Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2008/11/10.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:51:38+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,854, November 10, 2008.
November 10, 2008, Alert No. 1,854.
11/10. The U.S. Court of Appeals (5thCir) issued its opinion [7 pages in PDF] in Jacobs v. National Drug Intelligence Center, a case regarding what damages are available for violation of the Privacy Act.
The District Court awarded damages for emotional distress. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) argued that damages should be limited to out of pocket expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
However, there remains a circuit split on this issue. For opinions reaching a different conclusion, see for example, Hudson v. Reno, 130 F.3d 1193 (6th Circuit, 1997) and Fitzpatrick v. IRS, 665 F.2d 327 (11th Circuit, 1982).
The Privacy Act of 1974, which is codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a, states that "No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains ..."
It also creates a private cause of action. Subsection 552a(g)(4) provides for the recovery of "actual damages".
The harm suffered by victims of violation of the Privacy Act tends to be reputational and emotional. Hence, to the extent that the Privacy Act's measure of damages is limited to out of pocket expenses, the private right of action, and the incentive it creates for government officials to adhere to the Privacy Act, is rendered substantially ineffective.
The 5th Circuit held, back in 1983, that the Privacy Act's allowance of "actual damages" includes emotional distress. See, Johnson v. IRS, 700 F.2d 971. The NDIC urged the three judge panel to render an opinion inconsistent with the earlier opinion in Johnson v. IRS. The Court of Appeals declined to do so.
Damages is the only issue in this appeal. The NDIC maintained a "system of records" within the meaning of the Privacy Act. It created an "Executive Summary" that contained references to Gary Jacobs, P/CEO of a bank in the state of Texas. This Executive Summary was a "record" contained in this "system of records". The NDIC disclosed this Executive Summary to news media without Jacobs' authorization, in violation of the Privacy Act. Jacobs was harmed as a result.
Jacobs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (SDTex) against the NDIC alleging violation of the Privacy Act. After extended litigation, and a previous appeal to the 5th Circuit, the District Court awarded judgment to Jacobs, including an award of damages that included $100,000 for emotional distress.
The NDIC brought this appeal. The Court of Appeals noted that the "Congress is presumed to be aware of court decisions construing statutes", yet in the 25 years since Johnson v. IRS the Congress has not amended the statute. Moreover, neither the Supreme Court nor an en banc panel of the 5th Circuit has overturned Johnson v. IRS.
The Court added that "a circuit split on this question has existed at least that long", but that the Supreme Court has not resolved it.
Actually, the Supreme Court identified and discussed the circuit split in Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004), but left it unresolved. See, opinion and story titled "Supreme Court Holds No Recovery Against Federal Government Under Privacy Act for Disclosure of SSNs Without Showing of Actual Damages" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 843, February 25, 2004.
This is a short opinion. For a more detailed discussion of the different approaches of the various circuits on available damages, see the 2003 opinion of the 1st Circuit in Sunday Dixon Orekoya v. Secret Service, 330 F.3d 1.
This case is Gary Jacobs v. National Drug Intelligence Center, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 07-40776, an appeal for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
11/7. The Copyright Office (CO) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, and recites its interim regulation to clarify the scope and application of the Section 115 compulsory license to make and distribute phonorecords of a musical work by means of digital phonorecord deliveries (DPDs).
The notice also sets its effective date (December 8, 2008) and a deadline for public comments (January 6, 2009). See, Federal Register, November 7, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 217, at Pages 66173-66182.
17 U.S.C. § 115 provides an exception to the exclusive rights of copyright provided in 17 U.S.C. § 106 for the compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords.
This notice explains that "in light of the recent comments and testimony, and the uncertainty created by the Second Circuit's Cartoon Network opinion concerning the fixation of buffer copies, the interim regulation announced today is more modest in scope than the proposed regulation."
See, August 4, 2008, opinion [44 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) in Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings, which is also reported at 536 F.3d 121. See also, story titled "2nd Circuit Reverses in Remote Storage DVR Copyright Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,806, August 5, 2008.
A petition for writ of certiorari is pending. See, related story in this issue titled "Copyright Alliance and Others File Amicus Briefs in Remote Storage DVR Case".
