10/16. The U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir) issued its opinion in Time Warner Telecom v. FCC, denying the petitions for review of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) wireline broadband order.

In August of 2005 the FCC adopted an order that classifies wireline broadband internet access service as an information service. That order relieved the incumbent local exchange carriers of Title II common carrier regulation of their wireline broadband internet access services.

See, stories titled "FCC Classifies DSL as Information Service", "Reaction to the FCC's Classification of DSL", and "FCC Adopts a Policy Statement Regarding Network Neutrality" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,190, August 8, 2005.

Numerous independent internet service providers, competing telecommunications service providers, cable modem providers, and groups challenged the FCC's authority to adopt this order.

The Court of Appeals wrote that the petitioners "argue that the FCC's order allows telephone companies to deny competitors access to their wirelines, thereby resulting in decreased competition and consumer choice in the market for broadband Internet service."

However, it concluded that "the FCC’s order is based on a reasonable interpretation of the Communications Act of 1934, ... and a proper exercise of agency discretion. Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review."

Previously, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC's classification of cable modem service as an information service. See, June 27, 2005, opinion [59 pages in PDF], and stories titled "Supreme Court Rules in Brand X Case" and "Reaction to the Supreme Court's Opinion in the Brand X Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,163, June 28, 2005.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin stated in a release [PDF] that "I am pleased that the Court affirmed the FCC’s decision to remove outdated, decades-old regulations from today’s broadband services. By removing such regulations, the Commission encouraged broadband investment and fostered competition. As a result of the Commission's deregulatory policies, broadband adoption has increased and consumers have benefited in the form of lower prices and improved broadband service."

Robert McCormick, head of US Telecom, stated in a release that "The court has upheld Chairman Martin’s determination to put consumers in charge of the broadband market. This important FCC order has helped to spur broadband delivery in communities across the nation and all of the life-enhancing benefits that come with it such as better healthcare, education and energy conservation. This was the right decision for Americans and will ensure that these pro-consumer policies remain in place."

This case is Time Warner Telecom, Inc., et al. v. FCC and USA, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 05-4769, 05-5153, 06-1466, and 06-1467, petitions for review of a final order of the FCC.

10/16. The House amended and approved HR 2102 [LOC | WW], the "Free Flow of Information Act of 2007", which limits the ability of the federal entities to compel journalists to provide testimony or documents, or disclose sources, related to their work. The vote on final approval was 398-21. See, Roll Call No. 973.

The House approved by voice vote an amendment [4 pages in PDF] offered by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), sponsor of the bill. The House then approved the bill as amended.

Limitation on Compelled Disclosures. The bill, as amended, provides that "In any matter arising under Federal law, a Federal entity may not compel a covered person to provide testimony or produce any document related to information obtained or created by such covered person as part of engaging in journalism, unless a court determines by a preponderance of the evidence, after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to such covered person -- (1) that the party seeking to compel production of such testimony or document has exhausted all reasonable alternative sources (other than the covered person) of the testimony or document".

The bill defines "federal entity" as "entity or employee of the judicial or executive branch or an administrative agency of the Federal Government with the power to issue a subpoena or issue other compulsory process."

In addition, the court must find that "(A) in a criminal investigation or prosecution, based on information obtained from a person other than the covered person -- (i) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred; and (ii) the testimony or document sought is critical to the investigation or prosecution or to the defense against the prosecution; or (B) in a matter other than a criminal investigation or prosecution, based on information obtained from a person other than the covered person, the testimony or document sought is critical to the successful completion of the matter".

In addition, the court must make addition findings if "the testimony or document sought could reveal the identity of a source of information". The court must find that disclosure either is "necessary to prevent, or to identify any perpetrator of, an act of terrorism", "is necessary to prevent imminent death or significant bodily harm", or is "necessary to identify a person who has disclosed -- (i) a trade secret, actionable under section 1831 or 1832 of title 18 ... (ii) individually identifiable health information ... or (iii) nonpublic personal information, as such term is defined in section 509(4) of the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act (15 U.S.C. 6809(4)), of any consumer actionable under Federal law".

The court must also find that "that the public interest in compelling disclosure of the information or document involved outweighs the public interest in gathering or disseminating news or information."

The bill also provides that when disclosure is compelled, it should be "narrowly tailored".

Exceptions. The bill then adds numerous other exceptions to the general rule.

