3/23. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced S 3155 [LOC | WW | PDF], the "International Cybercrime Reporting and Cooperation Act", on March 23, 2010. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) and others introduced HR 4962 [LOC | WW], the companion bill in the House, on March 25, 2010.

Introduction. These bills would approach foreign based cyber threats in a manner similar to the way current law treats foreign based violation of the intellectual property rights (IPR) of U.S. rights holders -- research and write annual reports that identify the bad actor nations that have weak laws and/or enforcement regimes with respect to IPR violators and cyber criminals, and then use various foreign policy tools to attempt to prod those nations into becoming better actors.

Sen. Gillibrand (at right) stated in a release that "If we're going to protect our networks, our infrastructure, our economy and our families, we have to go after cyber criminals wherever they may be -- and it must be an international effort. Our new legislation will require the president to provide a global assessment, identify threats from abroad, work with other countries to crack down on their own cyber criminals, and urge the President to cut off U.S. assistance and resources for countries that refuse to take responsibility for cybersecurity. Our legislation will make America safer by getting tough on cybercrime globally, and coordinating with our partners in the international community."

Nations have sovereignty within their borders. The U.S. can write laws that regulate activity within the U.S., conduct investigations, make arrests, prosecute violators of U.S. law, imprison convicts, and seize property. The U.S. can do almost none of this abroad, even when the conduct of foreign based persons, via the internet, affects persons within the U.S.

The ability of the U.S. to "go after cybercriminals wherever they may be", as Sen. Gillibrand stated, is limited. The reach of the U.S. government is similarly limited in the context of foreign based porn delivered via the internet, gambling operations based in other countries that service gamblers in the U.S. via the internet, foreign based internet fraud, and infringement abroad of the copyrights of U.S. rights holders.

S 3155 and HR 4962 therefore contain provisions designed to enable the U.S. government to incent other nations, in the exercise of their sovereignty, to go after cyber criminals who harm people in the U.S.

Comparison to Special 301 Process. The key items of S 3155 are to require the executive branch to prepare annual reports that identify countries of "cyber concern", and then threaten to withhold, or actually withhold, things such as assistance from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), Export-Import Bank, and other U.S. programs, to incent the countries of cyber concern to improve their cyber crime laws and enforcement regimes.

This has similarities to the way the U.S. has long dealt with other nations that do not protect the IPR of U.S. rights holders. The Trade Act of 1974, in what is commonly known as its "Special 301" provisions, requires the executive branch to identify countries that fail to protect the IPR and market access of U.S. companies, and take certain actions against those countries.

Section 301 is a statutory means by which the U.S. asserts its rights, including its rights under World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. In particular, under the "Special 301" provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) identifies other countries that deny adequate and effective protection of IP or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. artists and industries that rely upon IP protection.

The OUSTR conducts periodic reviews, and places certain nations on its "watch list" or "priority watch list". The statute then provides that if the OUSTR determines that "the rights of the United States under any trade agreement are being denied", then the OUSTR "shall take action". For example, it may "impose duties or other import restrictions", or "suspend, withdraw, or prevent the application of, benefits of trade agreement concessions to carry out a trade agreement with the foreign country".

The Special 301 provisions are codified at 19 U.S.C. § 2411, et seq.

Sen. Hatch (at left), who has long been one of the Senate's leading authorities on copyright law, and other laws that impact copyright based industries, is the one original cosponsor of S 3155.

He stated in the same release that "Until countries begin to take the necessary steps to fight criminals within their borders, cybercrime havens will continue to flourish".

S 3155 does not assign the writing of these annual cyber concern reports to the OUSTR. It merely assigns responsibility to the President.

Bill Summary. Section 1 only contains the title, "International Cybercrime Reporting and Cooperation Act". Section 2 contains definitions.

Section 3 requires the President to submit an annual report to the Congress, part of which can be be "classified".

This report must assess "with respect to each country that is a member state of the United Nations ... the extent of the development and utilization of information and communications technologies in the critical infrastructure, telecommunications systems, and financial industry of the country... the extent and nature of activities relating to cybercrime that are based in the country ... the adequacy and effectiveness of the laws, regulations, and judicial and law enforcement systems in the country with respect to combating cybercrime; and ... measures taken by the government of the country to ensure the free flow of electronic commerce and to protect consumers from cybercrime".

