10/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Southwestern Bell v. Texas Cable Association, a constitutional challenge brought by incumbent cable operators to a Texas statute regarding the cable and video services industry. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 74. See also, Supreme Court docket.

This lets stand the February 7, 2008, opinion [14 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (5thCir). The U.S. District Court (WDTex) dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.

Hence, the case will go back to the District Court, which has yet to consider the substantive issues. The cable association alleges that the act discriminates against its members by favoring new entrants and overbuilders in violation of the first amendment and the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.

It also alleges that the statute is inconsistent with the federal Communications Act, and is thus in violation of the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

This case is Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Texas Cable Association, et al., Sup. Ct. No. 07-1550, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The Court of Appeals case number is 06-51514. The District Court case number is 1:05-CV-721.

10/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Stroman Realty v. Wercinski, a case regarding state regulation of internet based commerce in timeshares, such as vacation condos. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 10. See also, Supreme Court docket.

This lets stand the January 11, 2008, opinion [19 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (5thCir).

Stroman Realty filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDTex) against officials of the state of Arizona alleging violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1983 in connection with the state's attempts to exercise regulatory jurisdiction to license timeshare resales in violation of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution by discriminatorily and unduly burdening nonresident participation in the interstate secondary timeshare market.

The District Court dismissed on claim preclusion and abstention grounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed on other grounds -- lack of personal jurisdiction. And now, the Supreme Court has let stand the Court of Appeals judgment.

The Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of the commerce clause claim. Rather, it held that Arizona's regulators cannot be sued in federal court in Texas, the location of Stroman Realty, the company that it targeted.

This opinion is authority for proposition that internet based businesses that find themselves regulated or taxed by distant state regulators in violation of their constitutional or federal statutory rights cannot obtain personal jurisdiction over the distant regulators in their home states.

The Court of Appeals opinion is a victory for state officials who exercise extraterritorial regulation or taxation. It is a setback for internet commerce. This and related opinions make it more difficult for internet based businesses to seek federal judicial relief from state regulation that they assert is arbitrary, discriminatory, protectionist, or technophobic.

See also, story titled "5th Circuit Rules No Personal Jurisdiction Over Out of State Regulator of Online Commerce" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,700, January 15, 2008.

Stroman Realty has litigated against many out of state regulators.

On May 15, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals (5thCir) issued its opinion [8 pages in PDF] in Stroman Realty v. Florida and California, another case regarding personal jurisdiction over distant state regulators of internet and direct mail based businesses. The Court of Appeals again held that the District Court located in the state of Texas lacks personal jurisdiction over state regulators in the states of California and Florida. See, story titled "5th Circuit Rules on Personal Jurisdiction Over State Regulators" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,768, May 16, 2008.

On October 10, 2007, U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its opinion affirming U.S. District Court's (NDIll) dismissal of Stroman Realty's complaint in Stroman Realty v. Martinez, pursuant to the abstention doctrine. On May 27, 2008, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. See, story titled "Supreme Court Denies Cert in Commerce Clause Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,773, May 28, 2008.

The present case is Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Sam Wercinski, Sup. Ct. No. 07-1387, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The Court of Appeals case number is No. 06-20095. It heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Judge Edith Jones wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Weiner and Barksdale joined.

10/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in T-Mobile v. Lowden, a class action case regarding the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts under the law of the state of Washington. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 9. See also, Supreme Court docket.

This lets stand the January 22, 2008, opinion [16 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir). The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of T-Mobile to compel arbitration.

See, story titled "9th Circuit Holds Arbitration Provisions in T-Mobile's Service Agreements Unenforceable in Washington State" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,704, January 23, 2008.

This case is T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Kathleen Lowden, et al., Sup. Ct. No. 07-1330, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The Court of Appeals case number is 06-35395.

