9/25. House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Antitrust Task Force held a hearing titled "Oversight Hearing of the Antitrust Agencies: Department of Justice Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition" on Tuesday, September 25, 2007.

The topics covered included the EC's actions against Microsoft, FCC e-rate big rigging, the Antitrust Division's filing with the FCC opposing network neutrality mandates, the real estate industry and bid rigging, and the merger review process.

The witnesses were Thomas Barnett, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division, and Deborah Majoras, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). See, prepared testimony of Barnett, prepared testimony [44 pages in PDF] of the FTC, and FTC release summarizing the testimony.

E-Rate Bid Rigging. Barnett wrote in his prepared testimony that the Antitrust Division "actively is pursuing a nationwide investigation of bid rigging and fraud in the E-Rate program".

He continued that the Antitrust Division "has uncovered extensive fraud in this industry by criminals who took advantage of the program to enrich themselves. In total, the Division thus far has charged 12 corporations and 17 individuals with collusion and fraud affecting dozens of schools in 11 states. A total of six companies and ten individuals have pled guilty, agreed to plead guilty, or entered civil settlements, and have paid or agreed to pay criminal fines and restitution totaling approximately $40 million and have been sentenced to more than 4,000 days in prison. In addition, on September 14, 2007, a jury convicted a former sales representative of 22 counts of bid rigging, fraud, collusion, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy for her role in schemes to defraud the E-Rate program.

Telecom Mergers. Barnett wrote in his prepared testimony that "The telecommunications industry has kept the Division busy for many years, and the last few years have been no exception. The Division has recently investigated the mergers of Verizon and MCI, SBC and AT&T, the new AT&T and BellSouth, Sprint and Nextel, and Cingular and AT&T Wireless, among others."

He wrote that "The Division took action to challenge portions of these transactions to protect competition, and decided not to challenge others after concluding that they were not likely to result in a substantial lessening of competition."

Merger Review Process. Both the FTC and Barnett addressed the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) review process in their prepared testimony.

Members of the HJC also asked questions about the process, such as why do some (such as Google and DoubleClick) take so long, why are there two merger review agencies, and why is there no formal process for allocation of merger reviews between the two agencies.

Majoras (at right) discussed an attempt in 2002 by the FTC and Antitrust Division to formally allocate responsibility for merger reviews by industry sector and to address other related matters. She pointed out that the FTC stood down because of objections from the Congress.

She said that "I am not proud of the process. It embarrasses me."

However, she said that she can take no action, because she so stated at her confirmation hearing. (She did not elaborate that her confirmation hearing was before the Senate Commerce Committee, and it was the threats of former Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) that caused the FTC and Antitrust Division to back down.)

She said, "It would take some action from Congress."

See also, the withdrawn 2002 Memorandum of Understanding, and story titled "DOJ & FTC Abandon Merger Review Agreement Under Threat from Sen. Hollings" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 436, May 22, 2002.

Drug Companies and Patents. The FTC testimony states that the FTC "continues to be vigilant in the detection and investigation of agreements between drug companies that delay generic entry, including investigating some patent settlement agreements between pharmaceutical companies that are required to be filed with the Commission under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. In these ``exclusion payment settlements´´ (or, to some, ``reverse payment settlements´´), a brand-name drug firm pays a potential generic competitor to abandon its patent challenge and delay entering the market. Such settlements restrict competition at the expense of consumers, whose access to lower-priced generic drugs is delayed, sometimes for many years. These anticompetitive patent settlement present one of the greatest threats American consumers face today." (Parentheses in original.)

The FTC testimony continues that "Recent court decisions, however, have made it more difficult to bring antitrust cases to stop exclusion payment settlements, and the impact of those court rulings is becoming evident in the marketplace. These developments threaten substantial harm to consumers and others who pay for prescription drugs. For that reason, the Commission supports a legislative solution to prohibit these anticompetitive settlements, while allowing exceptions for those agreements that do not harm competition."

Majoras stated at the hearing that consumers are being harmed. She added that the Hatch Waxman Act created this problem, and that the best remedy would be a legislative amendment to that statute, rather than a change in antitrust law.

Real Estate Industry and Web Listings. The FTC testimony states that "Purchasing or selling a home is one of the most significant financial transactions most consumers will ever make, and anticompetitive industry practices can raise the prices of real estate services. In the past year, the agency has brought eight enforcement actions against associations of competing realtors or brokers. The associations, which control multiple listing services, adopted rules that allegedly discouraged consumers from entering into non-traditional listing contracts with real estate brokers. These actions ensure that consumers who choose to use discount real estate brokers will not be handicapped by rules intended to disadvantage the discount brokers."

