2/23. The U.S. Court of Appeals (8thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in USA v. Trotter, affirming a conviction in a Section 1030 case. The Court of Appeals rejected Trotter's argument that Section 1030 could not be used to prosecute him because of the absence of interstate commerce.

John Trotter used a home computer with internet access to access the computers of his former employer, the Salvation Army (SA), without authorization. The SA is a non-profit entity. Its computer are connected to the internet, and used to communicate with computers in other states. However, both Trotter and the SA computer which he accessed were in the state of Missouri. He deleted files, temporarily shut down a computer operated phone system, and caused other damage. He was charged with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i). He pled guilty, reserving the right of appeal.

This subsection provides in part that "(a) Whoever ... (5)(A)(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer ... shall be punished ..."

Trotter argued on appeal that there is no interstate commerce component in his case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. It held that it does not matter that the computers affected were owned by a non-commercial rather than a commercial entity.

The Congress, under the framework of the Constitution, can only legislate on subjects enumerated in Article I of the Constitution. There is no general grant of criminal law making authority. In contrast, states have general criminal law making authority.

However, the Congress can enact criminal statutes that are incidental to other enumerated powers. One of these is the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Congress often acts as though this were a general grant of criminal law making authority. As the present case illustrates, the federal courts allow the Congress, and federal prosecutorial entities, great latitude in asserting that conduct is in interstate commerce.

The Court of Appeals wrote that "The Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. ... This includes the ability to regulate channels of interstate commerce, instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. ... No additional interstate nexus is required when instrumentalities or channels of interstate commerce are regulated."

The Court of Appeals added that "The Salvation Army’s status as a not-for-profit entity has no bearing on our analysis; it is the characteristics of the computer or computer network, not the entity using the network, that is the focus of the statute."

The Court also wrote that it relied upon the U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) 2005 opinion in United States v. Mitra, which is reported at 405 F.3d 492. See also, story titled "7th Circuit Affirms Broad Reach of Section 1030" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,119, April 20, 2005.

In the 7th Circuit case, Mitra, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin, transmitted a radio signal that prevented the communications system for police, fire, ambulance, and other emergency communications in Madison, Wisconsin, from operating. He accessed no computers. He sent to computer code. However, computer chips are used in the management of the emergency communications system in Madison.

The Court of Appeals wrote in the present opinion that "The Seventh Circuit held the communication system harmed by the defendant’s conduct was protected by the statute because it was engaged in interstate communication and, specifically, it was engaged in communication on the electromagnetic spectrum regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. ... Like the Internet, the spectrum is a channel of interstate commerce subject to regulation by Congress. ... In Mitra, the defendant argued the intrastate nature of his attack took it outside the constitutional applicability of the statue. Judge Easterbrook, writing for the court, explained the location of the attack is not determinative because ``[o]nce the computer is used in interstate commerce, Congress has the power to protect it from a local hammer blow, or from a local data packet that sends it haywire.´´ ... Likewise, the nature of the organization using the computer is irrelevant; once the computer is used in interstate commerce, Congress has the power to protect it."

In both Trotter and Mitra, neither the defendants nor the victims were engaged in commerce. Neither case involved an activity that crossed state borders. Yet, both courts held that the the defendants' actions satisfied the interstate commerce requirement. Moreover, these opinions are consistent with court opinions in non-Section 1030 cases.

However, the 7th Circuit's opinion in Mitra was notable to the extent that it essentially construed spectrum interference to be a form of computer hacking. In that case, devices that utilized the spectrum contained computer chips. But now a wide variety of spectrum related devices include chips. And now, the 8th Circuit has cited the Mitra case with approval.

This case is USA v. John Larkin Trotter, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, No. 05-4202, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Judge Rodney Sippell presiding.

2/23. The U.S. Court of Appeals (1stCir) issued its opinion in Universal Communication Systems v. Lycos, a case involving Section 230 interactive computer service immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court, which had held that Lycos and others are entitled to immunity under Section 230.

The Court of Appeals rejected attempts by the plaintiffs to get around Section 230 by pleading trademark dilution (intellectual property claims are an exception to Section 230 immunity), and federal cyberstalking (which is also an exception), and state securities fraud and cyberstalking claims.

