|News Briefs from July
Bush Picks Bybee for OLC
7/10. President Bush announced his intent to nominate Jay Bybee to be
Assistant Attorney General for the Office of
Legal Counsel (OLC). Other former heads of the OLC include Chief Justice
William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, former Attorney General William Barr,
and 4th Circuit Judge Mike Luttig.
Bybee is a professor at the University of
Nevada Law School. Prior to that he was a professor at Louisiana State
University Law School from 1991 to 1998. He was an Associate Counsel to
former President Bush. Prior to that he worked at the Department of Justice in
the Office of Legal Policy and then in the Civil Division. And before that
he was an associate in Washington DC law firm of Sidley & Austin. See, White
House release and UNLV
Walker to Leave SEC
7/10. Richard Walker, Director of the Division of Enforcement at
announced that he will leave the SEC and return to the private sector. He has
not yet accepted a new position. See, SEC release. During his
tenure, the Enforcement Division created an Office of
Internet Enforcement and began the SEC's efforts against online securities
More People and Appointments
7/10. President Bush announced his intent to nominate Mark Olson
to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the
remainder of a 14 year term expiring January 31, 2010. He was previously
Staff Director of the Securities Subcommittee for the Senate Banking Committee. See, release.
7/10. President Bush nominated Harvey Pitt to be a Member of the SEC
for a term expiring June 5, 2005. He will replace Isaac Hunt. See, release.
7/10. President Bush nominated Michael Melloy to be a U.S. Circuit Judge
for the Eighth Circuit. See. release.
7/10. Senate Democrats announced new additions to committees to reflect the
Democratic control of the Senate following Sen.
Jim Jeffords' (VT) switch. Sen. John
Edwards (D-NC) was added to the Senate
Judiciary Committee. Also, Sen. Bill
Nelson (D-FL) was added to the Senate
Stern joined the Washington DC office of the law firm of Wilmer Cutler & Pickering as a partner. He
was previously an aide to former President Clinton. He will focus on
congressional investigations and crisis management. See, WCP release [PDF].
Markle Foundation Advocates Internet Regulation
7/10. The Markle Foundation released a report [3.86 MB
in PDF] based on public opinion polls and focus groups studies titled
"Toward a Framework for Internet Accountability" at events at the
National Press Club and on Capitol Hill. The report advocates taxing sales over
the Internet, and regulation of the Internet. See also, Markle release.
The poll was conducted by Greenberg
Quinlan & Rosner. Stan Greenberg, who was a pollster for Bill Clinton,
and Zoe Baird, President of the Markle Foundation, presented the report. It is a
massive 108 pages, packed with tables, bar charts, and thermometers depicting
responses to poll questions. It is part study, and part advocacy. The questions
were selected and worded to provide support for the policy objectives of the
Among the major conclusions of the report are that a majority of the American
public believe that "the government should develop rules to protect people
when they are on the Internet", that "Businesses and people on the
Internet can't be trusted to regulate themselves", that companies should
have opt-in privacy policies, and that e-commerce should be taxed.
Other than regulation in general, and privacy and taxes in particular, the
report reveals little about public attitudes about many other current Internet
public policy issues. For example, the poll asked individuals to rate their
concerns about the Internet, from a list provided by the pollster. The list
included Internet pormography, privacy, hacking, and other topics. However,
respondents were not given the option of naming spam. Nor did this question, or
any other question contained in the report, address antitrust issues (such as
Microsoft's conduct) or intellectual property issues (such as peer to peer music
file copying). Nor does the Markle report examine public attitudes about the
"digital divide" or promoting broadband access (such as with the
Tauzin Dingell bill).
Privacy. The report states by 64% to 32% the public favors the government
developing new rules for the Internet. Then, on the next page, the report states
that the public favors opt-in to opt-out privacy practices by 58% to 37%. The
wording of this question did not reference the government mandating privacy
Taxes. The report contains poll results on taxing Internet commerce. It
found that 60% of respondents answered affirmatively to the statement,
"On-line commerce should be subject to the same taxes as other commerce, so
that Internet businesses do not have an artificial advantage over other
businesses." The report contains no questions regarding bans on multiple
taxes, discriminatory taxes, or taxes on Internet access, which are the subject
of the current tax moratorium, as well as the legislation that is likely to pass
later this year extending the moratorium.
