7/22. The U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir) issued its opinion [57 pages in PDF] in ACLU v. Mukasey, a long running challenge to the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 231. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court, which held that the COPA facially violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution, and permanently enjoined enforcement of the COPA.

This relates back to efforts by the Congress in the 1990s to impose broad federal regulation of internet content. The Congress's first attempt was the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which was made a part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Supreme Court promptly, and unanimously, held that it was unconstitutional in 1997. See, opinion in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844.

The Congress reacted with a more tailored approach in 1998 with the COPA.

The COPA bans sending to minors over the web material that is harmful to minors. The COPA also allows web site operators to distribute pornography, but requires those web sites which distribute material that is harmful to children to verify adult status through the use of credit cards, adult access codes, adult PIN numbers, or other technologies.

Litigation commenced in 1998, and enforcement of the statute has been enjoined pending outcome of the litigation, which has dragged on for nearly a decade.

Statute. The basic prohibition of the bill is this: "Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both."

The COPA further provides that "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the defendant, in good faith, has restricted access by minors to material that is harmful to minors ... by requiring use of a credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number ..."

The COPA defines the term "material that is harmful to minors" to be "any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that (A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest; (B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and (C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

Legislative History. The Congress enacted the COPA in 1998. It was HR 3783, which was made a part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY 1999, which President Clinton signed into law on October 21, 1998.

The primary authors and sponsors of this legislation were Rep. Mike Oxley (R-OH), Rep. James Greenwood (R-PA), Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-VA), and Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN). All have since left the Congress.

For further TLJ coverage of the drafting, debate and passage of the COPA, see:
Hearing on Internet Indecency, 2/10/98.
Blocking Bills Introduced in Congress, 2/12/98.
Internet Bills Approved by Committee, 3/12/98.
Gore on Safe Schools Internet Act, 3/24/98.
Istook Bill Requires Net Filters, 7/2/98.
Filtering Bill Passes Senate Committee, 7/22/98.
Senate Passes 'CDA II' and 'Safe Schools Internet Act', 7/26/98.
House Subcommittee Adopts Child Online Protection Act, 9/21/98.
House Committee Passes Child Online Protection Act, 9/25/98.
Rush Backs CDA II & Condemns Release of Starr Report, 9/25/98.
House Passes Child Online Protection Act, 10/8/98.
Congress and White House Debate Anti-Porn Bill, 10/16/98.
Internet and Tech Bills Become Law, 10/22/98.

Litigation History. The ACLU filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (EDPenn) challenging its Constitutionality on October 22, 1998. See, TLJ story titled "ACLU Files Suit Challenging the Child Online Protection Act", October 23, 1998. The action was initially styled ACLU v. Reno. The name of each succeeding Attorney General has been substituted since then: Ashcroft, Gonzales, and Mukasey.

(See also, Amended Complaint [PDF], filed in 2004.)

The District Court issued a preliminary injunction of the COPA in 1999, at F. Supp. 2d 473. In a previous opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed in 2000, at 217 F.3d 162.

On May 13, 2002, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in ACLU v. Ashcroft, 535 U.S. 564, in which it upheld the constitutionality of the community standards component of the COPA. It wrote that "This case presents the narrow question whether the Child Online Protection Act's (COPA or Act) use of ``community standards´´ to identify ``material that is harmful to minors´´ violates the First Amendment. We hold that this aspect of COPA does not render the statute facially unconstitutional." However, it also vacated and remanded to the Court of Appeals.

On March 6, 2003 the U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir) issued its second opinion, reported at 322 F.3d 240. It again affirmed the District Court, and held the COPA unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. See, story titled "Third Circuit Rules in COPA Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 619, March 10, 2003.

On October 14, 2003, the Supreme Court granted certiorari a second time. See, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in COPA Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 758, October 15, 2003.

On June 29, 2004, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion in ACLU v. Ashcroft, 542 U.S. 656. The Supreme Court affirmed the issuance of the preliminary injunction, and again remanded to the District Court. See also, stories titled "Supreme Court Affirms Preliminary Injunction of COPA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 928, June 29, 2004, and "COPA Sponsor Addresses Supreme Court Decision" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 929, June 30, 2004.

On March 22, 2007, the District Court issued its opinion holding that the COPA violates the First and Fifth Amendments, and enjoining its enforcement. See, 478 F. Supp. 2d 775.

And now, the Court of Appeals has affirmed this judgment of the District Court.

Court of Appeals Holding. The Court of Appeals wrote that "Because COPA is a content-based restriction on protected speech, it is presumptively invalid and the Government bears the burden of showing its constitutionality."

