DOJ Files Pleading in Google
Books Case |
9/18. The Department of Justice's (DOJ)
Antitrust Division filed a
pleading [32 pages in PDF] titled "Statement of Interest of the United
States of America Regarding Proposed Class Settlement" in the
U.S. District Court (SDNY) in
Authors Guild and American Association of Publishers v. Google.
It recommends that the "Court should reject the Proposed Settlement in its
current form and encourage the parties to continue negotiations to modify it so
as to comply with Rule 23 and the copyright and antitrust laws." It adds that
this pleading contains only a "preliminary explanation" of the DOJ's antitrust
concerns.
The DOJ pleading first enumerates the benefits of the settlement. "The United
States strongly supports a vibrant marketplace for the electronic distribution
of copyrighted works, including in-print, out-of-print, and so-called ``orphan´´
works. The Proposed Settlement has the potential to breathe life into millions
of works that are now effectively off limits to the public. By allowing users to
search the text of millions of books at no cost, the Proposed Settlement would
open the door to new research opportunities. Users with print disabilities would
also benefit from the accessibility elements of the Proposed Settlement, and, if
the Proposed Settlement were approved, full text access to tens of millions of
books would be provided through institutional subscriptions. Finally, the
creation of an independent, transparently-operated Book Rights Registry (the
``Registry´´) that would serve to clarify the copyright status and copyright
ownership of out-of-print works would be a welcome development." (Parentheses in
original.)
The pleading also states that "the inaccessibility of many works due to the lack
of clarity about copyright ownership and copyright status -- is a matter of public, not
merely private, concern." However, it stops short of stating that the settlement is
legislation, or that the use of the judicial process violates the Constitution's delegation
of legislative authority to the Congress.
The pleading merely argues that the legislative
nature of the process warrants closer review by the courts. It states that "A
global disposition of the rights to millions of copyrighted works is typically
the kind of policy change implemented through legislation, not through a private
judicial settlement. If such a significant (and potentially beneficial) policy
change is to be made through the mechanism of a class action settlement (as
opposed to legislation), the United States respectfully submits that this Court
should undertake a particularly searching analysis ..." (Parentheses in original.)
Rule 23 and Problems of Representation of
Those Who Are Not Class Members. The pleading argues that the settlement
does not comply with
Rule 23, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which addresses class
action litigation. It argues that the settlement affects the rights of persons
who are not members of represented class, and especially "rightsholders of
out-of-print works and foreign rightsholders". In addition, class members were
not "afforded adequate notice".
The pleading elaborates, with respect to
rightsholders of out of print works, that the settlement authorizes "the
Registry to license Google to exploit the copyrighted works of absent class
members for unspecified future uses (potentially derivative works or other uses)
-- essentially authorizing, upon agreement of the Registry, open-ended
exploitation of the works of all those who do not opt out from such
exploitations. ... Such licensing is far afield from the facts alleged in the
Complaint. And the rights conferred are so amorphous and malleable that it is
difficult to see how any class representative could adequately represent
the interests of all owners of out-of-print works (including orphan works)."
(Parentheses in original.)
It also states that the settlement "draws distinctions between in-print and
out-of-print works. Google must obtain the permission of copyright owners of
in-print works before making use of those works (beyond scanning). ... But
Google can incorporate out-of-print works into new commercial products without
the owner’s permission ... Copyright owners of out-of-print works can deny
Google permission to use their works in certain ways if they learn of the
agreement and their rights under it. ... But, copyright owners of out-of-print
works provide a release to Google for any exploitation of their rights that
occurred prior to those owners becoming aware of Google’s use. ... And, because
the owners of orphan works are an incredibly diverse group that includes not
only living authors or active publishers, but heirs, assignees, creditors, and
others who acquire the property interest by contract or operation of law, these
rightsholders are difficult or impossible to locate, and thus difficult to
notify. Moreover, no amount of notice is likely to protect those orphan
rightsholders who are unaware of their rights or unclear how or whether they
want to exploit them. Yet, if an out-of-print copyright owner does not come
forward within five years, profits from the commercial use of the out-of-print
work are distributed to pay the expenses of the Registry and then to the
Registry’s registered rightsholders. ... The structure of the Proposed
Settlement itself, therefore, pits the interests of one part of the class (known
rightsholders) against the interests of another part of the class (orphan works
rightsholders)." (Parentheses in original.)
