5/16. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property (SCIIP) approved, without amendment, HR 1908, the "Patent Reform Act of 2007". Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), the lead sponsor, and Chairman of the SCIIP, prepared an amendment in the nature of a substitute. However, the Subcommittee did not vote on it. There main issues of debate were the second window in the post grant opposition process and apportionment of damages.

See also, story titled "Summary of Patent Reform Act of 2007" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,567, April 19, 2007. And see, stories in the same issue titled "Patent Reform Act of 2007 Introduced" and "Reaction to the Patent Reform Act of 2007".

Almost every member spoke at the meeting. Some stated that they had amendments to offer, but stated that they would not offer them at the Subcommittee markup.

Rep. Berman offered his manager's amendment, which is an amendment in the nature of a substitute [50 pages in PDF] that contains changes to the bill as introduced [50 pages in PDF]. However, he withdrew it after exchanges with Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).

Rep. Sensenbrenner and University Objections. Rep. Sensenbrenner represents a district that includes the suburbs of the city of Milwaukee, in the state of Wisconsin. His district is close to Madison, Wisconsin, which is also home to the huge University of Wisconsin at Madison, and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF). The university patent community is opposed to HR 1908 in its current form. Its representatives, such as the WARF, argue that its provisions regarding the post grant opposition process and apportionment of damages would diminish the value of their patents.

Rep. Sensenbrenner advocates the interests of the WARF. (It should also be noted that both of Wisconsin's Senators hold seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC).)

Rep. Sensenbrenner (at right) argued against the bill as currently written. He also argued against moving the bill to the full Committee at this time. He made two main arguments. First, he said that the history of successful copyright legislation shows that "successful changes to IPR law have always been negotiated in the Subcommittee". Second, he said that if the bill were approved by the House in its current form, in a manner that would "jam any of the stakeholders", then either the bill would die in the Senate, or the Senate would write its own bill.

Hence, he argued that rather than send the bill to the full Committee, the SCIIP should not approve it at this time. Rather, it should continue with bipartisan negotiations, and talks with stakeholders, to produce a consensus bill, with everyone on board. He said that the bill "is not ready for prime time".

Rep. Berman insisted on moving forward with his amendment in the nature of a substitute. Rep. Sensenbrenner, who is a master of procedure, then shifted to obstructionist tactics. For example, when an amendment is offered, the rules require that it be read, unless the reading is dispensed with, which usually occurs. But, Rep. Sensenbrenner objected. The Subcommittee did not have time to listen to the reading of a fifty page bill. Rep. Berman determined to have the bill read during a recess for voting on the floor. Rep. Sensenbrenner raised a point of parliamentary inquiry, and challenged the procedure. Rep. Berman ruled against Rep. Sensenbrenner, who then appealed, which resulted in a roll call vote. Rep. Sensenbrenner lost, but notably picked up several votes on a purely obstructionist tactic (including Rep. Feeney, Rep. Chabot, Rep. Keller, and Rep. Pence).

After the recess, but before the markup resumed, Rep. Sensenbrenner addressed Rep. Berman in full sight and hearing of those present. He waived a copy of the rules, and angrily cited the section that Rep. Berman had violated. Rep. Berman then vitiated the previous procedures with unanimous consent, and withdrew his amendment.

However, after lengthy statements by many more members, the Subcommittee held a voice vote on the bill as introduced. The only audible no vote was cast by Rep. Sensenbrenner.

Rep. Berman did not set a date for full Committee markup.

Perhaps what the meeting revealed is that there remains opposition to the bill in the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors, the university patent community, and elements of the patent bar. Moreover, there are members of Congress ready to fight for the interests of these groups.

The meeting lasted over two hours, with almost all of the members of the Subcommittee expressing their views, some a great length. Rep. Berman did not enforce five minute time limits.

Summary of Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute. Rep. Berman also summarized the changes contained in his manager's amendment. First, he wrote that it "It addresses university concerns about the grace period and the need for honesty in the oath section."

Second, he wrote that "In terms of damages -- this amendment makes clear that apportionment is not required for a lost profits calculation -- where in fact the harm caused by the infringement can be quantified by the lost sales of the innovative product."