The Court of Appeals then applied strict scrutiny analysis. That is, "To survive strict scrutiny analysis, a statute must: (1) serve a compelling governmental interest; (2) be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest; and (3) be the least restrictive means of advancing that interest."

Under this test, the Court of Appeals found the COPA lacking. First, it wrote that the government "has a compelling interest to protect minors from exposure to harmful material on the Web".

However, it held that the COPA approach is not narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. For example, it concluded that the statute not only penalizes web publishers for making available material that is harmful to minors, it also penalizes them for making available material to adults that is protected speech.

The Court also wrote that other aspects of the statute (the commercial purpose language, and the affirmative defenses) fail the narrowly tailored prong of the strict scrutiny test.

Next, the Court of Appeals also held that the COPA fails the third prong of the strict scrutiny test. It is not the least restrictive means to advance the compelling interest of protecting minors.

That is, there is also blocking and filtering software. It wrote that "We agree with the District Court's conclusion that filters and the Government’s promotion of filters are more effective than COPA."

The Court of Appeals continued that "Given the vast quantity of speech that COPA does not cover but that filters do cover, it is apparent that filters are more effective in advancing Congress’s interest, as it made plain it is in COPA. Moreover, filters are more flexible than COPA because parents can tailor them to their own values and needs and to the age and maturity of their children and thus use an appropriate flexible approach differing from COPA's ``one size fits all´´ approach. Finally, the evidence makes clear that, although not flawless, with proper use filters are highly effective in preventing minors from accessing sexually explicit material on the Web."

Finally, the Court of Appeals held that the COPA is unconstitutional under both vagueness and overbreadth analysis.

Reaction. John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) stated in a release that "Throughout the history of legal challenges to COPA, we have argued that the most effective way to protect children online, and the means least restrictive of free expression, is to give families the resources to control what their children see and do online ... This empowers parents, respects the First Amendment and acknowledges the diverse sensibilities of American families."

See also, amicus curiae brief [46 pages in PDF] of the CDT, Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), and other internet, publishing, content, journalism and library groups.

The ACLU's Chris Hansen stated in a release that "The government has no more right to censor the Internet than it does books and magazines."

This case is ACLU, et al. v. Michael Mukasey, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, No. 07-2539, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, D.C. No. 98-cv-05591, Judge Lowell Reed presiding. Judge Greenberg wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Ambro and Chagares joined.

See also, the Electronic Privacy Information Center's (EPIC) web page on this litigation, and the ACLU's COPA web page.

7/22. Trade negotiators, including U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Susan Schwab, began another Doha round meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, on July 21, 2008.

See, July 21 opening statement of Pascal Lamy, Director General of the World Trade Organization. See also, July 21 WTO release and July 22 WTO release.

Schwab stated at a July 21 news conference in Geneva that "To have a meaningful development outcome to this round, the Doha development agenda, to have a meaningful outcome we know that we have to secure meaningful new market access in agriculture, in manufacturing and in services, and that is particularly true when it comes to the interests of the developing countries involved and of the rapidly emerging markets that are so key to this negotiation in terms of their involvement and in terms of the contribution that they can make to a successful outcome."

She added that "We know we’re going to need to make further contributions than the many contributions we already have on the table." See, transcript [4 pages in PDF].

See also, Schwab statement [2 pages in PDF] of July 22.

She stated at a news conference in Washington DC on July 17 that "We are going to Geneva with the intent and hope and expectation that there is a deal to be had. We know that a breakthrough, so-called modalities breakthrough certainly is not the end of the Doha Round. It’s not the end of the Doha negotiation. But we also know that it is a necessary, as in necessary but not sufficient condition, to get to a successful conclusion to the round."

This has been a high priority for this administration and of this President for quite some time." See, transcript [14 pages in PDF].

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) stated in a release on July 22 that "Ambassador Schwab put forth a major proposal to kick-start these negotiations into high gear, offering to reduce our allowable support from $48 billion down to $15 billion. But according to one press report, India's response is that it doesn’t pass the `laugh test.´ I have yet to see India make a constructive proposal that will actually advance these negotiations. This is not a laughing matter. We all stand to gain from increased trade. But to achieve that, we need to see meaningful reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade -- from all sides. If India is going to stand in the way of opening up new trade flows, the negotiators might as well pack up and head home early."

Peter Mandelson, the European Trade Commissioner, stated on July 17 that a Doha agreement "will create new trade, and lock in existing openness to trade, as an insurance against future protectionism. It would strip out some of the distortions in the global trading system that hurt developing countries. It would help lower prices for imports for consumers and businesses, necessary to counter inflation. Doha would strengthen trade rules and boost trade facilitation." See, transcript.

