Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2005/11/01.asp
Timestamp: 2017-11-25 09:32:50
Document Index: 40640559

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 332', '§ 1983', '§ 332', '§ 1983', '§ 332', '§332', '§1983', '§ 2252']

November 1, 2005, 8:00 AM ET, Alert No. 1,244.
Criticism of Alito. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) (at left), the Senate Minority Leader, stated in a release that "I am disappointed in this choice for several reasons. First, unlike previous nominations, this one was not the product of consultation with Senate Democrats. ... Second, this appointment ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the Supreme Court. ... President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club."
People for the American Way (PFAW), a Washington DC based interest group that devotes considerable resources to defeating conservative judicial nominees of Republican Presidents, stated in a release that it will "wage a massive national effort to defeat Alito's nomination".
Nextel v. Kingston Township (Cell Towers). Judge Alito wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Nextel Partners Inc. v. Kingston Township
This case concerns the construction of wireless communications towers, and the provision of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 332, that limits the authority of state and local governments to regulate the location, construction, and modification of wireless communications facilities, including cell towers.
In this case Judge Alito held that there is no violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when a state violates § 332(c)(7).
The Supreme Court later held in its March 22, 2005, opinion [22 pages in PDF] in Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams that there is no § 1983 remedy for violation of § 332(c)(7). See, story titled "Supreme Court Holds That Individuals Who Sue Under §332 Cannot Also Recover Damages Under §1983" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,101, March 23, 2005. However, before then, there was a circuit split.
U.S. v. Zimmerman (Suppression of Electronic Evidence). Judge Alito wrote a dissent in U.S. v. Zimmerman, a criminal case in which the Court of Appeals reversed a conviction that was based upon evidence found on a computer. See, January 4, 2002, split opinion.
See also, story titled "Third Circuit Holds Evidence Obtained in Computer Search Inadmissable" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 340, January 7, 2002.
Police searched Zimmerman's computer, pursuant to a warrant. They found child pormography. He was charged with possession of child pormography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). He moved to suppress this evidence. The District Court denied his motion. The Appeals Court reversed, with Judge Alito dissenting. Basically, the majority held that the police had probable cause to search for evidence of other crimes, but not for the crime at issue in this case. Hence, the evidence must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. Judge Alito argued that the good faith exception applies.
Lepage v. 3M (Antitrust). Judge Alito joined in the Court of Appeal's opinion in Lepage's v. 3M, an antitrust case. This was a 2-1 case in which the dissenter accused the majority of weakening Section 2 of the Sherman Act "to the point of impotence".
LePage filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (EDPenn) against 3M alleging violation of antitrust law. It alleged, among other things, that 3M used its monopoly over its Scotch tape brand to gain a competitive advantage in the private label tape portion of the transparent tape market in the U.S. through the use of 3M's multi-tiered bundled rebate structure, which offered higher rebates when customers purchased products in a number of 3M's different product lines.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of 3M on unlawful agreements in restraint of trade and exclusive dealing, and against 3M on monopolization and attempted monopolization claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. 3M filed motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and for a new trial. The District Court granted 3M's motion for JMOL on the attempted maintenance of monopoly power claim, but denied 3M's motion JMOL in all other respects, and denied the motion for a new trial. The District Court entered a judgment for trebled damages of $68,486,679. The present appeal followed.
On December 3, 2004, the Court of Appeals issued its divided en banc opinion [40 pages in PDF]. Judge Alito wrote the majority opinion. The issue was what constitutes sufficient creativity and originality to be protected by copyright. Southco claimed copyright in the serial numbers that it assigns to the parts that it manufacturers. Southco used four part numbers that not only identify the product, but also convey information about the product. Kanebridge copied Southco's numbering system and numbers.
Then, Judge Alito engaged in a discussion of why, setting statute and precedent aside, under the reasoning of this case, a photograph should be copyrightable subject matter. That is, there is creativity in the invention of camera technology, and in selecting a camera, lens, film, camera settings, lighting, angles, and positions. But, none of these actions are copyrightable expression. The purported expression that the photographer copyrights is the photograph. However, once these creative actions are complete, it the interaction of a machine and the objective reality of nature that results in a pre-ordained object, the picture. Like Southco's product numbers, the photograph is the product of a post creativity mechanical system.
Judge Alito would appear to endorse the principle that courts should impose a strict creativity requirement. Many in the information technology sectors generally support such an approach. Telecommunications carriers and internet services companies have historically supported limiting the scope of copyright.
