6/20. Edith Ramirez, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), gave a speech regarding patent assertion entities (PAEs) and antitrust enforcement at an event hosted by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and American Antitrust Institute (AAI).

The event, titled "Competition Law & Patent Assertion Entities: What Antitrust Enforcers Can Do", also included a panel discussion at which both Lisa Kimmel, an Attorney Advisor to Ramirez, and Frances Marshall of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division also spoke.

The other speakers were Ed Black (head of the CCIA), Michael Carrier (Rutgers School of Law), Bert Foer (head of the AAI), and Paul Saraceni (RPX Corporation).

Introduction to Anticompetitive Conduct by PAEs. The issue is whether and under what circumstances there may be anti-competitive conduct, and whether the FTC or DOJ should take action, when patent assertion entities (PAEs) send demand letters, and/or file patent infringement lawsuits.

The antitrust issue arises when an PAE may be acting as a surrogate for another company by asserting patent rights against its competitors and/or their users or customers.

This would be one scenario. A standard setting organization (SSO) establishes a industry standard. In this process, the SSO obtains from patent holders fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitments. When the standard is adopted, some patents subject to FRAND commitments become standards essential patents (SEPs).

Ordinarily, an operating company in this industry sector has reasons not to breach its FRAND commitments and assert its patent rights against competing operating companies, for example, by suing for infringement of its SEPs. It has made a commitment. It may have a reputation to protect. It may also fear retaliatory patent infringement counterclaims from its competitors who also hold SEPs.

However, the antitrust issues may arise when an operating company that holds SEPs subject to FRAND commitments assign patents to a PAE. It likely has no reputation to protect. And since it likely does not practice any patents, it would not fear counterclaims. Hence, it is in a better position to assert patent rights for SEPs subject to FRAND commitments. When the original patent holder assigns patents to a PAE to burden its competitors, it is sometimes referred to by its critics as privateering.

Thus, the question arises whether the assignment and subsequent assertion of patent rights harms competition within the meaning of antitrust law. The case for asserting violation of antitrust law becomes stronger if the patents are assigned subject to a restriction that no rights will be asserted against the assignor or users of its products and services, or if the rights revert to the assignor if the assignee does not meet a minimum level of patent assertion litigation. In these situations, where there is cooperation or collusion between the PAE and assignor in raising costs to users of competing products, the term hybrid is sometimes used.

There is also the matter of assignments of multiple SEPS to multiple PAEs, each of which nominally adheres to the FRAND commitments by licensing at a low rate. However, with each of numerous PAEs all asserting patent rights, the competitors of the assignor could end up paying at a high rate in the aggregate. This is sometimes referred to as royalty stacking.

Ramirez Speech. Ramirez discussed the findings and conclusions with which the FTC has to work. This consists primarily the FTC's March 2011 report titled "Evolving IP Marketplace", and the product of the December 10, 2012 workshop hosted by the FTC and DOJ titled "Patent Assertion Entity Activities". She also referenced the President's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) National Economic Council's (NEC).

She said that the FTC defines PAE as "a firm with a business model focused primarily on purchasing and asserting patents, typically against operating companies with products currently on the market".

However, some others offer less polite definitions of PAE.

She said that "Patent assertion entities are relatively new players in the IP marketplace. To some, PAE activity was questionable from the start. And the most recent evidence suggests PAEs are evolving in a way that raises red flags for competition and for consumers. These entities are driving the increase in patent litigation."

"PAE lawsuits are no longer filed primarily against IT firms. Retailers and financial services providers that incorporate software into their products and services are now common place. Even hotels and coffee shops are not immune. The costs to consumers of PAE activity appear increasingly tangible and direct."

She continued that "We have a role to play in advancing greater understanding of the impact PAE activity, and using our enforcement authority where appropriate to curb anti-competitive and deceptive conduct."

But, she cautioned, "PAE activity raises tough competition policy and enforcement issues that defy a one-dimensional answer."

Ramirez acknowledged that in principle PAEs can provide benefits, including "reducing the enforcement hurdles facing small inventors and start ups", greater efficiency, economies of scale, sharing of risk with small companies, increasing liquidity in patent markets, and increasing investment in research and development.

However, she said that "there are plausible upsides to PAE activity", but as of the 2011 report, the evidence of the magnitude of the benefit was "largely absent". Rather, PAEs create costs. For example, they "raise the risk of patent holdup".