Universal Communication Systems, Inc. is a publicly traded company. Michael Zwebner is its Chairman and CEO.

Lycos operates web sites, including Quote.com and RagingBull.com, which allow subscribing users to create message boards, and post comments regarding companies.

Messages were posted to a UCS message board on the RagingBull.com web site that pertained to the financial condition, business prospects, and management of UCS. UCS and Zwebner allege that these were false and defamatory. However, they did not plead slander or defamation.

There is a long line of cases holding that interactive computer services are not liable for defamation by third party posters. Rather, in the Court of Appeals' words, "UCS attempted to plead around this Section 230 statutory immunity".

UCS and Zwebner filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDFla) against Lycos and other interactive service services. USC and Zwebner initially alleged for claims: (1) fraudulent securities transactions under Florida statute, (2) cyberstalking in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 223, (3) dilution of trade name under Florida law, and (4) cyberstalking under Florida law.

Pursuant to a forum selection clause in a Lycos subscriber agreement, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court (DMass). The District Court dismissed the complaint.

Statute. The relevant portions of 47 U.S.C. § 230 are as follows:

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".

However, 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(2) then provides that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property". (The trademark dilution claim is an intellectual property claim.)

Also, 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(1) provides, in part, that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 ... of this title, ... or any other Federal criminal statute." (The federal cyberstalking language in included within Section 223.)

47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2) provides that an "interactive computer service" is "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".

Also, 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3) provides that an "information content provider" is "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service".

Court of Appeals Holding. The Court of Appeals held that Lycos is an "interactive computer service" within the meaning of the statute. It rejected USC's argument that it failed to qualify on the basis that it did not provide internet access to customers.

It held that the anonymous poster was an "information content provider", and that the state cyberstalking and securities claims sought to treat Lycos of the publisher of information provided by this information content provider.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the dismissal of the trademark dilution claim. It first wrote that "Claims based on intellectual property laws are not subject to Section 230 immunity." Instead, it affirmed because the alleged used of a protected mark (that is, the use of the UCSY ticker symbol in the message board) was not actionable absent Section 230 immunity, "because of the serious First Amendment issues that would be raised by allowing UCS's claim here".

The Court of Appeals continued that "The injury that UCS alleges, however, is not a form of trademark injury. Trademark injury arises from an improper association between the mark and products or services marketed by others. ... But any injury to UCS ultimately arises from its being criticized on the Raging Bull site. To premise liability on such criticism would raise serious First Amendment concerns."

The Court of Appeals added that "To be sure, UCS does allege that in this case the criticism is false and misleading. But while such an allegation might be relevant to a defamation claim, it is not determinative of whether UCS's allegations can support a trademark claim. If the injury alleged is one of critical commentary, it falls outside trademark law, whether the criticism is warranted or unwarranted."

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the dismissal of the federal cyberstalking claim. This is a recently enacted prohibition with a short and unusual legislative history. During the First Session of the 109th Congress, the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) and its staff produced a cyber stalking bill. This carefully prepared bill did not become law. Rather, a much different version pushed by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) was substituted for the HJC version during last minute negotiations and vote trading over HR 3402 (109th Congress), a Department of Justice reauthorization bill. The McDermott language makes it a federal crime to use the internet to "annoy" someone. The bill also includes the internet within the definition of "telecommunications device" for the purpose of 47 U.S.C. § 223.

For an explanation of this late amendment, see story titled "Bush Signs DOJ Reauthorization Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,284, January 6, 2006. See, subsection titled "The Internet as a Telecommunications Device".

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Section 223 claim, but only the basis that UCS did not raise this on appeal. The Court of Appeals wrote that "On the federal cyberstalking claim under 47 U.S.C. § 223, in addition to finding the claim barred by Section 230, the district court also found that the cyberstalking statute does not provide a private right of action. UCS does not challenge this dispositive ruling on appeal, so we affirm the dismissal of the claim on that basis, expressing no view on the appropriateness of applying Section 230 immunity to a putative civil claim under 47 U.S.C.§ 223."

