2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of 10b5 Complaint Against Merrill Lynch for Hyping Internet Stocks

1/20. The U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) issued its opinion [45 pages in PDF] in Lentell v. Merrill Lynch, a consolidated class action case against Merrill Lynch and one of its research analysts alleging securities fraud for issuing falsely optimistic reports recommending that investors purchase stock of two internet companies. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal for failure to satisfy the pleading requirements of Section 10b5 and the PSLRA. Basically, the Appeals Court held that the complaint failed to plead loss causation. See, full story.

7th Circuit Rules in Zenith v. WH-TV

1/20. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its opinion in Zenith v. WH-TV, a contract dispute involving the sale of television set top boxes. The Appeals Court affirmed the District Court's summary judgment for Zenith.

This case is a 21st Century Hadley v. Baxendale. First year law students, and former 1Ls, may be interested to know that Judge Frank Easterbrook, who wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, cited the case decided in 1854 by the English Court of Exchequer.

At issue is what consequential damages might a purchaser recover for breach of contract. In Hadley v. Baxendale the plaintiffs owned a mill. A crankshaft broke, and had to be sent to the manufacturer for replacement. Meanwhile, the mill was shut down. Plaintiff hired defendant to carry the broken shaft to the manufacturer. The defendant promised delivery in one day, but took much longer. The plaintiff/purchaser sued the defendant/seller for breach of contract, and sought the consequential damages of profits lost during the extended shutdown of the mill. The Court of Exchequer held that, with certain exceptions, the buyer cannot obtain consequential damages for breach of contract.

In the present case, WH-TV broadcasts a digital television signal in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Zenith makes, among other things, set top boxes that convert the digital input into an analog output that TV sets can display. WH-TV wanted to purchase set top boxes for its customers that use the digital video broadcasting (DVB) standard. Zenith represented to WH-TV that it had for sale set top boxes that met the DVB standard. However, WH-TV had in mind a 1998 standard, while Zenith sold WH-TV boxes that met a 1995 standard. After WH-TV bought the set top boxes in 1999, its customers encountered technical difficulties, and it lost customers.

Zenith sued first, in U.S. District Court (NDIll), claiming non-payment for its out of date set top boxes. WH-TV counterclaimed, for breach of contract, and claimed as damages lost profits that it asserts it would have made had it originally used set top boxes meeting the 1998 standard. That is, it sought consequential damages.

The District Court granted summary judgment to Zenith, on both Zenith's claim for payment, and on WH-TV's claim for damages, relying upon the doctrine of Hadley v. Baxendale.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. It first wrote that "A trier of fact could find that Zenith misled WH-TV or at least withheld material information and that the consequences were unhappy for WH-TV and its customers: the broadcaster lost business ..."

However, it did not allow WH-TV to proceed to trial on damages for lost profits.  Although, much of the opinion addresses admissibility of evidence and expert testimony.

This case is Zenith Electronics Corp. v. WH-TV Broadcasting Corp., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 04-1635 & 04-1790, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, D.C. No. 01 C 4366, Judge George Lindberg presiding. Judge Easterbrook wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Kane and Evans joined.

People and Appointments

1/20. President Bush took the oath of office for a second term. He also gave an inaugural address in which he said nothing about technology.

1/20. The Senate confirmed Mike Johanns to be Secretary of Agriculture.

1/20. The Senate confirmed Margaret Spellings to be Secretary of Education.

More News

1/20. The U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its opinion [14 pages in PDF] in Teletronics International, Inc. v. CNA Insurance Company, a case regarding whether an insurance policy covering advertising injuries obligated the insurer to defend and indemnify its insured in a copyright infringement action. The District Court granted summary judgment to the insurer. The Court of Appeals reversed, and directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for the insured. This is an unpublished opinion, No. 04-1509, in an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt, D.C. No. CA-03-1348-AW.