The CO notice continues that it "is not currently prepared to issue a regulation that definitively addresses whether such copies are within the scope of the compulsory license, except to the extent the transmission also results in the making of copies which more certainly qualify as DPDs. As such, the interim regulation takes no position on whether or when a buffer copy independently qualifies as a DPD, or whether and when it is necessary to obtain a license to cover the reproduction or distribution of a musical work in order to engage in activities such as streaming."
The CO notice adds that this interim regulation "clarifies that (1) whenever there is a transmission that results in a DPD, all reproductions made for the purpose of making the DPD are also included as part of the DPD, and (2) limited downloads qualify as DPDs. The interim regulation does not attempt to define the threshold at which a DPD occurs. That remains contested ..."
The CO published its notice of proposed rulemaking in this proceeding on July 16, 2008. See, Federal Register, July 16, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 137, at Pages 40802-40813.
See also, CO web page with hyperlinks to comments, and CO web page with hyperlinks to reply comments.
11/5. The Copyright Alliance filed an amicus curiae brief [37 pages in PDF] with the Supreme Court urging it to grant certiorari in Cable News Network v. CSC Holdings.
In the Court of Appeals this case was known as Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings. See, August 4, 2008, opinion [44 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir), and story titled "2nd Circuit Reverses in Remote Storage DVR Copyright Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,806, August 5, 2008. This opinion is also reported at 536 F.3d 121.
The Court of Appeals held that Cablevision Systems Corporation's (CSC) Remote Storage Digital Video Recorder (RS-DVR) system does not violate the Copyright Act by infringing plaintiffs' exclusive rights of reproduction and public performance.
CNN and others filed a petition for writ of certiorari on October 6, 2008.
Several other entities also filed amicus briefs, including Sony BMG Music Entertainment and others, Major League Baseball (MLB), the Picture Archive Council of America, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA), and the Screen Actors Guild (SAG).
Patrick Ross, head of the Copyright Alliance, stated in a release that "The premise of this case is very simple. The Second District's ruling suggests one can circumvent copyright law by implementing an absurdly complex and woefully inefficient delivery system that would have made the late Rube Goldberg proud. If this decision stands, it could cause harm across the copyright industries. It runs counter to the very heart of copyright as an incentive system that has made America’s creative works the most vibrant and sought after in the world."
The brief states that "Copyright Alliance members believe that copyright protection spurs innovation and gives incentives for cultural and technological progress that benefits the public. This Court has consistently endorsed that philosophy, and has also consistently instructed that Congress, rather than the courts, should craft copyright policy. The decision below deviates unjustifiably from that well-marked path. It threatens to render copyright incentives ineffective in myriad technological contexts, and will encourage the practice of using technology, not to deliver innovative products and services to consumers, but to navigate around the boundaries of copyright protection in order to avoid paying for uses that otherwise require licenses. It narrows beyond recognition, and in contravention of the plain language of the Copyright Act, the scope of two critical exclusive rights -- reproduction and public performance -- that Congress accorded to creators. If left unreviewed, the decision will also undermine critical precedents of this Court that have kept the copyright law vital and fit for its constitutional purpose of promoting the “progress of science and useful arts."
The brief notes that two CA members, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and AT&T, believe that the 2nd Circuit correctly decided this case.
The CA's counsel of record for this brief is Steven Metalitz of the law firm of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp.
This case is Cable News Network, et al. v. CSC Holdings, Inc., et al., Supreme Court, Sup. Ct. No. 08-448, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 07-1480-cv(L) and 07-1511-cv(CON). The Court of Appeals heard appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Denny Chin presiding.
Judge John Walker wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Sack and Livingston joined.
CNN and the other petitioners are represented by Donald Verrilli of the Washington DC office of the law firm of Jenner & Block.
CSC Holdings and the other respondents are represented by Jeffrey Lamken of the Washington DC office of the law firm of Baker Botts.
11/7. Thomas Barnett, Assistant Attorney General (AAG) in charge of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division announced his resignation, effective November 19, 2008. See, DOJ release.
Barnett (at right) joined the DOJ as a Deputy AAG on April 18, 2004. He became the acting AAG on June 25, 2005, following the departure of former AAG Hewitt Pate. (President Bush's first antitrust AAG was Charles James.) Barnett was confirmed by the Senate to be AAG on February 10, 2006.
During his tenure as AAG or acting AAG, the Antitrust Division acted largely on the basis of antitrust law principles and economic analysis. In contrast, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and European Commission more frequently inserted pursuit of non-competition related political and policy goals into their enforcement and merger review actions.
