Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2006/03/02.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:31:41+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,321, March 2, 2006.
March 2, 2006, Alert No. 1,321.
3/1. The Supreme Court issued its opinion [20 pages in PDF] in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink, a patent tying antitrust case in which the Court vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) and remanded.
The Court of Appeals held in January of 2005 that "a rebuttable presumption of market power arises from the possession of a patent over a tying product". The Supreme Court concluded that "Congress, the antitrust enforcement agencies, and most economists have all reached the conclusion that a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee. Today, we reach the same conclusion, and therefore hold that, in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product."
Background. Trident, Inc., a subsidiary of Illinois Tool Works, holds U.S. Patent No. 5,343,226, which pertains to ink jet printer technology. Trident also makes ink. Moreover, its standard form licensing agreement allowing the OEMs to use its patented product requires the OEMs to purchase their ink for Trident systems exclusively from Trident.
The Supreme Court summarized the arrangement. The petitioners, Trident and Illinois Tool Works, "manufacture and market printing systems that include three relevant components: (1) a patented piezoelectric impulse ink jet printhead; (2) a patented ink container, consisting of a bottle and valved cap, which attaches to the printhead; and (3) specially designed, but unpatented, ink. Petitioners sell their systems to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) who are licensed to incorporate the printheads and containers into printers that are in turn sold to companies for use in printing barcodes on cartons and packaging materials. The OEMs agree that they will purchase their ink exclusively from petitioners, and that neither they nor their customers will refill the patented containers with ink of any kind."
Independent Ink also makes ink with the same chemical composition, and competes with Trident.
Proceedings Below. Independent Ink filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (CDCal) against Trident and Illinois Tool Works. It sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity against Trident's patents. It also alleged that Trident was engaged in illegal tying and monopolization in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which are codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1 and § 2.
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Trident on both claims. The District Court held that for patent tying to constitute a violation of the antitrust laws, the plaintiff must affirmatively prove market power.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion [PDF] on January 25, 2005, reversing the District Court. The Court of Appeals opinion is also reported at 396 F.3d 1342.
It held that "a rebuttable presumption of market power arises from the possession of a patent over a tying product". It further wrote that "Because no rebuttal evidence was submitted by the patent holder, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on the Sherman Act section 1 claim and remand for further proceedings. As to Independent’s Sherman Act section 2 claim, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment."
Opinion of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that in 1988 the Congress amended the Patent Act to eliminate the market power presumption in patent misuse cases. Hence, it wrote that the "question presented to us today is whether the presumption of market power in a patented product should survive as a matter of antitrust law despite its demise in patent law". It concluded that "the mere fact that a tying product is patented does not support such a presumption".
Much of the Supreme Court's opinion is a review of the over 100 year history of the Courts' analysis of tying arrangements in the course of patent infringement litigation. The Supreme Court noted that "Over the years, however, this Court’s strong disapproval of tying arrangements has substantially diminished. Rather than relying on assumptions, in its more recent opinions the Court has required a showing of market power in the tying product."
The Supreme Court concluded that "tying arrangements involving patented products should be evaluated under the standards applied in cases like Fortner II and Jefferson Parish rather than under the per se rule applied in Morton Salt and Loew’s. While some such arrangements are still unlawful, such as those that are the product of a true monopoly or a marketwide conspiracy, ... that conclusion must be supported by proof of power in the relevant market rather than by a mere presumption thereof."
See, United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, Inc., 429 U.S. 610 (1977); Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U. S. 2 (1984); Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942); and United States v. Loew's Inc., 371 U. S. 38 (1962).
