6/12. Yahoo stated in a release on June 12 that "discussions with Microsoft regarding a potential transaction -- whether for an acquisition of all of Yahoo! or a partial acquisition -- have concluded." Yahoo stated in a second release on June 12 that "it has reached an agreement with Google" regarding search and advertising.

Yahoo stated that under its agreement with Google, Yahoo may "run ads supplied by Google alongside Yahoo!'s search results and on some of its web properties in the United States and Canada. The agreement is non-exclusive ..."

Also, the agreement provides that Yahoo "will select the search term queries for which -- and the pages on which -- Yahoo! may offer Google paid search results. Yahoo! will define its users' experience and will determine the number and placement of the results provided by Google and the mix of paid results provided by Panama, Google or other providers. The agreement applies to paid search and content match and does not apply to algorithmic search. The agreement also applies to current partners in Yahoo's publisher network."

Google elaborated in a release on June 12 that this agreement gives Yahoo the ability to use Google's search and contextual advertising technology through its advertising programs titled "AdSense for Search" and "AdSense for Content".

Google also disclosed that the two companies have "agreed to enable interoperability between their respective instant messaging services".

Neither Google nor Yahoo disclosed any financial terms.

Yahoo's release regarding Microsoft also states that "The conclusion of discussions follows numerous meetings and conversations with Microsoft regarding a number of transaction alternatives, including a meeting between Yahoo! and Microsoft on June 8th in which Chairman Roy Bostock and other independent Board members from Yahoo! participated. At that meeting, Microsoft representatives stated unequivocally that Microsoft is not interested in pursuing an acquisition of all of Yahoo!, even at the price range it had previously suggested."

Yahoo also stated that Microsoft's proposal to acquire Yahoo's search business "would not be consistent with the company's view of the converging search and display marketplaces, would leave the company without an independent search business that it views as critical to its strategic future and would not be in the best interests of Yahoo! stockholders."

Microsoft stated in a release on June 12 that "In the weeks since Microsoft withdrew its offer to acquire Yahoo!, the two companies have continued to discuss an alternative transaction that Microsoft believes would have delivered in excess of $33 per share to the Yahoo! shareholders. This partnership would ensure healthy competition in the marketplace, providing greater choice and innovation for advertisers, publishers and consumers."

It added that "As stated on May 3rd and reiterated on May 18th Microsoft was not interested in rebidding for all of Yahoo!. Our alternative transaction remains available for discussion."

Antitrust. Google also made the following statement regarding antitrust reviews in its release: "Although Google and Yahoo are not required to receive regulatory approval of the arrangement before implementing it, the companies have voluntarily agreed to delay implementation for up to three and a half months to give the U.S. Department of Justice time to review the arrangement."

Ed Black, head of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), stated in a release that "This is not a merger. It does not seem that either competition or consumers are harmed by a non-exclusive business deal, which does not eliminate Yahoo from any of the marketplaces it is active in. With no dimunition of Yahoo’s competitive ability, we don’t see where competition gets harmed and we don’t see where consumers get harmed."

Black added that "Even though serious antitrust problems are unlikely, it was appropriate for the parties to offer up a delay while regulators review the deal. This is a good provision to help everyone understand the facts surrounding the deal and make sure there is no harmful impact on competition or consumers."

6/12. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division filed its Competitive Impact Statement (CIS) with the U.S. District Court (NDIll) in USA v. National Association of Realtors, D.C. No. 05 C 5140.

The parties settled this antitrust case on May 27, 2008, with a Stipulation and proposed final judgment (PFJ). However, the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (APPA) requires the filing of this CIS, and court approval, for the PFJ to become effective.

Complaint. The DOJ initiated this proceeding by filing a complaint on September 8, 2005 against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) alleging violation of federal antitrust laws in connection with its obstruction of real estate brokers who use internet tools to offer services to consumers.

The DOJ filed an amended complaint on October 4, 2005. It alleged that "The brokers against whom the policies discriminate operate secure, password-protected Internet sites that enable the brokers' customers to search for and receive real estate listings over the Internet. These websites thus replace or augment the traditional practice by which the broker conducts a search of properties for sale and then provides information to the customer by hand, mail, fax, or e-mail. Since these websites were first developed in the late 1990s, brokers' use of the Internet in connection with their delivery of brokerage services has become an important competitive alternative to traditional ``brick-and-mortar´´ business models."