She said that the FTC/DOJ workshop collected data that showed that "PAE's have been responsible for an increasing share of patent lawsuits since at least 2006". Moreover, while "data" is "sparse", there is some "evidence" that "many more PAE lawsuits are threatened than filed".

She said that the FTC learned at its workshop that "PAE activity isn't just growing. It is also changing shape. PAEs are still fueled largely by software and IT related patents. They still target IT firms more than companies in any other single sector. But data and anecdotal evidence suggest that PAEs now file half of all their lawsuits against firms outside the high tech sector that merely incorporate IT into their products. Examples of this include retailers that do business online, restaurants with web sites, and financial services companies that offer mobile banking applications. In 2005 about 40% of PAE lawsuits were filed against firms outside the high tech sector. Today that share has risen to 50% with retailers the most common low tech targets."

"In fact", Ramirez explained, "some of the loudest voices at our December workshop came from retailers. We heard complaints from internet retailers required to defend lawsuits simply because they offered common online shopping features on their web pages, such as drop down menus and online shopping carts. Many retailers and small businesses now find themselves victims of nuisance suits that are far cheaper to settle than litigate. Some PAEs send thousands of demand letters to target businesses. The sender may claim the recipient is infringing one or more patents by using ordinary office electronics purchased at the local super store."

She also discussed "privateering" and "hybrid PAE activity". These are terms that lack definitions in any statutes, regulations or guidelines. She said that "A so called pure PAE will assert its patents against any firm that is likely to be a good source of licensing fees. It has no particular financial incentive to target one firm versus another. In contrast, a hybrid PAE may have incentives aligned with those of the operating company from which it acquired the patents it is monetizing. For instance, we are now hearing a great deal more about sophisticated IPR strategies by operating companies -- in particular, a practice described as privateering. Privateering, as used here, refers here to a situation where an operating company transfers patents to a PAE, that may [inaudible word] a competitor's products."

"The sale may be structured to encourage the PAE to target the original owner's downstream rivals. The operating company benefits indirectly if the PAE raises the rival's costs. There are variations on this theme, but that is the core pattern. Of course, before transfers from operating companies to PAEs were happening, before we ever heard the term privateer. But some of the commenters claim that privateering is about more than monetizing the patents. They assert that this is an emerging strategy allowing operating companies to exploit the lack of transparency in patent ownership to win a tactical advantage in the marketplace that can not be gained with a direct attack. It some cases, an operating company may also split its portfolio across multiple PAEs, in an effort to increase licensing fees, and further burden rivals."

Ramirez gave the opening address. She remained for the entire program, but did not take questions.

Other Comments. The DOJ's Marshall rhetorically asked whether PAE's are protected by the Noerr Pennington doctrine. She offered no opinion.

She also said that it was the consensus of panelists at the DOJ/FTC December 2012 workshop that there is a limited role for antitrust, if there is harm to competition, which would be most likely where there is a hybrid relationship between a PAE and a market competitor.

Michael Carrier said that there is a crucial role for antitrust, under Section 5 of the FTC Act, Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

He also used the term "mutually assured destruction" to describe the ordinary relationship between competitors. If one competitor asserts its patents, so will its competitors. They possess "risk symmetry". He said that the Apple Samsung smart phone patent war is an exception.

PAE's, he said, are not governed by fear of mutually assured destruction.

Kimmel said the Section 5 of the FTC Act "is a little broader than the antitrust laws", and added, "but that is all that I can say".

AAI Petition for Joint FTC/DOJ Guidelines. Black (CCIA) and Foer (AAI) both argued that PAEs present a competitive problem. Also, Foer discussed the petition filed by the AAI with the DOJ and FTC on May 23, 2013 requesting that the two antitrust entities adopt guidelines for the patent policies of SSOs.

These guidelines should provide that "an SSO participant should be required to disclose patents as well as anticipated and pending patent applications which it has identified through a good faith reasonable inquiry to be essential or likely to become essential to implementation of the standard being considered." Then, if this obligation is breached, "an undisclosed patent incorporated into a standard should be licensed on a royalty-free basis."

Also, "Patent holders should be required to agree to license patents that are incorporated into the standard on RAND terms."

Next, "SSOs should prohibit SEP owners that have made licensing commitments from seeking injunctions or exclusion orders against companies that implement the standard."

Fifth, "RAND and other licensing commitments" should "run with SEPs". That is, assignees, including PAEs, should not be able to disclaim these commitments.

Sixth, "Licensees should have the option of licensing individual SEPs on a cash-only basis." That is, SEP owners should not be able to demand cross-licensing of non-SEP patents.

