4/12. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its divided opinion [49 pages in PDF] in Minority Television Project v. FCC, holding that the statutory ban on public issues and political candidate advertising by public radio and television violates their 1st Amendment rights.

The relevant statute, 47 U.S.C. § 399b, provides that "No public broadcast station may make its facilities available to any person for the broadcasting of any advertisement". It also defines "advertisement" to mean "any message or other programming material which is broadcast or otherwise transmitted in exchange for any remuneration, and which is intended -- (1) to promote any service, facility, or product offered by any person who is engaged in such offering for profit; (2) to express the views of any person with respect to any matter of public importance or interest; or (3) to support or oppose any candidate for political office."

The 1st Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..."

The Supreme Court construes "no law" to mean that the Congress can pass laws that meet the Supreme Court's constantly evolving rules and standards. What part of "no" informs the Courts' understanding is not explained.

Moreover, soon after the deployment of broadcasting, the Supreme Court accorded a lower level of Constitutional protection to broadcast speech than to print or pulpit speech. It based this on its understanding of spectrum scarcity. Whatever merits existed for this distinction during the Roosevelt administration, the advent of cable, satellite, and internet distribution technologies have long since rendered it obsolete.

The Courts have also relied upon "pervasive presence" of broadcasting as an alternative rationale. Nevertheless, the opinions of the Courts, including this just released opinion, continue to allow the Congress and FCC to regulate television content.

The Supreme Court has held that the Congress may pass laws that regulate broadcast speech if they satisfy its intermediate scrutiny standard. That is, they are Constitutional if they are "narrowly tailored to further a substantial government interest".

In the present case, the Court applied intermediate scrutiny, and concluded that, as to the bans on "public importance" ads and "candidate for political office" ads, the government has a substantial interest in noncommercial public broadcasting, and that Section 399b furthers this interest, but that this interest is not sufficiently tailored to survive broadcast scrutiny. Hence, Subsections 399b(a)(2) and (3) are unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeals also held that the ban on products and services advertising satisfies the intermediate scrutiny test.  Hence, Subsections 399b(a)(1) is constitutional

Judge Carlos Bea wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

Judge John Noonan wrote a concurring in judgment opinion. He hinted at the obsolescence of the Courts' interpretation of the 1st Amendment as applied to television. He wrote that "With the rapid flux of technologies transmitting television, there have come new forms of television that do not require use of the narrow spectrum employed by broadcast television. These new forms -- cable, satellite, cell phone, the Internet and the iPad -- have introduced a variety of ways of communicating on television and call at least for a new look at the government's substantial role in licensing and regulating speech on broadcast television."

He also pointed out the obvious. There already are products and services ads on public television. "As a viewer of Jim Lehrer NewsHour and its successor, I have seen announcements that to my mind are ads."

Judge Richard Paez dissented. He wrote that "For almost sixty years, noncommercial public broadcasters have been effectively insulated from the lure of paid advertising. The court's judgment will disrupt this policy and could jeopardize the future of public broadcasting. I am not persuaded that the First Amendment mandates such an outcome."

He wrote that the statute regulates broadcast media, that intermediate scrutiny applies, but that Section 399b satisfies this test.

Craig Aaron, head of the Free Press, stated in a release that "Polluting public broadcasting with misleading and negative political ads is not in keeping with the original vision of noncommercial broadcasting. And it’s certainly not the solution to funding public media. At a time when people are turning to public broadcasting to get away from the flood of nasty attack ads, viewers don’t want to see Sesame Street being brought to them by shadowy Super PACs."

This case is Minority Television Project v. FCC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 09-17311, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02699-EDL, Judge Elizabeth Laporte presiding. Judge Carlos Bea wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

4/16. The Supreme Court of the U.S. granted certiorari in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, a case regarding whether the first sale doctrine of the Copyright Act applies to goods made abroad. See, April 16, 2012, Orders List [21 pages in PDF] at page 2.

Introduction. The Supreme Court's prior actions indicated that it would likely grant certiorari in this case, and that the Court is divided on this issue. It heard a similar case 2010, and affirmed in a one page order by an evenly divided vote 4 to 4. Justice Kagan recused herself.