The Supreme Court also rejected Independent Ink's (respondent) argument that there should be a rebuttable presumption that patentees possess market power when they condition the purchase of the patented product on an agreement to buy unpatented goods exclusively from the patentee. Also, it rejected the argument that the Courts should "differentiate between tying arrangements involving the simultaneous purchase of two products that are arguably two components of a single product -- such as the provision of surgical services and anesthesiology in the same operation, ... or the licensing of one copyrighted film on condition that the licensee take a package of several films in the same transaction, ... and a tying arrangement involving the purchase of unpatented goods over a period of time, a so-called ``requirements tie.´´"
The Supreme Court reasoned that "Many tying arrangements, even those involving patents and requirements ties, are fully consistent with a free, competitive market. For this reason, we reject both respondent’s proposed rebuttable presumption and their narrower alternative."
Finally, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded, rather than reversed. It explained that Independent Ink (respondent) "reasonably relied on our prior opinions in moving for summary judgment without offering evidence defining the relevant market or proving that petitioners possess power within it. When the case returns to the District Court, respondent should therefore be given a fair opportunity to develop and introduce evidence on that issue, as well as any other issues that are relevant to its remaining §1 claims. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
See also, Supreme Court docket. This case is Illinois Tool Work, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., Sup. Ct. No. 04-1329, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 04-1196. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Cormac Carney presiding.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court. Justice Sam Alito, who just joined the Court, did not participate.
Illinois Tool Works was represented by Andrew Pincus of the Washington DC office of the law firm of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw. Independent Ink was represented by Edward O'Connor of the law firm of O'Connor Christensen & McLaughlin, and Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford law school.
A collection of leading trade groups that represent copyright industries, including the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Business Software Alliance (BSA), Entertainment Software Association (ESA), Association of American Publishers (AAP), and others, filed an amicus brief [40 pages in PDF], on the merits, in which they urge the Supreme Court to "decline to presume that antitrust market power arises from the mere ownership of intellectual property rights, whether patents or copyrights."
See also, amicus brief [PDF] of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA).
And see, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Patent Tying Antitrust Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,158, June 21, 2005.
3/1. The Senate approved S 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006"., by a vote of 95-4. See, Roll Call No. 25.
The Senate also approved an amendment (SA 2895) that provides that "At the end of the bill add the following: This Act shall become effective 1 day after enactment."
The Senate first held several roll call votes that terminated dilatory tactics employed by just over a dozen opponents of the language contained in S 2271, and the conference report on HR 3199.
The Senate approved a motion titled "Motion to Proceed to Consider the Motion to Reconsider the Vote by which the Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3199 was Not Agreed To" by a vote of 86-13. See, Roll Call No. 26.
The Senate approved a motion titled "Motion to Reconsider the Vote by Which Cloture was Not Invoked on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3199" by a vote of 85-14. See, Roll Call No. 27.
And, the Senate approved a motion to invoke cloture, and terminate debate, on the conference report on HR 3199 by a vote of 84-15. See, Roll Call No. 28.
The Senate has yet to approve the conference report [PDF] on HR 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005". It is scheduled to resume consideration of this conference report on Thursday, March 2, 2006.
See also, floor statement by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).
3/1. TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,318, February 27, 2006, included a story on the Library of Congress's (LOC) Section 108 Study Group, and the LOC's notice in the Federal Register requesting public comments, and announcing public hearings. On March 1, 2006, Mary Rasenberger, Policy Advisor for Special Programs at the U.S. Copyright Office, wrote to TLJ that this story was "very misleading".
Rasenberger added that "Google's Print for Libraries program does not fall under the current section 108 exceptions".
Google has pled Section 108 as an affirmative defense to allegations of copyright infringement in pending litigation pertaining to its Print for Libraries program. Google announced this program in a release on December 14, 2004. Both book publishers and the Authors' Guild filed lawsuits late last year. See also, story titled "Google, Publishers and Authors Debate Google's Print for Libraries Program" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,239, October 25, 2005.
The TLJ story in the February 27 issue stated, at paragraph 4, that "17 U.S.C. § 108, titled ``Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives´´, provides exemptions from liability for infringement for libraries and archives. Section 108 applies to ``libraries and archives´´ and employees acting within the scope of their employment. Neither Section 108, nor Section 101, the definitional section of the Copyright Act, define either ``library´´ or ``archive´´."