Finally, the AAI wants the guidelines to provide for a quick dispute resolution process, such as arbitration, for resolving disputes over what a RAND license requires.

6/13. Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA) introduced HR 2363 [LOC | WW], the "Health Care Innovation and Marketplace Technologies Act of 2013".

This bill is a long (25 pages in PDF) wish list of federal financial benefits related to health IT. It would provide health IT "prizes", health IT development grants, health IT workforce retraining grants, and health IT loan guarantees. It would also create a temporary federal income tax deduction for medical care providers for health IT.

Rep. Honda (at right) has over the years introduced many ambitious wish list bills, that relate to IT, that would be costly, and that do not become law.

This bill would also create an Office of Wireless Health Technology at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This bill was referred to the House Commerce Committee (HCC), House Ways and Means Committee (HWMC), and Small Business Committee (HSBC).

6/13. Rep Michael Capuano (D-MA) and Rep. __ Jones () introduced HR 2356 [LOC | WW], the "We Are Watching You Act of 2013".

This bill provides that "An operator of a video service may not collect visual or auditory information from the vicinity of the device used to display the video programming stream to the consumer unless the operator -- (A) displays, as part of the video programming stream, a message that reads, ``We are watching you.´´; and (B) provides to the consumer a description of the types of information that will be collected and how such information will be used."

This bill would give the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to enforce this prohibition under its authority with respect to "unfair or deceptive acts or practices". The bill also gives the FTC authority to write rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) process.

This bill was referred to the House Commerce Committee (HCC).

6/6. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) introduced HR 2281 [LOC | WW], "Cyber Economic Espionage Accountability Act". Also on June 6, Sen. __ Johnson (R-WI) introduced S 1111 [LOC | WW], a substantially identical bill, in the Senate.

These bills embody an attempt to limit "cyber economic espionage" of intellectual property conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments, and particularly the People's Republic of China (PRC), by amending immigration law to deny visas to any persons responsible for cyber economic espionage of intellectual property, and by amending financial law to freeze assets of such persons.

The bill is limited in scope. It only reaches individuals who work for foreign governments. It does not reach foreign corporations that ultimately receive trade secrets stolen from U.S. businesses, or the things that they make. Also, it removes no immunities, and creates no remedies, for U.S. companies that have been victims of cyber espionage.

HR 2281 was referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC), House Judiciary Committee (HJC), and House Financial Services Committee (HFSC). Rep. Rogers (at right) is the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (HIC).

S 1111 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC), which has jurisdiction over immigration law. This bill was not referred to the Senate Banking Committee (SBC), which has jurisdiction over financial regulation, or the Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC), which has jurisdiction over intelligence and espionage matters.

Bill Summary. Section 1 of this bill only contains the title. Section 2 contains numerous findings and statements of the sense of the Congress. Section 3 requires the President to maintain a list of offenders. Section 4 amends immigration law to exclude persons on the list from holding U.S. visas. Section 5 amends financial law to require the freezing of assets of persons on the list. Section 6 requires a report to the Congress. Section 7 contains definitions.

This bill recites in its findings that the U.S. "faces persistent cyber espionage of intellectual property from foreign governments that threatens United States economic and national security interests, results in an unfair competitive advantage for foreign companies, and is a major contributor to the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States."

Section 3 would require the President to prepare, and update "as new information becomes available", "a list of persons who are officials of a foreign government or persons acting on behalf of a foreign government that the President determines, based on credible information -- (1) are responsible for cyber espionage of intellectual property of United States persons; or (2) acted as an agent of or on behalf of a person in a matter relating to an activity described in paragraph (1)."

This list would be published, and exempt from the confidentiality provision of immigration law. However, the President could place names on a classified appendix to the list.

Then, Section 4 provides that any alien who is on this list would be "ineligible to receive a visa to enter the United States and ineligible to be admitted to the United States", and would have any existing visa revoked.

Section 5 directs the President, subject to certain exceptions, to exercise powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1705, to "freeze and prohibit all transactions in all property and interests in property of a person who is on the list".

The definitional section lacks definitions of key terms, such as "intellectual property". The bill makes no reference to trade secrets, confidential information or proprietary data. There is no definition that would specify what is to be protected.

The bill also lacks a definition of "foreign government". For example, does it include military entities, such as those in the PRC that conduct cyber economic espionage. Also, does "foreign government" include government owned or controlled commercial entities?