Some exceptions are to be expected. It does not apply to "eyewitness" observation of a criminal act. It does not apply to terrorist organizations.

Other exceptions in the bill tend to undermine the underlying purpose of the bill.

For example, the limitation only applies to "any matter arising under Federal law". A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction over a claim to which state law applies could issue an order to a journalist to disclose information that would have been covered by the limitation of this bill, had the claim arisen under federal law. (The bill does not clarify whether an affirmative defense that is based upon federal law to a state law claim arises under federal law.)

Also, the bill does not apply to any "defamation, slander, or libel claims or defenses under State law, regardless of whether or not such claims or defenses, respectively, are raised in a State or Federal court". The bill could have been drafted more narrowly to provide only an exception for compelling disclosure of the source of, or information relevant to, the allegedly defamatory statements, and only upon the satisfaction of some threshold showing that the statements were in fact defamatory. Defamation actions, and threats thereof, are one of the primary tactics used by those who seek to suppress speech. This exception might enable those who seek to suppress speech to use a subpoena issued by a federal court in a meritless defamation action to compel the disclosure of confidential sources, where the underlying purpose of the defamation action is to obtain the disclosure of sources, rather than vindication and the recovery of damages. This exception would also enable plaintiffs to compel disclosure from journalists in defamation actions where the disclosure would not relate to the alleged defamation, but rather would be relevant to other issues, such as jurisdiction, damages, or credibility of witnesses.

Also, the bill does not limit a "Federal entity in any matter arising under Federal law from compelling a covered person to disclose any information ... obtained as the result of ... tortious conduct by the covered person ..." That is, if the entity seeking compelled disclosure can articulate a claim that a journalist's reporting constitutes tortious conduct, then a federal entity can compel disclosure of sources and other information.

Also, the bill's limitation of compelled disclosure of confidential sources does not apply when the "source is essential to identify in a criminal investigation or prosecution a person who without authorization disclosed properly classified information and who at the time of such disclosure had authorized access to such information" and the disclosure caused "harm to national security". One of the reasons that the federal government seeks to compel journalists to disclose sources is to find out who in the government is providing them information, and thereby to close those sources of information. Sometimes these sources are outside of government and/or acting in a legal and ethical manner. At the time of a government investigation under this exception, it would not know who the sources are. Moreover, whether disclosed information was "properly classified information" and whether the source had "authorized access" can be complex legal issues and/or factually uncertain at the time of the investigation. This exception provides the federal government opportunities to compel the disclosure of sources in the absence of the violation of any law related to classified information.

Also, the bill defines "covered person" as "a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for a substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person." This would exclude amateur bloggers and web site operators whose publication is not for "financial gain".

Also, the bill's definition of "covered person" excludes "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power". Outside of the US many entities engaged in journalism are government owned. Some of these engage in reporting comparable to that of leading US private sector journalism entities.

Also, the bill defines "journalism" as "the gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public." The bill's use of the terms "news" and "public interest" provide those who seek compelled disclosure opportunities to compel disclosure from journalists under the argument that the subject matter of the coverage at issue is not "news" or in the "public interest".

Communications Service Providers. The bill also addresses compelled disclosures from communications service providers, who may possess call records, and stored e-mail.

However, the bill only limits disclosures of "any record, information, or other communication that relates to a business transaction between a communications service provider and a covered person".

It also nominally requires notice to a "covered person" by the party seeking disclosure from the service provider. It also requires that the covered person be given an opportunity to be heard.

There are limitations upon this requirement. First, the court may delay notice if "notice would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of a criminal investigation". The bill places no limits on the length of the delay.

The bill also relies upon the party seeking information from the service provider to notify the covered person. Yet, this party in many cases will have little or no incentive to do so. Moreover, the bill contains no sanction or penalty for failure to provide the required notice. The court and service provider are likely to have no knowledge that the target is a covered person. Even if the service provider has knowledge that the target is a covered person, it has little or no incentive to assert the privacy or journalistic interests of the target.

Sponsors. Rep. Boucher, the sponsor, stated in a release that this "is a major victory for the public's right to know and for the ability of reporters to bring important information to light. The assurance of confidentiality that reporters give to sources is fundamental to their ability to deliver news on highly contentious matters of broad public interest such as corruption in government or misdeeds in corporations. Without the promise of confidentiality, many inside sources would not reveal the information, and opportunity to take corrective action to address the harms would not arise".