It adds that "In July 2006, the Commission charged that the Austin Board of Realtors violated the antitrust laws by preventing consumers with real estate listing agreements for potentially lower-cost unbundled brokerage services from marketing their listings on important public web sites."

Others Issues. The FTC testimony also reviews the FTC's action against Rambus for making misrepresentations or omissions to standard-setting organizations for DRAM standards. Rambus has brought an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals (DC). The European Commission recently instituted its own parallel action.

Majoras suggested that the Robinson Patman Act be repealed. She said that it has "seen better days" and is "not protecting consumers".

In response to a question about legislation that might be helpful, Barrett suggested that the Congress consider the Antitrust Modernization Commission's (AMC) recommendation that the Congress re-evaluate the antitrust exemptions. See, AMC report [540 pages in PDF, 2.1 MB] and story titled "Antitrust Modernization Commission Releases Report" and related stories in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,560, April 4, 2007

Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) suggested elimination of the common carrier exemption in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA). He raised the subject of cell phone service contracts.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said that the DOJ has not been as aggressive in antitrust enforcement in the last four years as it was in the last four years of the Clinton administration. Barnett disagreed with this statement. He pointed out that the have been fewer mergers in the last four years.

Much of the hearing focused on issues unrelated to information or communications technologies, such as gas prices.

9/26. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) criticized the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division for filling a comment with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in opposition to network neutrality mandates.

She spoke at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Antitrust Task Force titled "Oversight Hearing of the Antitrust Agencies: Department of Justice Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition" on Tuesday, September 25, 2007.

Rep. Lofgren (at right) asked Thomas Barnett, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, why the DOJ filed comments with the FCC on September 6, 2007.

Barnett responded that "I was the one who made the decision to file those comments."

Rep. Lofgren stated that for 96% of consumers there are only two broadband service providers. She asked Barnett how he could consider a market characterized by duopoly as competitive.

She also asked for a list, in writing, from the DOJ, of who met with the DOJ regarding this comment.

See, related story in this issue titled "Antitrust Division Opposes Network Neutrality".

9/6. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division filed a comment with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding broadband practices.

Thomas Barnett (at left), the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, stated in a release that "Consumers and the economy are benefitting from the innovative and dynamic nature of the Internet ... Regulators should be careful not to impose regulations that could limit consumer choice and investment in broadband facilities."

While Barnett's name is listed a the bottom of the comment, it is signed by Nancy Goodman, Chief of the Antitrust Division's Telecommunications & Media Enforcement Section.

The DPJ wrote that "The FCC should be highly skeptical of calls to substitute special economic regulation of the Internet for free and open competition enforced by the antitrust laws. Marketplace restrictions proposed by some proponents of "net neutrality" could in fact prevent, rather than promote, optimal investment and innovation in the Internet, with significant negative effects for the economy and consumers."

It added that "free market competition, unfettered by unnecessary governmental regulatory restraints, is the best way to foster innovation and development of the Internet. Free market competition drives scarce resources to their fullest and most efficient use, spurring businesses to invest in and sell as efficiently as possible the kinds and quality of goods and services that consumers desire. Past experience has demonstrated that, absent actual market failure, the operation of a free market is a far superior alternative to regulatory restraints.

The comments argues that "types of conduct that some proponents of regulation seek to prohibit -- e.g., the prioritization of certain content and content providers (such as streaming video and other latency-sensitive content), offering of premium services and different levels of quality of service, preferential treatment of certain content, and vertical integration--in many instances actually may be procompetitive. A blanket prohibition on such conduct would likely result in significant marketplace distortion." (Parentheses in original.)

For example, "Precluding broadband providers from charging fees for priority service could shift the entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers. Because the average consumer may be unwilling or unable to pay significantly more for access to the Internet in order to ensure smooth delivery to consumers demanding bandwidth-intensive and latency-sensitive content, critical network expansion and improvement may be significantly reduced or delayed."

This proceeding is titled "In the Matter of Broadband Industry Practices" and numbered WC Docket No. 07-52.

On August 21, 2007, Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Google, spoke at the Progress & Freedom Foundation's (PFF) Aspen Summit. He spoke, and answered questions, about network neutrality. The PFF later published a transcript [19 pages in PDF].