The bill also requires that these reports identify "countries ... that the President determines have a low level of development or utilization of information and communications technologies in their critical infrastructure, telecommunications systems, and financial industries".

Section 4 the requires the President give priority to these countries with low levels of development in giving foreign assistance that is "designed to combat cybercrime". Section 4 also provides that it is the sense of the Congress that the President include programs "designed to combat cybercrime" in bilateral or multilateral assistance to countries with low levels of development or utilization of information and communications technologies".

Section 5 requires the President to determine, and periodically review, whether each country is a "country of cyber concern", based upon evidence of cybercrime against the U.S., its companies, or persons, and whether that country "has demonstrated a pattern of being uncooperative with efforts to combat cybercrime".

Then, Section 5 requires the President to develop an "action plan" for each such "country of cyber concern". This action plan shall set "benchmarks" for the country of cyber concern, such a legislative, institutional and enforcement actions that would improve the capacity of that country to combat cybercrime, and the initiation of credible criminal investigations and prosecutions.

If, after one year, the country of cyber concern has not complied with the benchmarks in the President's action plan, then the President is "urged to take one or more of the actions" listed below:

• "Suspend, restrict, or prohibit the approval of new financing (including loans, guarantees, other credits, insurance, and reinsurance) by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation"
• "Suspend, restrict, or prohibit the approval of new financing (including loans, guarantees, other credits, insurance, and reinsurance) by the Export-Import Bank of the United States"
• "Instruct the United States Executive Director of each multilateral development bank ... to oppose the approval of any new financing (including loans, guarantees, other credits, insurance, and reinsurance) by the multilateral development bank"
• "Suspend, restrict, or prohibit the provision of assistance by the Trade and Development Agency"
• "Suspend, limit, or withdraw any preferential treatment for which the country qualifies under the Generalized System of Preferences ... the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act ... the Andean Trade Preference Act ... or the African Growth and Opportunity Act"
• "Suspend, restrict, or withdraw the provision of foreign assistance to the country or with respect to projects carried out in the country, including assistance provided under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961"

Title 6 requires the Secretary of State to "designate a high-level employee ... to coordinate the full range of activities, policies, and opportunities associated with combating cybercrime and foreign policy".

Title 7 authorizes unspecified appropriations.

More Information. S 3155 was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. HR 4962 was assigned to the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC), House Ways and Means Committee HWMC), and House Financial Services Committee (HFSC).

The original cosponsors of HR 4962 are Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Rep. Pete King (D-NY), Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), and Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA).

Rep. Clarke issued a release that states that "Earlier this year, hackers in China launched a large, sophisticated attack on Google and other American businesses."

She stated in this release that "The new legislation will require the president to provide a global assessment, identify threats from abroad, work with other countries to crack down on their own cyber criminals".

Rep. Weiner stated in this release that "This legislation turns the floodlights on countries that shelter cyber thieves and will help the U.S. protect itself from future attacks".

3/25. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and others introduced HR 4954 [LOC | WW | PDF], an untitled bill to amend 35 U.S.C. § 292, regarding false marking.

Section 292 provides that anyone who falsely marks an item offered for sale with the name of the patentee, or the patent number, or who similarly advertises an item with intent to deceive, or who commits certain other related acts, "Shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense".

In addition, the statute provides for a private right of action, with one half of the recovery going to the government.

The question arises as to whether "every such offense" means that the fine applies to every article offered for sale, one fine for a continuous marking of multiple identical articles, or a time based based approach (such as $500 per day).

The U.S. Court of Appeals (1stCir) construed the 1870 version of the statute in 1910, and held that the false marking statute should be interpreted to impose a single fine for continuous false marking. See, London v. Everett H. Dunbar Corp., 179 F. 506.

However, in current dollars, $500 is an insignificant amount in patent matters. Moreover, the relevant language of the statute was amended in 1952. Courts have since reached various conclusions, including that the statute requires a per article fine.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company on December 28, 2009, holding that the statute provides for a per article fine.