Filtering. When the pollsters asked respondents to name their concerns
about the Internet, "pormagraphy and violence on the Internet" was
named most (49%). "Protecting children on the Internet" came in second
(46%). "Privacy of information on the Internet" was third (34%). The
report presents follow up questions on privacy. The report contains no follow up
questions on pormagraphy or protecting children. There is no question in the
report regarding whether respondents favor mandating the use of filtering by
schools and libraries, or protecting children from material on the Internet that
is harmful to minors. Also, while the report touts the statistic that 64% favor
government rules, the report does not explore what kinds of rules the public
wants -- i.e., privacy rules, filtering rules, spam rules, or what.
Lessig Condemns Congress and Courts on Intellectual Property
Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School, participated in a panel
discussion on the Markle Report at the Capitol Hill event. He did not discuss
the report. Instead, he offered his analysis of intellectual property on the
Internet, discrimination in Internet architecture, and other issues not
addressed by the Markle report.
Copyright. Lessig stated that "if we focus now on what have the
priorities of the government been, both the legislative and judicial priorities,
it, of course, has been the priorities of Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti, and
not the priorities of the American people." He continued that "Privacy
is an extremely important issue. The legislative response has been, 'Well, let's
go slow. Let's let the market take care of itself.' " In contrast,
"the legislative response has been to radically increase the legislative
support for the protection of copyrights. The same thing in the context of the
judiciary branch. In context of the number one priority of protecting children
from access to pormography in cyberspace, the judicial response has been, 'We
have got to go slow; we have got to make sure that any regulations are actually
effective, and we don't harm free speech in cyberspace.' In the context of
copyright, the courts' response has been 'Let's go as quickly as we can to make
sure that we stop all violations of copyright in cyberspace.' " (Hillary
Rosen is P/CEO of the Recording Industry
Association of America; Jack Valenti is P/CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America.)
Code. Lessig also reiterated the thesis of his book, Code
and other Laws of Cyberspace. He stated that "the significant issue
about governance in cyberspace is the way in which the architecture matters. The
architecture of cyberspace is the space where rules are set. And it is a
pathetic, incomplete analysis that most of us have about cyberspace to think
that it is really about what legislators say. The real legislators are the code
Discriminatory Internet Architecture. Lessig also lamented that the
Internet is becoming less of a neutral platform. He stated that "the
Internet is a library because its architecture is neutral. It is a neutral
platform. ... Barnes and Noble is not a library. Cable companies are not a
libraries. The problem with the emerging architecture of cyberspace is that the
architecture itself is becoming a platform where discrimination is enabled. The
generation of broadband technologies is the generation where the owners of the
platform, the cable companies, will have the rights, and in Broward County, a
First Amendment right, to discriminate in the kind of content ... ." (See,
District Court opinion in Comcast
v. Broward County.)
SEC Files Complaint Against PacketSwitch
7/10. The SEC announced that it filed a
civil complaint in U.S. District Court (NDCal) against Packet
Switch and its principal, Steven Ristau, alleging violation of federal
securities laws in connection with the sale of securities in a corporation set
up to develop a wireless Internet technology by which movies could be viewed via
the Internet. The complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented that they
had a new technology that allowed it to broadcast movies wirelessly over the
Internet, and that they had or were in the process of obtaining patents. The
complaint alleges violation of §§ 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
and § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
against Ristau and Packet Switch. It also alleges violation of § 15(a) of the
Exchange Act (broker dealer registration) against Ristau. See, release.
Trade Subcommittee Holds Hearing on China Trade
7/10. The House Ways and Means
Committee's Subcommittee on Trade held a hearing on renewal of Normal Trade
Relations with the People's Republic of China. Rep. Philip Crane (R-IL), Chairman of the
Subcommittee, said in his prepared
statement that "we must keep the momentum moving forward toward our
common goal of integrating China into the international system of rules and
standards. It is my judgment that, after 15 years, we are almost there. ...
slapping China through revocation of NTR will not bring about the changes that
we all seek in China."
See also, prepared statements of witnesses: Rep.