Also, on August 30, 2007, the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) released a report [40 pages in PDF] titled "Net Gains or Net Loses: The Network Neutrality Debate and the Future of the Internet". The author is the PRI's Lloyd Billingsley. See also, PRI release.

9/27. The New York Times (NYT) published an article on September 27, 2007, by Adam Liptak, titled "Verizon Blocks Messages of Abortion Rights Group". It states that Verizon Wireless (VW) "rejected a request from" the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) "to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program".

VW reversed its decision immediately after publication of the NYT article. VW stated that its refusal resulted from a old policy intended to protect subscribers from spam messages.

VW's Jeffrey Nelson wrote in a release that "The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident."

He added that "Upon learning about this situation, senior Verizon Wireless executives immediately reviewed the decision and determined it was an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy. That policy, developed before text messaging protections such as spam filters adequately protected customers from unwanted messages, was designed to ward against communications such as anonymous hate messaging and adult materials sent to children."

He concluded that Verizon Wireless has "great respect for this free flow of ideas and will continue to protect the ability to communicate broadly through our messaging service."

Proponents of legislative or regulatory network neutrality mandates immediately criticized VW and renewed calls for government mandates.

Gigi Sohn, head of the Public Knowledge (PK), stated in a release that "You cannot have unfettered communications by having the telephone company review each decision whenever a controversial issue is raised. A text message like this one alerting Naral supporters to act quickly on a pending political issue is useless after hours of delay by the telephone company referees."

She said that "This incident only became public because the Federal Communications Commission lifted the protections Americans long enjoyed to communicate over telephone networks, because an activist group complained and because a story appeared in the newspaper. Despite Verizon’s statement, it's clear that the policy would still be in place absent the publicity. This incident, more than ever, shows the need for an open, non-discriminatory, neutral Internet and telecommunications system that Americans once enjoyed and took for granted".

Josh Silver of the Free Press (FP) stated in a release after Verizon Wireless reversed its decision that "Verizon and AT&T cannot be trusted to safeguard basic American freedoms. Every time one of these phone companies is caught red-handed -- spying on Americans, censoring musicians and now silencing political views -- they claim it was a one-time glitch. But how many mistakes does it take before we admit there's a bigger problem here?"

Silver added that "The fundamental democratic principles of free speech, privacy and open communication are too important to be entrusted to these corporate gatekeepers. Whether it's liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, pro-choice or pro-gun, the phone companies can't get to pick and choose what messages get through. Congress needs to step in immediately to protect free speech and the free flow of information."

The PK and FP are Washington DC based interest groups that advocate network neutrality.

Also, the ACLU's Marvin Johnson stated in a release that "If private companies can control what we see, hear, and say over ``their´´ networks, in a world that runs on the Internet, free speech is lost." See also, ACLU's web page titled "Internet Freedom and Innovation at Risk: Why Congress Must Restore Strong Net Neutrality Protection".

Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon and Vodafone.

9/27. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DC) against the Department of Justice (DOJ) alleging violation of the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in connection with its failure to produce records in response to a FOIA request for records regarding lobbying for an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) providing expanded immunity to telecom companies.

The EFF complaint states that it sent two FOIA requests to the DOJ's Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA) regarding "briefings, discussion, or other exchanges that Justice Department officials have had concerning amendments to FISA with a) representatives of telecommunications companies, and b) offices of members of the Senate or House of Representatives, including any discussion of immunizing telecommunications companies or holding them otherwise unaccountable for their role in government surveillance activities."

The complaint further states that the DOJ has not produced responsive records within the time period specified by the statute.

The complaint requests an order compelling the DOJ to process the request, and produce records.

The complaint is signed by Marcia Hoffman and David Sobel of the EFF.

Hoffman stated in a release that "The White House is publicly calling for immunity for the telecoms, while a recent Newsweek article detailed a 'secretive lobbying campaign' to block the lawsuits ... If there are backroom deals going on at the Department of Justice, then Americans need to know about them now, before Congress passes any law that gets the telecom companies off the hook."

The EFF also represents the plaintiffs in Hepting v. AT&T, one of dozens of civil actions against telecommunications companies arising out of allegedly illegal assistance provided to the government related to warrantless electronic surveillance. The government has intervened, and sought dismissal of these actions. See, story titled "District Court Denies DOJ Motion Dismiss Class Action Against AT&T Regarding Warrantless Surveillance" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,415, July 21, 2006.