The Court held that the "time-based approach does not find support in the plain language of § 292. Section 292 clearly requires a per article fine."

The Court continued that "Policy considerations further support the per article interpretation of § 292. The marking and false marking statutes exist to give the public notice of patent rights. ... If an article that is within the public domain is falsely marked, potential competitors may be dissuaded from entering the same market. False marks may also deter scientific research when an inventor sees a mark and decides to forego continued research to avoid possible infringement. ... False marking can also cause unnecessary investment in design around or costs incurred to analyze the validity or enforceability of a patent whose number has been marked upon a product with which a competitor would like to compete."

The Court concluded that "These injuries occur each time an article is falsely marked. The more articles that are falsely marked the greater the chance that competitors will see the falsely marked article and be deterred from competing. ... This court's per article interpretation of § 292 is consonant with the purpose behind marking and false marking."

The Court added that the interpretation "that the statute imposes a single $500 fine for each decision to falsely mark -- would render the statute completely ineffective".

Key members of the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) promptly responded with this bill. Rep. Issa (at left) issued a release that states that "Current law allows any individual to sue a manufacturer for falsely marking a product for $500 (the government gets $250, the plaintiff gets $250). Suits filed under this law have been steadily rising over the past few years with individuals with no reasonable standing filing dozens of suits hoping for a quick settlement." (Parentheses in original.)

He continued that "This had been a rarely used law, but recently the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that damages flowed from not one infringing product, but from every instance of that product. This meant that if you manufactured 10,000,000 Styrofoam cups, each with the wrong patent number on it, you could be liable for $5,000,000,000. This was not the intent of Congress."

This bill would leave the $500 penalty language unchanged. However, it would change the private right of action language to the following: "A person who has suffered a competitive injury as a result of a violation of this section may file a civil action in a district court of the United States for recovery of damages adequate to compensate for the injury".

Moreover, it provides that the amendment "shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act".

Rep. Issa stated that "Our bill discourages deceptive patent marking while simultaneously moving to eliminate frivolous lawsuits ... This is a commonsense effort that protects consumers from higher costs created by abusive lawsuits."

The original cosponsors of this bill are Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), and Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA).

All are members of the HJC, the Committee with jurisdiction. Rep. Conyers and Rep. Smith are the Chairman and ranking Republican on the HJC. Rep. Boucher and Rep. Coble are also among the HJC's leading authorities on intellectual property law.

3/29. The Senate Judiciary Committee's (SJC) Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs held a field hearing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, titled "Video Laptop Surveillance: Does Title III Need to Be Updated?".

This hearing follows the filing of a complaint [17 pages in PDF] in the U.S. District Court (EDPa) on February 11, 2010, in Robbins v. Lower Marion School District. The complaint alleges violation of various federal and state laws related to government surveillance. The complaint alleges that a school district in suburban Philadelphia secretly used webcams in internet connected laptops issued to high school students to monitor their activities.

See also, story titled "Class Action Complaint Alleges School District Use of Laptops to Surveil Students" and related stories titled "Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on Video Laptop Surveillance", "Analysis of Claims in Robbins v. Lower Marion School District", and "School District Webcams and 2252/2252A" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,062, March 23, 2010.

John Livingston testified on behalf of Absolute Software Corporation which acquired the company, LANRev, that made the laptop recovery software that the school district used.

Livingston wrote in his prepared testimony "Absolute believes very strongly in protecting computer theft victims and mitigating the multiple downstream consequences of computer theft. For an organization with a lost or stolen computer, the cost of the hardware is really just the beginning. In addition to lost productivity and competitive threats, an organization that experiences a data breach may be subject to fines, media scrutiny, and a damaged reputation. Computer theft has other costs and consequences including the potential theft of personal identifying information that may later be sold or otherwise misused by identity thieves."

He continued that "Absolute did not itself develop or offer camera functionality in its product line, because we did not see a need for such a tool in our very different, and in our view superior, managed recovery model. We acquired LANRev’s assets late last year for their computer inventory and asset management functionality, and, through a software patch offered to the Theft Track customers we acquired, disabled the webcam feature earlier this year."

Marc Zwillinger, a former prosecutor now at law firm of Zwillinger Genetski, reviewed the history of disturbing acts of video surveillance, but argued that there are also beneficial uses of video surveillance.