It continued that the NAR adopted a policy pertaining to "virtual office websites", or VOWs, limiting new competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1.

It further alleged that the NAR's initial VOW policy, and another adopted in response to this action (its "Internet Listings Display Policy", or ILD), "permit brokers to withhold their clients' listings from VOW operators by means of an ``opt-out´´ right. In essence, the policies allow traditional brokers to block the customers of web-based competitors from using the Internet to review the same set of MLS listings that the traditional brokers provide to their customers."

See also, story titled "DOJ Sues National Association of Realtors for Obstructing Internet Based Brokers" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,210, September 9, 2005; "GAO Reports on Real Estate Brokers and Use of the Internet" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,224, September 29, 2005; and "DOJ Amends Complaint Against Realtors" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,228, October 6, 2005.

Settlement. The DOJ and NAR reached a settlement on May 27, 2008.

The PFJ provides that the NAR admits no liability or wrongdoing. The PFJ contains no fine or other financial penalty.

It further provides that the DOJ "does not allege that Defendant's Internet Data Exchange (IDX) Policy in its current form violates the antitrust laws".

The PFJ requires the NAR to repeal its VOW policy, as modified by its ILD policy. Then, "Within five business days after entry of this Final Judgment, NAR shall adopt the Modified VOW Policy".

The NAR stated in a release that the proposed judgment "validates NAR's longstanding Internet Data Exchange (IDX) policy and strengthens the rule governing participation in multiple listing services".

Richard Gaylor, head of the NAR, stated that "This is clearly a win-win for the real estate industry and the consumers we serve ... Today I can say with the clear knowledge, reinforced and underscored by DOJ’s settlement compromise, that the real estate industry is dynamic, entrepreneurial and fiercely competitive. Thanks to Realtors®, consumers can access detailed information about millions of properties for sale across the country."

Summary of New Policy. The NAR stated in its release that the NAR "will be reinstating an updated version of its Virtual Office Web site policy. ... The revised policy continues to protect the rights of sellers who do not want their property or their property’s address displayed on the Internet. The new policy also protects sellers from having false or other unwanted information about their listings appear on the VOW of an MLS member."

The DOJ's CIS offers a detailed summary of the new policy mandated by the PFJ. It states that the PFJ "embodies the fundamental principle that an association of competing brokers, operating an MLS, cannot use the aggregated power of the MLS to discriminate against a particular method of competition (in this case, VOWs)." (Parentheses in original.)

The CIS continues that the PFJ "will end the competitive harm resulting from NAR's Challenged Policies and will allow consumers to benefit from the enhanced competition that VOW brokers can provide. The proposed Final Judgment requires NAR to repeal its VOW and ILD Policies and to replace them with a "Modified VOW Policy" ... that makes it clear that brokers can operate VOWs without interference from their rivals. (Footnotes omitted.)

The CIS also states that the new policy "does not allow brokers to opt out and withhold their clients' listings from VOW brokers. This change eliminates entirely the most egregious impediment to VOWs that was contained in the Challenged Policies. Under the Modified VOW Policy, the MLS must provide to a VOW broker for display on the VOW all MLS listings information that brokers are permitted to provide to customers by all other methods of delivery." (Footnotes omitted.)

The CIS also states that the new policy "permits brokers to operate referral VOWs. It expressly prohibits MLSs from impeding VOW brokers from referring customers to other brokers for compensation." (Footnote omitted.)

The CIS also states that the new policy "prohibits MLSs from using an inferior data delivery method to provide MLS listings to VOW brokers and from unreasonably restricting the advertising and co-branding relationships VOW brokers establish with third parties. VOW brokers, under the Modified VOW Policy, will be free from MLS interference in the appearance and features of their VOWs." (Footnotes omitted.)

6/11. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [11 pages in PDF] in Derek Andrews v. Poof Apparel, a case regarding remedies available for trademark and copyright infringement.