An appeal in that case is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir). See, DOJ brief [PDF] and AT&T brief [PDF].

That case is Tash Hepting et al. v. AT&T Corporation, AT&T, Inc., and Does 1-20, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, D.C. No. C-06-672 VRW, Judge Vaughn Walker presiding. The appellate proceeding is Tash Hepting et al. v. AT&T Corporation, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 06-17137

The just filed case is Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Department of Justice, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01732, Judge Reggie Walton presiding.

The DOJ and many other government agencies frequently disregard their statutory obligations under the FOIA. The federal courts rarely provide meaningful enforcement of the FOIA.

House Judiciary Committee (HJC) Democrats have also made a different request for information from the DOJ regarding communications companies. For example, they asked in a letter, "Please identify all telecommunications companies or internet service providers that allowed the government to access communication streams in the US without warrants between September 2001 and January 10, 2007. Please identify all telecommunications companies or ISPs that have allowed access since January 10, 2007."

See, story titled "House Judiciary Committee Seeks Information about Surveillance from Government, Telcos and ISPs" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,639, September 14, 2007.

9/25. A trial jury of the U.S. District Court (DKan) returned a verdict of willful patent infringement in Sprint v. Vonage. The jury also awarded Sprint $69.5 Million in damages. Vonage announced in a release that "it will ask the court to set aside the verdict, and if it is not granted, will vigorously pursue an appeal of the decision, including the underlying issue of liability and the willfulness aspect. Vonage believes any damages awarded are inappropriate. In addition, we will seek to develop technological workarounds that don't infringe on Sprint's patents."

9/25. The Supreme Court of the US (SCUS) issued an order in Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta. It states that "The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is granted. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion." See, Orders List [12 pages in PDF] at page 1. The SCUS will hear oral argument on October 9, 2009. See also, story titled "story titled "Supreme Court to Consider 10b Liability of Stock Issuers' Vendors" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,625, August 21, 2007. This case is Sup. Ct. No. 06-43.

9/26. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) submitted prepared testimony [PDF] for the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch that projects a November 2008 opening date for the new Capitol Visitor Center.

The House will not meet. The next meeting will be on Monday, October 1.

The Senate will meet at 10:30 AM. It will resume consideration of HR 1585 [LOC | WW], the Department of Defense authorization bill.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "Feist, Facts, and Functions: IP Protection for Works Beyond Entertainment". The price to attend ranges from $25 to $50. For more information, call 202-289-7442. See, notice. Location: Cosmos Club, 2121 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

12:15 - 2:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Cable Practice and Young Lawyers Committees will host a brown bag lunch titled "Translating the Set Top Box Debate and Visualizing the Living Room of the Future". For more information, contact Chris Fedeli at chrisfedeli at dwt dot com or Tarah Grant at tsgrant at hhlaw dot com. Location: Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Suite 200, 1875 K St., NW.

1:30 - 3:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host another panel discussion titled "Is Sarbanes-Oxley Impairing Corporate Risk-Taking?". The speakers will be Peter Wallison (AEI), Katherine Litvak (University of Texas at Austin School of Law), Henry Butler (Northwestern University), and Richard Geddes (Cornell University). See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

4:00 PM. Abdoulaye Wade, President of Senegal, will give a speech titled "I Don't Want Money. I Want Trade Agreements". See, notice. Location: Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

Effective date of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) final rule adjusting certain patent fee amounts to reflect fluctuations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). See, notice in the Federal Register, August 22, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 162, at Pages 46899-46903.

9:30 - 10:45 AM. The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) will host a panel discussion titled "Government Procurement: Continuing Reform or Rolling Back Progress?". For more information, contact Charlie Greenwald at cgreenwald at itaa dot org or 703-284-5305. Breakfast will be served. Location: Zenger Room, National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW.

9:30 AM - 3:40 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a conference titled "Women and Science". See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Copyright Office (CO) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding the operation of, and continued necessity for, the cable and satellite statutory licenses under the Copyright Act. See, original notice in the Federal Register, April 16, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 72, at Pages 19039-19055; technical correction notice in the Federal Register, April 24, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 78, at Page 20374; and notice of extension in the Federal Register, June 19, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 117, at Pages 33776-33777.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) regarding user needs and systems requirements of the terrestrial component of the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS). See, notice in the Federal Register, August 1, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 147, at Pages 42219-42220.