He wrote in his prepared testimony that "Title III currently does not address these problems. It is fairly well-settled that silent video surveillance is outside the scope of the statute. Though these and other examples of surveillance-related misconduct make it tempting to conclude that Title III should be amended to prohibit this type of behavior, doing so may be a mistake."

He continued that "While we are now horrified by the idea that remote video or photographic surveillance of our children in private places is possible without our consent, at other times we are comforted by the notion that video surveillance helps keep our children safe. From the surveillance cameras that help us protect children at places like Hershey Park or Sesame Place, to the closed-circuit TV cameras outside homes and apartments, and even to the nanny-cams that some parents install above cribs to be sure their babies are not injured by their caretakers, parents often rely on silent video surveillance to be an extra pair of eyes when they cannot be in several places at the same time. Similarly, companies rely on such surveillance to protect their employees and their property."

Kevin Bankston an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote in his prepared testimony that "Title III of the Omnibus Crime and Control Act of 1968 as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, otherwise known simply as the Wiretap Act, currently only regulates electronic eavesdropping on oral conversations and the interception of voice and electronic communications. There is no reason why Congress should not amend that law to also provide Americans with equally strong privacy protections against surreptitious video surveillance."

Fred Cate, a professor at the University of Indiana law school, wrote in his prepared testimony that "Title III ... needs to be updated to cover video surveillance."

He also testified that "The conduct giving rise to today's hearing is only the most recent in a series of examples demonstrating how disconnected today's surveillance technologies have become from the law that purports to regulate them. A revision of federal surveillance law is necessary to address these challenges."

See also, prepared testimony of Robert Richardson of the Computer Security Institute.

3/29. The European Commission (EC) announced in a release that it approved Cisco Systems' acquisition of Tandberg ASA subject to conditions.

Tandberg states in its web site that it a "provider of telepresence, high-definition videoconferencing and mobile video products and services. The Company has dual headquarters in New York and Oslo", Norway.

The EC wrote that this approval is "conditional upon the divestment of a protocol developed by Cisco for its videoconference solutions, called ``TIP´´, to ensure the interoperability of the merged entity's products with those of its competitors".

The EC noted that Tandberg produces Multipoint Control Units (MCUs). See, Wikipedia definition of MCU. The EC elaborated that "The proposed transaction would result in horizontal overlaps in the markets for video conferencing solutions. The concentration would also give rise to vertical and conglomerate effects, as Tandberg is active in the upstream MCUs market and Cisco in the neighbouring markets for networking products. The Commission's market investigation confirmed that there were no significant concerns with regard to the markets for multipurpose room and desktop solutions, nor regarding vertical or conglomerate effects of the proposed transaction."

"In order to address these concerns," the EC wrote, "Cisco committed, inter alia, to divest the rights attached to its proprietary protocol TIP to an independent industry body, to ensure interoperability with Cisco's solutions and to allow other vendors to participate in the development and in the updates of such protocol. Following a market test, the Commission concluded that the commitments were suitable to remove the competition concerns identified."

Also on March 29, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division announced in a release that "it will not challenge Cisco Systems Inc.'s acquisition of Tandberg ASA. The department has concluded that the proposed deal is not likely to be anticompetitive due to the evolving nature of the videoconferencing market and the commitments that Cisco has made to the European Commission (EC) to facilitate interoperability."

Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, stated that "This investigation was a model of international cooperation between the United States and the European Commission".

3/25. The U.S. District Court (DMass) sentenced Albert Gonzalez to serve 20 years in prison for conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), computer fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), access device fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A) in connection with his hacking into the computer networks of major U.S. retailers, including the TJX Companies, BJ's Wholesale Club, OfficeMax, Boston Market, Barnes & Noble and Sports Authority.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) stated in a release that "Gonzalez and his co-conspirators broke into retail credit card payment systems through a series of sophisticated techniques, including ``wardriving´´ and installation of sniffer programs to capture credit and debit card numbers used at the victim retail stores. Wardriving involves driving around in a car with a laptop computer looking for unsecure wireless computer networks of retailers. Using these techniques, Gonzalez and his co-defendants were able to steal more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers from victim retailers."

