3/31. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division sent a business review letter to The Associated Press (AP) in which it stated that the DOJ has "no present intention to challenge the development or operation" of "a voluntary news registry ... to facilitate the licensing and Internet distribution of news content created by the AP, its members, and other news originators".

Christine Varney (at right), Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, stated in a DOJ release that "The AP's registry may provide a new, efficient way for news content users to identify applicable terms of use and purchase licenses for Internet news content ... The registry may benefit both news originators and content users by reducing the transaction costs associated with securing licenses for Internet use".

The letter states that the AP described the proposed registry as follows. It "would be a centralized digital database that would contain individual items of news content from multiple content owners. The Registry would allow content owners to register and list individual items of news content, specify the uses others may make of that content, and detail the terms on which such content may be licensed. A content owner could use the Registry to offer licenses for individual items of its news content, or to offer blanket licenses for categories of its content or all of its content. The Registry would enable registered content users to determine quickly the licensing and use terms applicable to a specific content owner or to individual items of registered content. That, in turn, would allow content owners and content users to reach agreement on use and licensing terms for Internet content in an efficient manner."

Also, the registry would be "voluntary and inclusive, rather than exclusive. The Registry would be open, on a nondiscriminatory basis, to all owners of news content with respect to each item of news content that they own, including AP members and nonmembers. It also would be open, on a nondiscriminatory basis, to all content users".

The AP also represented to the DOJ that the registry would not do many things. For example, it would "not be used to communicate or disseminate any revenue, traffic, use or transactional information among participating content owners or content users".

The DOJ concluded that this registry proposal "is not likely to result in anticompetitive harm and ... it may provide procompetitive benefits to participating content owners and users."

It "is unlikely to have anticompetitive effects on price, output, or competition among participating content owners or users. Participation in the Registry will not be exclusionary or exclusive and it appears that participation is not critical to the commercial success of any content owners or users. Nor will the Registry constrain in any way a content owner's ability to offer its content competitively outside of the Registry. The Registry is not likely to facilitate coordination among content owners, in part because each content owner will set its license terms independently and unilaterally, and because the Registry will use firewalls to partition each content owner's confidential business information."

The letter was signed by Christine Varney. The letter was sent to William Baer, of the law firm of Arnold & Porter, attorney for The Associate Press. Baer previously was the head of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Bureau of Competition (BOC), which shares antitrust authority with the DOJ's Antitrust Division.

3/23. Joaquín Almunia, the European Commission's (EC) Commissioner for Competition Policy, gave a speech on March 23, 2010, in which he addressed, among other topics, sectoral regulation and competition enforcement in telecommunications. He argued that the two are complimentary and that regulation does not preclude competition enforcement.

Almunia stated that "It is typically the sort of industry where ex ante regulation has been a necessary complement to competition enforcement, because there are enduring economic bottlenecks, namely non-replicable legacy facilities. So regulation of access to networks has been necessary to allow market entry."

"But regulation is being progressively phased out, as competition in the market develops. Ultimately electronic communications will be governed by competition law only. Under the current EU Regulatory framework for electronic communications, regulation is the exception rather than the rule. The Commission, alongside national regulatory authorities, has a role to play in ensuring that regulation is only imposed where it is necessary."

For instance, he said that the EC "recently ruled that Polish telecoms regulator UKE should withdraw its plans to regulate the markets for internet traffic exchange services in Poland. The Commission took the view that UKE had failed to show that competitive conditions in Poland require the regulation of these markets, which are not regulated elsewhere in the EU. The Commission's view is that Polish consumers already benefit from competitive services without the need of an extra regulatory burden. The Commission considers that if these markets were regulated, it could adversely affect alternative operators offering transit services and discourage them from investment in network infrastructure."

"But of course, ex ante regulation is still necessary where structural competition problems persist. So that the roll-out of a new technology -- for instance fibre networks for New Generation Access -- does not let incumbents off the hook. Dominant companies will have to provide access to their fibre network, as they do to their copper network. Dominant companies cannot be allowed to leverage their ownership of ducts and fibre to monopolise new broadband services, or to re-monopolise telecoms markets as a whole."

Almunia (at right) stated that "Regulation, even though it may be essential to open up sectors where there are persistent, structural market failures, cannot help companies evade competition law. Ex ante regulation can reduce the risk of competition problems, but cannot completely eliminate it. Dominant firms have been known to find ways to circumvent ex ante rules. This is why there is and always will be room and indeed a need for competition enforcement."