Other Approaches Not Taken in These Bills. This is a limited bill. It would only condemn in the U.S. certain persons who work for foreign governments. Moreover, the U.S. government is not likely to know the identities of most person involved in cyber espionage.

Also, since the conduct at which these bills are directed is almost exclusively extraterritorial, this conduct is hard to influence via U.S. national legislation. Bilateral treaties between the U.S. and PRC, or multilateral treaties, if attainable and observed by the parties, could be more effective.

However, it should also be noted that there are other possible U.S. unilateral legislative approaches that are not embodied in these bills.

For example, businesses could be given a private right of action, in the District Court, or before the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), to exclude importation into the U.S. of things made with stolen trade secrets.

Also, the Congress could amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that producing things with stolen trade secrets is an unfair trade practice, or unfair competition. Similarly, state legislatures could so amend their related state statutes.

Also, the Congress could amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to allow actions in U.S. courts against foreign government entities and officials that steal trade secrets, or use stolen trade secrets.

5/23. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced S 1070 [LOC | WW], the "Mobile Device Theft Deterrence Act of 2013".

This bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC). Sen. Schumer is a member. The original cosponsors are Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

In the 112th Congress Sen. Schumer introduced S 3186 [LOC | WW], the "Mobile Device Theft Deterrence Act of 2012". See, story titled "Sen. Schumer Introduces Bill to Criminalize Removal of ID Numbers from Mobile Devices" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,384, May 16, 2012.

This bill would add to the Title 18 a new Section 515, titled "Altering or removing unique mobile device equipment identification numbers".

This bill would provide that "it shall be unlawful to --- (1) knowingly remove, obliterate, tamper with, or alter a mobile device identification number; or (2) knowingly use, produce, traffic in, have control or custody of, or possess hardware or software, knowing it has been configured to engage in the conduct described in paragraph (1)."

The bill defines "unique mobile device equipment identification number" as an "an international mobile equipment identity number", which is also known as an IMEI number, an "electronic serial number", or "any other number or signal ... that identifies a specific mobile wireless communications device" and "has the same function and purposes".

The bill provides an exception for "the manufacturer of a mobile device, a person that engineers, tests, repairs, or refurbishes a mobile device, or a person that implements technologies for the purpose of protecting the security and privacy of mobile device end users while allowing the transmission of the mobile device identification number to service providers, unless the manufacturer or person knows that the mobile device or part involved is stolen".

Day one of a three day conference hosted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) titled "Increasing Market and Planning Efficiency Through Improved Software". See, conference web site. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 60, March 28, 2013, at Pages 18974-18975. Location: FERC, Rooms 3M-2, 3M-3, and 3M-4, 888 First St., NE.

Day one of a two day conference hosted by the ASAN Institute for Policy Studies titled "The Enduring Alliance: Celebrating the 60th Anniversary of ROK-US Relations". Registration required. The deadline to register is June 21. See, notice. Location: Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) will host a panel discussion regarding the book [Amazon] titled "Black Code: Inside the Battle for Cyberspace". The speakers will be Ronald Deibert (author), Leslie Harris (Center for Democracy and Technology), Harvey Rishikof, and Rebecca MacKinnon (New America Foundation). Free. See, notice and registration page. Location: NED, 8th Floor, 1025 F St., NW.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit cell phone detector devices for consideration for use by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ is soliciting devices for use by the DOJ in detecting contraband use by prisoners in federal prisons. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 91, May 10, 2013, at Pages 27441-27442.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit reply comments to the Copyright Office (CO) regarding its proposed rules regarding verification of statements of account submitted by cable operators and satellite carriers. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 90, May 9, 2013, at Pages 27137-27153.

Deadline to submit comments to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to amend its rules regarding use of body imaging technology at airports. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 58, March 26, 2013, at Pages 18287-18302, and July 15, 2011 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) in EPIC v. DHS.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Energy (DOE) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the Version 5 Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards, CIP-002-5 through CIP-011-1, submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which pertain to the cyber security of the bulk electric system. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 79, April 24, 2013, at Pages 24107-24124.

Deadline to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) oppositions to the January 28, 2013 petition for reconsideration of Boeing of the FCC's rules regarding the use of earth stations aboard aircraft communicating with fixed-satellite service geostationary-orbit space stations operating in the 10.95-11.2 GHz, 11.45-11.7 GHz, 11.7-12.2 GHz and 14.0-14.5 GHz Bands. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 110, June 7, 2013, at Page 34309.

