 1997), the Court applied 230(c)(1) in holding that AOL was not liable for statements made by an AOL subscriber in an AOL chatroom. Plaintiff appealed to Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeals. The appeals court affirmed the trial court decision. See, trial court opinion, and appeals court opinion.

See also, Blumenthal v. Drudge and AOL, in which AOL raised § 230(c)(1) as a defense to Sidney Blumenthal's claim that AOL was liable for alleged defamation of content provider Matt Drudge. The District Court granted AOL's Motion for Summary Judgment based on § 230. See, District Court opinion and TLJ summary of Blumenthal v. Drudge.

See also, Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 2000), and Green v. America Online, 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003).

The present case is Thais Cardoso Almeida v. Amazon.com, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 04–15341 and 04-15561, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, D.C. No. 04-20004–CV–MGC. Judge Jane Restani wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judge Tjoflat and Hull joined. Judge Restani is Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade who sat on this 11th Circuit panel by designation.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet at 9:30 AM. It will resume consideration of S 728 the "Water Resources Development Act".

10:00 AM. The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing titled "The Federal Reserve's Second Monetary Policy Report to Congress for 2006". The witness will be Federal Reserve Board (FRB) Chairman Ben Bernanke. See, notice. Location: Room 538, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) will hold a closed meeting with U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Susan Schwab to discuss Doha round negotiations and bilateral trade agreements. The SFC notice for reporters states that "stake-outs are possible". Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Intelligence Committee will hold a hearing on modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The witnesses will be Judge Richard Posner (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit), Kim Taipale (Center for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology Policy), Michael Greco (ABA), and Jim Dempsey (Center for Democracy and Technology). See, notice [PDF]. Press contact: Jamal Ware at 202-225-4121. Location: Room 2212, Rayburn Building.

TIME CHANGE. 11:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee's (SCC) Subcommittee Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness will hold a hearing titled "High-Performance Computing". The witnesses will be Simon Szykman (National Coordination Office for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development), Irving Wladasky-Berger (IBM), Christopher Jehn (Cray Inc.), Jack Waters (Level 3 Communications), Joseph Lombardo (University of Nevada, Las Vegas), Michael Garrett (Boeing Company), and Stanley Burt (Advanced Biomedical Computing Center). See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the SCC. Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) will preside. Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202-224-4546. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "U.S.-China Trade, Exchange Rates, and the U.S. Economy". The speakers will be Nicholas Lardy (Institute for International Economics), Frank Vargo (National Association of Manufacturers), and Daniel Griswold (Cato). Lunch will follow the program. See, notice. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. Brad Smith, Microsoft's General Counsel, will speak at a closed event titled "How Will Microsoft Enhance Windows While Promoting Competition?" For more information, contact Sarah Brennan at 202-986-4901 or brennan at newamerica dot net. See, notice. Location: National Press Club, 13th Floor, 52914th Street, NW.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host a ceremony honoring former FCC Commissioner Benjamin Hooks. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, TW-C305 at 445 12th St., SW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The The House Science Committee (HSC) and the House Administration Committee will hold a joint hearing titled "Voting Machines: Will New Standards and Guidelines Prevent Future Problems?" Location: Room 2138, Rayburn Building.

2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The only item on the agenda is consideration of S 2703, a voting rights bill. See, notice. The SJC frequently cancels or postpones meetings without notice. The SJC rarely follows its published agenda. Press contact: Courtney Boone at 202-224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

POSTPONED. 2:15 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold a hearing on judicial nominations. See, notice. The SJC frequently cancels or postpones hearings without notice. The SJC rarely follows its published agenda. Press contact: Courtney Boone at 202-224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

2:15 - 5:30 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Practical Law Office Technology for Solos and Small Firms". The speakers will include Reid Trautz and Lisa Weatherspoon. The price to attend ranges from $50-$125. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

3:00 PM. The House Rules Committee will meet to adopt a rule for consideration of HR 5684, the "United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act". Location: Room H-313, Capitol Building.

6:30 - 8:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host an event titled "Summer Associate Happy Hour". For more information, contact Chris Fedeli at cfedeli at crblaw dot com or 202-828-9874. Location: Location: Helix Lounge, 1430 Rhode Island Ave., NW.