The LOC notice asks for comments on questions regarding whether the library partners of Google should qualify for Section 108 immunity, and whether Google itself should qualify.
For example, the LOC notice asks, "Should non-physical or ``virtual´´ libraries or archives be included within the ambit of section 108?"
The library partners of Google are not providing the digitization and organization of their works. They are outsourcing this to Google. Although, they will receive digital copies. Hence, the LOC notice asks, "How can the issue of outsourcing be addressed? Should libraries and archives be permitted to contract out any or all of the activities permitted under section 108? If so, under what conditions?"
The notice also asks, "Should further definition of the terms ``libraries´´ and ``archives´´ (or other types of institutions) be included in section 108, or additional criteria for eligibility be added to subsection 108(a)?" It also asks "Are there other types of institutions that should be considered for inclusion in section 108?"
It also asks, "Should eligible institutions be limited to nonprofit and government entities for some or all of the provisions of section 108?"
The LOC's Rasenberger wrote in an e-mail response that the Section 108 Study Group "is not addressing Google's activities."
She continued that "Google is not a library or archive for purposes of Section 108, nor is it acting as an outsourcing agent in the case of Google Print for Libraries, as you suggest in your article. Rather, Google is acting on its own behalf, under agreement with libraries, yes, but NOT as an outsourcing agent for the libraries. Indeed, Google's Print for Libraries program does not fall under the current section 108 exceptions or any proposal currently on the table in the Section 108 group."
She added that "the article does a disservice to the members of the group who have been working extremely hard on the mission given them, as well as to the public and members of Congress who are interested in the actual work of the group -- that is, updating the copyright exceptions for libraries and archives in light of digital media. Creating a false association with Google's activities may arouse more interest in the work of the group, but will only cause confusion on all sides -- to no one's benefit."
The LOC notice in the Federal Register identified Rasenberger and Chris Weston, Attorney-Advisor, Copyright Office and Office of Strategic Initiatives of the LOC. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 15, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 31, at Pages 7999-8002.
Prior to publication of the story, TLJ spoke with both Weston and Rasenberger. Weston refused to answer questions regarding the relationship between the LOC's notice in the Federal Register and Google Print for Libraries. Rasenberger promptly terminated the conversation. Hence, the story related the language contained in the LOC's notice in the Federal Register regarding the LOC's Section 108 Study Group, and not the LOC's attorneys' understanding of the mission of the Section 108 Study Group.
Also, while Rasenberger wrote to TLJ that "Google's Print for Libraries program does not fall under the current section 108 exceptions", this is an as yet unresolved legal issue in pending litigation. The October 19, 2005, complaint [35 pages in PDF] in McGraw Hill v. Google raises the subject of Google's and libraries' Section 108 exemption in the context of Google Print for Libraries.
The book publishers' complaint alleged that "Neither (a) the fair use provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 107 nor (b) the narrow provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 108, which in very different circumstances would allow a library but, in no event, Google, to make digital copies of these works in a library's collection, excuse Google's wholesale unauthorized copying." See, complaint, at page 4.
This case is McGraw Hill Companies, Inc., Pearson Education, Inc., Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Simon & Schuster, Inc. and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Google Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, D.C. No. 05-CV-8881.
In contrast, Google has pled Section 108 as an affirmative defense. See, for example, Google's November 30, 2005, answer [10 pages in PDF] in Author's Guild v. Google, at page 7. Google asserted that "Google's use of and activities with respect to books that are subject to copyright are subject to one or more of the limitations on 17 U.S.C. § 106 set forth in 17 U.S.C. §§ 107-122." This case is U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y., D.C. No. 05 CV 8136 (JES).
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It may consider S 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006". See, Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will meet at 9:30 AM. It will resume consideration of the conference report [PDF] on HR 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005".