Rep. Pence, the lead co-sponsor of the bill, stated "As a conservative who believes in limited government, I know the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press. The Free Flow of Information Act is not about protecting reporters, it is about protecting the public's right to know".

Senate Bill. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) approved S 3035 [LOC | WW], the "Free Flow of Information Act of 2007", on October 4, 2007. This is a different, but related bill.

10/4. The Department of the Treasury (DOT) and the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, recites, and sets the comment deadline (December 12, 2007) for their proposed rules implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).

The House and Senate approved this Act as part of the conference report on HR 4954 (109th Congress), the "Port Security Improvement Act of 2006", on September 29, 2006, just before recessing for the November 2006 elections. The bill is now Public Law No. 109-347. Title VIII of this bill is the UIGEA.

The UIGEA is an attempt to stop internet gambling by regulating the financial transactions that fund what already constitutes unlawful internet gambling. It provides that no one engaged in the "business of betting or wagering" may knowingly accept certain financial transactions, including checks, electronic fund transfers, and credit card debt, in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling".

The UIGEA then requires the DOT and FRB to write regulations that require each "designated payment system" to identify and block these restricted transactions through the establishment of policies and procedures. It requires each "financial transaction provider" to comply with these DOT/FRB regulations.

The DOT/FRB notice states that "the proposed rule designates certain payment systems that could be used in connection with unlawful Internet gambling transactions restricted by the Act. The proposed rule requires participants in designated payment systems to establish policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit transactions in connection with unlawful Internet gambling."

This notice continues that "the proposed rule also exempts certain participants in designated payment systems from the requirements to establish such policies and procedures because the Agencies believe it is not reasonably practical for those participants to identify and block, or otherwise prevent or prohibit, unlawful Internet gambling transactions restricted by the Act."

"Finally, the proposed rule describes the types of policies and procedures that non-exempt participants in each type of designated payment system may adopt in order to comply with the Act and includes non-exclusive examples of policies and procedures which would be deemed to be reasonably designed to prevent or prohibit unlawful Internet gambling transactions restricted by the Act."

The DOT/FRB notice adds that "The proposed rule does not specify which gambling activities or transactions are legal or illegal because the Act itself defers to underlying State and Federal gambling laws in that regard and determinations under those laws may depend on the facts of specific activities or transactions (such as the location of the parties)." (Parentheses in original.)

See, Federal Register, October 4, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 192, at Pages 56680-56699.

10/15. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in Dean Rhoades v. Avon Products, a trademark declaratory judgment action.

The plaintiff (Dean Rhoades) filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (CDCal) seeking a declaration that several trademarks did not infringe on the defendant's (Avon Products) registered marks. There was also a related proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

The District Court, Judge Manuel Real, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, invoking the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, without hearing from the plaintiff's counsel. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the District Court, remanded, and ordered the reassignment of the case. Judge Real has difficulty performing his judicial responsibilities.

The Court of Appeals followed the approach of the 2nd Circuit in Goya Foods, Inc. v. Tropicana Prod., Inc., 846 F.2d 848 (1988).

It wrote that "Allowing the district court to decline a declaratory relief action on a primary jurisdiction rationale is sensible only if the agency is better equipped to handle the action. Here, however, Congress has not installed the PTO as the exclusive expert in the field. As noted, parties may litigate these issues in federal court without previously exhausting their claims before the TTAB."

It added that "where, as here, there is a potential infringement lawsuit, federal courts are particularly well-suited to handle the claims so that parties may quickly obtain a determination of their rights without accruing potential damages."

The Court of Appeals held that the District Court abused its discretion in declining to hear the case. It wrote that "some situations might justify deferring a declaratory judgment case when related TTAB proceedings are pending; specifically, where the ``district court action involves only the issue of whether a mark is entitled to registration,´´ it might make more sense to resolve the registration claims at the TTAB first." (Quotation from Goya Foods.)

On the other hand, this Court of Appeals added, if, as here, a potential infringement claim requires the District Court to resolve much or all of the registration issues, it would waste everyone's time not to settle the registration issue now, in District Court. The Court of Appeals wrote that "The deciding factor should be efficiency".

This case is Dean Rhoades and Dermanew, Inc. v. Avon Products, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 05-56047, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, D.C. No. CV-05-02169-R.