During Barnett's tenure the Antitrust Division caused Google to withdraw from its advertising agreement with Yahoo. See, story titled "Google and Yahoo Abandon Advertising Agreement Because of DOJ Objection" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,852, November 4, 2008.
During his tenure the DOJ approved several major telecommunications mergers, including AT&T and BellSouth, AT&T and SBC, and Verizon and MCI.
For more on the merger of AT&T and BellSouth, see story titled "DOJ Approves AT&T BellSouth Merger" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,466, October 11, 2006.
For more on the mergers of AT&T and SBC, and Verizon and MCI, see stories titled "DOJ Approves Verizon MCI and SBC AT&T Mergers Subject to Divestitures", "DOJ Initiates Clayton Act § 7 Proceeding Against SBC and AT&T", and "DOJ Initiates Clayton Act § 7 Proceeding Against Verizon and MCI" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,242, October 28, 2005.
Also during his tenure the DOJ approved the merger of XM and Sirius, without conditions, penalties, or divestitures, and long before the FCC completed its review. See, story titled "DOJ Won't Challenge XM Sirius Merger" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,736, March 25, 2008.
It should also be noted that the Antitrust Division filed its ill fated complaint against Oracle six weeks before Barnett joined the DOJ. The DOJ suffered a complete and humiliating defeat in that case.
On February 26, 2004, the DOJ and several states filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (NDCal) against Oracle alleging that its acquisition of PeopleSoft would lessen competition substantially in interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18. The DOJ sought an injunction of the acquisition. See, story titled "Antitrust Division Sues Oracle to Enjoin Its Proposed Acquisition of PeopleSoft" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 846, March 1, 2004. Oracle fought back, and won. See, story titled "DOJ Loses Oracle Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 974, September 10, 2004. Then, when Pate was still the AAG, the Antitrust Division decided not to appeal the judgment of the District Court.
The DOJ's action against the National Association of Realtors (NAR), which involved web sites, was brought and concluded during Barnett's tenure. However, he was recused from that case.
A spokesman for the DOJ told TLJ that the DOJ has not yet determined who will be the acting AAG after Barnett's departure.
Currently, the likely candidates are the five Deputy AAGs, David Meyer, Deb Garza, James O'Connell, Scott Hammond, and Ken Heyer. Meyer, Garza and O'Connell are all political appointees, and are likely to depart soon. Hammond is a career employee of the DOJ. He is in charge of criminal enforcement. Heyer, who is also a career employee, is an economist who heads up economic analysis.
The DOJ spokesman also stated that Barnett will "take some time off" after he leaves the DOJ, and that he has not yet announced his plans.
11/10. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released the text [129 pages in PDF] of its Memorandum Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling approving, subject to divestitures, Verizon Wireless's acquisition of Alltel. The FCC adopted this item on November 4, 2008. It is FCC 08-258 in WT Docket No. 08-95.
11/7. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released the text [63 pages in PDF] of its Memorandum Opinion and Order approving the Sprint Nextel Clearwire transaction. The FCC adopted this item on November 4, 2008. It is FCC 08-259 in WT Docket No. 08-94.
11/7. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion [26 pages in PDF] in NetworkIP v. FCC, petitions for review of two final orders of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding pay phones. The Court of Appeals denied the petition regarding the FCC's liability order, but granted the petition as to the damages order. This case is NetworkIP LLC, et al. v. FCC and USA, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, D.C. Nos. 06-1364 and 07-1092.
11/7. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Deborah Tate gave a speech in San Diego, California, regarding broadband connectivity.
11/6. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin gave a speech [PDF] in San Jose, California, at a convention of the Wireless Communications Association International. He reviewed recent spectrum related actions of the FCC. He also addressed SDARS and WCS. He stated that "In the next few days, I hope to circulate an item that would establish the regulatory framework for the co-existence of licensees in the Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) and in the Wireless Communications Service in the 2305-2360 MHz band." He said that "I believe we can modify the rules governing WCS to allow operations of mobile stations. While some have doubted whether WCS and SDARS can co-exist, I share with the Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology the conviction that an appropriate balance of interference protection can be made."