FRB's Bernanke Addresses Productivity Growth and Information Technology

1/19. Federal Reserve Board (FRB) Governor Ben Bernanke gave a speech titled "Productivity" at a Council on Foreign Relations event.  He addressed the relation between productivity growth and the advancement and use of information and communications technologies (ICT).

Others at the FRB and elsewhere have examined this subject, and generally concluded that the rapid growth in productivity in the U.S. in the last decade is related to ICT. See, for example, October 24, 2002 speech by FRB Vice Chairman Roger Ferguson titled "Productivity Growth: A Realistic Assessment", and story titled "FRB Vice Chairman Addresses Impact of Computer and Software Technology on Productivity Gains" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 535, October 25, 2002. See also, October 23, 2002 speech by FRB Chairman Alan Greenspan and story titled "Greenspan Addresses Productivity Gains and Technological Innovation" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 534, October 24, 2002.

Bernanke's speech examined this relationship in light of more recent information and analysis, and attempts to explain some puzzles that challenge the convention understanding, such as why productivity growth did not pick up until 1995, even though new computer equipment and applications had been around for over a decade, and why other countries that have been adopting ICT have not obtained the same productivity growth as the U.S.

Bernanke (at right) then attempted to forecast future growth in productivity, and discussed what all this means for monetary and economic policy makers.

He first noted that "From the early 1970s until 1995, productivity growth in the U.S. nonfarm business sector averaged about 1-1/2 percent per year", but that from 1995 to 2001 it rose to 2-1/2 percent per year, and then to an average of 4 percent since 2001.

He said that ICT advances productivity growth as firms in a wide range of industries expand their investments in high-tech equipment and software and use the new technologies to reduce costs and increase quality. "For example", said Bernanke, "some large retailers, most notably Walmart, developed ICT-based tools to improve the management of their supply chains and to increase their responsiveness to changes in the level and mix of customer demand. Securities brokers and dealers achieved substantial productivity gains by automating their trading processes and their back-office operations."

He conclude, "Undoubtedly, the ICT revolution and the productivity resurgence in the United States after 1995 were closely connected, but several puzzles have arisen that challenge the view that ICT investment leads mechanically to higher productivity."

First, he said, there is the puzzle of why productivity grew in the U.S., but grew less in other countries where there was significant investment in ICT, particularly in the European Union.

He related that one hypothesis is that "European economies have been less successful in applying new technologies because of a relatively heavy regulatory burden that inhibits flexibility. For example, taking full advantage of new information and communication technologies may require extensive reorganization of work practices and the reallocation of workers among firms and industries. Regulations that raise the cost of hiring and firing workers and reduce employers' ability to change work assignments, as exist in a number of European countries, may make such changes difficult to achieve. Likewise, the presence of government-owned firms with a degree of monopoly power, together with restrictions on the entry of new firms, may diminish competitive pressures that often foster innovation and greater efficiency".

However, he said this hypothesis does not explain why the United Kingdom, which has a regulatory burden similar to the U.S., does not match the U.S. in productivity growth. So, Bernanke stated several other hypotheses. "A shortage of workers with appropriate skills may be part of the problem in the United Kingdom, as average educational attainment in that country is lower than in many other industrial countries. Skill shortages may have also been a factor in continental Europe, possibly because high youth unemployment has reduced opportunities for workers to acquire new skills on the job. Other suggested explanations for the relatively better productivity performance of the United States in recent years include the depth and flexibility of U.S. capital markets, its relatively open immigration policies (at least before 9/11), and the role of U.S. research universities in fostering innovation." (Parentheses in original.)

Next, he examined why productivity grew at an increased rate only after the mid 1990s, even though the information technology revolution started much sooner. He suggested that "much more than the purchase of new high-tech equipment is needed to achieve significant gains in productivity. First, managers must have a carefully thought-out plan for using new technologies before they acquire them."

He also argued that "investments in high-tech capital typically require complementary investments in intangible capital for productivity gains to be realized, the benefits of high-tech investment may become visible only after a period of time." That is, "managers must supplement their purchases of new equipment with investments in research and development, worker training, and organizational redesign -- all examples of what economists call intangible capital." He added that this may also mean developing new relationships with suppliers, and modification of management systems, and all of this takes time.