10/16. The U.S. Court of Appeals (8thCir) issued its divided opinion [13 pages in PDF] in CBC v. Major League Baseball, a case regarding the right of publicity, the First Amendment, and fantasy baseball's use of the names of baseball players.

CBC filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (EDMo) against Major League Baseball Advanced Media (MLBAM) seeking a declaratory judgment regarding CBC's right to use the names of baseball players in connection with internet and e-mail based fantasy baseball products.

MLBAM counterclaimed alleging that CBC violated its right of publicity under state law. The MLB Players Association intervened. The District Court granted summary judgment to CBC.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. It concluded that the baseball players "offered sufficient evidence to make out a cause of action for violation of their rights of publicity under Missouri law", but that "CBC's first amendment rights in offering its fantasy baseball products supersede the players' rights of publicity".

The Court of Appeals did not reach the issue of whether federal copyright law preempts the players' state law rights of publicity.

The dissent did not go to the right of publicity, First Amendment, or copyright issues. Rather, the dissenter would have reversed on contract grounds.

This case is C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 06-3357/3358, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Judge Arnold wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judge Loken joined. Judge Colloton dissented.

10/16. The House approved HR 3678 [LOC | WW], the "Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007", without amendment, by a vote of 405-2. See, Roll Call No. 968. This bill provides a four year extension to the ITFA's ban on certain internet taxes.

10/16. The House approved by voice vote HRes 716, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress with respect to raising awareness and enhancing the state of computer security, and supporting the goals of National Cyber Security Awareness Month. Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI) is the sponsor.

10/16. The Senate approved HR 3093 [LOC | WW], the Departments of Commerce and Justice and Science Appropriations bill for FY 2008 by a vote of 75-19. See, Roll Call No. 372.

9:30 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Antitrust Task Force will hold a hearing titled "Impact of our Antitrust Laws on Community Pharmacies and their Patients". See, notice. Location Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property (SCIIP) will hold a hearing titled "International Piracy: The Challenges of Protecting Intellectual Property in the 21st Century". See, notice. Location: Room 2237, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) will hold a hearing titled "Growing Trade, Growing Vigilance:  Import Health and Safety Today and Tomorrow". See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) will host a webcast speech by Tim Hutton (NSBA attorney) titled "Navigating the Legal Landmines Around New Technologies". See, NSBA webcasts page.

2:00 PM. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's (HOGRC) and Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement will hold a hearing titled "Technology for Secure Identity Documents". Location: Room 2247, Rayburn Building.

2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Innovation will hold a hearing titled "Science Parks: Bolstering U.S. Competitiveness". See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

Day one of a three day conference of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). At 9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON, there will be a series of presentations titled "Has the Supreme Court Signaled a Major Overhaul of the Subject Matter Eligibility Standard for Patent Protection?" The speakers will include Judge Paul Michel, representatives of the USPTO, and practicing attorneys. See, conference web site. Location: Marriott Wardman Park, 2660 Woodley Road, NW.

Deadline to submit applications to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to participate in its Attorney Honors Program for 2008. See, FCC notice [PDF].

Day two of a three day conference of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). At 8:45 - 11:45 AM, there will be a series of presentations titled "Fraud & Inequitable Conduct at the USPTO: Trademark & Patent Perspectives". The speakers will include Judge Paul Michel, representatives of the USPTO, and practicing attorneys. Also at 8:45 - 11:45 AM, there will be a series of presentations titled "Can You Do That? Fair v. Unfair Uses of IP". Also at 8:45 - 11:45 AM, there will be a series of presentations titled "Inherent Anticipation and Declaratory Judgment Actions". At 12:15 - 1:45 PM, Judge Randall Rader will give the luncheon address. See, conference web site. Location: Marriott Wardman Park, 2660 Woodley Road, NW.

9:00 AM - 1:30 PM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a forum titled "Building the Broadband Economy and Society". The speakers will be Robert Atkinson (ITIF), Ev Ehrlich (a former Undersecretary of Commerce), John Mayo (McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University), Steve Weber (UC Berkeley), Mark Lloyd (Center for American Progress), William Lehr (MIT). See, agenda. Location: Thornton Room, 11th Floor, Hyatt Regency Washington, 400 New Jersey Ave., NW.