That case was Omega v. Costco. See, story titled "Supreme Court Affirms in Costco v. Omega on 4-4 Vote" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,178, December 14, 2010.

That order affirmed the September 3, 2008, opinion [17 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir), which held that the first sale doctrine does not apply to imported goods manufactured abroad. It applies "only where the disputed copies of a copyrighted work were either made or previously sold in the United States with the authority of the copyright owner".

These cases involve construing jointly Sections 109 and 602 of the Copyright Act.

At issue for book publishers is their ability to charge different prices in different national markets. Secondary markets, and particularly online sales sites that enable third party sellers, undermine publishers ability to engage in such price discrimination.

Since publishers tend to charge more in the US market, there is an opportunity for intermediaries, such as Supap Kirtsaeng, to purchase books outside the US at the publishers' lower prices, import them into the US, and then resell them via internet platforms such as eBay's auction web site at a profit to consumers in the US.

At issue for US book consumers is the ability to purchase lower priced foreign printed books online from intermediaries like Kirtsaeng. At issue for companies like eBay is the fees that they collect from online sellers like Kirtsaeng.

There is also perhaps a bigger issue. Sections 109 and 602 apply to works, not merely to hardcopy books. Hence, if Wiley were to prevail, the Supreme Court would write an opinion that applies to works subject to copyright. Other copyright industries might then attempt to avail themselves of the ruling to curtail Section 109 rights by increasing their manufacturing operations outside of the US.

Statutes. 17 U.S.C. § 106 lists the exclusive rights of copyright. Subsection 106(3) is the exclusive right "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". However, the Copyright Act then provides numerous exceptions to the exclusive rights of copyright.

The first sale doctrine, which is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides, in part, that "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."

However, 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(1) provides in part that "Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501."

Section 109 allows book purchasers to resell the copies that they have purchased. However, the phrase "lawfully made under this title" gives rise to the interpretation that since US copyright law applies only in the US, and other nations' copyright laws apply in their nations, the Section 109 resale exception does not apply to works made in other nations. Section 602 is also in tension with the interpretation that Section 109 applies to works made outside the US and imported into the US. Hence, these two sections, taken together, do not provide clarity for the courts.

Moreover, this issue has been in the courts for many years, and the Congress could pass legislation that would clarify this issue, but it has not done so.

Proceedings Below. In the present case, John Wiley & Sons, is the plaintiff in the District Court, appellee in the Court of Appeals, and respondent in the Supreme Court. It publishes academic, scientific, and educational journals and books, including textbooks, for sale in domestic and international markets.

It makes outside of the US those copies for sale outside of the US. It makes in the US those copies for sale inside the US. Wiley's books for non-US sale include statements such as "Authorized for sale in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East Only" and "This book ... may not be exported."

Supap Kirtsaeng is the defendant in the District Court, appellant in the Court of Appeals, and petitioner in the Supreme Court. He imported into the US Wiley books published outside the US, and sold them on websites such as eBay.

Wiley filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (SDNY) against Kirtsaeng, alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and violation of the state of New York's unfair competition statute. Later, Wiley dropped all but the copyright claim.

The District Court ruled that the first sale doctrine is not an available defense in the circumstances, and did not give the jury a first sale doctrine instruction.

Kirtsaeng appealed the first sale doctrine ruling. Wiley also appealed on the issue of damages.

On August 15, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) issued its divided opinion [28 pages in PDF] affirming the judgment of the District Court. It is published at 654 F.3d 210. See also, story titled "2nd Circuit Holds First Sale Doctrine Does Not Apply to Works Made Abroad" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,295, August 28, 2011.

The Court of Appeals wrote that "There is at least some tension between § 602(a)(1), which seemingly seeks to give copyright holders broad control over the circumstances in which their copyrighted material may be imported (directly or indirectly) into the United States, and § 109(a), which limits the extent to which the copyright holder may limit distribution following an initial sale." (Parentheses in original.)

However, it held, based upon its interpretation of the two sections, and dicta in the Supreme Court's 1998 opinion in Quality King Distributors v. L'anza Research International, 523 U.S. 135, that the first sale doctrine does not apply to works manufactured outside of the US.