The DOJ suggests that "changing the forward-looking provisions of the current
Proposed Settlement applicable to out-of-print rightsholders from an opt-out to
an opt-in would address the bulk of the Rule 23 issues raised" by the DOJ.
Next, the DOJ pleading elaborates on inadequate
representation of foreign rightsholders. It states that the settlement "operates
to sweep in untold numbers of foreign works, whose authors, under current law,
are not required to register in the same manner as U.S. rightsholders. Many of
those authors have never published works in the United States and are not
members of the Authors Guild or the Association of American Publishers, which
exclude many foreign copyright owners from membership by virtue of their
membership criteria. Moreover, the interests of these class members likely
differ from those of the class representatives."
Antitrust Problems: Restricting Price
Competition. The DOJ's pleading also raises antitrust concerns. It states
that the DOJ has "opened an investigation into the competitive impact of the
Proposed Settlement. That investigation is not yet complete ..." This pleading
does not "state with certainty whether the Proposed Settlement violates the
antitrust laws".
Nevertheless, the pleading articulates two
concerns. "First, through collective action, the Proposed Settlement appears to
give book publishers the power to restrict price competition. Second, as a
result of the Proposed Settlement, other digital
distributors may be effectively precluded from competing with Google in the sale
of digital library products and other derivative products to come."
The DOJ continues that "In at least three respects, the collectively
negotiated provisions of the Proposed Settlement appear to restrict price
competition among authors and publishers: (1) the creation of an industry-wide
revenue-sharing formula at the wholesale level applicable to all works; (2) the
setting of default prices and the effective prohibition on discounting by Google
at the retail level; and (3) the control of prices for orphan books by known
publishers and authors with whose books the orphan books likely compete."
It adds that these features of the settlement "bear an uncomfortably close
resemblance to the kinds of horizontal agreements found to be quintessential per
se violations of the Sherman Act."
Regarding agreement on wholesale terms, the DOJ argues that "The parties'
contention that this kind of industry-wide pricing mechanism is necessary to
create a vibrant market for digital books is difficult to reconcile with the
facts on the ground. Millions of digital books are already available for
purchase, including growing numbers of out-of-print books, as a result of
bilateral negotiations between distributors and individual rightsholders."
Regarding restrictions on retail price competition, the DOJ argues that
courts in other cases have found such restrictions to be per se illegal.
Regarding orphan works, the DOJ pleading explains that the settlement
"appears to limit price competition by giving publishers, through the mechanism
of negotiations conducted by the Registry, the ability to control the future
pricing of orphan works that may compete with the works of known rightsholders.
The Registry is effectively controlled by large commercial publishers. Allowing
it to set the prices of orphan works effectively allows known rightsholders to
choose the price at which their competitors' books (those of unknown
rightsholders) are offered for sale."
Thus, the DOJ warns that "there is a significant potential" the DOJ will
conclude that these provisions violate the Sherman Act.
Antitrust Problems: Restricting Competition in Digital Distribution.
The DOJ argues that the settlement grants "Google de facto exclusive
rights for the digital distribution of orphan works". Moreover, "Google's
competitors are unlikely to be able to obtain comparable rights independently."
This then "appears to create a dangerous probability that only Google would
have the ability to market to libraries and other institutions a comprehensive
digital-book subscription. The seller of an incomplete database -- i.e., one
that does not include the millions of orphan works -- cannot compete effectively
with the seller of a comprehensive product."
The DOJ suggests that "This risk of market foreclosure would be substantially
ameliorated if the Proposed Settlement could be amended to provide some mechanism by which
Google’s competitors' could gain comparable access to orphan works".