Third, he wrote that the amendment makes three changes to the provisions regarding post-grant opposition procedure. First, "It prevents anyone who utilizes one window from utilizing post-grant opposition a second or subsequent time. This reduces the ability for serial challenges in multiple windows." Second, "Currently there is really no meaningful threshold to proceed with a post-grant challenge to a patent’s validity -- this amendment provides a threshold to institute the proceeding and prevents additional delay by making the Director’s decision, whether to proceed or not, non-appealable."

And finally, he wrote that "there has been concern in the inter-partes context and now in the post-grant that disaffected parties could have multiple bites at the apple. This Amendment clarifies that where a district court upholds the validity of a patent or claim, the challenging party cannot institute a post-grant review on any ground that was raised or could have been raised in the litigation. It is our hope that this reduces gaming of the system and prevents further inefficiencies."

User Fee Diversion. Neither the bill as introduced, nor the amendment, addresses the diversion of user fees to subsidize other government programs. However, on May 16, 2007, Rep. Berman, along with Rep. Smith, Rep. Conyers, Rep. Boucher, Rep. Sensenbrenner, and Rep. Lofgren, introduced HR 2336 for this purpose.

Rep. Berman stated that "This year when the continuing resolution threatened the ability of the PTO to maintain its collections, I worked to ensure that PTO had access to all of its fees.  Preventing diversion remains a priority so that the PTO can implement its quality initiatives and hire more examiners.  We must end the past practice of taxing innovation through the use of diverted fees to fund unrelated activities."

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) argued at the markup for ending fee diversion.

Rep. Berman stated at the mark up that this issue "remains a priority". Although, he did not mention that prohibiting fee diversion is not a priority for members of the House Appropriations Committee.

Further Debate. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the Chairman of the full Committee, expressed support for Rep. Berman, and the procedure that he is using to move the bill.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the ranking Republican on the full Committee, said that the need for patent reform is "urgent", and that the bill is "off to a good start". He predicted that "there will be patent reform in the 110th Congress". He said that the second window language has been "fine tuned", but that more work is needed on apportionment of damages.

Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), the ranking Republican on the SCIIP, stated that "the bill is a good first attempt", but that it needs more work before full Committee mark up, including on the apportionment of damages language.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), who represents a Silicon Valley district, said that "tremendous progress has been made" but that the bill needs work on its venue language, and on the post grant opposition process.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who frequently advocates the interests of the tech sector, said that the current patent system is creating problems for the tech sector. He said that tech inventions are becoming increasingly complex, but that the patent system does not account for this complexity. He complained that tech companies are being extorted. He praised the post grant opposition procedure that would be created by the bill.

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), another frequent advocate for the technology sector, was present but did not speak.

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), who backed Rep. Sensenbrenner, praised the bill, but said that it still has the problem of undermining patent certainty. He said that the second window and apportionment of damages sections must be revised before full Committee markup.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who represents a Los Angeles area district, said that "I am very confident that we will pass a patent bill this session."

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA), who voted "pass" on Rep. Sensenbrenner's attempt to delay, said that the bill "would significantly reduce the value of patents". He said that he would not support the bill in its current form at the full Committee. He said that his main issue is apportionment of damages, and its potential to aid infringers. He also said that he has an amendment. However, he did not offer it. Rep. Berman promised to work with him.

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) praised the National Academies of Science (NAS) report, and expressed his concern about the best mode issue, and the venue language in the bill.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) also raised the best mode issue. He said that it is anachronistic, should be repealed, and that he has an amendment to accomplish this.

Rep. Sheila Lee (D-TX) said that she wants to work with Rep. Berman on the apportionment of damages language before full Committee markup.

Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) stated that he has two amendments. He did not offer them. One would create a special master pilot program for patent interpretation. It would provide technical experts to assist District Court judges. The second amendment pertains to venue.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who was previously a state tax collector, expressed concern about granting business method patents for tax avoidance strategies. He suggested the possibility of an amendment on this issue. Rep. Berman asked how far "down the road" did Rep. Sherman want to go on business method patents. Rep. Sherman said that "burglary tools should not be patentable" either. Rep. Lofgren said that some business method patents have been preposterous, but that the Supreme Court's recent decision on obviousness should help.

5/17. Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property (SCIIP), spoke at a news conference announcing the formation of the Copyright Alliance. He outlined his copyright related agenda.