The Supreme Court also denied certiorari in T-Mobile v. Janda, another class action involving the enforceability of an arbitration clause. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 9. See also, Supreme Court docket. This lets stand the February 25, 2008, opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir). The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of T-Mobile's motion to compel arbitration. This case is T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Kevin Janda, et al., Sup. Ct. No. 07-1331, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The Court of Appeals case number is 06-15712.

The Supreme Court also denied certiorari in Sprint v. Hall, a case regarding certification of a national class of Sprint wireless customers. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 9. See also, Supreme Court docket. This lets stand the June 27, 2007, opinion of the Appellate Court of Illinois. The state appellate court affirmed the state trial court's (Madison County, Illinois) certification of a class action against Sprint. This case is Sprint Spectrum L.P., et al. v. Jessica Hall, Sup. Ct. No. 07-1358, a petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, 5th Division. The Court of Appeals case number is 5-05-0354.

10/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Nuijten v. Dudas, a patent case involving the issue of whether a signal is patentable subject matter. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 10. See also, Supreme Court docket.

This lets stand the September 20, 2007, divided opinion [41 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir). The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), which concluded that a signal is not patentable.

The patent application at issue disclosed a technique for reducing distortion induced by the introduction of watermarks into signals. Watermarking is a technique by which an original signal, such as a digital audio file, is embedded with additional data that is imperceptible to listeners, but not to certain software. Placing this additional data in signals can be used to protect music files from unauthorized copying.

The Court of Appeals held that a transitory, propagating signal like Nuijten's is not a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101, and is thus not patentable subject matter.

This case is Petrus Nuijten v. Jonathan Dudas, Sup. Ct. No. 07-1404, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court of Appeals case number is 2006-1371.

10/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Westbound Records v. Justin Combs Publishing, a copyright case involving unlicensed song sampling. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 11. See also, Supreme Court docket.

This lets stand the October 17, 2007, opinion [18 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir).

The plaintiff copyright owners prevailed in the U.S. District Court (MDTenn), and were awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. It reversed on several issues pertaining to damages.

This case is Westbound Records, Inc. v. Justin Combs Publishing, et al., Sup. Ct. No.07-1438, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The Court of Appeals case number is 06-6294.

10/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Cambridge Literary Properties v. Goebel Porzellanfabrik, a case regarding whether to apply the Copyright Act's three year statute of limitations in an action for an accounting regarding the sale of copyrighted works. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 9. See also, Supreme Court docket.

This lets stand the December 13, 2007, divided opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (1stCir). The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment that the action was barred by the Copyright Act's time limitation.

See also, story titled "1st Circuit Holds Copyright Act Limitation Applies to State Law Claim for Accounting for Sales of Items for which Copyright Ownership is Disputed" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,690, December 18, 2007.

This case is Cambridge Literary Properties, Ltd. v. W. Goebel Porzellanfabrik G.m.b.H. & Co. KG., et al., Sup. Ct. No. 07-1371, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. The Court of Appeals case number is 06-2339.

10/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Steinbuch v. Hyperion, a case regarding extracurricular activities of Senate staff. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 76. See also, Supreme Court docket.

This lets stand the March 6, 2008, opinion [15 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (8thCir). The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the U.S. District Court's (DArk) dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Robert Steinbuch, a law professor, was previously a Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) counsel for former Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH). Jessica Cutler was a staff assistant for Sen. DeWine with whom Steinbuch, and other men, had relations. She wrote about these activities in a blog and a book [Amazon] titled "The Washingtonienne".

He filed a complaint in the District Court against Cutler alleging invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Steinbuch also named as defendants Hyperion Books (which published Cutler's book), Home Box Office (which holds an option to develop a television series based on the book), Disney Publishing Worldwide (parent company of Hyperion), and Time Warner (parent company of HBO and Time Warner Book Group, distributor of the book).

The District Court dismissed all claims either for failure to state a claim, or for lack of personal jurisdiction. Steinbuch appealed. Cutler filed for bankruptcy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals as to all defendants, except Hyperion Books.