The DOJ continued that "Gonzalez and his co-conspirators sold the numbers to others for their fraudulent use and engaged in ATM fraud by encoding the data on the magnetic stripe of blank cards and withdrawing thousands of dollars at a time from ATMs."

Moreover, they "concealed and laundered their fraud proceeds by using anonymous Internet-based currencies both within the United States and abroad, and by channeling funds through bank accounts in Eastern Europe. Gonzalez’s co-conspirators were located throughout the United States, Estonia and the Ukraine."

For more on this and related cases against Gonzalez in this and other districts, and cases against other defendants, see story titled "DOJ Announces Cyber Crime Indictments" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,808, August 7, 2008, and "Tech Crime Report" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,982, September 10, 2009.

The House will not meet the week of March 29 - April 2, 2010, or the week of April 5-9, 2010. See, 2010 House calendar. It will next meet at 2:00 PM on Tuesday, April 13.

The Senate will not meet the week of March 29 - April 2, 2010, or the week of April 5-9, 2010. See, 2010 Senate calendar. It will next meet at 2:00 PM on Monday, April 12.

8:45 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) and the Executive Office of the President's (EOP) Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee. The meeting will address "science related to environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanomaterials". See, notice in the Federal Register, February 26, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 38, at Pages 9007-9008. Location: Holiday Inn Rosslyn-Key Bridge, 1900 N. Fort Myer Drive, Arlington, VA.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science's Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC). The agenda for March 30 includes "Exascale Computing". See, notice in the Federal Register, March 4, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 42, at Page 9887. Location: American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Ave., NW.

9:30 AM. The National Inventors Hall of Fame will hold its annual Induction Ceremony. David Kappos, head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will speak. Location: Murrow Room, National Press Club, 13th floor, 529 14th St., NW.

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division will host a seminar presented by James Roberts (Duke University) titled "Entry and Selection in Auctions". For more information, contact Patrick Greenlee at 202-307-3745 or atr dot eag at usdoj dot gov. Location: DOJ, Liberty Square Building, 450 5th St., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2ndFNPRM) regarding the Emergency Alert System (EAS) The FCC adopted this item on January 12, 2010, and released the text [23 pages in PDF] on January 14. It is FCC 10-11 in EB Docket No. 04-296. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 29, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 19, at Pages 4760-4768.

8:00 AM - 4:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) and the Executive Office of the President's (EOP) Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee. The meeting will address "science related to environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanomaterials". See, notice in the Federal Register, February 26, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 38, at Pages 9007-9008. Location: Holiday Inn Rosslyn-Key Bridge, 1900 N. Fort Myer Drive, Arlington, VA.

9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. Day one of a two day meeting of Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science's Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC). See, notice in the Federal Register, March 4, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 42, at Page 9887. Location: American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Ave., NW.

9:30 - 11:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) will hold a meeting regarding the public safety and homeland security related portions of the FCC's March 16, 2010, staff report [376 pages in PDF] titled "National Broadband Plan". Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room.

1:00 - 5:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Mass Media Committee will host an event titled "Media Regulation and the First Amendment in the 21st Century". The price to attend ranges from $50 to $350. This event qualifies for continuing legal education (CLE) credits. However, it is not in the nature of legal education. Rather, there will be three panel discussions on prospective policy making. The first panel is titled "Technologies of Freedom: What are the Regulatory Implications of the Evolving Media Environment?". The speakers will be Alan Davidson (Google), Joe Waz (Comcast), and Gigi Sohn (Public Knowledge). The second panel is titled ""The Future of Journalism: Is it Time for a Bailout?". The speakers will be Barbara Cochran (RTNDA), Steven Waldman (FCC), Barbara Wall (Gannett), Andy Schwartzman (Media Access Project), and Gene Policinski (Freedom Forum). The third panel is titled "New Technology and the First Amendment: What is the Rationale for Regulation?". The speakers will be Bob Corn-Revere (Davis Wright Tremaine), Marvin Ammori (Free Press), and Christopher Yoo (University of Pennsylvania). See, notice. Location: Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit nominations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for National Medal of Technology and Innovation awards. See, nomination form [MS Word].