"In a regulated market, companies may of course argue that they are bound to comply with certain rules or a regulator's finding. But if there is a competition problem and the company has the power to amend its behaviour, there is room for competition enforcement."

He also discussed the 2008 judgment in the Deutsche Telekom case and the EC's 2007 Telefónica decision.

3/24. March 24, 2010, was the deadline to submit comments to the Executive Office of the President's (EOP) Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) regarding coordination of federal efforts against counterfeiting and infringement. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 23, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 35, at Page 8137-8139.

The 110th Congress enacted S 3325 [LOC | WW], the "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2008" in late 2008. It is now Public Law No. 110-403. Title III of this bill created the position of IPEC. It further required that the IPEC be appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. President Obama nominated, and the Senate confirmed, Victoria Espinel.

This bill also required that the IPEC "coordinate the development of the Joint Strategic Plan against counterfeiting and infringement". Accordingly, the IPEC requested public comments.

This article summarizes the comments submitted by the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), Copyright Alliance (CA), Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a collection of entertainment groups assuming the ad hoc name of Creative Community Organizations, and a collection of groups that seek to dilute intellectual property rights and enforcement.

IIPA/Metalitz. The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) wrote in its comment [15 pages in PDF] that the federal government agencies involved in protecting intellectual property rights "need adequate funding" and "strong political support from their parent agencies".

It also wrote that "the Special 301 interagency process remains a key element of this effort" and that the "effectiveness of this process could be improved by developing concrete action plans for all countries and territories named to the Priority Watch List each year."

It also urged the Obama administration to "provide strong support" for S 1631 [LOC | WW], the "Customs Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Reauthorization Act of 2009". The IIPA stated that this bill "would enhance the enforcement capabilities of U.S. customs officials against piratical imports".

It also wrote that other countries should be encouraged to adopt effective copyright enforcement regimes. It elaborated that this means enforcement of existing treaties, including the WTO TRIPS agreement and the WTO internet treaties, and negotiation of new treaties, including the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP-FTA). Also, the U.S. government should use qualification for the Generalized System of Preferences and regional trade preference programs as tools to incent foreign governments.

The IIPA comment also enumerates and explains the elements of an effective copyright enforcement regime, with attention to criminal enforcement standards, investigative procedure, evidentiary standards, available remedies, and border measures.

It also addresses online infringement. It urges the U.S. government to engage foreign governments in order to "provide strong incentives for Internet service providers to cooperate with right holders to deal effectively with online infringement". Moreover, this includes "Clear standards for secondary liability" of "Internet service providers", and "Expeditious notice and takedown procedures for removing or disabling access to infringing content hosted on their systems, as well as assistance from Internet service providers to address transitory P2P infringements occurring through their networks".

The IIPA represents the American Association of Publishers (AAP), Business Software Alliance (BSA), Entertainment Software Association (ESA), Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and other copyright based industry groups. Its comment was submitted by Steve Metalitz.

Copyright Alliance/Ross. The Copyright Alliance (CA) submitted a comment [23 pages in PDF]. First, it contains detailed information, with hyperlinks to sources, on the contributions of the copyright industries to the U.S. economy, including GDP, GDP growth, exports, employment, and tax revenues (and the effects of both piracy and enforcement).

It states that "copyright industries contribute significantly to U.S. economic growth, exports and job creation. It is also clear that counterfeiting and piracy erodes considerably the legal market domestically and internationally for copyrighted works, harming U.S. artists and creators and creative industry workers, those industries, and the U.S. economy."

The CA comment also contains policy recommendations. For example, it states that the "USIPEC should work closely with the USTR and other federal agencies in promoting strong IP language in future trade treaties. The USIPEC should also assist the USTR in its commitment to advancing the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)".

It also praises "IP education that promotes awareness and understanding of, and respect for, copyright among children", and urges the IPEC to coordinate other government agencies on educational efforts.

The CA also urges the Department of Education (DOE) to "actively enforce the portions of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA) and the promulgated regulations that require that all institutions of higher learning that receive federal student aid to certify that, among other things, they have ``developed and implemented written plans to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material by users of the institution’s network.´´"

The CA comment was submitted by Patrick Ross, its Executive Director.

ITIF/Atkinson. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) wrote in its comment [19 pages in PDF] that "foreign IP theft has begun to weaken U.S. competitiveness, innovation, jobs and standard of living" and that "Protecting IP in the global economy is becoming particularly important for the United States".