Day one of a two day event titled "22nd Annual Computers, Freedom, & Privacy Conference". See, conference web site. Location: Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Day two of a three day conference hosted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) titled "Increasing Market and Planning Efficiency Through Improved Software". See, conference web site. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 60, March 28, 2013, at Pages 18974-18975. Location: FERC, Rooms 3M-2, 3M-3, and 3M-4, 888 First St., NE.

Day two of a two day conference hosted by the ASAN Institute for Policy Studies titled "The Enduring Alliance: Celebrating the 60th Anniversary of ROK-US Relations". Registration required. The deadline to register is June 21. See, notice. Location: Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center.

9:00 - 10:30 AM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a panel discussion titled "Confronting Global Anti-Competitive Market Distortions". The speakers will be Edward Alden (Council on Foreign Relations), Shanker Singham (Squire Sanders), and Stephen Ezell (ITIF), See, notice. Location: ITIF/ITIC, Suite 610A, 1101 K St., NW.

1:00 - 3:00 PM. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee (HSINAC) will meet via teleconference. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 111, June 10, 2013, at Pages 34665-34666.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Advanced iPad for Lawyers". The speakers will be Adriana Linares (LawTech Partners) and Malcolm Harsch (ABA). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

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

16th anniversary of the Supreme Court's opinion in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).

Day two of a two day event titled "22nd Annual Computers, Freedom, & Privacy Conference". See, conference web site. Location: Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Day three of a three day conference hosted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) titled "Increasing Market and Planning Efficiency Through Improved Software". See, conference web site. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 60, March 28, 2013, at Pages 18974-18975. Location: FERC, Rooms 3M-2, 3M-3, and 3M-4, 888 First St., NE.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) National Medal of Technology and Innovation Nomination Evaluation Committee will hold a closed meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 114, June 13, 2013, at Pages 35604-35605. Location: USPTO, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a three day meeting of the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics' (RTCA) RTCA Special Committee 223, Airport Surface Wireless Communications. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 106, June 3, 2013, at Page 33145. Location: Booz Allen Hamilton, Suite 5140, 1201 Maryland Ave., SW.

9:30 AM. The Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA) and Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (JCPES) will host an event titled "The X-Factors of Tech Policy Today: Keeping Pace in the Broadband Race". The speakers will be Robert Yadon (Digital Policy Institute), Barry Umansky (Digital Policy Institute), John Horrigan (JCPES), Rick Boucher (IIA), Maurita Coley (Minority Media and Telecommunications Council). Breakfast will be served. Register by e-mailing info at internetinnovation dot org. See, notice. Location: JCPES, 2nd Floor, 805 15th St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law will host an on site and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Battling IT Theft and Unfair Competition: Enforcers Use A New Approach". The speakers will discuss recent state enforcement actions using state unfair competition statutes against manufacturers in Thailand, India and China that lowered their costs by using stolen technology, thereby unfairly competing against in state companies not using stolen technology. The speakers will be Rob McKenna (Orrick), Bill Kovacic (George Washington University Law School and former FTC Chairman), Tiffany Adams (National Association of Manufacturers), and Emilio Varanini (California Department of Justice). Free. No CLE credits. See, notice. Location: Constantine Cannon, Suite 1050 East, 1301 K St., NW.

12:00 NOON. Georgetown University's (GU) Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy (GCBPP) will host a panel discussion titled "The Elephant Stumbles? Are India's Trade Policies Hurting its Growth Prospects?" The speakers will be Swaminathan Aiyar (Times of India), Rob Atkinson (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation), Nelson Cunningham (McLarty Associates), Bradford Jensen (GU), and Bob Vastine (GU). Free. Open to the public. Lunch will be served. See, notice. Location: Room B-318, Rayburn Building.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "Growing as a Young Lawyer: The Necessary Skills to Succeed". The speakers will be Erin Dozier (National Association of Broadcasters), Stacy Fuller (Directv), David Redl (Counsel, House Commerce Committee), Natalie Roisman (Wilkinson Barker Knauer), and David Furth (FCC's PSHSB). For more information, contact Justin Faulb at jfaulb at eckertseamans dot com or Lindsey Tonsager at ltonsager at cov dot com. Free. Location: Arnold & Porter, 555 12th St., NW.

