9/7. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [29 pages in PDF] in Verizon California v. Peevey, affirming in part, and reversing in part, the judgment of the District Court in its review of a state public utilities commission's order in a proceeding arising out of two carriers' failure to negotiate an interconnection agreement.

Verizon California is an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC). Pac West Telecomm is a carrier that competed with Verizon following enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Verizon and Pac West entered into an interconnection agreement in 1996. However, they could not reach an agreement in 2001, and hence, submitted their dispute to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Michael Peevey, and other CPUC Commissioners, were later named as defendants in subsequent District Court litigation.

Verizon and Pac West referred numerous disputed issues to the CPUC. Perhaps the more significant disputes ultimately resolved by the just issued Court of Appeals opinion are "the identification of internet-bound traffic, and compensation for delivery of telephone calls to internet service providers and for calls that appear to the customer to be made within a local area code but in fact are not."

The Court of Appeals summarized the issues, and its resolution of them. It wrote that the CPUC "ruled in Pac-West’s favor that (1) during the interim period before a new agreement was in place, the parties' 1996 agreement continued in force such that Verizon must continue to pay reciprocal compensation for delivery of internet-bound calls at pre-existing rates rather than at the lower capped rates set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that apply to new contractual obligations".

Further, the CPUC ruled that "(2) Pac-West could exclude calls to paging services before applying an FCC presumption that when terminated calls are more than three times the number of originated calls, the excess calls are bound for internet service providers".

Also, the CPUC ruled that "(3) Pac-West is entitled to reciprocal compensation for traffic that appears to originate and terminate within a single exchange by virtue of Pac-West’s assignment of a number that appears to be ``local,´´ but in fact is not -- so-called ``Virtual Local´´ or ``VNXX´´ traffic. The CPUC ruled in Verizon's favor that Verizon is entitled to collect call origination charges for its cost of transporting Virtual Local traffic to a distant point of interconnection."

The Court of Appeals continued that "The district court found that the commission's decision was not arbitrary or capricious."

Both sides appealed. The Court of Appeals held that "We agree with the district court, and therefore affirm all rulings except for the commission's determination that Pac-West may disregard paging traffic for purposes of computing the presumptive volume of traffic bound for an internet service provider (ISP). As to that issue, federal law is to the contrary. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the ruling on calls to paging customers."

This case is Verizon California, Inc. v. Michael Peevey, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 04-16382 and 04-16394, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, D.C. No. CV-03-03441-CW, Judge Claudia Wilken presiding. Judge Pamela Rymer wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Judges Thomas Nelson and William Fletcher joined.

8/29. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its opinion [7 pages in PDF] in Shaw v. Hyatt, a case involving a hotel that charged a customer more than the rate set by the customer's reservation, which was made through the hotel's web site registration system. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.

The court did not dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Nor is this a choice of forum or choice of law case. However, this case bears some similarities to jurisdiction, choice of forum, and choice of law disputes that frequently arise in cases involving internet based activities.

Facts of the Case. Britt Shaw is a resident of the United Kingdom. He stayed in the Ararat Park Hyatt Moscow, in Russia. He booked his reservation through the Hyatt International Corporation's (HIC) web site. HIC is a Delaware corporation with it principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Moreover, Shaw alleged that the HIC web site is in Illinois. (The Court of Appeals opinion states nothing to the contrary.)

In addition, the Court of Appeals noted that HIC's web site states that Illinois law governs all disputes arising out of use of its web site, that exclusive jurisdiction for any claim or action arising out of use the web site shall be in Illinois, and that the customer agrees to submit to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him in Illinois.

When Shaw completed his stay at the hotel in Moscow, the hotel charged him significantly more than the rate set by the web site reservation.

Trial Court Proceedings. Shaw filed a complaint in state court in Chicago against HIC alleging unjust enrichment and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFDPA). He also sought class action status on behalf of other victims of HIC's practices.

HIC removed the action to the U.S. District Court (NDIll), based upon diversity of citizenship. The District Court then applied the law of the state of Illinois.

The District Court dismissed both claims for failure to state a claim. It reasoned that the ICFDPA applies only if circumstances that relate to the disputed transaction occur primarily and substantially in Illinois.

Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the same grounds.

