10/27. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Microsoft v. AT&T, a patent infringement case regarding the extraterritorial application of 35 U.S.C. §271(f) to software written in the U.S. but installed on foreign made computers.

The Supreme Court's order [PDF] states that "The motion of Software & Information Industry Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition." This is Sup. Ct. No. 05-1056. See also, Supreme Court docket.

Introduction. AT&T is the assignee of U.S. Reissue Patent No. 32,580, titled "Digital speech coder".

Microsoft makes and sells, among other things, the Windows operating system. Windows incorporates some speech codecs that infringe AT&T's patent. It is not now in dispute that Microsoft's Windows infringed the AT&T patent, and that this is a violation of Section 271 for copies of Windows sold in the U.S.

However, Microsoft also licenses its software to foreign equipment manufacturers. Microsoft, like other software companies, makes master disks containing its software that it distributes to foreign computer manufacturers, who then copy the software onto the equipment that they manufacture, and sell to foreign customers.

Microsoft, and others in the software industry, argue that U.S. software companies should not be held liable under Subsection 271(f) for patent infringement for each copy of infringing software sold outside of the U.S. under these circumstances.

The District Court and the Federal Circuit held that Subsection 271(f) can be applied extraterritorially to reach these foreign sales. Court of Appeals Judge Randall Rader wrote a dissent, which the Solicitor General and the SIIA now urge the Supreme Court to follow.

The Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the case.

The outcome of this case will affect not only how much money AT&T collects from Microsoft. The U.S. has a patent rights regime. So do other countries. This case goes to which patent rights regimes may be asserted in certain situations. AT&T, the District Court, and the majority opinion on the Court of Appeals support the notion of extraterritorial application of the U.S. bar on patent infringement to computer products made and sold abroad, that include copies of U.S. made software sent to foreign manufacturers by master disks.

Subsection 271(f) closed a loophole in U.S. patent law that enabled U.S. manufacturers to make physical parts, that where then exported and assembled abroad, without incurring liability under U.S. patent law. The Court of Appeals has extended this subsection to apply to one copy of software code that is then replicated many times for installation on foreign built computers. Moreover, the Court of Appeals applied Subsection 271(f) not to the export of the one master copy, but to each and every installation.

The Supreme Court's decision may have many consequences. Affirming the Court of Appeals may give software companies a disincentive to locate operations in the U.S. That is, the U.S. is the location of much development of ideas, discovery of knowledge, and design of products. On the other hand, much of what is conceptually created in the U.S. is reduced to manufactured product outside of the U.S. The Court of Appeals opinion threatens those who make things outside of the U.S., that are based upon U.S. inventions, to lawsuit in the U.S. under U.S. law.

The Court of Appeals opinion could also be viewed in some countries as a violation of their sovereignty, and result in decreased respect for U.S. sovereignty.

On the other hand, some countries do not have developed patent rights regimes, or effectively operating courts for the enforcement of patent rights. The Court of Appeals opinion provides a remedy in the U.S. for certain infringement taking place in those countries.

Statute. 35 U.S.C. § 271 pertains to "Infringement of patent". Subsection (a) provides that "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."

Subsection (f), which is at issue in this case, provides, in full, as follows:

   "(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.
   (2) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in part, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer."

The statute does not define the terms "components of a patented invention" or "components". Nor does the statute elaborate upon the meaning of "supplying in or from the United States any component".

Proceedings Below. AT&T filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDNY) against Microsoft alleging infringement of its patent.

Microsoft argued in the District Court that software is intangible information that does not constitute a "component" of a patented invention within the meaning of Subsection 271(f). It also argued that no "components" had been "supplied" from the U.S. within the meaning of Subsection 271(f).

The District Court rejected both arguments and entered summary judgment for AT&T.

Microsoft appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion [20 pages in PDF] on July 13, 2005, affirming the judgment of the District Court.

It first held that software can be a component of a patented invention under Subsection 271(f), citing its 2005 opinion in Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325. (The Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Eolas case.)