Hence, the Court of Appeals left unresolved the question of whether there is a private right of action under Section 223. However, Section 223 is clearly a criminal prohibition which includes no express private right of action. However, were a court to create a private right of action under Section 223, then the McDermott internet annoyance language might provide a means to evade a Section 230 dismissal, because Section 223 is an exception to a Section 230 immunity.

See also, stories titled "The District Court District Court Holds Rep. McDermott Violated Wiretap Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 964, August 23, 2004, and "Court of Appeals Holds that Rep. McDermott Violated Wiretap Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,339, March 30, 2006.

This case is Universal Communication Systems, Inc. and Michael Zwebner v. Lycos, Inc., et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, App. Ct. No. 06-1826, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Robert Keeton presiding.

2/23. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin, who is from the state of North Carolina, announced his intent to appoint Derek Poarch, who is also from North Carolina, to be the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Chief. Poarch is currently Director of Public Safety and Chief of Police at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. See, FCC release [PDF].

2/23. Ed Black, head of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), stated in a release that the February 22, 2007, trial jury's Special Verdict Form [PDF] in Lucent v. Microsoft "is another sign that our patent system has run off the rails ... instead of promoting innovation, patents now threaten the innovation process and those companies that focus primarily on creating and using new products." This CCIA release further states that "Even though Microsoft paid $16 million in licensing fees to the companies that developed the MP3 standard in the early 1990s, they now have to pay a remarkable $1.5 billion to a company that didn’t participate in the standard/licensing process back then, and Microsoft is only the first target among the thousands of producers that have adopted the MP3 standard." See also, the CCIA's paper [3 MB PDF] titled "Patent Reform for the Digital Economy".

2/21. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) released a paper [PDF] titled "Copy Protection and Games: Lessons for DRM Debates and Development". The author is the PFF's Solvieg Singleton. She argues that "Content producers do respond to consumer complaints about clumsy copy protection". She also concludes that "Interoperability with general purpose media increases piracy risks for content", and that "Hardware-linked protection is most durable." Finally, she argues that "Consumers do not always demand what advocates think they ought to demand. Consumers will buy special-purpose hardware when it is easy to use and not too expensive. They do not demand interoperability or the right to make backup copies at all costs."

2/23. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issued a release [PDF] that discussed management of the usTLD locality space.

2/23. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) held a hearing on regulation of media ownership in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. See, statement [PDF] by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, statement [PDF] by Commissioner Deborah Tate, statement [PDF] by Commissioner Robert McDowell, statement [PDF] by Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, and statement [PDF] by Commissioner Michael Copps. Copps devoted much of his statement to the effect of media consolidation on the transparency of state and local governments. He did not discuss the lack of transparency of the FCC's activities and operations, or his own efforts to further reduce FCC transparency by seeking a loophole in the federal open meetings statute for the FCC. See, story titled "Copps and Stevens Advocate Less Transparency at FCC" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,272, December 14, 2005. The relevant statute, which is codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552b, requires federal agencies to hold their meetings in public, and give notice "at least one week before the meeting, of the time, place, and subject matter of the meeting". Transparency is understood to refer to the extent to which government entities make their hearings, deliberations, and other processes open, observable, and receptive to public input, and the extent to which agencies promptly reduce all decisions, and substantive and procedural laws and rules, to readily available and understandable texts. However, Copps advanced the argument that transparency is a function of the number of reporters. He argued that media consolidation reduces the number of reporters who write about state and local government, and this reduces transparency. He stated that "That's what a vigorous press is all about. It brings transparency and accountability to government." He said that "A merger between two newsrooms usually means one less statehouse reporter."

The House will not meet. See, Rep. Hoyer's weekly calendar.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) regarding the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection and enforcement at the provincial level in the People's Republic of China. The OUSTR is particularly interested in details about Beijing City, Fujian Province, Guangdong Province, Jiangsu Province, Shanghai City, and Zhejiang Province. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 24, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 15, at Pages 3170-3171.

Deadline to submit written comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding its January 25, 2007, workshop on online marketing of negative options. See, FTC release and notice [PDF] to be published in the Federal Register.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Ninth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in its proceeding titled "Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band". The FCC adopted this item at its December 20, 2006, meeting. It is FCC 06-181 in PS Docket No. 06-229 and WT Docket No. 96-86. See, FCC's Public Notice [3 pages in PDF] (DA 07-41) and notice in the Federal Register, January 10, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 6, at Pages 1201-1204.