The Court of Appeals also reasoned that the ICFDPA is not meant to provide a remedy where the fraudulent or deceptive practices also constitute a breach of contract.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim on the grounds that Shaw's booking a reservation through Hyatt's web site created an express contract, and that a claim for unjust enrichment is unavailable where the claim rests on the breach of an express contract.

Analysis. Perhaps the dismissal of this action reflects a bias in favor of a home town company. Perhaps it reflects the judges' dislike for class action litigation generally. Perhaps it reflects the judges' dislike for private consumer fraud actions. Policy considerations aside, this opinion is notable for several reasons.

First, this opinion may preclude almost all actions under the ICFDPA against Hyatt arising out of web based transactions. The Court of Appeals concluded that booking a reservation through Hyatt's web site creates an express contract. But that same web process sets as terms of the contract both Illinois choice of forum and choice of law provisions. That is, one cannot maintain a suit arising out of an online reservation in another state or country, and even if one did, Illinois law would apply. Then, the Court of Appeals held that the ICFDPA only applies to transactions that occur primarily and substantially in Illinois.

Hyatt's customers come from all over the world, and there are Hyatt hotels all over the world. If a customer is cheated on a web based reservation at a hotel outside of Illinois, he cannot bring an action under the ICFDPA in Illinois, because the Court of Appeals held that the claim does not meet the "primarily and substantially" requirement. But, the Illinois choice of forum clause precludes the cheated customer from bringing the same claim in any other jurisdiction. Furthermore, the cheated customer cannot bring the action in Illinois, pursuant to the choice of forum requirement, but assert violation of consumer protection laws of other states or countries, because of the choice of law clause.

Second, any "primarily and substantially" requirement is arguably obsolete in the context of web based transactions. The plaintiff/consumer may be in one jurisdiction, while the defendant may be incorporated in another jurisdiction, with relevant offices and servers in still other jurisdictions. Suppliers may be located elsewhere, as may witnesses and events relevant to the transaction. With web based commerce, disputes are rarely "primarily and substantially" based in one jurisdiction, and hence, no one jurisdiction meets a "primarily and substantially" requirement. Yet, this opinion continues to apply this standard.

Third, the Court of Appeals also based its affirmance on its conclusion that the ICFDPA is not meant to provide a remedy where the fraudulent or deceptive practices also constitute a breach of contract. The Court of Appeals quoted judicial precedent, but no language from the ICFDPA, in support of this.

Even though Shaw brought no breach of contract action, the Court of Appeals held that there was a breach of contract.

Contract actions are vital. But in many situations, especially e-commerce transactions between businesses and consumers, the amount in controversy is too small for it to be financially beneficial for the consumer to bring a breach of contract action. Consumer fraud and deception statutes enable government agencies and private parties to obtain recourse in some of these situations.

This case is Britt Shaw v. Hyatt International Corporation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 05-4625, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, D.C. No. 05 C 5022, Judge Harry Leinenweber presiding. Judge Rovner wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Easterbrook and Evans.

8/30. The U.S. Court of Appeals (8thCir) issued its opinion [6 pages in PDF] in Action Tapes v. Mattson, a copyright infringement case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's summary judgment for the defendant/infringer.

The Court of Appeals held while the copyright owner had first obtained certificates of registration from the Copyright Office (CO), it could not maintain a suit for copyright infringement because it did not comply with registration and deposit requirements. Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff had not complied with requirements that are not contained in either the statute or regulations.

The opinion is notable for two reasons. First, it stands as authority for the proposition that the creator of a work, who has registered that work, and received a certificate of registration, can nevertheless loose a civil action against an infringer, on the basis of registration technicalities. This is significant, not only because many registrations are made by layman without legal expertise, but also because for some types of works, and particularly web based works, there are no clear rules for how to register works with the CO.

Second, this case is notable because the Court of Appeals ruled, in part, on the basis that the copyright owner did not comply with a CO circular. The CO publishes circulars to provide guidance to those who register works, and to the CO's examiners. However, they are not law. The CO does not adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in writing them. There is no advance public notice, no opportunity for comment, no judicial review, and no codification. Yet, the Court of Appeals treated a circular as though it were law.