Bernanke predicted, with great uncertainty, that "continued growth in productivity in the range of, say, 2 percent to 2-1/2 percent per year probably represents a good baseline assumption".

People and Appointments

1/19. The Senate Judiciary Committee postponed its consideration of the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General.

1/19. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to favorably report the nomination of Condi Rice to be Secretary of State by a vote of 16-2.

More News

1/19. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register the describes and sets the effective date (January 31, 2005) for its final rule amending its rules of practice to adjust the fee for filing a trademark application for registration based on whether the application is filed on paper or electronically using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). That is, the news fee for a trademark application filed on paper is increased to $375.00 for each class of goods or services, and the fee for a trademark application filed through TEAS is decreased to $325.00 for each class of goods or services. See, Federal Register, January 19, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 12, at Pages 2952 - 2953.

1/19. The Copyright Office (CO) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that SoundExchange has filed with the CO three notices of intent to audit preexisting subscription services that transmit sound recordings under statutory licenses. See, Federal Register, January 19, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 12, at Pages 3069 - 3070.

1/19. The U.S. Court of Appeals (1stCir) issued an opinion in Global Naps v. Verizon New England, a case involving a dispute between a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) and an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) over an interconnection agreement. This case is App. Ct. No. 04-1711.

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in American Axle v. Dana

1/18. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in American Axle v. Dana, a patent case involving vehicle driveshafts. What is significant about this Supreme Court proceeding is that Google and eBay sought unsuccessfully to use this proceeding to obtain a Supreme Court ruling on procedure in patent litigation. The Supreme Court granted their motion to file an amicus curiae brief, but did not heed their recommendations. See, Order List [10 pages in PDF], at page 6.

Google and eBay do not care about vehicle driveshaft technology, American Axle and Manufacturing or Dana Corporation, or the patents in suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,643,093 and 5,637,042.

Rather, Google and eBay argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) should not have engaged in a de novo review of factual issues underlying the trial court's claim construction. They argued that this practice amounts to retrying cases, and that this results in longer uncertainty in the marketplace.

The two companies wrote in their amicus brief [17 pages in PDF] that "One of the primary functions of patents is to provide public notice of the exclusive rights of the patentee. This Court has reiterated that, for a patent to serve this public notice function, entities in the marketplace must have a significant degree of certainty in the construction of patent claims. Yet, the Federal Circuit’s de novo review of factual issues underlying a district court’s claim construction undermines certainty by giving rise to an untenably high reversal rate. Because the district court’s claim construction is not given the proper weight, patent litigants can treat the Federal Circuit as a court of first instance, thereby encouraging prolonged and wasteful litigation rather than innovation. The Federal Circuit’s failure to give greater deference to the district court’s underlying findings of fact is an outlier in the law, and it is therefore necessary for this Court to review the Federal Circuit’s rule of de novo review of all aspects of patent claim construction."

The amicus brief elaborated that "the establishment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may have improved intrajurisdictional uniformity", but its practice of giving "no deference to district court claim constructions has given rise to a new, and equally dangerous, form of uncertainty. Because the Federal Circuit regularly substitutes its own view of the evidence underlying claim construction for the determination made in the district court, it reverses claim construction rulings at a rate of over 33%, far higher than the reversal rate of any circuit court in the country and higher than the Federal Circuit reversal rate on any other issue." The brief added that "the problem is getting worse, not better. Recent data show that the Markman reversal rate is increasing with time."

"The result is that in virtually every patent case -- at least every one that turns upon claim construction—any dissatisfied litigant can treat the Federal Circuit almost as a court of first instance. Instead of setting forth the parameters of the case, and thereby providing a measure by which the parties can evaluate the merits of their case, the district court’s Markman ruling has become little more than a ``first take´´ on claim construction."