This case is Robert Steinbuch v. Hyperion Books, et al., Sup. Ct. No. 08-52, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The Court of Appeals case number is 07-1509.

10/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Logix Communications v. Texas PUC, an interconnection case involving unbundled network element declassification by wire center. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 43. See also, Supreme Court docket. This lets stand the March 17, 2008, opinion [9 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (5thCir). The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's summary judgment for AT&T. This case is Logix Communications L.P. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, et al., Sup. Ct. No. 08-55, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The Court of Appeals case number is 06-51697.

10/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Samsung v. Rambus, a patent case involving the issue of subject matter jurisdiction to rule on an attorney fees motion. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 45. See also, Supreme Court docket. This lets stand the April 29, 2008, opinion [11 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir). This case is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc., Sup. Ct. No. 08-121, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court of Appeals case number is 2006-1579.

10/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in EchoStar v. TiVo, a patent infringement case regarding technology that enables television users to time shift television signals. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 46. See also, Supreme Court docket. This lets stand the January 31, 2008, opinion [37 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir). This case is EchoStar Communications Corp. v. TiVo, Inc., Sup. Ct. No. 08-179, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court of Appeals case number is 2006-1574.

10/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Translogic v. Dudas, a case regarding a patent reexamination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 8. See also, Supreme Court docket. This lets stand the October 12, 2007, opinion [22 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir). The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the BPAI, which rejected the patent for obviousness. This case is Translogic Technology, Inc. v. Jon Dudas, Sup. Ct. No. 07-1303, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

10/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Boston Scientific v. Cordis, a patent case regarding vascular stents. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 43. See also, Supreme Court docket. This lets stand the January 7, 2008, opinion [47 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir). This case is Boston Scientific Corporation, et al. v. Cordis Corporation, Sup. Ct. No. 08-46, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

10/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Waytec v. Rohm and Haas, a contract, fraud and negligence case involving the making of circuit boards. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 8. See also, Supreme Court docket. This lets stand the November 28, 2007, unpublished per curiam opinion [11 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir). The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment for Rohm and Haas. This case is Waytec Electronics Corporation v. Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials, LLC, et al., Sup. Ct. No. 07-1226, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The Court of Appeals case number is 06-2242.

10/6. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded in Improv West v. Comedy Club, a case regarding arbitration and litigation of a trademark license dispute. See, Orders List [82 pages in PDF] at page 1. See also, Supreme Court docket. The Supreme Court vacated the January 23, 2008, amended opinion [27 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir). The Supreme Court wrote, "The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further  consideration in light of Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. __ (2008)." See, March 25, 2008, opinion in Hall Street Associates v. Mattel. This case is Improv West Associates, et al. v. Comedy Club, Inc., et al., Sup. Ct. No. 07-1334, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The Court of Appeals case numbers are 05-55739 and 05-56100.

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.

10/6. The Copyright Office (CO) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces a rule making proceeding regarding its designation of exemptions to the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The DMCA requires that these proceedings be conducted every three years. The just announced review will be the CO's 4th since the DMCA was enacted in 1998. The current exemptions are codified at 37 C.F.R. § 201.40.

There are currently six exemptions. For example, the sixth exemption allows circumvention to address security vulnerabilities created by rootkit technologies on music CDs and DVDs.

Section 201.40(b)(6) provides an exemption for "Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in compact disc format and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities."

This issue was exposed by Sony BMG's brief use of rootkit technology on music CDs in 2005. See, stories titled "Texas Sues Sony BMG Alleging Violation of Texas Spyware Statute" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,258, November 22, 2005, and "Texas Amends Spyware Complaint Against Sony BMG" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,280, December 29, 2005. Some Sony music CDs, distributed in 2005, installed digital rights management (DRM) software, and concealed that software.

The current exemptions expire on October 27, 2009.