Deadline for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) to issue its Section 1377 report regarding the operation, effectiveness, and implementation of, and compliance with, the telecommunications provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), free trade agreements (FTAs) with Australia, Bahrain, Chile, Morocco, Oman, Peru, and Singapore, and the Dominican Republic -- Central America -- U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). See, notice in the Federal Register, November 17, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 220, at Pages 59339-59340.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (PN) requesting comments on the Petition for Rulemaking [18 pages in PDF] regarding 700 MHz band mobile equipment design and procurement practices. This PN is DA 10-278 in RM No. 11592. The FCC released it on February 18, 2010. The Petition was filed on September 29, 2009, by four lower 700 MHz Band A Block licensees. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 1, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 39, at Pages 9210-9211.

Deadline for facilities based carriers that provide international telecommunications services to file a Circuit Status Report with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). See, notice.

9:00 AM - 6:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 5, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 43, at Page 10328. Location: NSF, RM 375, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONCHIT) HIT Standards Committee's Privacy & Security Workgroup will meet by webcast. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 17, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 51, at Page 12753.

1:00 - 2:00 PM. The American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law will host a teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Privacy & Information Security Update". The speakers will be Becky Burr (Wilmer Hale) and Lynn Charytan (Wilmer Hale), and Erin Egan (Covington & Burling). This event is free and open to the public. See, notice and registration page [PDF].

The Potomac Forum will host a one day conference titled "Social Media Practical How To's: Connecting the Mission to Social Media". Prices vary. See, notice. Location: City Club of Washington, 555 13th St., NW.

Good Friday.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 5, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 43, at Page 10328. Location: NSF, RM 375, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

TIME CHANGE. 10:00 - 11:30 AM. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host a panel discussion titled "Can You Hear Me Now? Why Your Cell Phone is So Terrible". The speakers will be Farhad Manjoo (Slate Magazine), Sascha Meinrath (NAF), Tim Wu (Columbia University law school), and Nicholas Thompson (NAF). This event is free and open to the public. See, notice and registration page. Location: NAF, 1899 L St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft NIST IR-7628 [305 pages in PDF] titled "Smart Grid Cyber Security Strategy and Requirements".

Easter.

The House will not meet the week of April 5-9, 2010. See, 2010 House calendar.

The Senate will not meet the week of April 5-9, 2010. See, 2010 Senate calendar.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Ring Plus v Cingular Wireless, App. Ct. No. 2009-1537, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (EDTex) in a patent infringement case regarding ring back tones. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in FujiFilm Corporation v. Benun, App. Ct. No. 2009-1487, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DNJ) in a patent infringement case involving the issue of international exhaustion. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:30 - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host an event titled "General Counsels Series: Ivan Fong, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security". The speaker will be Ivan Fong. The price to attend ranges from $0 to $20. Most DC Bar events are not open to the public. This event does not qualify for continuing legal education (CLE) credits. See, notice. For more information, call 202-626-3463. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

2:00 PM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Micron Technology v. Rambus, App. Ct. No. 2009-1263, and Hynix Semiconductor v. Rambus, App. Ct. No. 2009-1299. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

4:00 PM. The George Mason University law school will host a lecture by Robert Corn-Revere (Davis Wright Tremaine) titled "The First Amendment and the End of History: Does Media Convergence Mean the End of Regulation or is it Just the Beginning?". See, notice. Location: GMU law school, Room 120, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding expanding the FCC's e-rate tax and subsidy program to cover non-educational uses. This NPRM is FCC 10-33 in CC Docket No. 02-6. The FCC adopted it on February 18, 2010, and released the text [26 pages in PDF] on February 19, 2010. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 5, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 43, at Page 10199-10203, and story titled "FCC Expands E-Rate Program to Cover Non-Educational Services" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,047, February 18, 2010.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in MTS v. Hysitron, App. Ct. No. 2009-1541. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:00 NOON - 3:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONCHIT) HIT Policy Committee's Strategic Plan Workgroup will meet by webcast and teleconference. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 17, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 51, at Pages 12752-12753.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion on the book [Amazon] titled "The Beijing Consensus: How China's Authoritarian Model Will Dominate the Twenty-First Century". The speakers will be Stefan Halper (author), Bonnie Glaser (Center for Strategic and International Studies), Ted Carpenter (Cato), and Doug Bandow (Cato). See, notice. Lunch will be served after the program. The Cato will webcast this event. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host an event titled "Focusing the FCC on Future of Media in a Changing Technological Landscape: Meet Steven Waldman". The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) states that this is an FCBA event. Location: NAB, 1771 N St., NW.