"In short," Google and eBay concluded, "with the current standard of review, all incentives point to more patent litigation and less resolution based on the merits of patent infringement claims and the inventions underlying them. The promotion of ``the Progress of Science and useful Arts´´ is subordinated to the tactics and costs of patent litigation."

Perhaps it is also notable that the original District Court action was filed in 1998. Moreover, Dana Corporation regularly writes in its 10-Q statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that "We are involved in various legal proceedings incidental to our business" and "the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty ..."

The amicus brief of Google and eBay was written by Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford University Law School, and Of Counsel at the law firm of Keker & Van Nest.

See also, February 12, 2002 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), which is also reported at 279 F.3d 1609. The Federal Circuit's August 2004 opinion is not precedential, and not in the Federal Circuit's web site.

This case is American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Dana Corporation, Sup. Ct. No. 04-717, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 01-1008. The Court of Appeals case is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, D.C. No. 98-74521.

FCC and USA File Brief in Brand X Case

1/18. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S.A. filed a brief [54 pages in PDF] with the Supreme Court in NCTA v. Brand X, a case regarding the regulatory classification of cable modem service. The FCC urges the Supreme Court to reverse the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir).

The FCC advances two arguments. First, it argues that its classification of cable modem service as an information service is a reasonable construction of the Communications Act. Second, it argues that the 9th Circuit's reasoning (applying the doctrine of stare decisis and its previous opinion in AT&T v. Portland) runs afoul of the doctrine announced by the Supreme Court in the Chevron case.

See also, related story titled "NCTA Files Brief with Supreme Court in Brand X Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,059, January 19, 2004.

On March 14, 2002, the FCC adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [75 pages in PDF]. The Declaratory Ruling (DR) component of this item states that "we conclude that cable modem service, as it is currently offered, is properly classified as an interstate information service, not as a cable service, and that there is no separate offering of telecommunications service." This item is FCC 02-77 in Docket No. 00-185 and Docket No. 02-52.

On October 6, 2003, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [39 pages in PDF], which is also published at 345 F.3d 1120, vacating the FCC's declaratory ruling. See, story titled "9th Circuit Vacates FCC Declaratory Ruling That Cable Modem Service is an Information Service Without a Separate Offering of a Telecommunications Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 754, October 7, 2003; and story titled "Reaction to 9th Circuit Opinion in Brand X Internet Services v. FCC" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 756, October 9, 2003.

The FCC's brief states that "The Communications Act does not directly address the classification of cable modem service. In the face of that statutory silence, the FCC reasonably concluded after careful study that cable modem service is properly classified as an ``information service,´´ without a separately regulated “telecommunications service” component, for purposes of the Communications Act."

The brief also states that "The Ninth Circuit refused even to consider whether the Commission’s decision was reasonable under Chevron standards, because it concluded instead that the Commission was obliged to follow the Ninth Circuit’s own prior construction of the Communications Act in Portland. The Ninth Circuit’s misguided no-deference view should be rejected."

See, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). See also, June 22, 2000 opinion of the 9th Circuit in AT&T v. Portland holding that cable modem service is a telecommunications service

The FCC brief continues, "Most fundamentally, the Ninth Circuit’s rule is inconsistent with Chevron’s recognition that Congress has delegated to the agency -- not the courts of appeals -- the primary authority to resolve statutory ambiguities. No decision of this Court requires adoption of the Ninth Circuit’s approach, which would subject a single agency decision to differing standards of review, thereby producing unseemly races to the courthouse, unnecessary conflicts in the circuits, and unfortunate situations in which (absent this Court's review) the meaning of federal statutes would be dispositively determined for the entire Nation by lone three-judge panels. The Ninth Circuit’s partial abrogation of Chevron should be overturned." (Parentheses in original.)

NCTA Files Brief with Supreme Court in Brand X Case

1/18. The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), and several cable companies, filed a brief [50 pages in PDF] with the Supreme Court in NCTA v. Brand X, a case regarding the regulatory classification of cable modem service. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which also sought review of the Court of Appeals opinion, wants internet access via cable to be treated as an information service, which carries less regulatory burdens, rather than as telecommunications. The NCTA brief emphasizes Chevron deference.