It notes that "Because the U.S. is the nation that is most specialized in the production of digital goods (e.g., music, movies, software, video games, books, etc.) it also the nation that is most vulnerable to digital piracy." (Parentheses in original.)

The ITIF comment states that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) has focused on opening markets. Now, it should address enforcement. The ITIF comment states that "many nations are engaged in a wide array of unfair trade practices targeted at boosting exports, particularly in high-value added sectors, such as technology industries. These include discriminatory tariffs and taxes, export subsidies, blocking market access by foreign firms, use of regulations and laws (including anti-trust) to discriminate against foreign firms, and importantly intellectual property theft. Unfortunately, U.S. trade policy does relatively little to fight these practices which hurt American competitiveness, preferring instead to focus largely on opening markets through new trade agreements. Enforcement of existing agreements gets short shrift at best." (Parentheses in original. Footnote omitted.)

It continues that "It is time for the United States to go on the offensive when it comes to fighting foreign mercantilist practices. The Obama administration can start by shifting USTR resources more towards enforcement. However, Congress can and should help by increasing funds for trade enforcement and restructuring USTR so it is more focused on enforcement, as the Trade Enforcement Act of 2009 proposes to do." (Footnote omitted.) See, S 1466 [LOC | WW].

Also, it states that there should be a "Chief Trade Enforcement Officer and a Trade Enforcement Working Group" at the OUSTR.

It also states that involvement in enforcement is expensive for U.S. companies, and they "fear retaliation from other nations, particularly China". Therefore, the ITIF argues that the "Congress should encourage companies to build WTO cases by allowing them to take a 25 percent tax credit for expenditures related to bringing WTO cases. This tax credit could be piggybacked on top of the R&D tax credit."

Next, it states that "There is no legitimate reason for web sites that directly enable piracy, such as The Pirate Bay or isoHunt, to exist or for there to be piracy-oriented services such as LegalSounds.com. The Internet was not meant to be a gigantic piracy machine." Accordingly, it urges Federal Communications Commission (FCC) involvement. It states that the FCC should "develop a process whereby industry can consult with them on proposed uses of anti-piracy technology and consumer advocates and others can bring forward concerns about actual uses."

It also suggests several other government activities to fight online infringement. "The federal government should encourage stakeholders to develop best practices and collaborative self-regulation regimes, such as implementations of a graduated response system by ISPs. However, some anti-piracy measures, such as content filtering, could require government oversight to prevent abuses and ensure consumer rights are protected, especially in the absence of a collaborative agreement among key stakeholders. Other approaches, however, such as blocking websites supporting piracy, may require government approval before industry can act. Toward this end, there is a need for a process by which the federal government, with the help of third parties, identifies websites around the world that are systemically engaged in piracy so that ISPs and search engines can block them, ad networks and other companies can refuse to place ads with them, and banks and credit card companies can refuse to process payments to them."

With respect to the proposed ACTA, it states that "this type of multilateral trade agreement is necessary to create a stronger intellectual property rights regime and protect the rights of U.S. copyright holders globally. Nations that turn a blind eye to piracy should face significant pressure and penalties for doing so."

The ITIF comment was submitted by Robert Atkinson, its President.

Creative Community Organizations. A collection of entertainment industry groups submitted a comment [23 pages in PDF]. This group argues that the IPEC should be fighting online infringement abroad by mobilizing intermediaries located in the U.S. that facilitate that infringement. This would include web site hosting service providers, search engines, ad networks, payment processors, domain name registrars and proxy services, and social networks.

It argues that the U.S. government should be "Encouraging these intermediaries to work with content owners on a voluntary basis to reduce infringements, and assuring these intermediaries that such cooperation will not be second-guessed".

This comment also states that the FCC in its network neutrality rulemaking proceeding should "enunciate clearly a national policy supporting meaningful and effective efforts to combat unlawful content online". Moreover, this means that "private parties should retain maximum flexibility to continue to develop technological innovations that combat online copyright theft, and to enter into agreements to deploy and use these technologies".

This group also wants to revise notice and takedown law. "Copyright owners who own or manage large portfolios of works should be able to make available for service providers’ reference an authoritative and readily usable database of works or digital files; and service providers should be expected not only to take these files down, when they are identified online directly or when the service provider receives a takedown notice about one of them, but also to employ reasonable efforts to keep them off, by prohibiting the uploading or linking to infringing content previously subject to a takedown notice."

