Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2007/08/28.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:14:18+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,629, August 28, 2007.
August 28, 2007, Alert No. 1,629.
8/27. The U.S. District Court (DC) issued a Memorandum Opinion [18 pages in PDF] in Center for Public Integrity v. FCC, a case regarding whether the contents of Forms 477, submitted to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), must be produced by the FCC in response to a request made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which is codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552. The District Court held that most of the information sought by the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) is exempt.
The FCC mandates the filing of Form 477 twice per year to enable it to study the extent of local telecommunications competition and deployment of broadband services. Form 477 is titled "Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting". Wireline and fixed wireless telephone service providers, mobile telephone service providers, and broadband services providers are compelled to file this form twice per year, on March 1 and September 1, to provide the FCC with data on numbers of users.
The FCC uses data supplied in these forms to compile reports that contain aggregate data on, among other things, broadband availability. However, the FCC does not make available the data contained in each filed Form 477.
The FCC's data collection and reporting methodology has come under criticism, especially from proponents of network neutrality mandates, who have argued that the FCC overstates the extend of competition in the provision of broadband services.
The CPI and Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) hosted an event on June 28, 2007, titled "Conference on Broadband Statistics". The two panels were titled "What Do We Know About Availability and Use of Broadband in the United States?" and "What Kinds of Broadband Data Collection Policies Should the U.S. Employ?" See, PFF web page with audio and video (but not a text transcript) of this event.
See also, the FCC document [17 pages in PDF] titled "Instructions for Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting Form (FCC Form 477)".
The CPI submitted a FOIA request to the FCC on August 24, 2006, seeking "all records collected with FCC Form 477".
The FCC denied the CPI's request in its entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemption 4.
The CPI filed a complaint in the District Court on September 25, 2006, alleging violation of the FOIA. The United States Telecom Association (USTelecom), AT&T, Verizon, Wireless Communications Association International (WCA), National Cable Telecommunications Association (NCTA), and the CTIA -- Wireless Association all either intervened as defendants, or submitted amicus curiae briefs supporting the refusal of the FCC to produce records.
The CPI subsequently narrowed its request, and the FCC expanded the basis of its denial to include Exemption 6.
5 U.S.C. § 552(a) requires agencies to provide access to agency records. However, certain records are exempted. In particular, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) provides that "This section does not apply to matters that are ... (4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential ... (6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy".
The District Court held that Exemption 4 applies to all data from Parts I–V of Form 477, except for the part and line data from Part IV for June 2005 through June 2006.
The District Court also held that the FCC conducted an adequate search for records regarding the structure of the Form 477 database.
This case is Center for Public Integrity v. FCC, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, D.C. No. 06-01644 (ESH), Judge Ellen Huvelle presiding.
8/22. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin wrote a letter [PDF] regarding "consumer benefits of a la carte".
The letter was addressed to leaders of the Black Leadership Forum, Hispanic Federation, Labor Council for Latin American Development, League of United Latin American Citizens, National Black Chamber of Commerce, National Congress of Black Women, and the Hispanic Telecommunications and Technology Project.
Martin (at right) wrote that "An a la carte regime would enable viewers to buy their television channels individually, in smaller packages, or in the large packages currently offered. I believe that these forms of channel choice could provide all consumers the ability to lower their cable bills and to have greater control over the programming that comes into their homes."
Martin continued that "Channel choice is increasingly significant to consumers as the number of channels included in expanded basic, and the corresponding price to consumers, has continued to skyrocket. Indeed, cable rates have more than doubled in the last 10 years. Cable companies often point to the increased number of channels being offered as an explanation for the increase in prices. This explanation however, ignores the fact that most of these channels are not actually being watched."
"While I believe all consumers would benefit from channels being sold in a more a la carte manner, minority consumers, particularly those living in Spanish speaking homes, might benefit most of all. Currently cable and satellite providers often require subscribers to purchase dozens if not hundreds of channels in order to get Spanish language programming for which they must pay an additional cost. Under a la carte however, Spanish speaking homes could purchase only Spanish language channels", said Martin.
8/24. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCUS) in Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics urging the SCUS to grant certiorari and clarify the patent exhaustion doctrine.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion [31 pages in PDF] on July 7, 2006.