He also commented on the US. He said that "I can say two things about the US Farm Bill. One, it takes US farm support and their trade-distorting subsidies up. An secondly, and given the two thirds support in Congress for this farm bill, the only way to supplant that Farm Bill and get alternative policies in place in to invite that Congress to endorse a Doha deal. Agreed multilaterally ... That is one among many very good reasons for getting a Doha deal".

7/16. The European Commission released a document [22 pages in PDF] titled "Green Paper: Copyright in the Knowledge Economy". It enumerates numerous proposed exceptions to and limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright, offers issue summaries, and requests public comments.

These proposed exceptions and limitations are not binding on member states. This document advocates promoting "free movement of knowledge", while downplaying maintaining incentives to discover and create.

The proposed exceptions are numerous and broad enough, if enacted into law in full, to substantially swallow the rule that creators have exclusive rights in their creations.

These exceptions include "for the benefit of libraries and archives", including digitizing collections and making them available to users online, and special treatment for "orphan works".

These exceptions also including "allowing dissemination of works for teaching and research purposes", "for the benefit of people with a disability", and "for user-created content".

Orphan Works. The orphan works section of this document states that "The issue of orphan works is mainly a rights clearance issue i.e. how to ensure that users who make orphan works available are not liable for copyright infringement when the rightholder reappears and asserts his rights over the work. Apart from liability concerns, the cost and time needed to locate or identify the rightholders, especially in the case of works of multiple authorship, can prove to be too great to justify the effort."

It continues that "Copyright clearance of orphan works can constitute an obstacle to the dissemination of valuable content and can be seen as hampering follow-on creativity."

It also makes the point that "The majority of the Member States have not yet developed a regulatory approach with respect to the orphan works issue", and that "The potential cross-border nature of this issue seems to require a harmonised approach."

This document states that its purpose is "to foster a debate on how knowledge for research, science and education can best be disseminated in the online environment". It poses numerous questions, and solicits responses. The deadline to submit comments is November 30, 2008.

7/22. Five participants in ongoing debates over pending legislation to limit remedies for infringement of certain copyrighted works held a panel discussion in Washington DC.

The topic was HR 5889 [LOC | WW], the "Orphan Works Act of 2008", and S 2913 [LOC | WW], the "Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act Of 2008".

The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) approved its version of the bill on May 15, 2008. See, story titled "Senate Judiciary Committee Amends and Approves Orphan Works Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,767, May 15, 2008.

The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property (SCIIP) amended and approved HR 5889 on May 7, 2008. Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) and others have since been working on revisions to the bill. (TLJ's requests to attend meeting between members, staff, and representatives of interested groups have been rejected.)

Although, at this July 22 discussion panelists stated that a revised version of the bill would carve out an exception to the bill's limitation on remedies for "useful articles", such as shower curtains. Sohn also stated that another carve out might be for "secret assignation of rights". She added that this is being advocated by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

Four members of the panel were proponents of pending legislation: Allan Adler (Association of American Publishers), Gigi Sohn ( Public Knowledge), Victor Perlman ( American Society of Media Photographers), Joe Keeley (Arent Fox), and Maria Pallante (Copyright Office).

Victor Perlman (American Society of Media Photographers) stated that "For creators of visual materials, most of the orphan works legislation has looked more like a choice between the disastrous and the disastrous. The current version of the House bill finally reached the level of protections that the two largest photo trade associations could support."

There were no academic experts on copyright law on the panel. Also, some members of the audience used the question and answer portion of the program to express critical comments regarding pending legislation.

None of the bills' sponsors, or their staff, participated. The discussion disclosed little about whether, or when, the House Judiciary Committee might mark up HR 5889, or the Congress might enact a bill.

However, the CO's Maria Pallante stated that "the orphan works problem is not going to go away".

She also mentioned the European Commission's recently released paper [22 pages in PDF] and request for comments on copyright, which has a section on orphan works. See, story in this issue titled "EC Releases Paper and Request for Comments on Exceptions and Limitations to Copyright".

This panel discussion was conducted under the aegis of, and within the offices of, the DC Bar Association.

See also, Joe Keeley's web site OrphanWorks.net.

7/22. The Senate confirmed Cathy Seibel to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. See, Congressional Record, July 22, 2008, at Page S7088.

7/22. The Senate confirmed Glenn Suddaby to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. See, Congressional Record, July 22, 2008, at Page S7088.

7/22. Linda Woolley was named EVP Government Affairs at the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) effective August 11, 2008. She was previously the principal of LegisLaw, a public affairs and government relations consulting firm that she founded in 1999.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will consider several non-technology related items. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of July 21, and schedule for July 23.