Frank Wolf (R-VA), Nancy
Pelosi (D-CA), Rep.
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Rep.
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Jeffrey
Bader (Assistant USTR China, Hong Kong, Mongolia, and Taiwan), Bob
Stallman (American Farm Bureau Federation), Gary
Benanav (New York Life), Robert
Kapp (U.S. China Business Council), and Calman
Cohen (Emergency Committee for American Trade).
Fed Circuit Rules in Patent Case
7/10. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion in Door
Master v. Yorktowne, a patent infringement case involving cabinet
door design. The Appeals Court held that the District Court correctly declined
to enter judgment as a matter of law, thereby allowing the jury's findings of
validity and infringement to stand. Also, the District Court did not abuse its
discretion in declining to award attorney fees. Affirmed.
GAO Reports Information Security Weaknesses at Interior Dept.
7/10. The GAO released
a study [PDF] titled
"Information Security: Weak Controls Place Interior's Financial and
Other Data at Risk." The GAO examined "information system general
controls over the financial systems maintained by the Department of the Interior
at its National Business Center (NBC) in Denver, CO." It concluded that
"weaknesses were identified in NBC-Denver’s information system control
environment. Specifically, NBC-Denver had not adequately limited users access,
controlled system software, secured network access, or established a program to
comprehensively monitor access. Also, NBC-Denver was not providing adequate
physical security, segregating computer functions, controlling changes to
application programs, or ensuring that all aspects of its service continuity
needs were addressed. These weaknesses placed sensitive NBC-Denver financial and
personnel information at risk of disclosure, critical financial operations at
risk of disruption, and assets at risk of loss."
Computerized Voting Systems
7/10. The FEC
published a notice
in the Federal Register that it requests comments on proposed revisions to the
1990 national voluntary performance standards for computerized voting systems.
Comments are due by September 10, 2001. See, Federal Register, July 10, 2001,
Vol. 66, No. 132, at Pages 35978 - 35980.
Powell Meets with CLEC CEOs
7/10. FCC Chairman Michael
Powell met with the CEOs of a dozen competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs).
release. The agenda included "what has worked and what has not worked
in terms of CLEC market entry; what issues relate to the successes or failures
of CLEC access to capital markets; to what extent CLEC success or failure
can be attributed to business/market decisions as compared to policy/regulatory
decisions; what is necessary for the CLEC industry to succeed; are there any
technological limitations that pose challenges to the success of the CLEC
industry; and what, if anything, can the FCC do, consistent with the law and
principled economics, to support local communications competition beyond what it
has already done."
Davis and Moran Reintroduce Cyber Security Bill
7/10. Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) and Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) introduced the
Cyber Security Information Act of 2001. They also sponsored similar legislation
in the 106th Congress. The bill is intended to give critical infrastructure
industries incentives to share information in order to fight cyber threats. Rep.
Davis stated that "Many in the private sector have expressed strong support
for information sharing models, but have also expressed concerns about
voluntarily sharing information with the government and the unintended
consequences they could face for acting in good faith. There has been concern,
for example, that industry could potentially face antitrust violations for
sharing information with other industry partners; have their shared information
be subject to the Freedom of Information Act; or face potential liability
concerns for information shared in good faith. This bill addresses all of those
concerns." See, Davis release.
Industry groups praised the bill. See, release
of the Information Technology Association of America, and release
of the Chamber of Commerce.
7/10. The House Judiciary Committee
No. 107-125, regarding HR 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act.
8th Circuit Rules on Prisoner's Use of Computer
7/9. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (8thCir) issued its opinion in Cody
v. Weber, a case regarding a prisoner's constitutional right of
access to the courts in the context of his use of a personal computer and
electronic storage media, and searches of his electronic records by prison
officials. The Appeals Court held that the prisoner was not entitled to keep his
Background. William Cody has been serving a life sentence for murder in
the South Dakota State Penitentiary since 1978. He is now a jailhouse lawyer who
occupies his time by filing lawsuits against prison officials, and others. He
first acquired a PC in 1982. He has around one hundred computer disks on which
he has stored personal and legal data, including communications with real
attorneys. In 1996 the prison changed its policy, and required Cody to dispose
of his PC. It allowed him to print out files. Cody filed a complaint in U.S.