In Quality King, the defendant purchased copies that had been made in the US by the plaintiff, and sold outside the US by one of the plaintiff's foreign distributors. The defendant purchased and reimported these copies back into the US and resold them. This was profitable for the defendant because the plaintiff sold copies to foreign distributors at lower prices than it charged domestic distributors.

The Supreme Court held that Section 109 imposes a limit on Section 602, and that the defendant's resale of copies in the US is allowed under the first sale doctrine. However, in that case, unlike the present case, the copies were made in the US.

The Supreme Court wrote that "Even in the absence of a market allocation agreement between, for example, a publisher of the United States edition and a publisher of the British edition of the same work, each such publisher could make lawful copies. If the author of the work gave the exclusive United States distribution rights enforceable under the Act-to the publisher of the United States edition and the exclusive British distribution rights to the publisher of the British edition, however, presumably only those made by the publisher of the United States edition would be ‘lawfully made under this title’ within the meaning of § 109(a). The first sale doctrine would not provide the publisher of the British edition who decided to sell in the American market with a defense to an action under § 602(a)".

Also, Justice Ginsburg wrote in her concurring opinion that "This case involves a 'round trip' journey, travel of the copies in question from the United States to places abroad, then back again. I join the Court's opinion recognizing that we do not today resolve cases in which the allegedly infringing imports were manufactured abroad."

In the present case, the Court also interpreted the meaning of the two sections at issue. "Section 602(a)(1) prohibits the importation into the United States of copyrighted works acquired abroad without the authorization of the copyright holder. This provision is obviously intended to allow copyright holders some flexibility to divide or treat differently the international and domestic markets for the particular copyrighted item. If the first sale doctrine codified in § 109(a) only applies to copyrighted copies manufactured domestically, copyright holders would still have a free hand -- subject, of course, to other relevant exceptions enumerated in Title 17, such as those in §§ 107, 108, and 602(a)(3) -- to control the circumstances in which copies manufactured abroad could be legally imported into the United States."

The Court wrote the the meaning of the phrase "lawfully made under this title" is key. If it were to mean "lawfully made in the US", then Wiley would prevail. The Court noted that the Copyright Act primarily applies only territorially. On the other hand, if it were to mean "any work subject to protection under the Copyright Act", then Kirtsaeng would prevail.

In the end, the Court concluded that "the phrase ``lawfully made under this Title´´ in § 109(a) refers specifically and exclusively to works that are made in territories in which the Copyright Act is law, and not to foreign-manufactured works."

The Court added that "We freely acknowledge that this is a particularly difficult question of statutory construction in light of the ambiguous language of § 109(a), but our holding is supported by the structure of Title 17 as well as the Supreme Court’s opinion in Quality King. If we have misunderstood Congressional purpose in enacting the first sale doctrine, or if our decision leads to policy consequences that were not foreseen by Congress or which Congress now finds unpalatable, Congress is of course able to correct our judgment."

Certiorari Briefs. Kirstsaeng argued in his brief that his book selling activities were protected by the first sale doctrine, that the Court of Appeals incorrectly interpreted the statutes, and that the Supreme Court should grant certiorari.

Kirtsaeng is represented by Joshua Rosenkranz and others in the New York City office of the law firm of Orrick Herrington & Sutliffe.

Wiley argued in its brief the the Court of Appeals correctly interpreted the statutes, that there is no circuit split, and that certiorari should therefore be denied.

Wiley is represented by Ted Olson, a former Solicitor General, and other attorneys in the Washington DC office of the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.

eBay is not a party to this case. However, it filed an amicus curiae brief, along with the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), Internet Commerce Coalition (ICC), Net Coaltion, NetChoice, Tech America, and Technology Network. They argued that the Supreme Court should grant certiorari.

They wrote that the Court of Appeals "imposed a place of manufacturing requirement on the first sale doctrine that lacks support in the text, structure, history or purposes of the Copyright Act."Also, "The Second Circuit’s rule also dangerously expands beyond the Ninth Circuit’s requirement" in Omega v. Costco.