It also rejected Microsoft's extraterritoriality argument. It wrote that "Microsoft posits that § 271(f) liability should attach only to each disk that is shipped and incorporated into a foreign-assembled computer", rather than to each copy installed on computers made abroad.

"We reject this theory of liability as it fails to account for the realities of software distribution." The Court of Appeals continued that "we cannot disregard the nature of the relevant technology and business practices underlying a particular litigation. It is inherent in the nature of software that one can supply only a single disk that may be replicated -- saving material, shipping, and storage costs -- instead of supplying a separate disk for each copy of the software to be sold abroad. All of such resulting copies have essentially been supplied from the United States."

The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that electronic transmission must be treated differently for purposes of § 271(f) liability from software shipped on disks.

The Court of Appeals added that "Were we to hold that Microsoft's supply by exportation of the master versions of the Windows® software -- specifically for the purpose of foreign replication -- avoids infringement, we would be subverting the remedial nature of § 271(f), permitting a technical avoidance of the statute by ignoring the advances in a field of technology -- and its associated industry practices -- that developed after the enactment of § 271(f)."

Judge Rader (at right) wrote a lengthy dissent. He stated that "This court today determines that supplying a single ``component´´ of a patented invention from the United States gives rise to endless liability in the United States under § 271(f) for products manufactured entirely abroad."

He added that "this judgment disregards the existing international scheme of patent law". He continued that "although agreeing that software may be a component of a patented invention under § 271(f) and that electronic transmissions of software from the United States must receive the same treatment as software shipped from the United States on disks, I respectfully dissent from the proposition that foreign manufacture of a mere component of a patented product creates liability in the United States under § 271(f)."

He wrote that "this court provides extraterritorial expansion to U.S. law by punishing under U.S. law ``copying´´ that occurs abroad. While copying in Düsseldorf or Tokyo may indeed constitute infringement, that infringement must find its remedy under German or Japanese law."

Amicus Briefs. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submitted an amicus brief, at the invitation of the Supreme Court, urging the Court to grant certiorari and reverse.

The OSG wrote that the two issues in this case are "1. Whether software object code can be a component of a patented invention; and, if so, 2. Whether copies of software object code are "supplie[d]" from the United States when those copies are created overseas by replicating a separate master version supplied from the United States."

It first argued that software object code can be a component of a patent invention, notwithstanding its intangibility.

It second argued that the Court of Appeals "erred in holding that the creation of software copies overseas by replication of a master version provided from the United States constitutes the ``suppl[y]´´ of software ``from the United States´´ within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 271(f)."

The OSG also restated with approval a policy argument advanced by the SIIA in its amicus brief. (See, below.) The OSG wrote that "Under the court of appeals' decision, companies that design software in the United States cannot distribute their software abroad without running the risk that they will be compelled to pay royalties under United States patent law with respect to all of their foreign sales. Their foreign competitors, by contrast, run no such risk of global liability under United States law, because they are exempt from application of Section 271(f) with respect to their foreign conduct."

The OSG added that "As a result, United States software companies will find themselves at a substantial competitive disadvantage in foreign markets, and may even be foreclosed from competing in those markets altogether. That disadvantage will harm the software sector of the American economy and could ultimately compel some software companies to relocate their research and development operations abroad."

The Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) also submitted an amicus brief [25 pages in PDF] urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, and then reverse the Court of Appeals.

It wrote that "The Federal Circuit has wrongly extended the extraterritorial application of United States patent law to cover products containing copies of a patented product, even when the copies are made in a foreign country, ignoring §271(f)'s clear requirement that ``components of a patented invention´´ be ``supplie[d] . . . from the United States´´ before liability can be assessed. 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(1)."

It argued that "The Federal Circuit's interpretation of §271(f) is also at odds with principles of comity, making review desirable to avoid the gratuitous encroachment of United States law on the patent systems of foreign nations."

Finally, it warned that "Foreign nations -- upset with the encroachment of American patent law on their legal regimes or simply looking for justifications to impose protectionist measures -- may attempt to impose liability on American companies producing goods within the United States that incorporate components or even intangible ideas covered by patents in their legal systems. That type of legal liability, and the possible trade barriers put up in retaliation, would increase costs for many producers and would raise prices for consumers in the United States and abroad."