This group also argues that "more should be required of hosting providers to take reasonable steps against repeat infringers, such as terminating the accounts of bloggers or renters of online lockers who repeatedly use these mechanisms to make infringing content available".

This comment was submitted by the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), Directors Guild of America (DGA), International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees (IATSE), Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG).

Public Knowledge et al. A collection of groups that seek to dilute intellectual property rights and enforcement wrote in its comment [13 pages in PDF] that it wants the IPEC to consider "facilitating legal access to content through mechanical licensing".

They also wrote that "Laws and technologies intended to curtail online copyright infringement are easily repurposed to bolster government censorship." They elaborated that "The same technologies that can allow for real-time inspection of content for infringement also allow for comprehensive surveillance on individual communications. The automated systems that single out information using keywords linked to copyrighted material are trivially repurposed to single out politically sensitive subjects."

They also recommend that "The IPEC should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of public enforcement of private intellectual property rights" and only "combat infringements that cause public harm".

The groups that joined in this comment were the Public Knowledge (PK), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), Medical Library Association (MLA), Special Libraries Association (SLA), and USPIRG.

4/1. The Library of Congress's (LOC) Copyright Royalty Judges (CRJ) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, recites, and sets the comment deadline for, its proposed regulations governing the rates and terms for the digital performances of sound recordings by broadcasters and noncommercial educational webcasters and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary for the facilitation of such transmissions for the period commencing January 1, 2011, and ending on December 31, 2015. This proceeding is Docket No. 2009-1, also known as CRB Webcasting III. The deadline to submit comments or objections is April 22, 2010. See, Federal Register, April 1, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 62, at Pages 16377-16387.

3/29. The Copyright Office (CO) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, and sets comment deadlines for, its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding "the application of Title 17 to the termination of certain grants of transfers or licenses of copyright, specifically those for which execution of the grant occurred prior to January 1, 1978 and creation of the work occurred on or after January 1, 1978." These recaptures rights are codified at 17 U.S.C. §§ 304(c)&(d) and 203. This notice adds that the CO "the deadlines for serving notices of termination for 1978 grants will begin to expire in 2011 and some stakeholders have raised questions with the Office and some Congressional Offices". Initial comments are due by April 30, 2010. Reply comments are due by May 14, 2010. See, Federal Register, March 29, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 59, at Pages 15390-15391.

3/30. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, and sets the effective date (March 30, 2010) for, changes to procedure regarding the filing of appeal briefs in patent applications. The USPTO announced that the Chief Judge of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) or his designee, "will have the sole responsibility for determining whether appeal briefs filed in patent applications comply with the applicable regulations, and will complete the determination before the appeal brief is forwarded to the examiner for consideration. The Patent Appeal Center and the examiner will no longer review appeal briefs for compliance with the applicable regulations." The USPTO added that this does not apply to reexamination proceedings. The USPTO also predicted that this will reduce pendency. See, Federal Register, March 30, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 60, at Pages 15689-15690.

3/29. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register that requests nominations of persons to be members of its Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) and its Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC). The deadline to submit nominations is June 11, 2010. See, Federal Register, March 29, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 59, at Pages 15417-15418.

4/1. The Public Knowledge (PK), a Washington DC based group that mocks the policy arguments of copyright based industries, released a counterfeit Senate bill [PDF] on April 1, titled the "Protecting America's Greatest Treasure Act of 2010", as an April Fool's Day satire on the legislative efforts of intellectual property rights proponents. The fictitious bill would ban enablement of infringement. It would also create a federal "Cultural Protection Administration" or CPA, and a CPA Board made up of major copyright holders. It would provide that "Connecting to a system capable of infringement of intellectual property rights, including but not limited to Internet Protocol-based transmission service that enables users to send and receive voice, video, data, graphics, or a combination without regard to any transmission media or technology, without the certification from the Cultural Protection Administration shall result in a permanent ban on access to any system capable of infringement of intellectual property rights". The bill would also provide for "screenings of upcoming films for Congressional staff" in "luxurious" theaters.

Good Friday.

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.

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.

8:30 AM - 4:30 PM. The Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) will host a one day conference titled "Saas/GOV 2010: Government Embraces Cloud Computing". See, conference web site. Location: Westin Washington, 1400 M St., NW.

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.

4:45 - 6:15 PM. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host an event titled "Wine Reception" and "New Media and American Politics". The speakers will be Steve Clemons (NAF) and Josh Marshall, who publishes a web site titled "TPM". See, notice. Location: NAF, 1899 L St., NW.

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.