Statute. The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA are codified at 17 U.S.C. § 1201, et seq. Subsection 1201(a)(1)(A) provides that "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title ...".

Then, § 1201(a)(2)(A) provides that "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --- (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;"

Furthermore, § 1201(b)(1)(A) provides that "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --- (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; ..."

Then, Subsections 1201(a)(1)(B) through (E) provide for rulemaking proceedings conducted by the CO every three years to establish exemptions to the prohibition of (a)(1)(A) for certain non-infringing uses.

Notice of Inquiry. The just published notice of inquiry (NOI) sets forth the process to be followed by the CO. This notice requests that comments be submitted by December 2, 2008. Then, the CO will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by February 2, 2009, that will "identify proposed classes of works and solicit comments on those proposed classes". Then, the CO will "conduct a series of hearings on the proposed exemptions in the Spring in Washington, DC and at a location or locations to be determined in California". Finally, the CO will publish its new rules.

This notice states that "The purpose of this rulemaking proceeding is to determine whether there are particular classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention."

The notice reviews in detail the relevant statutory sections, the nature of these proceedings, and pertinent conclusions from prior triennial reviews.

The notice offers this guidance for commenters who propose exemptions. "First, a proponent should identify the technological measure that is the ultimate source of the alleged problem, and the proponent should explain how the technological measure effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. Second, a proponent must specifically explain what noninfringing activity the prohibition on circumvention is preventing. Third, a proponent should establish that the prevented activity is, in fact, a noninfringing use under current law. A proponent should also demonstrate why the access-protected copy of a work is needed for the noninfringing use and why alternate means of engaging in the noninfringing uses (including use of available copies of the work in unprotected formats), if they exist, are an insufficient substitute for accomplishing the noninfringing use."

Nominally, the Librarian of Congress issues the rules that contain these triennial exemptions. As a practical matter, the comments are reviewed, the hearings are conducted, and the rules are written, by a team of lawyers in the CO.

This notice identifies Robert Kasunic as the person to contact for more information. He was involved in prior triennial reviews. He is the Principal Legal Advisor in the CO's Office of the General Counsel. He is also a visiting professor at American University's law school. See, his law school web page, and Kasunic.com.

Prior Triennial Reviews. The CO published its third triennial review exemptions on November 27, 2006. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 27, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 227, at Pages 68472-68480. These exemptions are effective from November 27, 2006 through October 27, 2009.

For TLJ coverage of the CO's third triennial review, see stories titled "Copyright Office Announces Proceeding on DMCA Anti-Circumvention Exemptions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,229, October 7, 2005; "Copyright Office Delays Release of Triennial DMCA Exemptions Rule" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,478, October 30, 2006; and "Copyright Office Releases DMCA Anti-Circumvention Exemptions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,494, November 27, 2006.

The CO published its second triennial review exemptions in a notice in Federal Register, October 31, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 241, at Pages 62011-62018.

The CO published its first triennial review exemptions in a notice in Federal Register, October 27, 2000, Vol. 65, No. 209, at Pages 64555-64574.

Interest groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which are fundamentally hostile to the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, have been critical of the CO for not creating more and broader exemptions in its triennial reviews. See for example, paper [PDF] dated December 1, 2005, and titled "DMCA Triennial Rulemaking: Failing the Digital Consumer".

The House will not meet. Its next scheduled meeting is at 11:00 AM on January 3, 2009. See, HConRes 440.

The Senate will meet at 11:00 AM in pro forma session.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Core Communications v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 07-1381. See, FCC's brief [61 pages in PDF]. Judges Rogers, Tatel and Williams will preside. Location: Courtroom 22 Annex, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission will hold a public meeting to work on its 2008 Annual Report to Congress. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 29, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 146, at Pages 43978-43979, and notice in the Federal Register, September 18, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 182, at Page 54205. Location: Conference Room 333, Hall of the States, 444 North Capitol St., NW.