12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a discussion of the book [Amazon] titled "Against Intellectual Monopoly". The speakers will be Michele Boldrin (co-author), Robert Atkinson (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation) and Jim Harper (Cato). See, notice and registration page. This event is free and open to the public. Lunch will be served after the program. The Cato Institute will web cast this event. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding requiring devices capable of receiving Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) to include digital audio broadcast (DAB), HD Radio, or other technologies capable of providing audio entertainment services. This is a part of the FCC's proceeding on the merger of XM and Sirius. See, story titled "FCC Approves XM Sirius Merger" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,800, July 25, 2008. The FCC adopted this NOI on August 22, 2008, and released the text [9 pages in PDF] on August 25, 2008. It is FCC 08-196 in MB Docket No. 08-172. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 10, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 176, at Pages 52657-52660.
Veteran's Day. See, Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) list of 2008 federal holidays.
7:00 - 9:00 PM. The George Mason University School of Law will host a program titled "The Economics of Electronic Discovery". For more information, contact Katie Aufderhaar at 703-966-2447. See, notice. A reception will follow the program. This event is free. Location: GMU law school, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA.
12:00 NOON. Barry Salzberg, CEO of Deloitte Touche, will speak at an event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's National Chamber Foundation (NCF). See, notice. Location: U.S. Chamber, 1615 H St., NW.
12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Transactional Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "Closing and Post-Closing Issues: Regulatory and Operational Concerns". The speakers will be Lawrence Movshin (Wilkinson Barker Knauer) and Todd Anderson (Constantine Cannon). RSVP to Christine Crowe at ccrowe at wbklaw dot com. Location: Wilkinson Barker Knauer, Suite 700, 2300 N St., NW.
4:00 - 5:30 PM. George Mason University (GMU) Information Economy Project (IEP) will host a lecture by William Webb (Head of Research and Development at OFCOM) titled "The Theory, Practice, Politics and Problems of Spectrum Reform". For more information, contact Drew Clark at Drew Clark at iep dot gmu at gmail dot com. Location: Room 121, GMU law school, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA. The nearest Metro stop is Virginia Square-GMU on the Orange Line.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host the second of two parts of a program titled "Export Control Courses". This second part is titled "Export Controls and Economic Sanctions 2008: Recent Developments and Current Issues". The speakers will be Thomas Scott and Carol Kalinoski. The total price to attend ranges from $140 to $210. For more information, contact 202-626-3488. See, notice. This event qualifies for continuing legal education (CLE) credits. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (3rdFNPRM) regarding its failed D block auction and its efforts to facilitate a nationwide interoperable broadband wireless network for public safety entities. The FCC adopted and released this 3rdFNPRM [237 pages in PDF] on September 25, 2008. See, story titled "FCC Adopts Further NPRM Regarding Public Safety Broadband Network" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,832, September 25, 2008. This item is FCC 08-230 in WT Docket No. 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 3, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 193, at Pages 57749-57851.
12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a brown bag lunch titled "The World of Wireless: A British View--A Chat with the UK Regulator About the Future World of Wireless". The speaker will be William Webb (head of Ofcom Research and Development). RSVP to Tony Lin at 202-663-8452 or tony dot lin at pillsburylaw dot com. Location: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, 2300 N St., NW.
Deadline to submit to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's (OUSTR) new petitions to grant waivers to competitive need limitations (CNLs) for products exceeding the CNLs in 2008, in connection with the OUSTR's 2008 Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Annual Review. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 12, 2008, Vol. 73, No 178, at Pages 53054-53056, and notice in the Federal Register, October 16, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 201, at Pages 61444-61445.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding management and oversight of the Universal Service Fund (USF). The FCC adopted this NOI on August 15, 2008 and released the text [17 pages in PDF] on September 12, 2008. It is FCC 08-189 in WC Docket No. 05-195. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 14, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 199, at Pages 60689-60695.
EXTENDED TO NOVEMBER 24. Deadline to submit comments to the Copyright Office (CO) in response to its request for comments regarding its proposal to raise fees for registration of claims, special services and Licensing Division services. See, original notice in the Federal Register, October 14, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 199, at Pages 60658-60662. See also, story titled "Copyright Office Proposes to Raise Registration Fees" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,843, October 15, 2008. See, notice of extension, Federal Register, October 31, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 212, at Pages 64905-64906.
9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer Advisory Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 29, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 210, at Page 64333-64334. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room (Room TW-C305), 445 12th St., SW.