The Senate will meet at 10:00 AM. It will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S 3268 [LOC | WW], the "Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008".

9:00 AM - 3:30 PM. Day three of a three day conference hosted by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) National Institute of Justice (NIJ) titled "2008 NIJ Conference". At 10:45 AM there will be a panel titled "Verifying Identity with Technology". At 2:00 PM there will be a panel titled "New Tools to Stop Child Exploitation over the Internet". See, agenda. Location: Marriott Crystal Gateway, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

9:00 AM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee. The agenda for July 23 includes "Computational Photography", "3B001 Commerce Control List Review", "Control Parameters for High-Performance Converters", and a "Discussion of Wassenaar Proposals for 2009". 3B001 relates to equipment for the manufacturing of semiconductor devices or materials, and specially designed components and accessories therefor. See, Category 3.B of the export administration regulations. The July 23 portion of the meeting is open to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 7, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 130, at Pages 38395-38396. Location: Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Aves. NW.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee (HCC) will meet to mark up HR 6357 [LOC | WW], the "Protecting Records, Optimizing Treatment, and Easing Communication through Healthcare Technology Act of 2008". The HCC will webcast the meeting. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Courting Big Business: The Supreme Court's Recent Decisions on Corporate Misconduct and Laws Regulating Corporations". A SJC notice lists two opinions to be addressed at this hearing: Exxon Shipping v. Baker and Stoneridge Investment Partners  v. Scientific-Atlanta. See, January 15, 2008, opinion [33 pages in PDF] in Stoneridge, a securities fraud case involving stock in Charter Communications, a cable television provider, and the liability of secondary actors Scientific Atlanta and Motorola. This opinion limits the ability of class action law firms to sue vendors or purchasers of companies that are alleged to have committed securities fraud. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Rules in Stoneridge v. Scientific Atlanta" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,701, January 16, 2008. The SJC will webcast this hearing. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House Intelligence Committee will hold a closed hearing titled "Cyber Security". Location: Room H-405, Capitol Building.

10:15 AM. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) will hold a hearing titled "Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice". The HJC will webcast this hearing. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "The FBI Turns 100". The speakers will be John Fox (Historian, Federal Bureau of Investigation), Athan Theoharis (author of the book [Amazon] titled "The FBI & American Democracy"), John Kelly, author of the book [Amazon] titled "Tainting Evidence: Inside the Scandals at the FBI Lab", and Tim Lynch (Cato). See, notice and registration page. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing on several Department of Justice (DOJ) nominations, including that of Patrick Rowan to be Assistant Attorney General (AAG) in charge of the National Security Division. Rowan is currently the acting AAG. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host an event titled "Young Lawyers' Summer Networking Event -- Famous Wine & Beer Trademark Cases". The speaker will be Roger Schechter (George Washington University law school). The price to attend is $15. For more information, contact 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: Science Club, 1136 19th St., NW.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of July 21.

8:30 AM - 4:30 PM. Day one of a two day public workshop hosted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) titled "Implementing Privacy Protections in Government Data Mining". See, notice in the Federal Register, June 25, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 123, at Pages 36093-36094. Location: Hilton Washington, International Ballroom East, 1919 Connecticut Ave., NW.

9:00 AM. Day two of a two day meeting of the Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee. The July 24 portion of the meeting is closed to the public, and its agenda is not disclosed. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 7, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 130, at Pages 38395-38396. Location: Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Aves. NW.

10:00 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Heath will hold a hearing titled "Promoting the Adoption and Use of Health Information Technology". See, notice. Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.

12:00 - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "The ABCs of IP: A Primer on Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law". Janet Fries (Drinker Biddle & Reath) will review copyright law. Gary Krugman (Sughrue Mion) will review trademark law. Steven Warner (Fitzpatrick Cella Harper & Scinto) will review patent law. Maureen Browne (Heller Ehrman) will moderate. 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 Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONCHIT) American Health Information Community Confidentiality, Privacy, & Security Workgroup will hold a meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 20, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 120, at Page 35139. Location: Switzer Building, Conference Room 1114, 330 C St., SW.

The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of July 21.

8:30 AM - 12:30 PM. Day one of a two day public workshop hosted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) titled "Implementing Privacy Protections in Government Data Mining". See, notice in the Federal Register, June 25, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 123, at Pages 36093-36094. Location: Hilton Washington, International Ballroom East, 1919 Connecticut Ave., NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House Intelligence Committee's (HIC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a closed hearing titled "Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General". Location: Room H-405, Capitol Building.