The circular relied upon by the Court of Appeals in this case is Circular 61 [PDF], titled "Copyright Registration for Computer Programs".

Copyright Act and CO Regulations. The Copyright Act establishes the fundamentals of copyright registration. See, 17 U.S.C. §§ 408, § 409, § 410, § 411, and § 412.

§ 411 provides that obtaining a certificate of registration is a prerequisite for bringing an infringement action.

The Congress has delegated authority to the CO to promulgate regulations regarding registration. Specifically, § 408 provides that "The Register of Copyrights is authorized to specify by regulation the administrative classes into which works are to be placed for purposes of deposit and registration, and the nature of the copies or phonorecords to be deposited in the various classes specified. The regulations may require or permit, for particular classes, the deposit of identifying material instead of copies or phonorecords, the deposit of only one copy or phonorecord where two would normally be required, or a single registration for a group of related works."

Finally, § 408 adds that "This administrative classification of works has no significance with respect to the subject matter of copyright or the exclusive rights provided by this title."

The CO has written rules that provide for five methods for registering five categories of copyrightable works. These are nondramatic literary works, works of the visual arts, works of the performing arts, sound recordings, and periodicals. The CO has also provided different forms for registering different categories of works. For example, it has created a Form TX [PDF] for nondramatic literary works, or NDLW, and a Form VA [PDF] for works of visual arts.

The CO's regulations regarding registration are codified at 37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1 - 202.23.

§ 202.3(b)(1) establishes the five types of registrations, and enumerate types of works that should be registered by each method. None of these either include, or exclude, "computer program".

In addition, 17 U.S.C. § 101, the definitional section of the Copyright Act, provides that "A ``computer program´´ is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result."

It also defines "work of visual art" both in terms of items that are included, and items that are excludes. The definition neither includes, nor excludes, "computer program". It does however, exclude a "data base, electronic information service, electronic publication", without also excluding a "computer program".

Facts of the Case. The plaintiff in this case is Action Tapes, a company based in Dallas, Texas. Its copyright portfolio involves visual works -- embroidery designs. It sells its designs in digital media -- memory cards that are read by computer controlled sewing machines.

The defendant in this case Kelly Mattson. It bought memory cards from Action Tapes, and rented them to its customers, without obtaining authorization from Action Tapes.

Ordinarily, under the first sale doctrine, which is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), the purchaser of a copy of a copyrighted work can resell or lease that copy of the work. However, there is an exception for short term rentals of copyrighted computer software, which is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109(b)(1)(A). This exception was enacted by the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990.

Action Tapes registered its works as visual works, not as NDLW. It used Form VA for these registrations. The Court of Appeals did not identify which certificates of registration are at issue, either by title of the work, number, or date of issuance. However, TLJ obtained copies of eight Action Tapes registrations from the CO. One of these identifies the title of the work as "NL 1 Northern Lights 1", and the nature of the work as "text of computer programs". However, the others identify either "illustration" or "embroidery design". The CO issued certificates of registration.

District Court. Action Tapes filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DMinn) against Kelly Mattson alleging copyright infringement in violation of 17. U.S.C. § 501.

The District Court granted summary judgment to Kelly Mattson on the grounds that the memory cards contained data, not computer programs. Action Tapes brought the present appeal.

Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed on different grounds. It did not address the copyrightable subject matter issue. Rather, it affirmed the summary judgment on the grounds that "Action Tapes failed to prove it applied for registration of the computer program copyrights before commencing this infringement action."

The reasoning of the Court of Appeals rests on the Court's assumption that the statute, regulations, and pamphlets such as "Circular 61" specify how to register copyrights, in all types of copyrightable works. It also rests on the assumption that a pamphlet drafted outside of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) has the force of law, and that failure to comply with such a pamphlet can deprive someone of a right provided for by statute and the Constitution.

The Court of Appeals then concluded that these authorities provide that Action Tapes' works are NDLW that can only be registered pursuant to the process designated by the CO for NDLW that are also computer software. Then, it concluded that since Actions Tapes had not done so, it had not registered its copyrights. And, since it had not registered its copyrights, it could not maintain an action for infringement of its copyrights.