These tech sector amici argued that "In stark tension with the policy against restraints on alienation, the Second Circuit’s rule affords copyright owners the ability to control the downstream sales of goods for which they have already been paid. The Second Circuit’s rule not only is inconsistent with the terms, structure, history and purpose of the copyright act, but it also allows for significant adverse consequences for trade, ecommerce, secondary markets, small businesses, consumers, and jobs in the United States."

"Reading section 109(a) to impose a place of manufacturing requirement on the first sale doctrine would negatively impact commerce in the United States. A place of manufacturing requirement will create incentives for off-shore manufacturing, stifle secondary markets, stifle e-commerce, and harm small businesses". They added that "The Second Circuit’s rule substantially threatens the increasingly important e-commerce sector of the economy, particularly secondary market e-commerce."

The Public Knowledge (PK), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and U.S. Public Interest Research Group also filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Court to grant certiorari. They argued that the Court of Appeals' opinion "threatens significant harm to consumers and businesses engaged in legitimate commerce involving goods manufactured abroad".

They cautioned that "The decision below could also encourage copyright owners to deliberately foreclose secondary markets by moving their manufacturing operations abroad."

The PK's Jodie Griffin wrote in a short piece on April 16 that the Court of Appeals' "ruling could cripple markets for used books, movies, CDs, toys, and any other goods that contain copyrighted works. For example, many cars contain copyrighted computer programs, so used car sales for foreign-manufactured would become illegal (without the copyright owner's permission)." (Parentheses in original.)

This case is Supap Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. 11-697, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, App. Ct. No. 09-4896-cv. Judge Jose Cabranes wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judge Katzmann joined. Judge Garvan Murtha (USDC/DVermont, sitting by designation) wrote a dissent. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of News York, Judge Donald Pogue (U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation) presiding.

4/3. The U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) issued its opinion [45 pages in PDF] in Anderson News v. American Media, an antitrust boycott case brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, by a wholesaler in the single copy magazine industry, which involvesselling ink on paper magazines for purchase by consumers at retail outlets such as newsstands and bookstores.

This case pertains to hard copy publishing and distribution, and not to internet based distribution of magazines.

Anderson, and its assignee for the benefit of creditors, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (SDNY) against national magazine publishers and their distribution representatives. The magazine publisher defendants are American Media, Bauer, Hachette, Rodale, and Time. The distribution defendants include Curtis Circulation Co, Distribution Service Inc., Kable Distribution Services Inc. and Time/Warner Retail Sales & Marketing, Inc. The complaint also named Hudson News Distributors LLC, another wholesaler.

The complaint alleges conspiracy by the defendants to cut off Anderson from its supply of magazines, which deprived it of 80 percent of the magazines it had distributed, and forced it to suspend its magazine wholesale business. The complaint alleges that this followed Anderson's efforts to shift from a system under which wholesalers both delivery magazines to retailers, and then retrieve, tabulate and destroy unsold copies, to a scan based trading system under which retailers would automatically report their sales to the publishers through use of electronic checkout scanners, and the retailers would destroy all magazines they had not sold. Most hard copy magazines printed for the single copy magazine industry go unsold, and are destroyed.

The District Court concluded that the complaint failed to set forth sufficient facts to raise a plausible suggestion that the purported parallel conduct stemmed from an agreement. The District Court dismissed the complaint, without leave to amend, for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), FRCP. See, 732 F.Supp.2d 389.

The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. It held that Anderson's proposed amended complaint meets the pleading standards set by Twombly and Iqbal. See, Twombly opinion and story titled "Supreme Court Rules in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,585, May 22, 2007.

This case is Anderson News LLC v. American Media, Inc., et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, App. Ct. No. 10-4591-cv, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Paul Crotty presiding. Judge Amalys Kearse wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Leval and Chin joined.

The House will return from its two week recess at 2:00 PM. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. The House will consider several commemorative items under suspension of the rules. See, Rep. Cantor's schedule for the week.

The Senate will return from its two week recess. It will resume consideration of S 2230 [LOC | WW], a tax bill.