Introduction. This case involves intellectual property rights in women's clothing. Derek Andrews, Inc. makes expensive women's clothes. Poof Apparel Corporation makes inexpensive women's clothes. Poof infringed Andrews' copyright and trademarks in tags attached to articles of clothing. Andrews prevailed in the District Court on both copyright and trademark claims, and was awarded statutory damages on the copyright claim, and disgorgement of profits on the trademark claim. It also won an award of attorneys fees.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment as to the copyright claim. Poof made infringing articles both before and after the effective date of Andrews' copyright registration. The Copyright Act does not allow the copyright holder to recover statutory damages or attorneys fees when the infringement "commenced ... before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work".

The Court of Appeals held that the word "commenced" refers only to the first act of infringement in a continuing series of acts of infringement. Hence, it reversed the award of statutory damages, and held that Andrews is not entitled to any attorneys fees related to the copyright claim.

This case underscores the importance of prompt copyright registration for creators who hope to be able to enforce their copyrights.

This opinion does not affect a copyright holder's ability to recover actual damages.

Background. This case concerns Andrews' line of clothing titled "Twisted Heart". Andrew’s "Heart Design" mark was first used in commerce on August 11, 2003, and is the subject of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3202995, filed on April 6, 2005. Andrews' "Twisted Heart" word mark has been used in commerce since August 11, 2003, and is the subject of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2930606, filed on July 14, 2003.

Andrews also registered a copyright in the artwork and configuration of the tag with the U.S. Copyright Office. This registration became effective on June 15, 2005.

Andrews puts tags on these clothing items that contain the "Twisted Heart" trademark.

Poof manufactured clothes and attached to them tags that the Court of Appeals described as "nearly identical" to Andrews' "Twisted Heart" tags. Andrews learned of this, and sent a cease and desist letter in May of 2005 -- before the effective date of the copyright registration. But, Poof continued to make and distribute infringing items.

District Court. Andrews then filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (WDWash) against Poof alleging copyright and trademark infringement, and state law claims.

Poof did not file a timely answer to the complaint. Default was entered on August 8, 2005. However, Poof did defend in the remedies phase of the District Court proceeding.

Following a bench trial in December of 2006 the District Court concluded, as to the Lanham Act and state law claims, that disgorgement of profits was the appropriate measure of damages, and awarded Andrew $685,307.70. On the copyright claim, the District Court awarded Andrews $15,000 in statutory damages under the Copyright Act. The District Court also awarded Andrews $296,090.50 in attorneys' fees and $6,678.60 in costs. The District Court did not apportion the awards of attorneys fees and costs between the copyright and Lanham Act claims.

Statutes. 17 U.S.C. § 504 provides, among other things, for recovery of statutory damages for infringement. It provides that "... an infringer of copyright is liable for either ... the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer ... or ... statutory damages ..." Section 504 then provides that statutory damages are "in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just".

17 U.S.C. § 505 provides for recovery of attorneys fees and costs. It provides, in full, that "In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs."

17 U.S.C. § 412 then limits the circumstances under which statutory damages can be recovered. It provides, in part, that "no award of statutory damages or of attorney’s fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for ... any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work".

The issue of statutory interpretation is this. Since Section 412 precludes the award of statutory damages for "any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration", and Poof's infringement occurred both before and after the effective date of the copyright registration, could the District Court award statutory damages on the interpretation that Poof's continuing infringement "commenced" after the copyright registration?

Court of Appeals. Poof brought the present appeal. In the just released opinion for publication, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the District Court on the copyright and attorneys fees issues. The Court of Appeals rejected all other appeal issues in a not for publication memorandum disposition.

The Court of Appeals wrote that Section 412 "leaves no room for discretion". It "mandates that, in order to recover statutory damages, the copyrighted work must have been registered prior to commencement of the infringement, unless the registration is made within three months after first publication of the work".

Moreover, it held that Poof's continuing to make and sell infringing articles after the effective date of the copyright registration were not "commenced" within the meaning of Section 412.

The Court of Appeals reached this conclusion in part on the basis that other courts have so interpreted Section 412. It noted that every court to consider the issue has held that infringement commences for the purposes of § 412 when the first act in a series of acts constituting continuing infringement occurs. Hence, it held that "the first act of infringement in a series of ongoing infringements of the same kind marks the commencement of one continuing infringement under § 412."