Day one of a two day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ant the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) titled "Options for Action Summit: Addressing U.S. Competitiveness in Global Standardization". See, notice. Location: NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

Day two of a two day closed meeting of the Defense Science Board 2006 Summer Study on Information Management for Net-Centric Operations. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 11, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 69, Page 18292. Location: 3601 Wilson Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Arlington, VA.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will consider HR 5684, the "United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act". See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:30 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee will hold an event titled "Informal Markup" of the draft implementing proposal of HR __, the "United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act". Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. See, notice. The SJC frequently cancels or postpones meetings without notice. The SJC rarely follows its published agenda. Press contact: Courtney Boone at 202-224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing on HR 5785, the "Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act of 2006". Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Sean Bonyun (Upton) at 202-225-3761. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) will hold a hearing to hear testimony from Federal Reserve Board (FRB) Chairman Ben Bernanke. Location: Room 2128, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House International Relations Committee (HIRC) will hold a hearing titled "Asian Free Trade Agreements:  Are They Good for the USA?" The witness will include Karan Bhatia, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative. See, notice. Location: Room 2172, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House Science Committee will hold a hearing titled "How Can Technologies Help Secure Our Borders?" Location: Room 2138, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will hold a meeting. See, FCC notice [PDF] and notice in the Federal Register, July 12, 2006, Vol. 71, No.133, at Page 39322. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, TW-C305 at 445 12th St., SW.

11:30 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold a hearing titled "Legislative Hearing on H.R. 682, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act". See, HR 682 and notice of hearing. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202-225-2492.Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host an event titled "U.S. Trade Policy in the Wake of Doha: Why Unilateral Liberalization Makes Sense". The speakers will include Dan Ikenson (Cato) and Will Martin, lead economist at the World Bank's Development Research Group. Lunch will be served. See, notice and registration page. Location: Room B-339, Rayburn Building, Capitol Hill.

The Republican Whip Notice states that "the House will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business".

10:00 AM. The House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment will hold a hearing titled "The Homeland Security Information Network: An Update on DHS Information Sharing Efforts". The witnesses will include Charles Allen (DHS Chief Intelligence Officer). Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.

9:30 AM - 5:30 PM. The Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) will hold a meeting to deliberate on possible recommendations regarding the antitrust laws to Congress and the President. The meeting is open to the public, but registration is required. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 23, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 121, at Pages 36059-36060.

10:30 AM. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing titled "How Much Should Borders Matter?: Tax Jurisdiction in the New Economy". The witnesses will be Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY), Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Daniel Noble (Wyoming Department of Revenue), George Isaacson (Brann & Isaacson, Lewiston), Christopher Rants (Speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives), Robert Benham (Balliet's, LLC), Gary Imig (Sierra Trading Post), Douglas Lindholm (Council on State Taxation), Dan Bucks (Montana Department of Revenue), and Michael Mundaca (Ernst & Young). See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

11:30 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold an oversight hearing titled "The 60th Anniversary of the Administrative Procedure Act: Where Do We Go From Here?" See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202-225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. Day one of a two day public meeting of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB). See, agenda [PDF] and notice in the Federal Register, July 12, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 133, at Pages 39318. Location: Room 7C13, GAO Building, 441 G St., NW.

9:30 AM - 5:30 PM. The Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) will hold a meeting to deliberate on possible recommendations regarding the antitrust laws to Congress and the President. The meeting is open to the public, but registration is required. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 23, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 121, at Pages 36059-36060.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Section will host a panel discussion titled "Introduction To Patent Law and Trade Secret Law". The speakers will include Steven Warner (Fitzpatrick Cella Harper & Scinto) and Milton Babirak (Babirak Vangellow & Carr). The price to attend ranges from $15-$30. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

2:00 - 5:00 PM. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will hold a meeting regarding management of the internet domain name and addressing system. See, notice in the Federal Register, Federal Register, May 26, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 102, at Pages 30388-30389. Location: auditorium of the Department of Commerce's main building at 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for journalists, federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2006 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.