He did not state when he would introduce any bills. However, he did identify the issues of interest to him.

His agenda includes reform of 17 U.S.C. § 115. He discussed "finding ways facilitate online music services in a way that compensates artists, the creators, the people who put that music together, and facilitates it in terms of a general fight against those operations that seek to commercially exploit other people's works in a way that I think is wrong."

Rep. Berman was a cosponsor in the 109th Congress of HR 5533 [57 pages in PDF], the "Section 115 Reform Act of 2006", or "SIRA". The SCIIP approved the bill, without amendment, by unanimous voice vote, on June 8, 2007. However, it did not become law. See, story titled "CIIP May Mark Up SIRA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,386, June 7, 2006, and story titled "CIIP Subcommittee Approves Section 115 Reform Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,388, June 9, 2006.

Rep. Berman (at left) said that "the issue of orphan works is going to be on the agenda". Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the former Chairman of the HJC, and others, worked unsuccessfully in the 109th Congress to enact an orphan works bill. No orphan works bill has yet been introduced in the 110th Congress.

See, HR 5439 IH [PDF] and HR 5439 [LOC], the "Orphan Works Act of 2006". See also, story titled "Orphan Works Bill to Be Introduced" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,569, April 24, 2007.

His agenda also includes the absence of a performance right in the context of over the air terrestrial radio broadcasts. He said that this exemption was "a very understandable arrangement when radio play became a part of the marketing strategy".

However, he said that there is now "a very different world" with many different business models. He said that the exemption provides broadcasters a "tremendous competitive advantage to the detriment of artists". He added that "we are definitely thinking about that issue, and in a way that doesn't pit songwriters and composers against recording artists and musicians in a way that is a plus for the entire creative community".

He also said that this issue "comes up in the context of the satellite radio issue and the proposed merger" of XM and Sirius, and in "the recent copyright royalty board decisions".

His said that his agenda also includes working with universities to fight file swapping on the internet. He added that the Chairman and ranking Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee are now on board on this subject.

The SCIIP also has jurisdiction over patents. However, he did not talk about HR 1908, the Patent Reform Act of 2007, or other patent issues, except to joke about Rep. James Sensenbrenner's (R-WI) opposition at the May 16 SCIIP markup of the bill. He said that Rep. Sensenbrenner "has decided to go back to his obstructionist mode".

He also said that there will be a "proactive agenda to do the things that need to be done, and protect against the constant assaults on the copyright law".

He was asked about "fair use bills". He said that "there are some things that I am not wild about floating around". However, he did not identify any specific bill, such as HR 1201, the "Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of 2007", or "FAIR USE Act". See, story titled "Rep. Boucher Introduces FAIR USE Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,545, February 28, 2007.

5/10. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [25 pages in PDF] in Whitaker v. Garcetti, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case against former Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Los Angeles, and other law enforcement persons.

In policy debates in Washington DC regarding government abuse of national security letters, Section 215 orders, and TSP orders, and other warrantless intercepts, advocates of privacy and civil liberties often argue for something similar to Article III wiretap procedure. Such procedure would include a warrant requirement, issued by judges, upon a finding of probable cause based upon sworn statements of law enforcement officers, subsequent disclosure to prosecuted parties, and opportunity to challenge the warrants and the admissibility of the evidence obtained thereby.

The discussion of the law in the present case pertains only to § 1983, standing to bring § 1983 actions, qualified immunity of government officials in § 1983 actions, and application of the defense created by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477.

However, the underlying facts of the present case, as related in the Court of Appeals' opinion and the District Court's opinion, suggest that reliance upon Article III procedure to protect privacy and civil liberties can be overrated or misplaced.

In the present case, law enforcement officers may have submitted falsified warrant applications. The issuing judge of the Superior Court may have exercised lax review and oversight. The Court allowed extraordinarily long durations of 11 and 22 months. The Court allowed exceedingly broad surveillance. One warrant covered 30 lines and resulted in the interception of "over 30,000 conversations". The other covered 22 lines and resulted in the interception of "dozens of thousands of conversations".

Moreover, while drug related charges were eventually brought, and these charges grew out of evidence of drug trafficking obtained by the wiretaps, no one identified in the warrant applications or supporting affidavits was charged. In addition, the intercepts extended to attorney client communications of Jack Whitaker, the lead plaintiff. He too was neither identified in the application or supporting affidavits, or charged.