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its 7th Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in its proceeding titled "Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service". This item proposes a new DTV Table of Allotments providing all eligible stations with channels for DTV operations after the DTV transition. The FCC adopted this item on October 10, 2006, and released it on October 20, 2006. See, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Proposing New DTV Table of Allotments" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,473, October 23, 2006. This item is FCC 06-150 in MB Docket No. 87-268. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 15, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 220, at Pages 66591-66631. See, FCC's notice of extention [2 pages in PDF] (DA 07-38) and notice in the Federal Register, January 26, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 17, at Page 3777.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Media Bureau (MB) in response to its 7th Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding revisions to the proposed new DTV table of allotments. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 19, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 12, at Pages 2485-2487. This 7thFNPRM is FCC 06-150 in MB Docket No. 87-268.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) regarding the request submitted by Hand Held Products for a determination that the hearing aid compatibility obligations in Part 20 do not apply to its mobile computing line of devices. See, FCC's Public Notice [PDF] (DA 07-103). This proceeding is WT Docket No. 01-309.

The House will meet at 2:00 PM for legislative business. It will consider several non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. See, Rep. Hoyer's weekly calendar.

9:00 AM - 4:45 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 12, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 28, at Pages 6547-6548. Location: American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Ave., NW.

5:00 PM. The House Rules Committee will meet to adopt a rule for consideration of HR 556, the "National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2007", a bill pertaining to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) process. Location: Room H-313, Capitol Building.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will consider HR 556, the "National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2007", a bill pertaining to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) process. See, Rep. Hoyer's weekly calendar.

Day two of a two day meeting of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 12, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 28, at Pages 6547-6548. Location: American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The House Science Committee will meet to mark up several bills, including HR 1068, a bill to amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Financial Services will hold a hearing on the "Consumer Issues". The witnesses will be Deborah Majoras (FTC Chairman), Nancy Nord (acting Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission), Janell Duncan (Consumers Union), Rachel Weintraub (Consumer Federation of America), and Ari Schwartz (Center for Democracy and Technology). Location: Room 2220, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science will hold a hearing on the National Science Board (NSB). The witness will be Steven Beering (NSB Chairman). Location: Room 2359A, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Comprehensive Immigration Reform". The witnesses will be Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.

11:30 AM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) HLS/Emergency Communications Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The speaker will be David Boyd (Director, Command, Control and Interoperability in the Department of Homeland Security). For more information, contact Robert Gurss at gurssr at apcomail dot org or 202-833-3800  Location: Akin Gump, 1133 New Hampshire Ave., NW.

2:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "H.R. 251, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2007". The Subcommittee may also mark up the bill at the conclusion of the hearing. See, HR 251. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

2:00 PM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science will hold a hearing titled "Overview of Science Funding". The witnesses will be Norman Augustine (former Ch/CEO of Lockheed Martin) and Alan Leshner (CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science). Location: Room 2359A, Rayburn Building.

3:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HCC) Antitrust Task Force will hold a hearing titled "Competition and the Future of Digital Music". This hearing will examine the proposed XM Sirius merger. See, notice and release. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

Extended deadline to submit comments to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Electronic Surveillance Technology Section (ESTS) regarding its Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) related cost recovery process information collection activities. See, original notice in the Federal Register, November 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 229, at Pages 69146-69147, which set the original comment deadline of January 29, 2007, and notice of extension in the Federal Register, January 29, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 18, at Pages 4045-4046.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its Draft Special Publication 800-104 [9 pages in PDF] titled "A Scheme for PIV Visual Card Topography". It contains recommendations for federal agencies in the color coding of Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Cards.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will consider HR 800, a bill for the benefit of labor unions. See, Rep. Hoyer's weekly calendar.

10:00 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science will hold a hearing on the National Science Foundation (NSF). The witness will be Arden Bement. Location: Room 2237, Rayburn Building.