More Information. The DOJ pleading also
makes the argument that "data provided should be available in multiple,
standard, open formats supported by a wide variety of different applications,
devices, and screens. Once these books are digitized, the format in which they
are made available should not be a bottleneck for innovation".
The DOJ also issued a
release.
The DOJ's pleading focuses only on antitrust related objections
to the settlement. It does not address other objections to the settlement.
For background on the underlying litigation, see:
- story titled "University Publishers Accuse Google of Systematic
Infringement of Copyright on a Massive Scale" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,142, May 25, 2005.
- story titled "Author's Guild Sues Google for Copyright Infringement" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,218, September 21, 2005.
- story
titled "Major Book Publishers Sue Google for Digitizing Copyrighted Books" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,237, October 20, 2005.
- story
titled "Google, Publishers and Authors Debate Google's Print for Libraries
Program" in TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,239, October 25, 2005
- story
titled "Microsoft Counsel Says Google Systematically Violates Copyright" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,547, March 6, 2007.
This case Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers v. Google,
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, D.C. No. 05 Civ. 8136
(DC).
|
|
|
More Intellectual Property
News |
9/16. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(9thCir) issued its
opinion [14 pages in PDF] in Art Attacks Ink v. MGA Entertainment,
a copyright and trademark case involving dolls and t-shirts which turned
on the issues of access to copyrighted works, and secondary meaning.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court for MGA. MGA
makes Bratz dolls. Art Attacks Ink (AAI) is a small family company that makes
and sells t-shirts with cartoon characters customized to resemble the purchaser.
Its copyrighted "Spoiled Brats" characters are at issue in this case. The Court
of Appeals described these as "predominantly female
characters with oversized eyes, disproportionately large heads and feet, makeup,
and bare midriffs". MGA, which has also been sued by Mattel, makes "Bratz"
dolls, including dolls which the Court wrote "feature large eyes, heavy makeup,
oversized eyes, heads, and feet, and bare midriffs". AAI filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court (SDCal)
alleging copyright, trademark, and trade dress infringement. MGM prevailed on
all claims in the District Court, either by jury verdict, or judgment as a
matter of law. AAI brought the present appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed. On
the copyright claim, the Court of Appeals held that, notwithstanding the facts
that AAI had displayed relevant images in its web site, displayed them in sales
booths, and sold them on t-shirts to customers, AAI nevertheless failed to
demonstrate that MGA had access to the copyrighted works. On the trade dress
infringement claim, the Court held that AAI failed to show that its designs
acquired secondary meaning. It therefore did not address the issues of functionality or
substantial likelihood of confusion, or trade dress analysis.This case is Art Attacks
Ink LLC v. MGA Entertainment, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App.
Ct. No.07-56110, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, D.C. No. CV-04-01035-RMB.
9/16. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) issued a
release regarding Notices of Publication in Trademark Applications.
It states that "On October 6, 2009, the USPTO will begin sending electronic
Notices of Publication to trademark applicants who have authorized e-mail
communication with the USPTO. The new emailed Notices of Publication will
contain the same information as the updated Notices of Publication sent via mail
in other cases, but will have clickable hyperlinks to allow applicants to access
the Trademark Official Gazette (OG). All Notices of Publication, including those
sent on paper and post cards, will now invite applicants to review the
publication information contained in the OG and take the appropriate steps to
correct any inaccurate information prior to registration or the issuance of a
Notice of Allowance. Notices of Publication issued by email will be sent on the
publication date. This is a change from the current practice where the notices
are mailed three (3) weeks before the date of publication. Paper notices will
continue to be mailed prior to publication."
9/11. The U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir)
issued its opinion [PDF] in
American Eagle Outfitters v. Lyle & Scott, a contact
case regarding settlement negotiations in a trademark dispute. This case
concerns when a document produced in settlement negotiations constitutes an
enforceable contract, and construction of that document. The Court of Appeals
held, like the District Court, that the document in the present case is
enforceable. However, the Court of Appeals also held that its terms are
ambiguous, and therefore remanded. This case is American Eagle Outfitters, et
al. v. Lyle & Scott Limited, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd
Circuit, App. Ct. No. 08-4807, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, D.C. No. 06-cv-00607.