Deadline to submit applications to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the renewal of state telecommunications relay services (TRS) program certification. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 18, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 137, at Pages 39423-39424.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding planning consumer understanding of the transition to digital television. This NPRM is FCC 07-128 in MB Docket No. 07-148. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 16, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 158, at Pages 46014-46020.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding ten studies related to government regulation of media ownership. See, FCC Public Notice [4 pages in PDF], which is DA 07-3470 in MB Docket Nos. 06-121 and 02-277, and MM Docket Nos. 01-235, 01-317, and 00-244. See also, notice in the Federal Register, August 8, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 152, at Pages 44539-44540.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding various proposals to promote minority and female ownership in the media industry. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 8, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 152, at Pages 44457-44466.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding proposed changes to the system of records maintained by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) titled Terrorist Screening Records System (TSRC). See, notice in the Federal Register, August 22, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 162, at Pages 47073-47079, and story titled "FBI Announces Changes to Terrorist Screening Records System" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,627, August 23, 2007.

9:30 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing title "Digital Future of the United States: Part VI: The Future of Telecommunications Competition". Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Preserving the Rule of Law in the Fight Against Terrorism". The only witness will be Jack Goldsmith, author of the just published book titled "The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration" [Amazon]. Goldsmith is a professor at Harvard Law School who previously worked for the Department of Defense's General Counsel, and then as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel. The book contains some material on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a panel discussion titled "Private Equity Panel". The speakers will be William Kennard (The Carlyle Group), Julie Richardson (Providence Equity Partners), Jamie Rubin (One Equity Partners), and Tom Wheeler (Core Capital Partners). Blair Levin (Stifel Nicolaus) will moderate. The doors will open at 11:30 AM. Lunch will be served at 12:00 NOON. Prices vary. See, registration form [PDF]. Registrations and cancellations are due by 5:00 PM on September 27. Location: Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "The Copyright Office Speaks". The speakers will be Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights. The price to attend ranges from $25 to $40. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: Caucus Room, 401 9th St., NW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The House Science Committee's (HSC) Subcommittee on Research and Science Education will hold a hearing titled "Nanotechnology Education". The witnesses will be David Ucko (National Science Foundation), Navida Ganguly (Oak Ridge High School), Hamish Fraser (Ohio State University), Ray Vandiver (Oregon Museum of Science and Industry), Sean Murdock (NanoBusiness Alliance), and Gerald Wheeler (National Science Teachers Association). Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) Mass Media Practice Committee will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Buying and Selling Political Time in a Hot Election Season". The speakers will be Bobby Baker (FCC), Hope Cooper (FCC), Kyle Roberts (Smart Media), and Kyle Osterhout (Media Strategies). Prices vary. Registrations and cancellations are due by 5:00 PM on September 28. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Dow Lohnes, Suite 800, 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW.

Day one of a two day conference hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy (CACP) titled "4th Annual U.S. Chamber of Commerce Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Summit". See, notice. Prices vary. For more information, contact counterfeiting at uschamber dot com or 202-463-5500. Location: U.S. Chamber, 1615 H St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding its proposed rules changes concerning shareholder proposals and electronic shareholder communications. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 3, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 149, at Pages 43465-43488.

9:30 AM. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (OUSTR) will hold a GSP Subcommittee Public Hearing in connection with the 2007 Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Annual Review. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 6, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 172, at Pages 51264-51266. Location: Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F St., NW.

10:00 - 11:30 AM. The Information Technology and Innovation Forum (ITIF) will hold an event titled "Does the U.S. Benefit from U.S. IT Products Made Overseas?: Mapping the Global Value Chain of the iPod and Notebook Computers". The speakers will be Ken Kraemer (UC Irvine) and Robert Atkinson (ITIF). Location: Room 210, Cannon Building, Capitol Hill.

10:00 AM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee will hold its final meeting. See, FCC notice [PDF]. Location: FCC, Room TW-C305, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a panel discussion titled "Cyber-Safety in a Web 2.0 World: What Parents and Policymakers Need to Know," The speakers will be Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL), Sharon Cindrich (author of e-Parenting: Keeping Up with Your Tech-Savvy Kids), Larry Magid (co-author of MySpace Unraveled: A Parent’s Guide to Teen Social Networking), and Nancy Willard (author of Cyber-Safe Kids, Cyber-Savvy Teens: Helping Young People Learn To Use the Internet Safely and Responsibly), and Adam Thierer (PFF). See, PFF notice and registration page. Lunch will be served. Location: Room 121, Cannon Building.