8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The Department of Transportation's (DOT) Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Advisory Committee (ITSPAC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 22, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 54, at Pages 13643-13644. Location: Oklahoma Conference Room, DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a three day meeting of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB). The agenda includes "Cloud Computing Implementations", "Health IT", "OpenID", "Pending Cyber Security Legislation", "key escrow", "SCAP", "Cyber Coordinator Discussion", "National Protection and Programs Directorate Discussion", and "Security Issues in Broadband Plan". SCAP is Security Content Automation Protocol. See, NIST's SCAP web site. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 19, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 53, Pages 13258-13259. Location: Washington Marriott Wardman Park Conference Center, 2660 Woodley Road, NW.

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) Advisory Committee on the Electronic Records Archives (ACERA). See, notice in the Federal Register, March 16, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 50, at Pages 12573-12574. Location: 700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a workshop regarding legal and technical issues associated with the development and deployment of an agency wide Consolidated Licensing System (CLS). See, Public Notice. Location: FCC, FCC’s Commission Meeting Room (Room TW-C305), 445 12th St., SW.

12:00 NOON - 2:30 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an event titled "An Overview of the Federal Communications Commission National Broadband Plan". The speakers will be the FCC's David Furth (Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau), Brian David (OSP), Eugene Huang (OSP), Joy Ragsdale (PSHSB), Thomas Koutsky (OSP), and Robert Curtis (OSP). The price to attend ranges from $0 to $40. Lunch will not be served. The DC Bar Association states that this is a DC Bar event. The DC Bar has a history of excluding reporters from its events. See, notice. Location: DC Bar, 1101 K St., NW.

Day one of a four day event hosted by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Intellectual Property Law titled "Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference". See, notice. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its report to Congress regarding the Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act (ORBIT Act). See, notice [PDF]. This proceeding is IB Docket No. 10-70.

8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day two of a three day meeting of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB). See, notice in the Federal Register, March 19, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 53, Pages 13258-13259. Location: Washington Marriott Wardman Park Conference Center, 2660 Woodley Road, NW.

9:00 AM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will hold a partially closed meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 25, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 57, at Page 14426. Location: Room 3884, DOC, Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Aves., NW.

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) Advisory Committee on the Electronic Records Archives (ACERA). See, notice in the Federal Register, March 16, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 50, at Pages 12573-12574. Location: 700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

9:30 - 11:30 AM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a panel discussion titled "The US Should Pick Winners". The speakers will be Robert Atkinson (ITIF), James Fallows (The Atlantic), Robert Lawrence (Harvard University), Clyde Prestowitz (Economic Strategy Institute), and Claude Barfield (American Enterprise Institute). See, notice. This event is free and open to the public. The ITIF will webcast this event. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

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 Policy Committee's Meaningful Use 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 - 1:30 PM. The National Economists Club will host a lunch. Mark DeWeaver (Quantrarian Capital Management) will give a speech titled "China's Exit Strategy for Monetary Policy". Location: Darlington House, 1610 20th St., NW.

2:30 PM. The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Bureau of Economics (BOE) will host a seminar presented by Timothy Brennan (University of Maryland, Baltimore County). For more information, contact Loren Smith lsmith2 at ftc dot gov or Tammy John tjohn at ftc dot gov. Location: FTC, Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

Day two of a four day event hosted by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Intellectual Property Law titled "Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference". See, notice. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA.

Day one of a two day conference hosted by the DC Bar Association titled "2010 Judicial and Bar Conference". See, conference web site. The price to attend is $150. Location: Ronald Reagan Building, International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

8:00 AM - 12:30 PM. Day three of a three day meeting of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB). See, notice in the Federal Register, March 19, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 53, Pages 13258-13259. Location: Washington Marriott Wardman Park Conference Center, 2660 Woodley Road, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will consider on the briefs Tiger Team Tech v. Synesi Group, App. Ct. No. 2009-1508, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DMinn) in case regarding formation of a patent licensing agreement. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

Day three of a four day event hosted by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Intellectual Property Law titled "Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference". See, notice. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA.

Day two of a two day conference hosted by the DC Bar Association titled "2010 Judicial and Bar Conference". See, conference web site. The price to attend is $150. At 2:30 PM there will be a two part seminar titled "Emerging E-Communications Issues: Before, During, and After Trial". Location: Ronald Reagan Building, International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft NIST IR-7669 [17 pages in PDF] titled "Open Vulnerability Assessment Language (OVAL) Validation Program Derived Test Requirements".

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.