Also, the use of the wiretaps was not disclosed to either the charged persons or to Whitaker and other persons not charged. The police used an evidence laundering scheme to evade disclosure requirements. One police unit obtained the warrants, conducted the wiretaps, and obtained evidence of crimes. Then it provided certain information about the suspects to a second police unit, but without disclosing the existence of the wiretaps. The second unit was instructed to investigate, to obtain purportedly independent probable cause. It did so, and eventually made arrests. The second unit did not disclose the existence of the first unit's wiretaps. Evidence obtained from the wiretaps was used to obtain evidence that was used to obtain convictions, without prior disclosure to the defendants.

The District Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs' on some of their § 1983 claims, and granted summary judgment to the defendants on others. The Court of Appeals reversed all portions of the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs except for Whitaker's claim that the wiretap that intercepted his telephone call was obtained using a falsified warrant application. None of the claims related to evidence laundering survive.

This case is Jack Whitacker, et al. v. Gil Garcetti, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 05-55629 and 05-55690, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, D.C. No. CV-99-08196-WJR, Judge William Rea presiding.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's weekly calendar [PDF].

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

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The agenda, which the SJC rarely follows, includes consideration of S 1027, the "Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2007" or "PACT Act", a bill to regulate internet tobacco sales to facilitate the collection of federal, state, and local taxes. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

12:15 - 1:45 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Comms Law, Copyright & Digital Rights Management Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "Administrative Practice Before the United States Copyright Office". The speakers will include representatives of the Copyright Office's (CO) Examining Division and Licensing Division. For more information, contact Ben Golant at bgol at loc dot gov or 202-707-9127. Location: National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), 1771 N St., NW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will hold the third of a series of three meeting to prepare advice for the next meetings of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Working Parties on the Information Economy (WPIE) and Communications and Infrastructure Services Policy (CISP). See, notice in the Federal Register, April 5, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 65, at Page 16868. Location: Room 2533a, Harry Truman Building, 2201 C St., NW.

? 2:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will hold the third of a series of three teleconferences to prepare advice for the next meeting of the International Telecommunication Union's Study Group 9 (Integrated broadband cable networks and television and sound transmission). See, notice in the Federal Register, April 5, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 65, at Page 16868.

TIME AND ROOM CHANGE. 10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing on a discussion draft of a yet to be introduced bill that addresses broadband mapping and data collection. The witnesses will be Larry Cohen (Communications Workers of America), Walter McCormick (U.S. Telecom Association), Steve Largent (CTIA -- The Wireless Association), Kyle McSlarrow (National Cable and Telecommunications Association), Ben Scott (Free Press), Brian Mefford (ConnectKentucky), and George Ford (Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies). Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The law firm of Tobin O'Connor and Alteritech will host a seminar titled "Technology for Law Firms: Electronic Document Management". See, notice. RSVP by May 7, 2007 to RSVP at alteritech dot com. The event is open to attorneys. Location: Maggiano's Little Italy, 5333 Wisconsin Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Copyright Royalty Board in response to its proposed rules setting certain royalty rates. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 17, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 73, at Pages 19138-19144.

The House will not meet.

The Senate will not meet.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a panel discussion titled "The Complexities of Regulating TV Violence". The speakers will include Adam Thierer (PFF), Robert Corn-Revere (Davis Wright Tremaine), Jonathan Freedman (author of  Media Violence and its Effect on Aggression [Amazon]), Robin Bronk (The Creative Coaltion), and Henry Geller (former FCC and NTIA official). See, notice. Lunch will be served. Location: Room B354, Rayburn Building.

2:00 - 3:00 PM. The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) will host teleconferenced seminar titled "Executive Compensation -- High Tech Trends in Equity Awards". See, notice. The speaker will be Robert Marshall of the San Francisco office of the law firm of Baker & McKenzie.

Deadline to submit requests to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to participate as a panelist in the FTC's two day event on July 11-12, 2007, titled "Spam Summit: The Next Generation of Threats and Solutions". Requests should be sent to SpamSummit at ftc dot gov. See, FTC notice and Spam Summit web page.