The District Court case is AT&T Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation, D.C. No. 01-CV-4872, Judge William Pauley presiding.

The Court of Appeals case is AT&T Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation, 04-1285. Judge Lourie wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Judge Mayer joined. Judge Rader wrote a dissent.

Microsoft is represented before the Supreme Court by Theodore Olson of the Washington DC office of the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.  AT&T is represented by Stephen Neal of Palo Alto office of the law firm of Cooley Godward and Seth Waxman of the Washington DC office of the law firm of Wilmer Hale.

10/30. The Librarian of Congress published a notice in the Federal Register that announces that he "is extending, on an interim basis, the existing classes of works with respect to which the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses."

The notice adds that this rulemaking is in its "final stages", and that "It is anticipated that this extension will be in effect for no more than a few weeks."

The notice contains no tentative conclusions or exemptions. Nor does it state a cause for the delay. See, Federal Register, October 30, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 209, at Page 63247.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requires the Copyright Office to conduct a rulemaking proceeding every three years to designate exemptions to the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.

17 U.S.C. § 1201 provides, in Subsection (a)(1)(A), that "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title ...".

Then, Subsections (a)(1)(B) through (E) provide for rulemaking proceedings conducted by the CO every three years to establish exemptions to the prohibition of (a)(1)(A) for certain non-infringing uses.

The CO is now conducting its third rulemaking. The CO began this process one year ago. See, story titled "Copyright Office Announces Proceeding on DMCA Anti-Circumvention Exemptions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,229, October 7, 2005. The CO received, and published in its web site, 74 initial comments, and 35 reply comments.

It announced its hearing schedule in February. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 23, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 36, at Pages 9302-9303. and story titled "Copyright Office Announces Hearings on Exemptions to Anti-Circumvention Provisions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,318, February 27, 2006.

The rule adopted in the second triennial review, conducted in 2003, expired on October 27, 2006. The CO's legal team on this rulemaking, headed by David Carson, has not completed its work. Hence, the Librarian of Congress announces this extension of the existing exemptions, and a delay in releasing a new list of exemptions.

The current rules, which have just been extended, were announced, described, and recited in a notice in Federal Register, October 31, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 241, at Pages 62011-62018. They are also codified at 37 C.F.R. § 201.40(b).

Notably, while the just published notice states that the extension is for "no more than a few weeks", the actual wording of the extension makes it indefinite.

10/27. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released an agenda [2 pages in PDF] for its event on Friday, November 3, 2006, titled "Open Meeting".

AT&T BellSouth Merger Order. This agenda states again that the FCC will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding the merger of AT&T and BellSouth, which is nominally an approval of the transfer of FCC licenses.

The FCC has previously announced, but postponed, cancelled or held over, consideration of this order.

See, story titled "FCC Issues Second Public Notice Seeking Comments on AT&T's Revised Proposed Conditions" TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,469, October 16, 2006; stories titled "FCC Further Delays AT&T BellSouth Merger Decision and NOI on Broadband Industry Practices" and "FCC Releases Public Notice Seeking Comments on AT&T's Proposed Conditions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,468, October 13, 2006; and story titled "FCC Delays its AT&T BellSouth Merger Review Decision" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,467, October 12, 2006.

See also, the FCC's web page for this merger review. This proceeding is WC Docket No.06-74.

It may only be safe to predict that either the FCC will, or will not, hold this meeting, and that if it does hold this meeting, it either will, or will not, consider this item.

The FCC's agenda does not include consideration of a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding broadband industry practices. This had been on the agenda for previous meetings.

Regulatory Classification of BPL. The FCC's agenda states that it will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order in its proceeding titled "United Power Line Council’s Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Classification of Broadband over Power Line Internet Access Service as an Information Service" and numbered WC Docket No. 06-10.

On December 23, 2005, the United Power Line Council (UPLC) filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling [16 pages in PDF] with the FCC requesting that the FCC "declare that BPL-enabled Internet access service is an interstate information service, consistent with the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling and the DSL Order."