LOCATION CHANGE. 10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold a business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of S 236, the "Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act of 2007", and S 316, the "Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act", a bill to prohibit brand name drug companies from compensating generic drug companies to delay the entry of a generic drug into the market. The agenda also includes consideration of several judicial nominees: Thomas Hardiman (to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit), John Preston Bailey (U.S.D.C., Northern District of West Virginia), Otis Wright (U.S.D.C., Central District of California), and George Wu (U.S.D.C., Central District of California). The SJC rarely follows its published agendas. Press contract, Tracy Schmaler (Leahy) at 202-224-2154 or Courtney Boone (Specter) at Courtney_Boone at judiciary-rep dot senate dot gov or 202-224-2984. See, notice. Location: Room S-216, Capitol Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Universal Service". See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

10:30 AM (or 15 minutes after the conclusion of a full Committee markup scheduled for 10:00 AM). The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Digital Future of the United States: Part I -- The Future of the World Wide Web". Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

11:30 AM - 1;00 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC) will host a lunch titled "The Sarbanes Oxley Act with Michael Oxley". See, notice. For more information, contact Patrick O'Neill at poneill at uschamber dot com or 202-463-3104. Location: USCC, 1615 H St., NW.

TIME CHANGE. 12:00 NOON - 3:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host an event titled "Universal Service Reform: Are Reverse Auctions the Answer?". The speakers will be Shyamal Ghosh (former Director of the Indian Department of Telecommunications), Paul Milgrom (Stanford University), Vernon Smith (George Mason University), and Dennis Weller (Chief Economist of Verizon). See, notice. Lunch will be served. Location: Oriental Ballroom B, Mandarin Oriental Hotel, 1330 Maryland Ave., SW.

12:00 PM. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson will give a speech on trade at an event hosted by the Economic Club of Washington (ECW). See, Treasury notice. Press contact: Judi Irastorza (ECW) at pcom2 at cox dot net or 703-765-6881. Location: Renaissance Mayflower Hotel, Grand Ballroom, 1127 Connecticut Ave., NW.

Deadline for local exchange carriers, providers of wired or wireless broadband connections, and non-reseller CMRS providers to submit Form 477 [MS Excel] to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). See, FCC's Public Notice [PDF] (DA 07-117) and FCC's Form 477 instructions [17 pages in PDF].

Deadline to submit to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) the sixth annual reports from the 700 MHz Guard Band Managers and the fifth annual report from Access 220, LLC, a 220 MHz Band Manager. See, FCC's Public Notice [PDF] (DA 07-107).

Rep. Hoyer's weekly calendar [PDF] states that "No votes are expected in the House."

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Cable Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "The Future of Program Access Regulation". For more information, contact Daphney Sheppard at dsheppard at sidley dot com or 202-736-8019. Location: Sidley Austin, 6th floor, 1501 K St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC) will host an event titled "Sarbanes-Oxley: Costs, Benefits, and the Ongoing Debate". For more information, contact Henrietta Treyz at 202-463-5864 or htreyz at uschamber dot com. See, notice. Location: Room 2158 (Gold Room), Rayburn Building, Capitol Hill.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in its TV white space proceeding. This FNPRM is FCC 06-156 in ET Docket Nos. 04-186 and 02-380. The FCC adopted this item at an October 12, 2006, meeting, and released it on October 18, 2006. See, story titled "FCC Adopts Order and FNPRM Regarding TV White Space" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,467, October 12, 2006, and notice in the Federal Register, November 17, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 222, at Pages 66897-66905.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Cellco Partnership v. Broadcom, App. Ct. No. 2006-1514. Location: Room 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Motionless Keyboard v. Microsoft, App. Ct. No. 2006-1497, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DOr) in a patent infringement case affecting, among other things, Microsoft's joy sticks and game controllers. The District Court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity and entered final judgment in their favor on May 9, 2005. Then, the inventor, who is also the largest shareholder of Motionless Keyboard, moved to intervene pro se. On June 8, 2006, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion [PDF] affirming the District Court's denial of the motion to intervene. Location: Room 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to Locus Telecommunications, Inc.'s petition for a declaratory ruling that calls to a prepaid calling card provider’s toll-free customer service numbers are not subject to payphone compensation or, in the alternative, to initiate a rulemaking. See, Public Notice [3 pages in PDF] (DA 07-513). This is proceeding is RM 11354.

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.