The Court of Appeals wrote that "The Copyright Office classifies computer programs as nondramatic literary works because they can be expressed in words and numbers. Therefore, the Office's Circular 61, entitled Copyright Registration for Computer Programs, instructs those applying to register a computer program to complete application Form TX, the form prescribed for nondramatic literary works."

Actually, this statement by the Court is incorrect. Circular 61 states that a Form TX is "typically" used to register computer programs, but does not require the use of Form TX.

The Court of Appeals continued that "The applicant must also deposit with the Copyright Office ``one copy of identifying portions of the program (first 25 and last 25 pages of source code) reproduced in a form visually perceptible without the aid of a machine or device, either on paper or in microform.´´ Circular 61, Deposit Requirements, Part I; see also 37 C.F.R. § 202.20(c)(vii)(A)(1)." (Parentheses in original.)

The subsection of the regulations cited by the Court does address the deposit requirements for computer programs. It does not, however, identity which registration form to use.

The Court continued that "Action Tapes identified six ``visual arts´´ copyright registrations for the copyrights allegedly infringed. Action Tapes submitted no evidence that it complied with Circular 61 in applying for these registrations, and no evidence that it deposited the source codes ``in a form visually perceptible without the aid of a machine or device.´´"

The Court added that Action Tapes' visual arts registrations do not suffice to satisfy the requirement of 17 U.S.C. § 411.

It may also be significant that the Court of Appeals added the statement, "Action Tapes seeks the benefit of a statute that confers extra protection on the owners of a limited category of copyrights." The Court did not elaborate. However, this statement may be cited by litigants in future cases for the proposition that the holding of this opinion only applies in cases involving the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act.

Commentary. One might argue that Action Tapes sought to enforce a copyright in something that it had not registered. That is, it claimed and sought protection for visual works, but sought to enforce a copyright in computer programs. And, had it employed legal counsel with expertise in copyright registrations, it would not have made this error in the registration process. Legal counsel might have registered both visual works, with paper copies of the embroidery designs as the deposits, and computer programs, with source code as the deposit.

But then, if authors must employ counsel at all stages of the creation, registration, and litigation process, then few authors would be able to avail themselves of the protections afforded by the copyright regime.

Also, while one might conclude that Action Tapes should have employed counsel, and handled its registrations differently, in some other areas, and particularly those related to web based works, there are no clear rules, even for expert legal counsel.

For some works, copyright owners, and their attorneys, must guess about what to register, when to register, which registration form to use, what materials to submit, and in what format. The risk that they then face is not that the CO will reject the application, but that the CO will issue a certificate of registration, and that when the copyright owner attempts to enforce its copyright through litigation, the courts will follow an approach similar to that in Action Tapes v. Mattson, and determine that the owner lacks a cause of action because it picked the wrong registration procedures. For certain types of works in new media, there is no way to eliminate risk.

TLJ spoke with two attorneys in the CO's Office of General Council. Neither is aware of court decisions that suggest that there is a problem in the registration process that is preventing authors from enforcing their copyrights.

In addition, David Carson, the General Counsel, stated that the CO plans to initiate a proceeding regarding registration of copyrights in web based works. He added that there is not yet a timetable, and that it has not yet been determined whether the CO will issue a notice of inquiry (NOI) or a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

Also, the person who has been studying the issue of registration of web based works at the CO, Rob Kasunic, has just begun a one year leave of absence to teach copyright law at American University's Washington College of Law. See also, Kasunic's web site with copyright law resources.

This case is Action Tapes v. Kelly Mattson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 05-3309 and 05-3520, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, D.C. No. 04-CV-00935-JNE, Judge Joann Erickson presiding. Judge Loken wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Gibson and Bye joined.

The Republican Whip Notice states that "there are no votes expected in the House".

9:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to discuss the U.S. position on ITU budget shortfalls. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 16, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 158, at Page 47286. Location: undisclosed.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Legislative Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "Prospects for Communications Reform in the 109th Congress". The speakers will be James Assey (Senior Minority Counsel, Senate Commerce Committee), Johanna Shelton (Minority Counsel, House Commerce Committee), Lisa Sutherland (Staff Director, Senate Commerce Committee), and Howard Waltzman (Chief Counsel, House Commerce Committee). RSVP to Chris Moore at chris_moore at burns dot senate dot gov. Location: Room HC-6, Capitol Building.