District Court (DSD)
against prison officials alleging numerous claims. Cody appealed the District
Court's summary judgment on three claims: his right to retain his computer;
reading of his electronic records by prison officials; and retaliation by prison
officials for filing lawsuits.
Prisoner's Use of PC. The District Court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the claim regarding use of a computer. It held that he was
not entitled to continued use of his computer. The Appeals Court affirmed. The
issue was not whether a prisoner has a right to use a computer. Rather, Cody
argued that since his notes were in electronic format, it would be a denial of
his right of access to the courts to deny him access to a computer to access his
notes. The Appeals Court, noting that the prison allowed him to print out any
files, rejected his argument. It concluded that he suffered no injury, which is
a required element of claim for denial of access to the courts.
Search of Electronic Records. The District Court granted defendants'
motion for summary judgment on the claim regarding unauthorized reading of his
computer records on the grounds that there was no actual injury. The Appeals
Court reversed, holding that Cody had raised genuine issues of material fact as
to whether his records had been searched, and whether he had been injured -- by
being disadvantaged in ongoing litigation.
The Court of Appeals also reversed the District Court on the retaliation claim.
The opinion was split. Judge Gibson wrote the opinion of the Court; Judge
McMillian joined. Judge Beam would have upheld the District Court in full.
7/9. The USPTO published a notice
of proposed rulemaking regarding elimination of continued prosecution
application (CPA) practice as to utility and plant patent applications. See,
Federal Register, July 9, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 131, at Pages 35763 - 35765. The
notice stated that the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 enacted
provisions for the continued examination of a utility or plant application at
the request of the applicant, and therefore, "there no longer appears to be
a need for continued prosecution application (CPA) practice as to utility and
plant applications. Thus, the Office is proposing to eliminate CPA practice as
to utility and plant applications. An applicant for a utility or plant patent
may also continue to effectively obtain further examination of the application
by filing a continuing application under section 1.53(b). Since RCE practice
does not apply to design applications, CPA practice will remain in place for
design applications." Written comments must be received on or before
September 7, 2001.
RIM Wins Patent Infringement Suit
7/9. The U.S. District Court (NDCal) granted summary
judgment to Research in Motion (RIM),
maker of the Blackberry wireless e-mail devices, in Glenayre's action for infringement of U.S.
Patent No. 5,631,503. The Court found that RIM's products did not infringe
the patent in suit, which discloses a battery based power generation technique
for use in wireless communication devices. Glenayre stated that it will seek
reconsideration by the District Court. See, Glenayre release.
DrKoop Settles Securities Litigation
7/9. Drkoop.com announced that it has
reached a tentative agreement to settle the consolidated securities class action
lawsuit filed against it and several former and current officers and directors
in the U.S. District Court (WDTex). It stated that it will
pay $4.25 Million. See, drkoop
Bush Names New NSTAC Members
7/9. President Bush announced his intent to appoint six people to the
President's National Security
Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC): Daniel Burnham (Raytheon
Company), Joseph Nacchio (Qwest), Van Honeycutt (Computer Sciences Corporation),
Clay Jones (Rockwell Collins), and David Cote (TRW). Duane Ackerman (BellSouth).
In addition, Burnham will become Chairman, and Nacchio will become Vice
Chairman. The NSTAC was created by President Reagan by Executive Order 12382 in
September of 1982. It provides information and advice to the President from the
perspective of the telecommunications industry regarding the telecommunications
aspects of national security. See, release.
9th Circuit Affirms Copyright Infringement Judgment
7/9. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion
[PDF] in Columbia
v. Krypton, a copyright infringement case. Krypton Broadcasting
operated three TV stations that licensed programs from Columbia Broadcasting.
Elvin Feltner was its principal. The stations failed to make timely licensing
payments. Columbia terminated the licensing agreements. The stations continued
to air the programs. Columbia filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (CDCal)
against Krypton and Feltner alleging copyright infringement. The District Court
found Feltner vicariously and contributorily liable for the copyright
infringement committed by the TV stations, and awarded $31.68 Million in
statutory damages. Feltner appealed. The Appeals Court affirmed.