8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a conference titled "Public Utility, Communications and Transportation Annual Spring Program 2012". The price to attend ranges from $75 to $450. See, notice. Location: Pepco Holdings, 701 9th St., NW.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) will hold a closed meeting. The BIS agenda for this meeting is undisclosed. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 62, Friday, March 30, 2012, at Page 19179. Location: Room 6527, DOC Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW.

1:00 - 2:00 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host an on site and telecast panel discussion titled "Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation: Cross Border Privacy Rules Introduction And Spotlight on Canada". The speakers will be Daniele Chatelois (Canadian government's Industry Canada) and Josh Harris (U.S. Department of Commerce's Office of Technology and Electronic Commerce). Free. No CLE credits. See, notice. Location: Fulbright & Jaworski, 801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The Heritage Foundation will host a speech by Shintaro Ishihara (Governor of Tokyo) and panel discussion titled "The U.S.-Japan Alliance and the Debate Over Japan's Role in Asia". The other speakers will be Richard Lawless (former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs), James Auer (Vanderbilt University), and Walter Lohman (Heritage). See, notice. Location: Heritage, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.

TIME? The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a telecast panel discussion titled "Legal Issues Stemming from the Impending Shortage of Wireless Spectrum". The speakers will be Tarak Anada (Jones Walker), Babette Boliek (Pepperdine University School of Law), Michael Goggin (AT&T Mobility), and Daniel Brenner (Hogan Lovells). Different ABA notices provide different times. One states 3:00 - 4:00 PM. The other states 4:00 - 5:00 PM. See, notice.

The Executive Office of the President's (EOP) President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) will hold a partially closed meeting. The agenda includes a discussion of a report on the PCAST's Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP). The public portion of the meeting will be teleconferenced from 4:30 - 5:00 PM. The deadline to register to register is 12:00 NOON on April 12. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 60, Wednesday, March 28, 2012, at Pages 18798-18799.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) following its March 29 hearing to assist it in preparing its 2011 Annual GSP Product Review. See, original notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 34, Tuesday, February 21, 2012, at Pages 10034-10036. See also, notice of change of date in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 52, Friday, March 16, 2012, at Page 15841.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for morning hour, and at 12:00 NOON for legislative business. The House will consider non-technology related items. See, Rep. Cantor's schedule for the week.

8:00 - 10:00 AM. The Broadband Census News LLC will host a panel discussion titled "Social Networking, the End of Media and Future of Privacy". The speakers will be Julie Brill (FTC Commissioner), Bruce Gottlieb (General Counsel of Atlantic Media Company), Sarah Hudgins (Interactive Advertising Bureau), Jules Polonetsky (Future of Privacy Forum), and Drew Clark (moderator). Breakfast will be served. This event is open to the public. The price to attend is $47.12. See, notice and registration page. This event is also sponsored by Comcast, Google, ICF Intl., Intel, NCTA TIA, and US Telecom. Location: Clyde's of Gallery Place, 707 7th St., NW.

8:30 AM - 3:30 PM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) will hold an open meeting. The agenda for this meeting includes a discussion of "Nanotechnology--Nanocoated Materials". See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 62, Friday, March 30, 2012, at Page 19179. Nanocoating has many applications in ICT, including protecting electronics devices from moisture caused corrosion, producing flat panel displays, and adding antireflection coating to optical products. Location: Room 3884, DOC Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and telecast panel discussion titled "The New World of Licensing Songs and Sound Recordings". The speakers will be Jeff Brabec (BMG Chrysalis), Todd Brabec, Henny Root (Lapidus Root). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

1:30 - 4:30 PM. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 62, Friday, March 30, 2012, at Pages 19300-19301. Location: 1310 N. Courthouse Road, Suite 300, Arlington, VA.