9/9. The Copyright Royalty Judges published a
notice in the Federal
Register that announces, describes, requests comments on, and sets the comment deadline
(October 9, 2009) for responses to the August 12, 2009, motion of Phase I claimants
requesting a partial distribution of 50% of the 2007 cable royalty funds, pursuant to
17 U.S.C. § 111. See, Federal Register, September 9, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 173, at Pages
46468-46469.
9/3. The U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir) issued
its opinion [14 pages
in PDF] in Hensley Manufacturing v. ProPride, a trademark infringement case.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal based upon the fair use
exception to trademark infringement. This case is Hensley Manufacturing, Inc. v.
ProPride, Inc., et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, App. Ct. No. No.
08-1834, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, D.C.
No. 08-10425.
8/24. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) release a
memorandum [30 pages in PDF] titled "New Interim Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Examination Instructions". This document states that "The state
of the law with respect to subject matter eligibility is in flux. The following
interim instructions are for examination guidance pending a final decision from
the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos." The Supreme Court granted certiorari on
June 1, 2009. See, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Cert in In Re Bilski" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,945, June 1, 2009. Oral argument is scheduled for November 9,
2009. The USPTO memorandum also states that "These
examination instructions do not constitute substantive rulemaking and hence do
not have the force and effect of law. Rejections will be based upon the
substantive law, and it is these rejections that are appealable."
8/24. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(10thCir) issued its
opinion [55
pages in PDF] in SCO Group v. Novell, a dispute involving claims
of slander of title, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment case. However,
the underlying dispute goes to the scope of intellectual property in certain
UNIX and UnixWare technology and other rights retained by Novell following a
1995 asset purchase agreement (APA). The Court of Appeals wrote that "we AFFIRM
the district court’s judgment with regards to the royalties due Novell under the
2003 Sun-SCO Agreement, but REVERSE the district court’s entry of summary
judgment on (1) the ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights; (2) SCO’s
claim seeking specific performance; (3) the scope of Novell’s rights under
Section 4.16 of the APA; (4) the application of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing to Novell’s rights under Section 4.16 of the APA." This case is
SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit,
App. Ct. No. No. 08-4217, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah, D.C. No. D.C. NO. 2:04-CV-00139-DAK.
8/24. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(9thCir) issued its
opinion [23 pages in PDF] in One Industries v. Jim O'Neal Distributing,
a trademark case involving motorcycle apparel. It affirmed the District
Court's summary judgment for One Industries. This case is One Industries, LLC
v. Jim O'Neal Distributing, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit,
App. Ct. No. 08-55316, an appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, D.C. No.
CV-06-01133-JAH.
8/5. The Department of Justice's (DOJ)
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its
response to the petition for writ of certiorari in Ferguson v. USPTO,
a case regarding whether a method for marketing software products is eligible
for federal patent protection. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its
opinion on March
6, 2009, affirming the USPTO's Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences' rejection of the patent claims. The opinion is reported at
558 F.3d 1359. The OSG wrote that "The petition for a writ of certiorari should
be held pending the Court's decision in Bilski v. Doll, No. 08-964, and
then disposed of as appropriate in light of the Court's decision in that case."
Bilski v. Doll is schedule for oral argument on Monday, November 9, 2009.
See, docket.
Consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari in Ferguson v. USPTO
is scheduled for September 29, 2009. See,
docket.
This case is Lewis Ferguson, et al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. No. 08-1501, a petition for writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
|
|
|
|
In This
Issue |
This issue contains the following items:
• DOJ Files Pleading in Google Books Case
• More Intellectual Property News
|
|
|
Washington Tech
Calendar
New items are highlighted in
red. |
|
|
Monday, September 21 |
The House will meet at 4:00 PM in pro forma
session only. See, Rep. Hoyer's
schedule for week of September 21.