1:00 PM. The US Telecom will host a webcast seminar titled "Satellite Broadband as a Business Opportunity". The speakers will be Dan Turak (ViaSat), Mark Wymer (HughesNet), and Joseph Widoff (Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Association). Free. See, notice.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Engineering and Technical Practice Committee will host an event titled "Lend Us Your Pinnas: The Debate over RF Exposure Limits and the Effect on Future Wireless Technologies". The speakers will be __. CLE credits. Prices vary. No webcast. See, notice. Location:__.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the assessment and collection of regulatory fees. This NPRM is FCC 13-74 in MD Docket Nos. 12-201, 13-140, and 08-6. The FCC adopted it on May 22, 2013, and released it on May 23. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 111, June 10, 2013, at Pages 34612-34634.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day two of a three day meeting of the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics' (RTCA) RTCA Special Committee 223, Airport Surface Wireless Communications. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 106, June 3, 2013, at Page 33145. Location: RTCA, Inc., Suite 910, 1150 18th St., NW.

DATE AND TIME CHANGE. 11:00 - 12:30 AM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host an event titled "Is Technology Responsible for American Job Loss?". The speakers will be Robert Atkinson (ITIF), Andrew McAfee (MIT business school), and Edward Luce (Financial Times). McAffee is a co-author of the book [Amazon Kindle edition] titled "Race Against The Machine: How the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy". See, notice. Location: ITIF/ITIC, Suite 610A, 1101 K St., NW.

10:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is scheduled to hold an event titled "Open Meeting". See, notice. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, TW-C305, 445 12th St., SW.

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

8:45 AM - 6:00 PM. Day one of a two day conference hosted by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law titled "Retrospective Analysis of Agency Determinations in Merger Transactions Symposium". The speakers will include Bill Kovacic (George Washington University Law School and former FTC Chairman), Edith Ramirez (FTC Chairman), Maureen Ohlhausen (FTC Commissioner), John Davies (OECD), and others. Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice. Location: George Washington University Law School, 2000 H St., NW.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day three of a three day meeting of the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics' (RTCA) RTCA Special Committee 223, Airport Surface Wireless Communications. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 106, June 3, 2013, at Page 33145. Location: RTCA, Inc., Suite 910, 1150 18th St., NW.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "The Big Data IP Problem: Big Issues for Big Data". The speakers will be Catherine Delcin ( Delcin Consulting Group), Chrissie Scelsi, Marie-Andrée Weiss, and William Jolley. Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (PN) requesting comments that supplement the record regarding the 600 MHz wireless band plan. This PN is DA 13-1157 in GN Docket No. 12-268. See also, statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai explaining that this PN has "substantive and procedural infirmities that I fear will lead the incentive auction rulemaking astray".See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 101, May 24, 2013, at Pages 31472-31475.

Deadline to submit applications to the Department of Commerce's (DOC) International Trade Administration (ITA) membership on the U.S.-Brazil CEO Forum. The term of the current representatives to the U.S. Section will expire August 12, 2013. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 103, May 29, 2013, at Page 32239.

Effective date of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) 911 bounce back rules. The FCC adopted these rules in its Report and Order, adopted on May 8 and released on May 17, 2013. This R&O is FCC 13-64 in PS Docket Nos. 11-153 and 10-255 The FCC set the effective date in its notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 103, May 29, 2013, at Pages 32169-32179. See also, May 29 Public Notice.

8:45 AM - 4:15 PM. Day two of a two day conference hosted by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law titled "Retrospective Analysis of Agency Determinations in Merger Transactions Symposium". Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice. Location: George Washington University Law School, 2000 H St., NW.

The House will not meet the week of July 1 through July 5. See, House calendar for the 113th Congress, 1st Session.

The Senate will not meet the week of July 1 through July 5. See, Senate calendar for the 113th Congress, 1st Session.

Effective date of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) new COPPA rules. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 12, January 17, 2013, at Pages 3971-4014. See also, story titled "FTC Releases Expanded COPPA Rules" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,494, December 19, 2012.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (PN) requesting input and data on mobile wireless competition to assist the FCC in preparing a report titled "Seventeenth Annual Report on the State of Competition in Mobile Wireless". This PN is DA 13-1139 in WT Docket No. 13-135.

Deadline to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) replies to oppositions to the petition for reconsideration of the FCC's booster order filed by Wilson Electronics and V-COMM. The FCC adopted and released that Report and Order [106 pages in PDF] on February 20, 2013. It is FCC 13-21 in WT Docket No. 10-4. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 109, June 6, 2013, at Page 34015.

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 1998-2013 David Carney. All rights reserved.