7/9. The ICANN published
in its web site a document titled A
Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS. See also, comment
by Stuart Lynn, President and
CEO of ICANN.
7/9. Former Rep. Richard
Zimmer (R-NJ) joined the Washington DC office of the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher as of counsel in
the firm's Corporations Department and its Public Policy Group. He was a Member
of Congress from 1991 through 1997, and sat on the House Ways and Means
Committee. See, release.
7/9. Webvan, an online grocer, ceased all
operations. It stated that it intends to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition.
7/9. Comcast made an offer to acquire
AT&T's broadband businesses for 1.0525 Billion shares of Comcast stock,
which had a value of $44.5 Billion as of the closing price on Friday June 6.
release. AT&T responded that "We have no current plans to sell our
Broadband business." See, AT&T release.
7/9. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued an opinion in Hallco
v. Foster, a patent infringement action. The Appeals Court
vacated and remanded.
First Amendment Trumps IP Rights in Tootsie Case
7/6. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion
[PDF] in Hoffman
v. LA Magazine, reversing the District Court's holding that the LA Magazine had misappropriated actor Dustin
Hoffman's name and likeness by publishing a fake photo of him in women's cloths.
The Appeals Court invoked New
York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark First Amendment case protecting serious
journalism, to insulate a publisher of a fake celebrity photo from intellectual
property claims. While the suit is over publication of a computer altered photo
of Hoffman, the intellectual property issues involved in the case will affect a
broad range of other fact patterns.
Facts. Dustin Hoffman starred in a 1982 movie titled "Tootsie"
in which he played the part of a straight man who dressed up as a woman to get
an acting job. In 1997 LA Magazine (LAM) published an altered photograph from
the movie. It did not obtain the permission of either Hoffman or the copyright
holder, Columbia pictures. LAM used computer technology to alter a still
photograph from the movie to depict Hoffman in a Richard Tyler gown and Ralph
Lauren heels. The caption referenced the Lauren heels; Lauren advertised in the
Complaint. Hoffman filed a complaint in California state court against
LAM's parent company, Capital Cities/ABC (now ABC), alleging that LAM's
publication of the altered photograph misappropriated Hoffman's name and
likeness in violation of the California common law right of publicity, the
California statutory right of publicity (Civil Code § 3344), the California
unfair competition statute (Business and Professions Code § 17200), and the
federal Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). The defendant removed the case to
U.S. District Court (CDCal).
Hoffman later added LAM as a defendant.
District Court. The District Court held for Hoffman on all claims against
LAM. It also rejected LAM's First Amendment defense, holding that the
"First Amendment does not protect the exploitative commercial use of Mr.
Hoffman's name and likeness." The Court also awarded Hoffman $1.5 Million
in compensatory damages and $1.5 Million in punitives.
Appeals Court. A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, and
directed that judgment for LAM be entered. In many recent cases defendants have
sought unsuccessfully to avoid the consequences of intellectual property laws by
invoking the First Amendment clause protecting "freedom of speech or of the
press". However, in this case, the Court reversed on First Amendment
grounds. The Court held that the publication of the picture in question was not
commercial speech. It further held that since Hoffman is a public figure, he
could only prevail by showing actual malice, that its, "reckless disregard
for the truth" or a "high degree of awareness of probable
falsity", pursuant to New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). But,
the Court reasoned, there was no falsity, because the LAM article stated that
the photo was a fake. Robert Boochever wrote the opinion; Wallace Tashima and
Richard Tallman joined.
6th Circuit Holds Implied in Fact Contract Claims not
Preempted by Copyright Act
7/6. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (6thCir) issued its opinion
in Wrench v.
Taco Bell, a case involving preemption of state law contract and
tort remedies by the federal Copyright Act.
Background. The plaintiffs, Wrench LLC and its two principals, are the
creators of a cartoon character named "Psycho Chihauhua." Following
discussions with the plaintiffs, the defendant, Taco Bell, began an ad campaign
featuring a Chihuahua dog similar to that developed by plaintiffs, but without
plaintiffs' permission. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (WDMich)
against Taco Bell, based upon diversity of citizenship, in which they plead
various implied contract and tort causes of action.