9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of several judicial nominations, including Jack Zouhary (to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio), Stephen Larson (USDC, Central District of California), and Steven Bradbury (Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel). The agenda also includes consideration of several bills, including S 2178, the "Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006", S 1768, a bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings, and S 829, the "Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005". See, notice. The SJC rarely follows its published agenda. The SJC frequently cancels or postpones meetings without notice. Press contact: Blain Rethmeier (Specter) at 202 224-5225, David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242 or Tracy Schmaler (Leahy) at 202 224-2154. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
RESCHEDULED FROM MARCH 1. 10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) will meet to mark up numerous items, including HR 4709, the "Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act of 2006" and HR 2955, the "Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Clarification Act of 2005". The meeting will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Terry Shawn at 202 225.2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
RESCHEDULED FROM FEBRUARY 28. 10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "USF Distribution". The witnesses will be Jeff Mao (Maine Department of Education), Shirley Bloomfield (National Telecommunications Cooperative Association), Carson Hughes (Cellular South), Tony Clark (North Dakota Public Service Commission, and Chairman of NARUC's Telecommunications Committee Department), and Ben Scott (Free Press). See, notice. Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202 224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. The hearing will be webcast by the SCC. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.
POSTPONED. 10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Voice over Internet Protocol". See, notice. Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202 224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. The hearing will be webcast by the SCC. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies will hold a hearing on the FY 2007 budget for the National Science Foundation (NSF). Location: Room H-309, Capitol Building.
10:00 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies will hold a hearing on the FY 2007 budget for President Bush's American Competitiveness Agenda. Location: Room 2358, Rayburn Building.
MOVED TO MARCH 14. 10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Wireless Issues / Spectrum Reform". See, notice. Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202 224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. The hearing will be webcast by the SCC. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on the implementation of the Exon-Florio Amendment and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) for protectionist and political purposes. This hearing will focus on the acquisition of by Dubai Ports World of P&O. See, notice. Location: Room 538, Dirksen Building.
12:00 NOON. The Parents Television Council (PTC) will host a news conference regarding a PTC report on children's television. For more information, contact Kelly Oliver at 703 683-5004 koliver at crc4pr dot com. Location: Murrow Room, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
The Republican Whip Notice states that "no votes expected in the House".
9:00 AM. There will be an event titled "eBay Media Roundtable". For more information, contact Jean Shim at 202 295-4114 or jshim at foley dot com. Location: National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Committee will host a lunch. The topic will be "Consumer Litigation in the Wireless Industry". The speakers will be Laura Buckland (T-Mobile USA), Sue Haller (Sprint), and Michael Altschul (CTIA). The price to attend is $15. Registrations and cancellations are due by 12:00 NOON on February 28. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Sidley Austin, 1500 K Street, 6th Floor.
12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a forum on the book titled An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths [Amazon], by Glenn Reynolds. See, notice and registration page. Lunch will be served. The event will be webcast by Cato. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Ethics and the Internet". The speaker will be J.T. Westermeier (DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary). The topics to be covered include web based advertising, unauthorized practice of law, formation of attorney client relationships, attorney client confidentiality, online referral services and directories, online bids for legal services, and class action communications. The price to attend ranges from $70-$125. For more information, call 202 626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.
8:30 AM - 5:15 PM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 17, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 33, at Page 8566. The public must request permission to attend by March 2. Location: Employees Lounge, Administration Building, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in AT&T (formerly SBC) v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 05-1186. This is a petition for review of a final order of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) denying a petition for forbearance from applying Title II regulatory obligations to certain services characterized by SBC as internet protocol services. See, brief [40 pages in PDF] of the FCC. Judges Randolph, Tatel and Williams will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Rural Telecommunications". See, notice. Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202 224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. The hearing will be webcast by the SCC. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Competitive Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Fujitsu, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDCal) in patent infringement case involving plasma display panels (see, U.S. Patent Nos. 4,866,349 and 5,081,400), and 11th Amendment immunity of state universities. This is App. Ct. No. 05-1237 and D.C. No. C-02-1673 JCS. Previously, the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See, June 30, 2004, opinion. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 3, 2005. See, Order List [84 pages in PDF], at page 14. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.