Deadline to submit comments to the Copyright Royalty Judges in response to their request for comments regarding a motion of Phase I claimants for partial distribution in connection with the 2006 cable royalty funds. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 15, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 200, at Page 61172.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) portion of its Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) and NPRM regarding collecting and reporting of carrier service quality, customer satisfaction, and infrastructure and operating data. The FCC adopted and released this MO&O and NPRM [57 pages in PDF] on September 6, 2008. It is FCC 08-203 in WC Docket No. 08-190. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 15, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 200, at Pages 60997-61006. See also, story titled "FCC Grants Carriers Forbearance From ARMIS Reporting Rules" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,822, September 8, 2008.
8:00 AM - 5:30 PM. Day one of a five day closed meeting of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. The panel will conduct final judging of the 2008 applicants. See, notice in the Federal Register: October 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 209, at Page 63946. Location: NIST, Administration Building, Lecture Room E, Gaithersburg, MD.
9:00 - 10:30 AM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host an event titled "ITIF Forum: The Impact of IT on Energy". See, notice and registration page. Location: Room 121, Cannon Building, Capitol Hill.
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Verizon v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 08-1012, petition for review of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) December 5, 2007, order denying Verizon's six petitions to forbear, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160, from applying its rules regarding unbundling, and leasing to competitors, of certain network elements in six markets -- New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Pittsburg, Providence, and Virginia Beach. At issue is application of the FCC's rules implementing the loop and transport provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3). See, redacted copy of FCC brief [56 pages in PDF]. Judges Sentelle, Griffith and Edwards will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
10:30 AM - 4:30 PM. Day one of a three day meeting of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 30, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 211, at Pages 64595-64596. Location: The Westin Arlington Gateway Hotel, 801 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA.
12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Cable and Mass Media Practice Committees will host a brown bag lunch titled "Retransmission Consent Negotiations -- A Good Faith Discussion of the Issues". The speakers will be Kevin Latek (Dow Lohnes), Seth Davidson (Fleischman & Harding), and Linda Kinney (EchoStar Satellite). See, notice and registration page. Location: Drinker Biddle & Reath, 1500 K St., NW.
Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) regarding its proposed rules changes regarding inter-company transfers (ICTs). See, notice Federal Register, October 3, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 193, at Pages 57554-57564.
11/10. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Check Investors v. FTC and Charles Hutchins v. FTC, cases involving violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). See, Orders List [7 pages in PDF] at page 1. This lets stand the September 6, 2007, opinion [51 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir). The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which included $10.2 Million in fines. The defendant debt collectors, among other things, made false threats to arrest and criminally prosecute debtors. See also, FTC web page with hyperlinks to pleadings filed in the U.S. District Court (DNJ). These cases are Check Investors, Inc., et al. v. FTC, U.S. Supreme Court, Sup. Ct. No. 08-37, and Charles Hutchins v. FTC, U.S. Supreme Court, Sup. Ct. No. 08-39. Both are petitions for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, App. Ct. No. 05-3558. See also, Supreme Court docket and docket.
11/10. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in GlowProducts.com v. Litecubes, a patent and copyright case regarding lighted artificial ice cubes. See, Orders List [7 pages in PDF] at page 2. This lets stand the April 28, 2008, opinion [35 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir). This case is GlowProducts.com v. Litecubes, LLC, et al., U.S. Supreme Court, Sup. Ct. No. 08-363, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2006-1646. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. See also, Supreme Court docket.
11/7. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Arthur Anderson v. Carlisle, a case regarding the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the stay of claims involving non-signatories to the arbitration agreement. See, April 9, 2008, opinion [PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir). This case is Arthur Anderson LLP, et al. v. Wayne Carlisle, et al., U.S. Supreme Court, Sup. Ct. No. 08-146, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 06-5290. See, Supreme Court docket.
11/7. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Chris Cox gave a speech in Washington DC to the SEC International Enforcement Institute in which he discussed, among other things, memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with other countries regarding the sharing of telephone, internet service provider, and other types of records. He added that "This new kind of agreement ... would also cover the confidential exchange of credit card records, travel records, employment information, and corporate records. Beyond that, regulators would assist one another in obtaining records of electronic and telephonic communication, as well as testimony, responses to questions, and statements from witnesses."
11/7. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a report [12 pages in PDF] to the Congress titled "The Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007: Report To Congress Regarding the Accuracy of the Do Not Call Registry".

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 552
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 115
 § 106
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 § 7
 § 18
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 160
 § 251
 v. 
 v. 
in fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.