6:00 - 9:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) program titled "How to Protect and Enforce Trademark Rights: A Primer". The speakers will be Shauna Wertheim (Roberts Mardula & Wertheim) and Steven Hollman (Hogan & Hartson). The price to attend ranges from $80 to $115. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

Day two of a two day conference hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy (CACP) titled "4th Annual U.S. Chamber of Commerce Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Summit". See, notice. Prices vary. For more information, contact counterfeiting at uschamber dot com or 202-463-5500. Location: U.S. Chamber, 1615 H St., NW.

9:30 AM. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (OUSTR) will hold a GSP Subcommittee Public Hearing in connection with the 2007 Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Annual Review. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 6, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 172, at Pages 51264-51266. Location: Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F St., NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House Science Committee's (HSC) Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation will hold a hearing titled "The Globalization of R&D and Innovation, Pt. III: How do Companies Choose Where to Build R&D Facilities?" The witnesses will be Robert Atkinson (Information Technology Innovation Foundation), Martin Kenney (UC Davis), Mark Sweeney (McCallum Sweeney Consulting). Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

? TIME? The House Intelligence Committee (HIC) may mark up a bill to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Congress passed, and the President signed, S 1927 [LOC | WW], the "Protect America Act", in early August. That act sunsets after six months. (Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) stated at a September 19 panel discussion that the HIC would hold this markup on October 4. A HIC spokesman declined to confirm or deny any information about this markup.) Location: __?

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Tivo v. Echostar, App. Ct. No. 2006-1574, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (EDTex) in a patent infringement case involving personal video recorder (PVR) technology. The District Court case is numbered 2:04-CV-1-DF. Location: Courtroom 201.

Day one of a four day convention of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). See, conference web site. Location: Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey Ave., NW.

9:00 - 11:00 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on October 9, 2009. See also, story titled "story titled "Supreme Court to Consider 10b Liability of Stock Issuers' Vendors" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,625, August 21, 2007. The speakers will be Louis Bograd (Center for Constitutional Litigation), Jonathan Cuneo (Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca), Theodore Frank (AEI), Robert Gasaway (Kirkland & Ellis), Harvey Pitt (Kalorama Partners), and Michael Greve (AEI). See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

Day two of a four day convention of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). See, conference web site. Location: Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) regarding the foreign policy based export controls in the Export Administration Regulations to determine whether they should be modified, rescinded or extended. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 5, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 171, at Pages 50912-50913.

9/25. The Supreme Court of the US (SCUS) granted certiorari in Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, a patent infringement case involving the issue of patent exhaustion. See, orders List [12 pages in PDF] at page 2. This case is Sup. Ct. No. 06-937. See, SCUS docket.

The District Court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion [31 pages in PDF] on July 7, 2006. It affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded to the District Court.

The SCUS requested that the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submit an amicus curiae brief. See, story titled "Supreme Court Requests Solicitor General Brief in Patent Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,566, April 17, 2007.

The OSG filed its amicus brief in August urging the SCUS to grant certiorari. See, story titled "Solicitor General Urges Supreme Court to Take Case Regarding Patent Exhaustion Doctrine" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,629, August 28, 2007.

The OSG wrote that "The doctrine of patent exhaustion, also known as the first-sale doctrine, implicates fundamental questions concerning the scope of the exclusive rights conferred under the patent laws."

It stated that the SCUS last addressed this doctrine squarely in its 1942 opinion in United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241.

The OSG continued that "the doctrine has evolved in the Federal Circuit in a manner that appears to conflict with this Court's patent-exhaustion cases, thereby creating uncertainty as to when a patentee may enforce, through federal-court actions for patent infringement (as opposed to state-law contract actions), downstream limitations on purchasers following an authorized sale. Whatever rights a patentee may have to enforce such limitations as a matter of contract, the question whether a patentee may invoke federal patent law to enforce such limitations against authorized purchasers is one of considerable practical importance, and this case presents an adequate vehicle for addressing that question."

Quanta Computer is represented by Maureen Mahoney of the Washington DC office of the law firm of Latham & Watkins.

LG Electronics is represented by Carter Phillips of the Washington DC office of the law firm of Sidley Austin.

This case is Quanta Computers, Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Sup. Ct. No. 06-937, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 05-1261, 05-1262, 05-1263, 05-1264, 05-1302, 05-1303, and 05-1304. Judge Mayer wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Michel and Newman joined. The Court of Appeals heard appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Claudia Wilkin presiding.

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.