BPL service providers do not want to be subjected to regulation under Title II of the Communications Act, or be subjected to state regulation of intrastate telecommunications.

The UPLC wrote that "Both cable modem service and DSL now enjoy regulatory certainty and regulatory parity as a result of each being classified as interstate information services subject to regulation under Title I. However, the Commission's decisions clarifying the regulatory status of cable modem and DSL-enabled Internet access were limited to those respective technologies. The Commission's provision of the requested declaratory ruling would help provide the same level of regulatory clarity to the nascent BPL industry as well, thereby assuring regulatory neutrality among the competing technologies." (Footnote omitted.)

Other Items on Agenda. The FCC's agenda states that it will consider a Report and Order in its proceeding titled "Revision of Procedures Governing Amendments to FM Table of Allotments and Changes of Community of License in the Radio Broadcast Services" and numbered MB Docket No. 05-210.

The FCC's agenda also states that it will consider an NPRM in its proceeding titled "In the Matter of the Effects of Communications Towers on Migratory Birds" and numbered WT Docket No. 03-187.

This event titled "Open Meeting" is scheduled for 9:30 AM on Friday, November 3, 2006 in the FCC's Commission Meeting Room, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street, SW. The event will be webcast by the FCC. The FCC does not always consider all of the items on its published agenda. The FCC sometimes adds items to the agenda without providing the "one week" notice required 5 U.S.C. § 552b. The FCC does not always start its events at the scheduled time, or at all. The FCC usually does not release at its events copies of the items that it adopts at its events.

The House will not meet. It may return from it elections recess on Monday, November 13, 2006. The adjournment resolution, HConRes 483, provides for returning on Thursday, November 9, at 2:00 PM.

The Senate will not meet. See, HConRes 483.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division regarding its Draft Special Publication 800-95 [140 pages in PDF], titled "Guide to Secure Web Services".

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to it notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding compensation of providers of telecommunications relay services (TRS) from the Interstate TRS Fund. The FCC adopted this item on July 13, 2006, and released it on July 20, 2006. It is FCC 06-106. This proceeding is titled "Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities" and numbered CG Docket No. 03-123. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 13, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 177, at Pages 54009-54017.

Deadline to submit FCC Form 346 to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This pertains to low power television (LPTV) and television translator stations' applications for digital companion channels. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 26, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 207, at Pages 62591-62592, and FCC Public Notice  [93 pages in PDF] numbered DA 06-1748, and dated August 31, 2006.

Deadline to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) regarding the implications for U.S. trade in goods and services of the anticipated enlargement of the European Union (EU) to include Bulgaria and Romania. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 189, at Pages 57585-57586.

8:30 AM - 1:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) advisory committee titled "American Health Information Community" will meet. The agenda includes a discussion of the Health Information Technology Standards Panel's standards recommendations. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 12, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 197, at Page 60152. Location: Conference Room 800, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Ave., SW.

10:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 17, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 200, at Page 61073. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 375, Arlington, VA.

12:15 - 1:45 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will a brown bag lunch for the volunteers for the FCBA's November 16 auction. For more information, contact fcbavolunteers06 at gmail dot com, Josh Turner at jturner at wrf dot com or 202-719-4807, Katrina Gleber at kgleber at lsl-law dot com or 202-416-1093, or Christina Langlois at clanglois at nualumni dot com or 703-597-2265. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1776 K Street, NW.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hold an en banc rehearing in Rep. John Boehner v. Rep. Jim McDermott, App. Ct. No. 04-7203. See, March 28, 2006, opinion [23 pages in PDF] of the three judge panel of the Court of Appeals, and story titled "Court of Appeals Holds that Rep. McDermott Violated Wiretap Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,339, March 30, 2006. Location: Courtroom 20, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