The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM. It will resume
consideration of HR 2996
[LOC |
WW],
the "Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010".
9:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an
event titled "Free Trade Agreements in Asia: Implications for Taiwan and the
United States". The first panel is titled "The Taiwan-China ECFA:
Implications for Taiwan and the United States". The speakers will be Philip
Levy (AEI), Claude Barfield (AEI), Rupert Hammond-Chambers (U.S.-Taiwan Business
Council), and Daniel Rosen (Peterson Institute for International Economics). The
second panel is titled "Free Trade Proliferation in Asia: Economic and Strategic
Implications". The speakers will be Dan Blumenthal (AEI), Ellen Frost (Peterson
Institute for International Economics), and Ernest Preeg (Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI).
See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th
floor, 1150 17th St., NW.
12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
(ITIF) will host an event to release a study titled "The Role of Digital
Stimulus in the G-20". The speakers will be Rob Atkinson (ITIF), Tim Kelly
(World Bank), Young Kyu Noh (Embassy of the Republic of Korea), and Valérie La
Traverse (Embassy of Canada). See,
notice. Location: ITIF,
Suite 610, 1101 K St., NW.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "Smart Grid
101: What is it and what are the latest policy and regulatory issues facing both government
and industry in its implementation?". See,
notice. This event qualifies for CLE credits. Prices vary. Location:
Dow Lohnes, 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW.
6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC
Bar Association will host an event titled "From the Ground Up: Fundamentals
of Practice Before the D.C. Court of Appeals". The speakers will be Inez Reid,
John Fisher, Rosanna Mason, and David Tedhams (all of the U.S. Court of Appeals), and
Todd Kim (Office of the Attorney General). The price to attend ranges from $89 to $129.
Most DC Bar events are not open to the public. This event qualifies for
continuing legal education (CLE) credits. See,
notice.
For more information, call 202-626-3488. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K
St., NW.
7:30 - 9:30 PM. The
New America Foundation (NAF) will host a
lecture by Jonathan Lazar titled "Current Issues in Human-Computer
Interaction and Public Policy". See,
notice. Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 22 |
The House will meet at 12:30 PM for
morning hour, and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. The House will consider
numerous non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. Votes postponed
until 6:30 PM. See, Rep. Hoyer's
schedule for week of September 21.
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court
of Appeals (DCCir) will hold oral argument in Cablevision Systems Corporation
v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 07-1425. This is a petition for review of the FCC's order
extending the exclusivity prohibition. See, FCC's
brief
[PDF]. Judges Sentelle, Griffith and Kavanaugh will preside. Location: 333 Constitution
Ave., NW.
10:00 AM. The Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC) Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age
will meet. See,
notice in the Federal Register, August 12, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 154, at Page
40595. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.
10:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The
Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation (ITIF) will host an event to release a study titled "Explaining
International Health IT Leadership". The speakers will be Daniel
Castro (ITIF), Hannu Hanhijarvi (Finland), and Christina Wanscher (Denmark). See,
notice. Location: ITIF,
Suite 610, 1101 K St., NW.
11:00 AM. The
House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties will hold a hearing titled "USA PATRIOT Act".
See, notice.
The HJC will webcast this hearing. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
12:30 - 2:00 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) International Telecommunications
Committee will host a brown bag lunch. Fernando Schulhof will discuss "the Brazilian
telecoms market". Register by September 15 with Jennifer Ullman at Jennifer
dot ullman at verizon dot com. Location: Verizon, 1300 I St., NW.
6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC
Bar Association will host an event titled "Beginner’s
Guide to Publishing Law and Publishing Agreements". The speaker will be
Gail Ross (Lichtman Trister &
Ross). The price to attend ranges from $89 to $129. Most DC Bar events are not open
to the public. This event qualifies for continuing legal education (CLE) credits. See,
notice.
For more information, call 202-626-3488. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K
St., NW.