On March 14, 2002, the FCC adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [75 pages in PDF]. The Declaratory Ruling (DR) component of this item states that "we conclude that cable modem service, as it is currently offered, is properly classified as an interstate information service, not as a cable service, and that there is no separate offering of telecommunications service." This item is FCC 02-77 in Docket No. 00-185 and Docket No. 02-52.

On October 6, 2003, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [39 pages in PDF], which is also published at 345 F.3d 1120, vacating the FCC's declaratory ruling. See, story titled "9th Circuit Vacates FCC Declaratory Ruling That Cable Modem Service is an Information Service Without a Separate Offering of a Telecommunications Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 754, October 7, 2003; and story titled "Reaction to 9th Circuit Opinion in Brand X Internet Services v. FCC" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 756, October 9, 2003.

On December 3, 2004, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. See, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Brand X Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,030, December 3, 2004.

The NCTA brief argues that the Court of Appeals, in vacating the FCC's declaratory ruling, failed to give Chevron deference to the FCC's ruling.

The Supreme Court wrote in Chevron that "When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. ... We have long recognized that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department's construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer ..." (Footnotes omitted.) See, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

On June 4, 1999, the U.S. District Court (DOr) issued its opinion in AT&T v. Portland, a case to which the FCC was not a party, holding that the City of Portland has the authority to condition the transfer of control of TCI's cable licenses on AT&T's opening of its internet cable facilities to competing ISPs. AT&T appealed. On June 22, 2000, the Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion reversing the District Court. It reasoned that cable modem service is a telecommunications service, and hence, cannot be regulated by local franchising authorities.

Then, when the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the Brand X case, it determined that it was bound by its holding in the Portland case, under the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court of Appeals did not apply Chevron deference. In addition, any other circuit would not have been bound by the 9th Circuit's Portland opinion. And, the 9th Circuit only heard this case because it won the multi-circuit lottery after multiple petitions for review and appeals had been filed.

The NCTA brief argues that the FCC's declaratory ruling "is the best reading of the statute and certainly constitutes a permissible interpretation. It must therefore be upheld under the Chevron doctrine, and the judgment of the court of appeals must be reversed."

It continues that "To reach that result, the Court need not resolve the stare decisis issue that kept the court of appeals from extending Chevron deference to the FCC’s regulatory classification -- although, as we explained in our petition for a writ of certiorari, this case does provide an opportunity to address that issue. If the Court reaches the stare decisis issue, it should state that the court of appeals erred. Chevron rests on the premise that statutory silence or ambiguity reflects an implicit delegation of legislative authority. Thus, stare decisis no more precludes a court from deferring to a reasonable administrative interpretation of a statute committed to an agency's administration than it precludes a court from obeying subsequent statutory amendments."

The present brief was filed on behalf of the the NCTA, Charter Communications, Inc., Cox Communications, Inc., Time Warner Inc., and Time Warner Cable Inc.

USTR Announces Out of Cycle Special 301 Reviews of Poland and Taiwan

1/18. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced the results of its out of cycle Special 301 reviews of the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property protection in Poland and Taiwan. It announced that Poland will remain on the Watch List, and that Taiwan will be moved from the Priority Watch List to the Watch List.

Section 301 is the statutory means by which the United States asserts its international trade rights, including its rights under WTO Agreements. In particular, under the "Special 301" provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, the USTR identifies trading partners that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. artists and industries that rely upon intellectual property protection. Placement on the Watch List or Priority Watch List indicates that a country does not provide an adequate level of protection.