TIME? Linda Thomsen (Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Enforcement) will give a speech titled "Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Five Years Later: Assessing Its Impact, Charting Its Future". For more information, contact Lisa Fairfax at 410-706-2724. Location: University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, MD.

Deadline to submit to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (OUSTR) post-hearing briefs for the GSP Subcommittee Public Hearing (on October 3-4, 2007) 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.

Deadline to submit to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (OUSTR) applications for nominations by the US to WTO dispute settlement panels. This is for nomination to the indicative list of non-governmental potential panelists provided for in Article 8.4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and in the Decision on Certain Dispute Settlement Procedures for the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). See, notice in the Federal Register, September 17, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 179, at Pages 52942-52944.

Close of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) filing window Noncommercial
Educational (NCE) New FM Station Applications. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 15, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 198, at Pages 58299-58300

Day three of a three day conference of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). See, conference web site. Location: Marriott Wardman Park, 2660 Woodley Road, NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "XM-SIRIUS: An Out of This World Monopolist or Just Another Down-to-Earth Competitor?". The speakers will be Lawrence Walke (National Association of Broadcasters), Andrew Schwartzman (Media Access Project), and Ryan Wallach (Willkie Farr & Gallagher). The price to attend ranges from $15 to $30. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

Extended 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, and notice in the Federal Register, August 8, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 152, at Pages 44539-44540. See also, Public Notice [2 pages in PDF] (DA 07-4097) extending deadlines.

9:00 AM - 2:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an event titled "Asia 2012: Security Challenges and Opportunities for Development". The speakers at a 9:00 AM on security will include Brigadier Arun Sahgal (United Service Institution of India), Lanxin Xiang (Graduate Institute of International Studies), Masafumi Ishii (Embassy of Japan), and Michael Auslin (AEI). The speakers at a 10:30 AM panel titled "Is Growth Sustainable? Fault Lines in Asia’s Economic Future" will include Richard Katz (Oriental Economist), Philip Levy (AEI), BethAnne Wilson (Federal Reserve Board of Governors), and Kent Calder (Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies). The 12:00 NOON lunch speaker will be John Negroponte (Department of State). The speakers at a 1:00 PM panel titled "Transnational Challenges and Regionalist Responses" will include Richard Cronin (Henry Stimson Center), Keiichi Hori (Asian Forum Japan), Da Wei (China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations), and Christopher Griffin (AEI).See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DC) will hear oral argument in American Radio Relay League v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 06-1343. This is a petition for review of a final order of the FCC pertaining to broadband over power line (BPL). See also, FCC brief [79 pages in PDF] and story titled "FCC Files Brief in Amateur Radio Operators' Challenge to BPL Rules" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,634, September 5, 2007. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing titled "Enhancing FTC Consumer Protection in Financial Dealings, with Telemarketers, and on the Internet". This hearing will address HR 3526 [LOC | WW], a bill to place all banking agencies within the existing regulatory authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act with respect to depository institutions, HR 2601 [LOC | WW], a bill to extend until 2012 the authority of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to collect fees to administer and enforce Do Not Call Registry, and HR 3461 [LOC | WW], the "Safeguarding America's Families by Enhancing and Reorganizing New and Efficient Technologies Act of 2007" or "SAFER NET Act", a bill to create an internet safety public education campaign at the FTC. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Enforcement Bureau (EB) will hold a closed meeting with regulated entities and others. The speakers will be FCC/EB front office managers and division chiefs. For more information, contact FCC/EB at 202-418-7450. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) asserts in its web site that this is an FCBA meeting. The FCBA also asserts unilaterally that this meeting is "off the record". Location: Wilmer Hale, 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "Beyond Borders: International Copyright Enforcement in the Digital Era". The speakers will be Stanford McCoy (Chief Negotiator for Intellectual Property Enforcement at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative) and Eric Schwartz (Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp). The price to attend ranges from $10 to $20. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

9:30 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing titled "NASPER: Why Has the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act Not Been Implemented? ". The hearing will be web cast by the HCC. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) program titled "Overview of Copyright Law and Litigation". The speaker will be Kenneth Kaufman (Skadden Arps). 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.

6:30 - 8:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers' Committee will host an event titled "YLC Pre-Charity Auction Happy Hour". For more information, contact Chris Fedeli at chrisfedeli at dwt dot com or Tarah Grant at tsgrant at hhlaw dot com. Location: Regatta Raw Bar, Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th 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.