The SCUS requested the OSG to submit an amicus brief on April 16, 2007. See, story titled "Supreme Court Requests Solicitor General Brief in Patent Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,566, April 17, 2007. The SCUS has not yet decided whether or not to take the case. See also, SCUS docket.
The OSG wrote in its brief that the question presented is "Whether a patentee's federal patent rights are exhausted by a licensee's authorized sale of an essential component that has no reasonable use other than in practicing the patented invention, when the patentee has purported to retain in its licensing agreement the right to pursue patent infringement claims against those who purchase the component from the licensee and use it for its only reasonable use."
8/24. The U.S. Court of Appeals (10thCir) issued its opinion [25 pages in PDF] in Penncro Associates v. Sprint Spectrum, a contract dispute between a telecommunications company and its debt collector. Penncro contracted with Sprint to collect debts. Penncro filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DKan) alleging breach of the contract. This District Court entered judgment for Penncro in the amount of $17 Million. Sprint appealed, arguing that the damages award was too high because the District Court misconstrued the term "consequential damages" in the contract. Penncro cross-appealed, arguing that the damages award should have been higher. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court on all issues. This case is Penncro Associates v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 06-3288, 06-3296, and 06-3365, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, D.C. No. 04-CV-2549-JWL.
8/24. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) announced in a release [PDF] that the Beijing Xi Cheng District People's Court, in Beijing, People's Republic of China (PRC), "ruled that a pair of DVD retail outlets, the Beijing Yongsheng Century International Cultural Co., Ltd. (Beijing Yongsheng Century) and its Century En Ze branch, were guilty of copyright infringement for selling pirated versions of Motion Picture Association (MPA) member company movies" and were ordered to pay six plaintiffs -- all MPA member companies -- damages and costs of RMB210,314 (US$27,795)." (All parentheses in original.) The MPA's Frank Rittman stated in this release that "the court's award represents little more than a slap on the wrist in the context of the scope of pirate activity in which Beijing Yongsheng Century and others were and are engaged." He added the lack of market access further contributes to DVD piracy.
8/21. The American Antitrust Institute (AAI) published a short paper [4 pages in PDF] titled "The Intel Case -- Is Europe Really Picking on Another U.S. Company? A Reply to the Wall Street Journal". The author is Robert Lande, Dircctor of the AAI. He argues that the European Commission's (EC) "ultimate goal is neither to attack an American company or to protect European firms". There is, he writes, no European chip manufacturer to protect. The WSJ published an opinion piece titled "Intel in Euro-Land" in its July 31, 2007, issue in which it wrote that "Computer chips are getting faster and smaller, and prices are dropping amid fierce competition. So naturally the European Commission thinks this is the ideal time to lodge another antitrust suit against another American technology titan." See also, EC release and story titled "European Commission Initiates Proceeding Against Intel Alleging Anticompetitive Behavior" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,617, July 27, 2007.
1:00 - 3:00 PM. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board's (ATBCB) Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC) will hold the second of two meetings by teleconference regarding "revising and updating accessibility guidelines for telecommunications products and accessibility standards for electronic and information technology". The deadline to register is August 22, 2007. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 3, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 149, at Pages 43211-43212. The dial in number is 888-790-5019. The passcode is 5944761. Location: Suite 1000, 1331 F St., NW.
10:30 AM - 1:30 PM. The Center for American Progress (CAP) will host an event titled "FISA: Safeguarding Both Security and Freedom". At 10:30 AM, there will be a panel discussion titled "Bloggers and Online Activists". The speakers will be Spencer Ackerman (TPMmuckraker.com), Nita Chaudhary (MoveOn.org Political Action), Caroline Fredrickson (American Civil Liberties Union), Julian Sanchez (Reason magazine), and Faiz Shakir (CAP). At 11:45 AM, there will be a light lunch. At 12:00 NOON, there will be a panel discussion titled "Restoring Checks and Balances". The speakers will be Mary DeRosa (Chief Counsel for National Security, Senate Judiciary Committee), former Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-OK), Morton Halperin (CAP), Kate Martin (Center for National Security Studies), and Mark Agrast (CAP). See, CAP notice and registration pages. For more information, contact John Neurohr at 202-682-1611 or jneurohr at americanprogress dot org. Location: CAP, 10th Floor, 1333 H St., NW.

References: v. 
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.