USTR Robert Zoellick stated in a release that ""We are encouraged by the progress made by Poland and Taiwan in taking steps to address long-standing concerns over piracy and counterfeiting of U.S. intellectual property and products ... However, a common thread in both reviews is the recognition of the need for stronger and sustained enforcement measures, including the necessity to protect data submitted by innovative pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical producers to obtain marketing approval.  Protection and enforcement of intellectual property are critical to the continued growth of our economy, and we will vigorously press our trading partners to follow and enforce the rules to protect American creativity, innovation and technology."

More News

1/18. The Supreme Court announced that it "will take a recess from Monday, January 24, 2005, until Tuesday, February 22, 2005." See, Order List [10 pages in PDF].

1/18. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Technology Administration (TA) announced that April 26, 2005 is the deadline to submit nominations for the 2006 National Medal of Technology awards. See, TA notice. For more information, contact Mildred Porter at 202 482-5572 or nmt@technology.gov.

1/18. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces FY 2005 funding levels for its Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grant, combination loan-grant and loan programs, and that reminds applicants that the deadline to submit applications is February 1, 2005. See, Federal Register, January 18, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 11, at Pages 2844 - 2849.

1/18. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) released a report [174 pages in PDF] titled "The Myths and Realities of Universal Service: Revisiting the Justification for the Current Subsidy Structure". The report was written by Joseph Kraemer, Richard Levine, and Randolph May.

1/18. Viviane Reding, the European Commissioner responsible for Information Society and Media, gave a speech in Brussels, Belgium, titled "Challenges ahead for the European Commissioner for Convergence" in which she discussed broadband in Europe. She said that "While it is in the first place for the industry to develop new business models in a sector evolving quickly under the pressure of emerging technologies, policy-makers must support this process by providing the appropriate legal framework, by supporting research, by facilitating the exchange of best practices and by ensuring that European companies operating on international markets have the right starting conditions."

FBI Reports on Use of Carnivore and Similar Products in FY 2002 and 2003

1/17. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) published in its web site two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports to the Congress regarding the FBI's e-mail monitoring program named "Carnivore", and later renamed "DCS 1000". The EPIC obtained these two reports in response to request made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The two reports state that the FBI did not use Carnivore during the relevant time periods, Fiscal Year 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003. However, it did use "commercially available software" that constituted "network collection devices on packet networks" to carry out surveillance authorized by 13 court orders. See, full story.

GWU to Host Intellectual Property Lecture Series

1/17. The George Washington University Law School (GWULS) will host a series of lectures on intellectual property topics. Each event features the presentation of a draft paper by a professor or scholar, followed by feedback and questions from the audience. All events are free, and open to the public.

On January 27, at 4:00 PM, Scott Kieff, a professor at Washington University's St. Louis School of Law, will present a draft paper titled "Introducing a Case Against Copyright: A Comparative Institutional Analysis of Intellectual Property Regimes". See, abstract of paper, and notice of event.

On February 17, at 4:00 PM, Glynn Lunney, a professor at Tulane University Law School, will present a draft paper titled "Patents and Growth: Empirical Evidence from the States". See, abstract of paper, and notice of event.

On March 3, at 4:00 PM, David Nimmer, of counsel at the law firm of Irell & Manella, will present a draft paper titled "Codifying Copyright Comprehensively". See, notice of event.

On March 24, at 4:00 PM, Sara Stadler (aka Nelson), a professor at Emory University School of Law, will present a draft paper titled "How Copyright is Like a Mobius Strip". See, notice of event.

On April 14, at 4:00 PM, Pamela Samuelson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, will present a draft paper titled "Why Congress Excluded Processes and Systems from the Scope of Copyright". See, notice of event.

Each of these workshops is a part of the Spring 2005 Intellectual Property Workshop Series sponsored by the Dean Dinwoodey Center for Intellectual Property Studies at the GWULS. The location of each of these workshops is GWULS, Faculty Conference Center, Burns Building, 5th Floor, 716 20th St., NW. These workshops are free, open to the public. No RSVP. Free cookies and coffee are provided. For more information, contact Robert Brauneis at 202 994-6138 or rbraun@law.gwu.edu.

Go to News from January 11-15, 2005.