12:00 NOON. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold an oversight hearing titled "White Collar Enforcement (Part l): Attorney-Client Privilege and Corporate Waivers". The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. The witnesses will be James Lambright (acting President of the Ex-Im Bank), Gerald Rama (SVP of PNC Bank), and Al Merritt (President of MD International). See, notice. Location: Room __, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in LG Electronics v. Bizcom Electronics, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDCal) in a case involving the issue of patent misuse. This is App. Ct. No. 05-1261. Location: Courtroom 210, 717 Madison Place, NW.
10:00 - 11:30 AM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 17, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 33, at Page 8566. The public must request permission to attend by March 2. Location: Employees Lounge, Administration Building, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.
2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism, and Economic Development will hold a hearing titled "Piracy and Counterfeiting in China". Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202 224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.
Deadline to submit comments to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding its (1) notice of proposed rulemaking, and (2) proposed revenue procedure, pertaining to tax return preparers' use and disclosure of tax return information in an electronic environment. See, IRS notice in the Federal Register that describes and recites proposed changes to its rules implementing 26 U.S.C. § 7216, Federal Register, December 8, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 235, at Pages 72954 - 72964. See also, IRS web site notice [16 pages in PDF] that describes and contains the proposed revenue procedure. And see, story titled "IRS Releases Proposed Rules Regarding Electronic Tax Preparation" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,268, December 8, 2005.
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a day long conference titled "The Digital Age Communications Act: Towards a New Market-Oriented Communications Policy in 2006". See, agenda and registration page. Location: Capitol Hilton, 1001 16th St., NW.
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Cato Institute and the Brookings Institution will jointly host a one day event titled "The Marketplace of Democracy: A Conference on Electoral Competition and American Politics". The agenda includes a panel discussion from 10:30 - 11:45 AM that includes Brad Smith, who is a professor at Capital University Law School, a former member of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and an opponent of FEC regulation of internet based speech. See, notice, agenda and registration page. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The event will be webcast by the FCC. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Nash v. Microsoft. This is App. Ct. No. 05-1385. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.
TIME? The Board of Directors of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) will meet. Location: AIPLA, Headquarters Board Room, Arlington, VA.
"The Digital Age Communications Act: Towards a New Market-Oriented Communications Policy in 2006"
9:10 AM. Keynote address by Richard Armey (former House Majority Leader).
10:00 AM. Panel titled "A Regulatory Framework Discussion Panel: Focusing on DACA and Net Neutrality". The speakers will be Randolph May (PFF), James Speta (Northwestern University School of Law), Jeff Eisenach (The CapAnalysis Group), James Gattuso (Heritage Foundation), Kyle McSlarrow (National Cable and Telecommunications Association), and Gigi Sohn (Public Knowledge).
11:15 AM. Panel on universal service.
12:15 PM. Lunch. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) will give a keynote address titled "A New Competitive Vision for the Digital Age".
2:00 PM. Panel on spectrum reform. The speakers will be Thomas Lenard (PFF), Lawrence White (New York University), Tom Hazlett (George Mason University), and Peter Pitsch Intel).
3:15 PM. Panel titled "Reforming Federal-State Relations in the Digital Age: Focusing on DACA and the Video Franchise Process". The speakers will be Kyle Dixon (PFF), Bruce Byrd (AT&T), Dan Brenner (National Cable and Telecommunications Association), Daryl Bassett (National Association of Regulator Utility Commissioners), Libby Beaty (National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors).
4:30 PM. Closing keynote address by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).
Copyright 1998 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.

References: v. 
 § 1
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1
 v. 
 § 108
 v. 
 § 107
 § 108
 v. 
 v. 
 § 106
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7216
 v.