9:30 AM - 1:00 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold another of their series of hearings on single-firm conduct. This hearing will address tying. The speakers will be David Evans (Vice Chairman of LECG Europe), Robin Feldman (Hastings College of the Law), Mark Popofsky (Kaye Scholer), Donald Russell (Robbins Russell), Michael Waldman (Cornell University), Robert Willig (Princeton University). See, notice. Location: Room 432, FTC Headquarters Building, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

8:00 AM - 2:00 PM. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 17, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 200, at Page 61073. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 375, Arlington, VA.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a program titled "Communications Law 101". See, registration form [PDF]. Prices vary. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1776 K St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 3:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "DR-CAFTA: The United States-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement A Roundtable with the Ambassadors". The price to attend ranges from $15 to $40. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Arnold & Porter, 555 12th Street, NW.

5:30 - 7:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host an event titled "Comm Law 101 Happy Hour". For more information, contact Chris Fedeli at cfedeli at crblaw dot com or 202-828-9874, or Natalie Roisman at nroisman at akingump dot com or 202-887-4493. Location: Restaurant Kolumbia, 1801 K St, NW.

8:00 - 10:00 AM. The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) will host an event titled "Federal Enterprise Architecture: Key Strategies Government Agencies Need to Implement for Aligning IT Operations to Accelerate Business Performance". See, notice. Location: Morrison & Foerster, Suite 5500, 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

8:30 AM - 4:00 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative Federal Advisory Committee will meet. The deadline to register is October 26, 2006. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 26, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 204, at Page 62122. Location: Embassy Suites Hotel, 900 10th Street NW.

9:00 AM - 5:30 PM. The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) will host a conference titled "Information Security in the Federal Enterprise". Karen Evans (OMB) will be the keynote speaker. The price to attend ranges from free to $400. See, notice and agenda [PDF]. For more information, contact Patti Coen at pcoen at itaa dot org. Location: Computer Services Corporation (CSC), Executive Briefing Center, 3170 Fairview Park Drive, Falls Church, VA.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) International Telecommunications Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "VoIP and Broadband Developments in Europe and Asia". The speakers will be Mark Del Bianco (Law Office of Mark Del Bianco), Christian Dippon (NERA Economic Consulting), Peter Waters (Gilbert+Tobin and Arculli Fong & Ng), Karl Weaver (Newport Technologies), and Jean-marc Escalettes (France Telecom Long Distance USA). RSVP by October 30 to Jennifer Ullman at jennifer dot ullman at verizon dot com or 202-515-2432. Location: Skadden Arps, 11th Floor, 1440 New York Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement -- Negotiations Update". The speakers will include Wendy Cutler (chief U.S. negotiator for the Korea US FTA), Seok-young Choi (Minister of Economic Affairs, Embassy of the Republic of Korea), Demetrios Marantis (International Trade Counsel, Democratic Staff, Senate Finance Committee), Myron Brilliant (U.S.-Korea Business Council), and Mary Patricia Michel (McKenna Long & Aldridge). The price to attend ranges from $5 to $25. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer Advisory Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 18, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 201, Page 61470-61471. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW.

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

9:30 - 11:30 AM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to discuss the upcoming meeting of the ITU Radiocommunication Sector's Conference Preparatory Meeting (CPM) for the 2007 World Radiocommunication Conference, to be held on February 19 through March 2, 2007 in Geneva, Switzerland. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 10, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 195, at Page 59580. Location: Boeing Company, 1200 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA.

EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 4. Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) regarding its proposed changes to its Export Administration Regulations (EAR) pertaining to exports and reexports of dual-use items to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Dual use items include certain encryption products, information security products, fiber optic products, computers, and software. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 6, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 129, at Pages 38313-38321. See, notice of extension in the Federal Register, October 19, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 202, at Page 61692.

Day one of a four day a partially closed conference hosted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) titled "Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-ade". The topics to be addressed include "The Changing Nature of Consumer Products, Mobile Devices and Marketing, Data Security and Privacy, Convergence, The Evolving Internet, Payment Systems and Trends, Advertising and Marketing Trends, and Demographic Shifts". The November 9 session is closed to the public. See, notice and conference web site. Location: George Washington University, Lisner Auditorium, 730 21st Street, 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.