TIME? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event titled "Talkers Magazine Forum on Intellectual Property Rights". Talkers Magazine is a trade publication that covers the talk media industries, including broadcast talk radio and television, cable news and talk television, satellite radio talk, and podcasting. See, notice. For more information, contact Scott Eisner at ncfevents at uschamber dot com or 202-463-5500. Location: U.S. Chamber, 1615 H Street, NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the FCC's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in its proceeding titled "In the Matter of Children's Television Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters" and numbered MM Docket No. 00-167. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 25, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 165, at Pages 50380-50382.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding Neutral Tandem's petition for interconnection with Verizon Wireless. See, FCC's Public Notice (DA 06-1603) and notice in the Federal Register, August 30, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 168, at Pages 51617-51618. This proceeding is WC Docket No. 06-159.

9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) Information Security Oversight Office's (ISOO) Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB) will hold a meeting to discuss declassification program issues. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 16, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 158, at Page 47258. Location: Washington Room, NARA, 700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

2:00 PM. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing titled "NAFTA at Year Twelve". See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the competitive bidding procedures for Auction No. 69, which is scheduled to begin on February 7, 2007. In this auction, the FCC will offer two 3-megahertz blocks, each consisting of a pair of 1.5 megahertz segments in the 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz bands, in each of six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs). The FCC will also offer one 2-megahertz block of unpaired spectrum in the 1390-1392 MHz band in each of 52 Major Economic Areas (MEAs). See, notice in the Federal Register, August 31, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 169, at Pages 51817-51822.

9:00 AM. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) will hold a rare public meeting. The agenda includes a discussion of "the PCAST review of the Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program" and a "presentation on ethical and societal issues related to emerging technology capabilities". See, notice in the Federal Register, August 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 167, at Pages 51193-51194. Location: George Washington University, Continental Ballroom, Marvin Center Building, 800 21st St., NW.

9:00 AM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting. The agenda includes discussion of encryption, the Wassenaar Statement of Understanding on Military End-uses, and other topics. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 30, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 168, at Page 51573. Location: Room 4830, Herbert Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues,  NW.

9:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division will hold another in their ongoing series of joint hearings on single firm conduct. This hearing will address "International Enforcement Perspectives". The speakers will be Philip Lowe (European Commission), Hideo Nakajima (Japan Fair Trade Commission), Eduardo Pérez Motta (Mexican Federal Competition Commission), and Sheridan Scott (Canadian Competition Bureau). See, FTC release. Location: FTC, Satellite Building, Conference Room C, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Nuvio Corp v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 05-1248. Judges Ginsburg, Griffith and Kavanaugh will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

1:00 - 3:00 PM. The AEI Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies will host a discussion of the book titled "Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge" [Amazon], by Cass Sunstein (University of Chicago). The speakers will be Sunstein, Robert Hahn ( AEI Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies), Tyler Cowen (George Mason University), and Robert Hanson (GMU). See, notice. Location: American Enterprise Institute, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

1:30 PM - 4:00 PM. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division will hold another in their ongoing series of joint hearings on single firm conduct. This hearing will address "Practitioner and Academic Perspectives". The speakers will be George Addy (Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg), Margaret Bloom (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer), Paul Lugard (Royal Philips Electronics), and James Rill (Howrey). See, FTC release. Location: FTC, Satellite Building, Conference Room C, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "How to Litigate Patent Infringement Case". The speakers will include Patrick Coyne and Jerry Ivey (both of Finnegan Henderson). The price to attend ranges from $80-$135. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House Science Committee will hold a hearing titled "How Can Technologies Help Secure Our Borders?" Location: Room 2318 Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Diversity Committee will host a brown bag lunch. This will serve as the Committee organizational meeting. For more information, contact Russell Frisby at rfrisby at fw-law dot com or 202-939-7900. Location: Fleischman & Walsh, 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 6th Floor.