District Court Opinions. The trial court issued three opinions. It
granted summary judgment to Taco Bell on the grounds that the Copyright Act
preempted all of the claims, including those based on breach of an implied in
fact contract. The trial court also held that plaintiffs' concept lacked the
novelty necessary to sustain their claims. (See, 1998 WL 480871, 36 F. Supp. 2d
787, and 51 F. Supp. 2d 840.)
Appeals Court. The Appeals Court reversed. The preemption language of the
Copyright Act, found at § 301,
provides that a state common law or statutory claim is preempted if the work is
within the scope of the "subject matter of copyright," as specified in
§§ 102 and
103, and, the rights granted under state law are equivalent to any exclusive
rights within the scope of federal copyright as set out in § 106. The
Appeals Court held that neither the subject matter nor equivalency prongs of the
test were satisfied, and hence, there is no preemption. It held that since the
plaintiffs' claims pertain to intangible ideas and concepts, they do not come
within the subject matter of copyright; § 102(b) expressly excludes
intangible ideas and concepts. It also held that an implied in fact contract
claim under Michigan law contains the additional element of expectation of
compensation, which is not an element of a § 106 claim, and hence, not
equivalent. The Appeals Court also held that the Michigan Courts would not
impose a novelty requirement in an implied in fact contract claim.
7/6. Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA),
Chairman of the House Commerce
Committee, and Rep. Fred Upton
(R-MI), Chairman of the Telecom Subcommittee, wrote a letter to Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), Chairman of
the House Rules Committee, regarding
the Torricelli amendment. This is an amendment to the McCain Feingold campaign
finance bill that imposes a new lowest unit charge rule on broadcasters,
cable operators, and satellite providers. Tauzin and Upton requested that
the Rules Committee craft a rule that would delete the provision from the base
text of the Shays Meehan bill, yet permit its proponents to offer an amendment
on the House floor.
On June 28, 2001, the House Administration
Committee reported two bills. HR 2360,
sponsored by Rep. Robert Ney (R-OH) and Rep. Al Wynn (D-MD), was reported
2356, sponsored by Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA), was
reported unfavorably. HR 2356 more closely resembles S 27, the
McCain Feingold bill, which passed the Senate on April 2 after a long and
contentious debate. It contains the Torricelli amendment.
Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) is an
unlikely sponsor of campaign finance reform legislation. Torricelli, and current
and former staff members, are currently being investigated by U.S. Attorney Mary
Jo White (SDNY)
for violation of campaign finance laws. Several persons have already plead
guilty to making illegal contributions to his campaign.
DC Circuit Upholds OTARD Order
7/6. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion
Owners and Managers Assoc. Intl. v. FCC, a petition for review of
rule prohibiting restrictions on certain over the air reception devices (aka
OTARD) that are designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, video
programming services via multipoint distribution services, or TV broadcast
signals. Several trade associations challenged the FCC's order on the grounds
that it exceeds the statutory authority of the FCC, constitutes an
unconstitutional taking, and is arbitrary and capricious. Petition denied.
Judge Rogers wrote the opinion, in which Randolph and Garland concurred. In
addition, Randolph wrote a separate concurance to state that he would have
overruled Bell Atlantic v. FCC, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
WTO Chief Condemns "Anti Globalization Dot Com
Director General Mike Moore gave a speech in
Geneva, Switzerland, titled "Open Societies, Freedom, Development and
Trade". It was a condemnation of the hooligans who use violence to try to
stop WTO meetings from taking place. He criticized the "mindless,
undemocratic enemies of the open society who have as a stated aim the prevention
of Ministers and our leaders from even meeting."
However, Moore also stated that "It would strengthen the hand of those who
seek change if NGOs distance themselves from masked stone-throwers who claim to
want more transparency, anti-globalization dot.com-types who trot out slogans
that are trite, shallow and superficial. This will not do as a substitute for
civilized discourse." He did not explain what he meant by the phrase
7/5. DG Moore also gave a speech in
Interlaken, Switzerland, in which he again advocated a new round of multilateral
7/6. The NCTA filed its reply brief [PDF]
with the Supreme Court of the U.S. in NCTA v. Gulf Power Company, the
pole attachments case.
Go to News Briefs from July 1-5, 2001.