Deadline to submit to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) written comments on the topics to be addressed in the FTC's two day event on July 11-12, 2007, titled "Spam Summit: The Next Generation of Threats and Solutions". See, FTC notice and Spam Summit web page.

The House will meet at 10:30 AM.

The Senate will meet at 1:00 PM. It will resume consideration of immigration legislation.

9:00 - 10:00 AM. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Robert Atkinson, head of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), will release a report on patent reform. RSVP to Torey Liepa at tliepa at itif dot org. Location: Room 2226, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Federal Bar Association's (FBA) Capitol Hill Chapter will host an event titled "Luncheon with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Chief Justice of the United States". See, notice and registration form [PDF]. Location: West Conference Room, Supreme Court of the United States (enter through either the Maryland Ave. or 1st Street, NE, entrances.)

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) will host a lunch titled "Intellectual Property: Fueling the Growth of India’s Knowledge Economy". The speaker will be Prabuddha Ganguli (CEO VISION-IPR). RSVP to Sonia Blumstein at 205-620-2087 or soniab at ipi dot org Location: Bobby Van's Grill, 1201 New York Ave., NW (12th and New York Ave.).

1:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold a hearing titled "Internet Tax Freedom Act: Internet Tax Moratorium". See, notice Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Common Carrier Committee will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "The Evolution of Common Carrier Regulation and Its Future Applicability in an IP World". The price to attend ranges from $50 to $125. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Sidley Austin, 1501 K St., NW.

TIME? The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee's (COMSTAC) working groups will meet. Location: undisclosed.

9:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will host an event titled "Privacy Impact Assessments at DHS -- A Tutorial on How to Write PIAs". See, notice in the Federal Register, May 11, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 91, at Page 26821. Location: GSA Regional Headquarters Building, 7th and D Streets, SW.

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

10:00 AM. The House Science Committee (HSC) will meet to mark up bills. See, notice. Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

3:00 - 5:00 PM. Day one of a three day meeting of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission titled "The Extent of the Government's Control of China's Economy, and Implications for the United States". See, notice in the Federal Register, May 10, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 90, at Page 26688. Location: Room 385, Russell Building, Capitol Hill.

TIME? The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) will meet. Location: FAA, Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Ave., SW.

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers' Committee (YLC) will host an event titled "End of the YLC Year Party". For more information, contact Chris Fedeli at 202-973-4274 or chrisfedeli at dwt dot com. Location: Karma, 1919 I St., NW.

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in its proceeding titled "In the Matter of Effects of Communications Towers on Migratory Birds". This NPRM [40 pages in PDF] is FCC 06-164 in WT Docket No. 03-187. The FCC adopted this NPRM on November 3, 2006. It released it on November 17, 2006. See, FCC's notice of extension [PDF] (DA 07-72), and notice in the Federal Register, January 26, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 17, at Pages 3776-3777.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding its rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806 MHz Band (700 MHz Band). See, notice in the Federal Register, May 2, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 84, at Pages 24238-24253. The FCC adopted its Report and Order and FNPRM [170 pages in PDF] on April 25, 2007, and released it on April 27, 2007. This FNPRM is FCC No. 07-72 in WT Docket No. 06-150, CC Docket No. 94-102, WT Docket No. 01-309, WT Docket No. 03-264, WT Docket No. 06-169, PS Docket No. 06-229, and WT Docket No. 96-86.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Day two of a three day meeting of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission titled "The Extent of the Government's Control of China's Economy, and Implications for the United States". See, notice in the Federal Register, May 10, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 90, at Page 26688. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building, Capitol Hill.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "Are Civil Liberties at Risk in the War on Terror?". The speakers will be Andrew McCarthy (Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Center for Law & Counterterrorism), Bruce Fein (American Freedom Agenda), and Timothy Lynch (Cato). See, Cato notice. Lunch will be served after the program. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Committee will host a lunch titled "A Discussion on Carterfone in the Wireless World". The speakers will be Michael Altschul (CTIA), Christopher Libertelli (Skype Communications), Mary Beth Richards (Deputy Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection). The price to attend is $15. See, registration form [PDF]. Registrations and cancellations are due by May 22. Location: Latham & Watkins, 10th Floor, 555 11th St., 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 1998-2007 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.