The Court of Appeals also reached this conclusion in part on the basis that it "furthers Congress’ intent to promote the early registration of copyrights."

The Court of Appeals thus reversed the award of statutory damages of copyright infringement.

The Court of Appeals then held that, for the same reason, Andrews is not entitled to an award of attorneys fees as to its copyright claim. However, the Court of Appeals continued, the District Court did not apportion the award of attorneys fees between the copyright claim (for which Andrews is not entitled to attorneys fees) and the Lanham Act claim (for which Andrews is entitled to attorneys fees). The Court of Appeals therefore remanded to the District Court "with instructions to apportion the fees award in light of our determination that Andrew is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act."

This case is Derek Andrews, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corporation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 07-35048, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, D.C. No. CV-05-01136-JPD, Magistrate Judge James Donohue presiding. Judge Otis Wright, sitting by designation, wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Susan Graber and Johnnie Rawlinson joined.

The House will not meet. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of June 16.

The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM for morning business. It will then resume consideration of the motion to proceed to HR 6049 [LOC | WW, the "Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act.

The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour debate, and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. The House will consider numerous non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of June 16.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Protecting Consumers by Protecting Intellectual Property". See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

TIME?. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet. The agenda may include advice for the U.S. government on the ITU World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly 2008 (WTSA 08), meetings of the Telecommunication Sector Advisory Group (TSAG), and group meetings on the International Telecommunication Regulations, cybersecurity, and other subjects. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 40, at Page 10854. Location?

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Auction No. 77 is scheduled to begin. See also, notice in the Federal Register, May 8, 2008, Vol. 73, Number 90, at Pages 26112-26118.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Notice of Inquiry related to its rules regulating crime control exports. These rules cover police and military hardware, such as helmets, shields, and guns. However, these rules also regulate the export of some computers and software. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 19, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 54, at Pages 14769-14770.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) regarding its proposed changes to its Export Administration Regulations (EAR). These changes affect, among other things, "high performance computers" and "encryption commodities and software". See, notice in the Federal Register, April 18, 2008, at Vol. 73, No. 76, at Pages 21076-21083.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of June 16.

10:00 AM. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing titled "Protecting Personal Information: Is the Federal Government Doing Enough?". The witnesses will be Linda Koontz (Government Accountability Office), Hugo Teufel (Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security), Peter Swire (Ohio State University law school), and Ari Schwartz (Center for Democracy and Technology). See, notice. Location: Room 342, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Privacy Implications of Online Advertising". See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a book forum. The speakers will be Jason Riley, author of the book [Amazon] titled "Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders", Michael Barone (US News and World Report) and Daniel Griswold (Cato). Lunch will be served after the program. The event will be webcast by the Cato Institute. See, notice and registration page. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day invitation only conference of the American Antitrust Institute (AAI). See, schedule. Location: Holeman Lounge, National Press Club, 13th floor, 529 14th St., NW.

8:30 AM - 4:45 PM. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission will hold a hearing titled "Access to Information and Media Control in the People's Republic of China". See, notice in the Federal Register, June 2, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 106, at Pages 31545-31546. Location: Room 418, Russell Building, Capitol Hill.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of June 16.

9:00 AM. The Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 30, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 105, at Page 31194. Location: IRS, Room 2116, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Day two of a two day invitation only conference hosted by the American Antitrust Institute (AAI). See, schedule. Location: Ballroom, National Press Club, 13th floor, 529 14th St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "Shhhhh, it's a Secret: Litigating Cases When the Government Claims Information is Secret". The speakers will be Daniel Schwartz (Bryan Cave), Barbara Van Gelder (Morgan Lewis & Bockius), Meredith Fuchs (National Security Archive), and William Leonard. The price to attend ranges from $10 to $20. For more information, contact 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

1:00 - 5:00 PM. The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) and the National Chamber Foundation (NCF) will host a panel discussion of the book [Amazon] titled "Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders". The speakers will be Elizabeth Dickson (Ingersoll-Rand Company), Jacob Kirkegaard (The Peterson Institute)
Jason Riley (Wall Street Journal), James Sherk (Heritage Foundation), Jenifer Verdery (Intel), and Bret Swanson (PFF). See, notice. Location: U.S.Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H St., NW.