2:30 PM. The Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) will hold a closed meeting. See, notice. Location: Room 219, Hart Building.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host the first part of a two part program titled "Preserving Intellectual Property Rights in Gov't Contracts". This first part is subtitled "A Beginner's Guide". The speakers will be David Bloch (Winston & Strawn), Richard Gray (Department of Defense), John Lucas (Department of Energy), and James McEwen (Stein McEwen). The price to attend this part ranges from $89 to $129. CLE credits. See, notice. For more information, call 202-626-3488. The DC Bar has a history of barring reporters from its events. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for morning hour, and at 12:00 NOON for legislative business. The House will consider non-technology related items. See, Rep. Cantor's schedule for the week.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONCHIT) HIT Standards Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 52, Friday, March 16, 2012, at Page 15760. Location: Renaissance Hotel, 999 9th St., NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Nominations to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board". The witnesses will be the five nominees: James Dempsey (CDT), Elisebeth Cook, Rachel Brand, David Medine, and Patricia Wald. See, notice. See also, story titled "Obama to Nominate Dempsey and Cook to Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,181, December 17, 2010, and August 25, 2001 letter of the ACLU, EPIC and others. The SJC will webcast this hearing. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

11:15 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement will hold a hearing titled "Document Fraud in Employment Authorization: How an E-Verify Requirement Can Help". The witnesses will include Waldemar Rodriguez (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement). See, HJC notice. See also, story titled "Rep. Lamar Smith Seeks Passage of E-Verify Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,337, February 15, 2012. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON - 1:15 PM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a panel discussion titled "Internet Platform Competition and Market Convergence". The speakers will be Richard Bennett (ITIF), Anna-Marie Kovacs (Georgetown University), and Jonathan Sallet (O'Melveny & Myers). Location: Room B-318, Rayburn Building.

12:30 - 2:00 PM. The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) will host a webcast presentation titled "Are You the Weakest Link?  Making Certain that In-House and Outside Counsel Protect Their Client’s Trade Secrets". The speakers will be Mark Halligan (Nixon Peabody) and Janet Craycroft (Intel Corporation). CLE credits. CD, MP4 download, archived webcast, and other formats available. Prices vary. See, registration page.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a audio webcast and telecast panel discussion titled "Remote Sales Tax and Nexus Issues: The Latest on Taxation of Internet Sales". The speakers will be Edward Bernert (Baker & Hostetler), George Isaacson (Brann & Isaacson), and Bruce Johnson (Utah State Tax Commission). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

2:00 PM. The House Science Committee's (HSC) Subcommittee on on Technology and Innovation will hold a hearing titled "Avoiding the Spectrum Crunch: Growing the Wireless Economy through Innovation". The witnesses will be Richard Bennett (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation), Mary Brown ( Cisco Systems), Christopher McCabe (CTIA), Rangam Subramanian (Idaho National Laboratory), and James Olthoff (NIST). The HSC will webcast this event. See, notice. Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

2:00 PM. The House Homeland Security Committee's (HHSC) Subcommittee on Transportation Security will hold a hearing titled "Building Secure Partnerships in Travel, Commerce, and Trade with the Asia-Pacific Region". The witnesses will include Mark Koumans (DHS) and John Halinkski (DHS/TSA). See, notice. Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.

2:30 PM. The Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) will hold a closed meeting. See, notice. Location: Room 219, Hart Building.

3:30 - 5:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an event titled "Inside the FCC: Tips on Effective Written Advocacy from FCC Staff". For more information, contact Brendan Carr (Wiley Rein) at bcarr at wileyrein dot com or Justin Faulb (Lampert O'Connor & Johnson) at faulb at lojlaw dot com. The FCBA states that this is an event of its Young Lawyers Committee. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (PN) that seeks comment regarding whether to fund Rural Health Care Pilot Program participants who will exhaust funding allocated to them before or during funding year 2012 (July 1, 2012 - June 30, 2013). The FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) released this PN on February 27, 2012. It is DA 12-273 in WC Docket No. 02-60. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 47, Friday, March 9, 2012, at Pages 14364-14366.

The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. The House will consider non-technology related items. See, Rep. Cantor's schedule for the week.

8:30 AM - 1:30 PM. The Technology Policy Institute (TPI), Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) and Silicon Flatirons will host an event titled "The Innovation Consensus: Economic Growth in 2013 and Beyond". The speakers will include Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), and Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI). See, TPI notice and ITIF notice. Location: Kaiser Family Foundation, 1330 G St., NW.

9:00 AM. The House Intelligence Committee (HIC) will hold a hearing titled "Ongoing Intelligence Activities". See, notice. Location: __.