Extended deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its further notice of proposed rule making (FNPRM) regarding service rules for licensed fixed and mobile services, including Advanced Wireless Services (AWS), in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2155-2175 MHz, and 2175-2180 MHz bands. This FNPRM is FCC FCC 08-158 WT Docket Nos. 07-195 and 04-356. See, original notice in the Federal Register, June 25, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 123, at Pages 35995-36013, and notice of extension in the Federal Register, July 14, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 135, at Pages 40271-40272.

12:00 - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "MySpace, Facebook, and the Workplace". The speakers will be Micah Salb (Lippman Semsker & Salb), Michael Songer (Crowell & Moring), Lily Garcia (Washington Post columnist), and Anne Donohue (SRA International, Inc.). The price to attend ranges from $20 to $30. For more information, contact 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) will hold a hearing titled "The Future of U.S. Trade Policy: Perspectives from Former U.S. Trade Representatives". See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Music and Radio in the 21st Century: Assuring Fair Rates and Rules across Platforms". The witnesses will be John Simson (SoundExchange), John Ondrasik (singer & songwriter), and Jeffrey Harleston (Geffen Records). Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) will preside. She is the sponsor of S 256 [LOC | WW], the "Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act of 2007". See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

The U.S. International Trade Commission's (USITC) is scheduled to transmit its report for the House Ways and Means Committee regarding government policies affecting trade with the People's Republic of China (PRC). The USITC is examining, among other sectors, semiconductors and telecommunications. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 31, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 146, at Pages 41773-41774, and USITC release. This proceeding is titled "China: Government Policies Affecting U.S. Trade in Selected Sectors" and numbered Inv. No. 332-491.

RESCHEDULED TO AUGUST 13. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will commence Auction 78, 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.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Alliance for Public Technology (APT) host a panel discussion titled "Broadband in Low-income Communities: From Access to Adoption". The speakers will be Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Joy Howell (APT), Austin Bonner (One Economy Corporation), and Alec Ross (OEC). A box lunch will be served. Location: Room HC-6, Capitol Building.

7/22. HR 6362 [LOC | WW], an untitled bill to provide that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), shall appoint administrative patent judges and administrative trademark judges, had been on the House suspension calendar for July 22, 2008. However, the Democratic leadership removed this bill from the calendar.

7/22. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Deborah Tate gave a speech at an event titled "Cox Communications’ 3rd Annual Internet Safety Summit" in Washington DC. She said that "cable and Internet providers also have a responsibility to assist families in educating children about the dangers of the Internet, especially the potential dangers of online chatting and posting personal information on blogs and social networking sites."

7/22. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Deborah Tate wrote a short piece [5 pages in PDF] titled "U.S. Spectrum Policy: Bringing the Digital Dividend to All Americans" in which she offered a cursory summary of recent FCC spectrum auctions, including the AWS and 700 MHz auctions, and upcoming auctions. She also touched on broadband penetration metrics and extending universal service subsidies to broadband services.

7/22. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) announced in a release that it "will begin a two-year pilot Law School Clinical Certification Program this Fall semester allowing law students to practice intellectual property law before the agency under the strict guidance of a law school clinical faculty supervisor". The USPTO added that six law schools are participating: American University law school, University of Connecticut law school, John Marshall Law School, University of Maine School of Law, Vanderbilt Law School, and William Mitchell College of Law.

7/17. The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) released a report [PDF] titled "A Primer On the US Mobile Television Market". The author is the PFF's Joseph Kraemer.

7/16. The European Commission announced in a release that it "adopted two initiatives in the area of copyright. First, the Commission proposes to align the copyright term for performers with that applicable to authors, in this way bridging the income gap that performers face toward the end of their lives. Secondly, the Commission proposes to fully harmonise the copyright term that applies to co-written musical compositions."

7/16. The European Commission announced in a release that it "has adopted an antitrust decision prohibiting 24 European collecting societies from restricting competition by limiting their ability to offer their services to authors and commercial users outside their domestic territory. However, the decision allows collecting societies to maintain their current system of bi-lateral agreements and to keep their right to set levels of royalty payments due within their domestic territory."

7/14. The U.S. District Court (WDPenn) unsealed a redacted Consent Order for Permanent Injunction [27 pages in PDF], signed by the Court on July 8, in FTC v. Davison & Associates. This is a long running civil action against a fraudulent invention promotion service. This order contains injunctive relief, requires the payment of $10 Million by defendants, appoints a liquidating receiver, and imposes compliance reporting and record keeping requirements. This case is FTC v. Davison & Associates, et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, D.C. No. 97-1278. See also, FTC release.

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.