1:00 - 2:00 PM. The law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski will host a web seminar titled "MySpace Is Everyone's Space: What In-House Counsel Need to Know About the Employment and IP Challenges of Social Networking Sites".

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division will host a seminar presented by Patrick DeGraba (Federal Trade Commission) titled "Naked Exclusion by a Dominant Supplier: Exclusive Contracting and Loyalty Discounts". See also, paper of the same title. For more information, contact Patrick Greenlee at 202-307-3745 or atr dot eag at usdoj dot gov. Location: DOJ, Liberty Square Building, 450 5th St., NW.

2:00 PM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Cornell University v. Hewlett-Packard, App. Ct. No. 2009-1335, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDNY) in a patent infringement case. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "Increasing Opportunities for Minority Entrepreneurs in Media and Telecommunications". This event qualifies for continuing legal education credits. See, notice. Location: Arnold & Porter, 555 12th St., NW.

3/29. The European Commission (EC) published an agenda [MS Word] for the meeting scheduled for April 12-16, 2010, in Wellington, New Zealand, regarding the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

3/27. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) issued a release regarding USTR Ron Kirk's recently concluded trip to Brussels, Belgium.

3/26. World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Pascal Lamy gave a speech regarding the status of Doha round negotiations. He said that "Our road has been a long one. We are not yet at the end, but we are pressing on with determination, in the assurance that the prize is worth the effort."

3/25. Karel De Gucht (at left), the European Commission's (EC) Trade Commissioner, gave a speech in Warsaw, Poland, in which he stated that "the financial and economic crisis posed a grave threat to global economic integration" and that "belief in free and open markets has been undermined by the crisis". But, he concluded, "the world trading system has successfully resisted protectionist pressure rather than succumbed to it". He also said that "I will spend much of my time and energy in the months to come to try to conclude at long last" the Doha Development Round.

3/29. President Obama announced his intent to nominate Teresa Takai to be the Department of Defense's (DOD) Assistant Secretary (Networks and Information Integration). See, White House news office release. She is currently the Chief Information Officer for the state of California. Before that, she was Director of the Michigan Department of Information Technology (MDIT). And before that, she was a long time employee of the Ford Motor Company.

3/29. President Obama announced his intent to nominate Leslie Ireland to be the Department of the Treasury's (DOT) Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis. See, White House news office release. She has held various government intelligence positions for 25 years.

3/25. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the filing with the U.S. District Court (NDIll) of a Stipulated Final Judgment in FTC v. Voice Touch, a case involving violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C § 45(a), and the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rules, which is codified at 16 CF.R. Part 310, for running a deceptive robocalling operation. This judgment permanently enjoins the defendants from engaging in telemarketing, and requires them to pay the FTC $655,497.85. See also, FTC release. This case is FTC v. Voice Touch, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, D.C. No. Civ. No. 09-cv-2929.

3/24. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a notice [18 pages in PDF], to be published in the Federal Register, requesting public comments regarding amending its rules promulgated pursuant to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Comments are due by June 30, 2010. See also, FTC release. As of the Monday, March 29, 2010, issue of the Federal Register, this notice had not yet been published.

3/18. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) released drafts of three documents for public comment. On March 10, it released its draft NIST IR-7669 [17 pages in PDF] titled "Open Vulnerability Assessment Language (OVAL) Validation Program Derived Test Requirements"; comments are due by April 9. On March 18, it released its draft NIST IR-7676 [14 pages in PDF] titled "Maintaining and Using Key History on Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Cards"; comments are due by 5:00 PM on April 23. On March 18, it released its draft SP 800-128 [71 pages in PDF] titled "Guide for Security Configuration Management of Information Systems"; comments are due by June 14.

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 1998-2010 David Carney. All rights reserved.