6:00 PM. Deadline to file short form applications to participate in Auction 78 with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This is the AWS-1 and Broadband PCS auction. See, Public Notice (DA 08-1090) and notice in the Federal Register, May 29, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 104, at Pages 30919-30938.

TIME? The House Appropriations Committee (HAC) will meet to mark up the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill. Location?

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2ndFNPRM) regarding satellite carriers' carriage obligations under Section 338 of the Communications Act as the high definition (HD) carriage requirement becomes effective. The FCC adopted its Second Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion, and 2ndFNPRM on March 19, 2008, and released the text on March 28, 2008. It is FCC 08-86 in CS Docket No. 00-96. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 5, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 87, at Pages 24515-24519. See also, story titled "FCC Releases DBS HD Carry One Carry All Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,738, March 27, 2008.

Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of June 16 states that "no votes are expected in the House".

10:00 AM. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Elaine Duke to be Under Secretary for Management at the Department of Homeland Security. See, notice. Location: Room 342, Dirksen Building. notice

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a lunch. The speaker will be Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. See, notice and registration page. The price to attend is $70.00. Location: Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2ndFNPRM) regarding reauctioning the D block of the 700 MHz auction (Auction No. 73). The FCC adopted this item on May 14, 2008. See, story titled "FCC Announces NPRM for D Block Auction" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,766, May 14, 2008. The FCC later released the text [101 pages in PDF]. It is FCC 08-128 in WT Docket No. 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 21, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 99, at Pages 29581-29623.

6/12. President Bush nominated Matthew Petersen to be a member of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for a term expiring April 30, 2011. See, White House release. This nomination is for the seat previously held by Hans von Spakovsky pursuant to a recess appointment. The FEC has statutory authority to regulate federal election contributions and expenditures. It has construed this to engage in limited regulation of online speech regarding federal candidates and elections.

6/11. President Bush announced that he will give a Presidential Medal of Freedom to Judge Laurence Silberman. A White House release states that Silberman "has devoted his life to promoting, enforcing, and defending the rule of law. He has been a stalwart guardian of the Constitution, and his work to strengthen our national security institutions has made Americans safer." Silberman is a senior status judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir), and has served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCOR).

6/11. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) issued a release that announces new staff appointments.

6/11. Donald Shepard was elected Chairman of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. See, release.

6/12. Chris Cox, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), gave a speech titled "Disclosure from the User's Perspective". He discussed, among other topics, interactive data (online XBRL tagged financial information). He reviewed recently adopted rules, pending rulemaking proceeding, and predicted some further SEC actions. For example, he said that "I expect we will also address, yet this summer, a CIFiR proposal for new guidance on the use of corporate websites". CIFiR is the SEC's Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting.

6/11. Donald Kohn, Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), gave a speech in Chatham, Massachusetts, in which he discussed the Phillips curve, inflation, and information technology. Kohn assumed that his listeners and reading are familiar with the economic literature on the Phillips curve. Basically, it charts, in two dimensions, an inverse relationship between changes in money wages and the unemployment rate. That is, higher rates of unemployment are associated with lower inflation. There is a trade off between maintaining price stability and maximizing unemployment. Kohn said that the "Phillips curve tradition remains at the core of how most academic researchers and policymakers -- including this one -- think about fluctuations in inflation". Kohn spoke in great detail about how monetary policy should respond to commodity price shocks, such as large increases in the price of oil. However, his speech might also be significant from an information technology (IT) standpoint because, in a footnote, he addressed recent IT price drops and inflation. He wrote that "An example of a change in the trend of other consumer prices could be seen in the relative prices of computers and other high-technology goods and services in the second half of the 1990s, which declined at an unexpectedly rapid rate as productivity accelerated. This shock placed downward pressure on inflation and raised both employment and the equilibrium real wage. In the presence of nominal price and wage rigidities, an efficient policy response would facilitate the rise in the real wage by allowing some downward drift in price inflation and upward drift in employment and wage inflation, which is, in fact, about the result observed over this period."

6/10. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) hosted an event titled "International Roundtable on Interactive Data for Public Financial Reporting". See, statement by SEC Chairman Chris Cox.

6/9. The CTIA announced in a release that it has issued a Request For Information (RFI) regarding the enhanced messaging space.

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 1998-2008 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.