Day one of a two day conference hosted by the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) titled "IdentEvent". See, conference web site. Location: JW Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

6:30 - 8:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host an event titled "Happy Hour". For more information, contact Tarah Grant at tsgrant at hhlaw dot com or Cathy Hilke at CHilke at wileyrein dot com. Location: James Hoban's Irish Restaurant & Bar, 1 Dupont Circle, NW.

Yom Kippur begins at sundown.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission will hold a public meeting to work on its 2008 Annual Report to Congress. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 29, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 146, at Pages 43978-43979, and notice in the Federal Register, September 18, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 182, at Page 54205. Location: Conference Room 333, Hall of the States, 444 North Capitol St., NW.

RESCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 6. 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee will meet to prepare for the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Council Meeting to be held on November 12-21, 2008, in Geneva, Switzerland. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 22, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 184, at Page 54655. Location: 10th floor, 1120 20th St., NW. See, rescheduling notice in the Federal Register, September 26, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 188, at Pages 55891-55892.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Transactional Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "The FCC’s Merger Review and the Verizon-Alltel and Sprint-Clearwire Transactions: Competition, Conditions, and Caps". The speakers will be Carolyn Brandon (CTIA), Rebecca Arbogast (Stifel Nicolaus), and Coleman Bazelon (Brattle Group). RSVP to Mark Brennan at mwbrennan at hhlaw dot com. Location: Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 1875 K St., NW.

1:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) American Health Information Community's (AHIC) Confidentiality, Privacy, & Security Workgroup may meet. AHIC meetings are often noticed, but cancelled. Location: Switzer Building, 330 C St., SW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Heritage Foundation will host an event titled "Pandas in Orbit: China's Space Challenge". The speakers will be Dean Cheng (CNA Corporation), Scott Pace (George Washington University), Kevin Pollpeter (Defense Group, Inc.), and John Tkacik (Heritage). This event is free and open to the public. See, notice. Location: Heritage, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.

Day two of a two day conference hosted by the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) titled "IdentEvent". See, conference web site. Location: JW Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) regarding foreign policy based export controls contained in the export administration regulations (EAR) implementing the Export Administration Act of 1979, as expired. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 8, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 174, at Pages 52006-52007.

Yom Kippur.

1:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) American Health Information Community's (AHIC) Electronic Health Records Workgroup may meet. AHIC meetings are often noticed, but cancelled. Location: Switzer Building, 330 C St., SW.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its SP 800-107 [20 pages in PDF] titled "Recommendation for Applications Using Approved Hash Algorithms".

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in NCTA v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 07-1356. See, FCC's brief [61 pages in PDF]. Judges Ginsburg, Tatel and Brown will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a discussion of the book [Amazon] titled "The Crime of Reason and the Closing of the Scientific Mind". This book argues that intellectual property laws and government security demands threaten the development of new knowledge. The speakers will be Robert Laughlin (author), Tom Sydnor (Progress & Freedom Foundation), and Jim Harper (Cato). See, notice and registration page. This event is free and open to the public. The Cato will web cast this event. Lunch will be served after the program. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) oppositions to the petitions for reconsideration (PFR) of the FCC's Report and Order (R&O) that is sometimes referred to as the "multi-tenant environment voice exclusivity order". The FCC adopted this R&O on March 19, 2008, and released the text [30 pages in PDF] on March 21, 2008. This R&O is FCC 08-87 in WT Docket No. 99-217. See, story titled "FCC Order Abrogates Property Owners' Contracts with Telcos" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,734, March 20, 2008. See also, Verizon's PFR [9 pages in PDF] of June 13, 2008, and Stephen Weinstein's PFR [7 pages in PDF] of March 24, 2008. See also, notice in the Federal Register, September 25, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 187, at Page 55513.