Day one of a three day closed event hosted by the
New America Foundation (NAF) titled "Beyond
Broadband Access: Data Based Information Policy for a New Administration". See,
notice. Location:
NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.
|
|
|
Wednesday, September 23 |
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for
legislative business. The House may consider, under suspension of the rules,
HR 3593 [LOC |
WW], an untitled
bill to amend the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 to extend by one
year the operation of Radio Free Asia. See, Rep. Hoyer's
schedule for week of September 21.
10:00 AM. The Senate
Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Reauthorizing the USA
PATRIOT Act: Ensuring Liberty and Security". The witnesses
will be David Kris (Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ's
National Security Division), Glen Fine (DOJ
Inspector General), Suzanne Spaulding (Bingham Consulting Group),
Kenneth Wainstein (O'Melveny &
Meyers), and Lisa Graves (Center for Media and
Democracy). The SJC will webcast this event. See,
notice.
Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The
House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy will
hold a hearing titled "Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on
Competition". See,
notice. The
HJC will webcast this event. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court
of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in I4i v. Microsoft,
App. Ct. No. 2009-1504. This is a patent infringement case involving XML and Microsoft
Word. Location: Courtroom 201.
1:00 - 4:00 PM. The U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review Commission will hold one of a series of
meetings to consider staff drafts of material for its 2009 Annual Report to
Congress. See, notice in
the Federal Register, August 5, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 149, at Pages 39145-39146. Location:
Conference Room 231, Hall of States, 444 North Capitol St., NW.
4:00 - 6:00 PM. The
House Intelligence Committee's
(HIC) Subcommittee on Terrorism, HUMINT, Analysis and Counterintelligence will
hold a closed hearing titled "I&A Reform Effects". See,
notice.
Location: Room HVC-304 Hearing Room, Capitol Building.
Day two of a three day closed event hosted by the
New America Foundation (NAF) titled "Beyond
Broadband Access: Data Based Information Policy for a New Administration". See,
notice. Location:
NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.
|
|
|
Thursday, September 24 |
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for
legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's
schedule for week of September 21.
9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The National
Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Online Safety and
Technology Working Group (OSTWG) will meet. See,
notice in the
Federal Register, September 8, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 172, at Pages 46099-46100.
Location: Department of Commerce, Room 4830, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.
10:00 AM. The
House Commerce Committee's (HCC)
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet will hold a
hearing titled "A National Interoperable Broadband Network For Public Safety:
Recent Developments". See,
notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The House Homeland Security Committee's (HHSC)
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk
Assessment will hold a hearing titled "I&A Reconceived: Defining a Homeland
Security Intelligence Role". The witness will be Bart Johnson, acting
Under Secretary in charge of the DHS's Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
The HHSC will webcast this hearing. See,
notice. Location:
Room 311, Cannon Building.
10:00 AM. The
Senate Judiciary
Committee (SJC) will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes
consideration of HR 985
[LOC |
WW] and
S 448 [LOC |
WW], both
titled the "Free Flow of Information Act of 2009", and S 1670
[LOC |
WW], the
"Satellite Television Modernization Act of 2009". The agenda also
includes consideration of four U.S. Attorney nomination: Paul Fishman (District of New
Jersey), Jenny Durkan (Western District of Washington), Florence Nakakuni (District of
Hawaii), and Deborah Gilg (District of Nebraska). See,
notice.
The SJC will webcast this event. The SJC rarely follows its published agendas.
Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review Commission will hold one of a series of
meetings to consider staff drafts of material for its 2009 Annual Report to
Congress. See, notice in
the Federal Register, August 5, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 149, at Pages 39145-39146. Location:
Conference Room 231, Hall of States, 444 North Capitol St., NW.
3:00 - 4:30 PM. The
House Intelligence Committee (HIC) will
hold a closed hearing. The witness will be Dennis Blair (Director of National Intelligence).
See, notice.
Location: Room HVC-304 Conference Room 1, Capitol Building.