12:15 - 1:45 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Engineering and Technical Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch to discuss upcoming activities. For more information contact Deborah Wiggins at dwiggins at g2w2 dot com. Location: Goldberg Godles Wiener & Wright, 1229 19th St., NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Political Broadcasting 202". The speakers will include Hans von Spakovsky (Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission), Robert Baker (FCC's Media Bureau), Hope Cooper (FCC's Media Bureau), Ann Bobeck (National Association of Broadcasters, invited), and David O'Connor (Holland & Knight). The price to attend ranges from $50-$125. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Lower Level Conference Room, Holland & Knight, 2099 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the competitive bidding procedures for Auction No. 68, which is scheduled to begin on January 10, 2007. The FCC will auction nine construction permits in the FM broadcast service. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 31, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 169, at Pages 51822-51827.

8:15 AM - 3:00 PM. National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award will hold a closed meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 31, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 169, at Page 51803. Location: Administration Building, Lecture Room D, Gaithersburg, MD.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB). The agenda includes "Computer Security Division Update", "Overview of the Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board Activities", "Data Security Breaches", "Privacy Technology Project Discussion", "Safeguarding Personal Information", "Update Status of Security and Privacy Legislation", and "HSPD-12 Status Briefing". See, notice in the Federal Register, August 31, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 169, at Pages 51802-51803. Location: George Washington University, Cafritz Conference Center, Room 101, 800 21st St., 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).

12:30 - 1:45 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Transactional Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch to discuss the committee's program for the upcoming year. RSVP to Neil Dellar at neil dot dellar at fcc dot gov or 202-418-8214. Location: FCC, 8th Floor, South Conference Room.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet by conference call "to prepare advice on proposed U.S. contributions to Study Group 9 (Integrated broadband cable networks and television and sound transmission) of the International Telecommunication Union's Telecommunication Standardization Sector". See, notice in the Federal Register, August 28, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 166, at Page 50965. For more information, contact minardje at state dot gov or 202-647-3234.

Deadline to submit comments to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on its proposal to further extend for smaller public companies the dates for compliance with the internal control requirements mandated by Section 404 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 15, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 157, at Pages 47060-47071.

Deadline to written requests to testify at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's (OUSTR) hearing on its preparation of its annual report to the Congress on China's compliance with the commitments made in connection with its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). See, notice in the Federal Register, July 28, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 145, at Pages 42886-42887. The notice states that the deadline to submit written requests to testify is "Wednesday, September 14". A OUSTR representative stated to TLJ that this should have stated "Thursday, September 14".

Day one of a two day closed meeting of the Library of Congress's (LOC) Section 108 Study Group. This meeting will address "Copies made at the request of patrons/interlibrary loan" and "Licenses and contracts". This meeting is closed to the public. See also, 17 U.S.C. § 108. Location: undisclosed.

8:30 AM - 4:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB). The agenda includes "Computer Security Division Update", "Overview of the Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board Activities", "Data Security Breaches", "Privacy Technology Project Discussion", "Safeguarding Personal Information", "Update Status of Security and Privacy Legislation", and "HSPD-12 Status Briefing". See, notice in the Federal Register, August 31, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 169, at Pages 51802-51803. Location: George Washington University, Cafritz Conference Center, Room 101, 800 21st St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association and The Copyright Society of the U.S.A. will host an event titled "The Copyright Office Speaks". The speaker will be Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights. The price to attend ranges from $25-$40. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: City Club of Washington (Columbia Square building concourse level), 555 13th St., NW.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Continuing Legal Education Committee will host its organizational brown bag lunch. RSVP to Joshua Turner at jturner at wrf dot com. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1776 K St., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for its 2006 biennial review of telecommunications regulations. See, FCC notice [10 pages in PDF] and notice in the Federal Register, August 23, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 163, at Pages 49400-49401. This is CG Docket No. 06-152, EB Docket No. 06-153, IB Docket No. 06-154, ET Docket No. 06-155, WT Docket No. 06-156, WC Docket No. 06-157, and FCC 06-115.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) regarding its Special 301 review of the nations of Indonesia and Chile. The Trade Act of 1974 requires the USTR to identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 23, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 163, at Pages 49491-49492.

Day two of a two day closed meeting of the Library of Congress's (LOC) Section 108 Study Group. This meeting will address "Copies made at the request of patrons/interlibrary loan" and "Licenses and contracts". This meeting is closed to the public. See also, 17 U.S.C. § 108. Location: undisclosed.

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.