Deadline to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) oppositions to the petition for reconsideration (PFR) [4 pages in PDF] of the FCC's Memorandum Opinion and Order and Report and Order (MO&O and R&O) approving the merger of XM and Sirius. The FCC adopted this item on July 25, 2008, and released the text [109 pages in PDF] on August 5, 2008. See, story titled "FCC Releases XM Sirius Merger Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,807, August 6, 2008, story titled and "FCC Approves XM Sirius Merger" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,800, July 25, 2008. This item is FCC 08-178 in MB Docket No. 07-57. Mt Wilson FM Broadcasters, Inc. filed this PRF on September 4, 2008. See also, notice in the Federal Register, September 25, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 187, at Page 55513.

Columbus Day. See, Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) list of 2008 federal holidays.

8:00 - 10:00 AM. Broadband Census [URL is http colon slash slash broadbandcensus dot com] will host a panel discussion titled "10 Years Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Success or Failure?" The speakers will be Drew Clark (Broadband Census, moderator), Mitch Glazier (Recording Industry Association of America), Michael Petricone (Consumer Electronics Association), Wendy Seltzer (American University law school), and Emery Simon (Business Software Alliance). This event is open to the public. The price to attend is $46.12. Breakfast will be served. For more information, contact Drew Clark at 202-580-8196. Location: Old Ebbitt Grill, 675 15th St., NW.

9:00 - 10:30 AM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a program titled "Does DARPA Still Effectively Spur U.S. Technological Innovation?" The speaker will be Erica Fuchs (Carnegie Mellon University). This event is free and open to the public. See, notice and registration page. A light breakfast will be served. Location: ITIF, Suite 200, 1250 Eye St., NW.

1:30 - 4:30 PM. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 19, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 183, at Pages 54412-54413. Location: J.W. Marriott, Salons E and F, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a closed event titled "Intellectual Property as an Investible Asset: The Future of Buying and Selling Intellectual Property". The speakers will be Darrell Mottley (Banner & Witcoff), Krista Holt (Ocean Tomo), and Cameron Gray (Intellectual Property Exchange International). The price to attend ranges from $20 to $35. For more information, contact 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

12:00 PM. Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to certain ex parte filings submitted by the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, International (APCO), National Emergency Number Association (NENA), AT&T, Sprint Nextel, and Verizon Wireless regarding the FCC's location accuracy mandates. See, FCC Public Notice [13 pages in PDF], Public Notice [PDF],  notice in the Federal Register, September 25, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 187, at Pages 55473-55495, and notice in the Federal Register, September 29, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 189, at Page 56540. These Public Notices are DA 08-2129 and DA 08-2149 in PS Docket No. 07-114.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Privacy and Data Security Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "The FTC's recently adopted ``Red Flag Rules´´ pursuant to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003". The speakers will be Pavneet Singh (Federal Trade Commission), Eric Breisach (Womble Carlyle), Michael Epshteyn (Covington & Burling), and Steven Rich (Paul Hastings). Location: Covington & Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

4:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) and the D.C. Circuit Historical Society will host a panel discussion titled "FCC Indecency Cases in the D.C. Circuit: An Historical Perspective". The speakers will be Glen Robinson (former FCC Commissioner), Judge Timothy Dyk (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), Patricia Wald (former Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit), Judge Laurence Silberman (DC Circuit), and Christopher Wright (Harris Wiltshire & Grannis, moderator). This event is free and open to the public. For more information, contact Christopher Wright at cwright at harriswiltshire dot com.Location: Ceremonial Courtroom, 6th floor, U.S. Courthouse, 3rd Street and Constitution Aves., NW.

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to the CTIA's Petition for Declaratory Ruling [44 pages in PDF] regarding 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B), ensuring timely siting review, and preemption under 47 U.S.C. § 253 of state and local ordinances that classify all wireless siting proposals as requiring a variance. This is WT Docket No. 08-165. See, August 14, 2008, Public Notice (DA 08-1913) and notice in the Federal Register, August 29, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 169, at Pages 50972-50973. See, extension notice in the Federal Register, September 23, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 185, at Pages 54805-54807.