Day three of a three day closed event hosted by the
New America Foundation (NAF) titled "Beyond
Broadband Access: Data Based Information Policy for a New Administration". See,
notice. Location:
NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.
Deadline to submit comments, or petitions to deny, to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in response to the applications of Caribbean
Crossings Ltd. and Trinity Communications Ltd. for transfer of control
pursuant to the Submarine Cable Landing Licensing Act and Section 214 of the
Communications Act. Since the Bahamas is not a member of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) the applicants seek an FCC determination that the Bahamas
provides effective competitive opportunities to U.S. carriers. See,
public notice [PDF]. It is DA 09-1856 in IB Docket No. 09-149.
|
|
|
Friday, September 25 |
The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative
business. See, Rep. Hoyer's
schedule for week of September 21.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) will hold a workshop titled "Ten-Digit Numbering and E911
Requirements for VRS and IP Relay". See,
notice. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.
10:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host an event titled "Building
in the Sandbox: End-to-End Arguments and Internet Innovation". The speakers
will be Richard Bennett (ITIF), John Day (Boston University
Metropolitan College), Christopher
Yoo (University of Pennsylvania law school),
William Lehr (MIT), and
David Farber (Carnegie Mellon
University). See, notice. The ITIF will
webcast this event. Location: ITIF, 1101 K St., NW.
12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host
a brown bag lunch titled "The Role of In-House Counsel".
The speakers will be Eric Einhorn (Windstream Communications), Jerald Fritz (Allbritton
Communications), Cristina Pauze (Time Warner Cable), and Richard Whitt
(Google). For more information, contact Micah Caldwell at mcaldwell at fh-law
dot com or Evan Morris at emorri05 at harris dot com. Location: Harris
Corporation, Suite 650E, 600 Maryland Ave., SW.
12:30 - 2:00 PM. The
New America Foundation (NAF) will host an event
titled "Broadband Competition Policy Broadband Competition Policy: How Much
Regulation is Enough?" The speakers will be Ben Scott (Free Press), Everett Ehrlich
(ESC Company), Mark Cooper (Consumer Federal of America), Robert Atkinson
(Information
Technology & Innovation Foundation), and Michael Calabrese (NAF). See,
notice.
Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) regarding the recommendations of its World Radiocommunication
Conference Advisory Committee (WRC-11 Advisory Committee). See,
public notice [2 pages in PDF],
Attachment 1 [54 pages in PDF], and
Attachment 2 [18 pages in PDF]. It is DA 09-1994 in IB Docket No. 04-286.
|
|
|
Sunday, September 27 |
Yom Kippur begins at sundown.
|
|
|
Monday, September 28 |
Yom Kippur.
9:00 - 10:30 AM. The
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host an event
titled "Benchmarking Leading Countries' National Innovation Policies".
The speakers will be Rob Atkinson (ITIF), Stephen Ezell (ITIF), Debra Amidon (Entovation
International) and Peter Westerstråhle (government of Finland). See,
notice. The ITIF will
webcast this event. Location: ITIF, 1101 K St., NW.
12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The
Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA)
Diversity Committee will host a brown bag lunch for planning purposes. For more
information, contact Edgar Class at eclass at wileyrein dot com or 202-719-7504.
Location: Wiley Rein, Conference Room
9E, 1750 K St., NW.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Copyright Office regarding its proposed rules
regarding registration of copyright in online works. See,
notice in the Federal
Register, July 15, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 134, at Pages 34286-34290, and story titled
"Copyright Office Proposes New Rules for Registration of Online Only Works"
in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,970, July 15, 2009.
|
|
|
About Tech Law
Journal |
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
a subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year for a single
recipient. 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 two months after writing.
For information about subscriptions, see
subscription information page.
Tech Law Journal now accepts credit card payments. See, TLJ
credit
card payments page.
TLJ is published by
David
Carney
Contact: 202-364-8882.
carney at techlawjournal dot com
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Privacy
Policy
Notices
& Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2009 David Carney. All rights reserved.
|
|
|