10:00 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee's (HWMC) Subcommittee on Human Resources will hold a hearing titled "Use of Technology to Better Target Benefits and Eliminate Waste, Fraud, and Abuse". Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda again includes consideration of the nominations of William Kayatta to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (1stCir), John Fowlkes (USDC/WDTenn), Kevin McNulty (USDC/DNJ), Michael Shipp (USDC/DNJ), and Stephanie Rose (USDC/SDIowa). The SJC will webcast this event. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade will hold a hearing titled "Where the Jobs Are: Can American Manufacturing Thrive Again?". The witness will be Secretary of Commerce John Bryson. See, notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

12:15 - 1:45 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Telecommunications Committee will host an event titled "A Panel Discussion on the Verizon/Spectrum Co. and Verizon/Cox Transactions". The price to attend is $17. Registrations and cancellations are due by 12:00 NOON on April 17. Location: Wiley Rein, 1776 K St., NW.

4:00 - 5:00 PM. Proponents of state control or regulation of alcohol sales will host a news briefing titled "The Dangers of an Uncontrolled Marketplace". For more information, contact Elizabeth Armstrong at 202-371-9792 or elizabeth dot armstrong at wswa dot org. Location: Holeman Lounge, National Press Club, 13th Floor, 529 14th St. NW.

4:30 - 6:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Federalist Society (FS) will host a discussion of the book [Amazon] titled "Taming Globalization: International Law, the U.S. Constitution and the New World Order". The speakers will be the co-authors, Julian Ku (Hofstra University School of Law) and John Yoo (UC Berkeley School of Law), as well as Martin Flaherty (Fordham University School of Law), Jeremy Rabkin (George Mason University School of Law), and Jennifer Rubin (Commentary Magazine). See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th Floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

Rep. Cantor's schedule for the week states that "no votes are expected in the House".

12:15 - 1:45 PM. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host a panel discussion by proponents of increasing regulatory burdens on broadcasters to disclose information. The speakers will be Michael Calabrese (NAF), Steven Waldman (Columbia Journalism School), Corie Wright (Free Press), Harold Feld (Public Knowledge), and Kathy Kiely (Sunlight Foundation). Waldman previously worked at the Genachowski FCC, where he wrote, among other things, the FCC report titled "Information Needs of Communities". Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "Fundamentals of Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions". The speakers will be Daniel Fisher (Akin Gump), John Vasily (Debevoise & Plimpton), and Andrew Brady (Skadden Arps). Prices vary. No CLE credits. See, notice. For more information, call 202-626-3463. The DC Bar has a history of barring reporters from its events. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

1:00 - 5:00 PM. The Public Knowledge (PK) will host an event related to Open Source Hardware". There will be two panels, and a technology exposition. Location: Room 2168 (Gold Room), Rayburn Building.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGAB) regarding whether certain docketed FCC proceedings should be terminated as dormant. See, February 15, 2012, Public Notice (DA 12-220 in CG Docket No. 12-39), and notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 44, Tuesday, March 6, 2012, at Pages 13322-13323.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft NIST IR 7511 Rev. 3.01.165 [47 pages in PDF] titled "Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP) Version 1.0 Validation Program Test Requirements".

8:30 AM - 12:30 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability will meet. Title VI of HR 3630 [LOC | WW], the spectrum bill enacted into law in February, provided for the creation of this board. See, notice. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW.

1:00 PM. TIME. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "Hot Legal Issues In Online Affiliate Marketing". The speakers will be Thomas Cohn (LeClair Ryan), Elizabeth Tucci (Federal Trade Commission), Mark Campbell (State of Florida), and Adam Solomon (Olshan Grundman). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [14 pages in PDF] regarding allowing Economic Area (EA) based 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licensees to exceed a channel spacing and bandwidth limitation. The FCC adopted this NPRM on March 7, 2012, and released the text on March 9. It is FCC 12-25 in WT Docket No. 12-64; WT Docket No. 11-110. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 61, Thursday, March 29, 2012, at Pages 18991-18996.

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 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
3034 Newark St. NW, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2012 David Carney. All rights reserved.