Pitt News v. Pappert (Free Speech). Judge Alito wrote the July 29, 2004 opinion [17 pages in PDF] in The Pitt News v. Pappert, a First Amendment challenge brought by a student newspaper to a state statute that restrained certain speech -- paid advertising of alcoholic beverages in university affiliated media. The Court held that statute is unconstitutional, but on narrow grounds specific to this restraint.
For a detailed recitation of the facts of the case, see the Court's opinion, or the summary in the story titled "3rd Circuit Rules in First Amendment Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 949, July 30, 2004.
He carefully avoided writing anything that might be applied to other situations where some media segments are treated different by government regulators than other media segments. For example, the Communications Act is predicated on the principle that certain communications media (such as radio, television, cable, and satellite) should be subject to regulatory regimes that are not applied to certain other communications media (such as books, magazines, newspapers, pulpits, and lecterns). Moreover, different Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulated media are treated differently. Broadcast television and cable television are subject to different indecency standards. Sometimes competitors operate under different restraints, solely because one has gone through a recent merger review, and the other has not. One might wonder when do these targeted rules rise to the level of a constitutional issue? Judge Alito informs only that "courts must be wary".
This is a petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York, which is the highest court of the state of New York. The state court issued its divided opinion [33 pages in PDF] on March 29, 2005.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) introduced S 2785, the "Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2004", in the 108th Congress. They introduced a related bill, S 1097, the "Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005", in the present Congress. These bills would add a new section to Title 4 to the U.S. Code. These bills would limit the ability of states to impose state income taxes upon individuals who are not present in their states.
There is also a companion bill in the House, HR 2558, sponsored by Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT). Neither Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) nor Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have cosponsored any of these bills.
"Yet, the many benefits to workers of telecommuting are today placed in jeopardy because of current law in New York and a few other States. Today, New York State requires that workers pay income tax on income even if it is not earned in the State through their ``convenience of the employer´´ rule. While there are several States that have the ``convenience of the employer'' rule, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York", said Dodd.
See also, story titled "Dodd and Lieberman Introduce Bill to End Double State Taxation of Teleworkers" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 976, September 14, 2004.
The Supreme Court wrote in its October 31, 2005, Order List [16 pages in PDF], at page 2, that "The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition."
The Court of Appeals issued its opinion [43 pages in PDF] on March 8, 2005, setting aside the decision of the FTC, and vacating its cease and desist order. The Court of Appeals number is 04-10688.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether or not to grant certiorari. Although, it has received numerous amicus curiae briefs. See, Supreme Court docket. This case is Sup. Ct. No. 05-273.
10/31. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Laboratory Corp. of America v. Metabolite Laboratories, a patent infringement case that the Supreme Court might use to revise the law of patentable subject matter. See, Order List [16 pages in PDF] at page 2.
Metabolite Laboratories is the holder of U.S. Patent No. 4,940,658, titled "Assay for sulfhydryl amino acids and methods for detecting and distinguishing cobalamin and folic acid deficency".
Metabolite filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DColo) against Laboratory Corporation (LabCorp) alleging infringement of its patent. Metabolite prevailed in the District Court.
On August 26, 2005, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), at the request of the Court, submitted an amicus curiae brief. It wrote that "The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied." However, the OSG's objection is that the relevant facts were not well developed in the record. Aside from this, the OSG questioned whether the claim at issue is patentable subject matter.
The petitioner, LabCorp, is represented by Jonathan Saul Franklin of the Washington DC office of the law firm of Hogan & Hartson. He was, until recently, a partner of the new Chief Justice, John Roberts.
The Senate will meet at 9:00 AM. It will resume consideration of S 1932, the deficit reduction omnibus reconciliation bill.
10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold an oversight hearing titled "Administrative Law, Process and Procedure Project". The witnesses will be Morton Rosenberg (Congressional Research Service), Christopher Mihm (Government Accountability Office), Jeffrey Lubbers (American University law school), and Jody Freeman (Harvard Law School). 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 - 4:00 PM. The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) will host a technology demonstration and briefing titled "Interoperable Communications for First Responders". The scheduled speakers are Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA), Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA), Bob Gurss (Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials), Bill Stone (Verizon Wireless), William Webb (Congressional Fire Services Institute), and David Aylward (Emergency Interoperability Consortium and Director of COMCARE). For more information, contact Bob Cohen at 703 284-5301 or bcohen at itaa dot org or Charlie Greenwald at 703 284-5303 cgreenwald at itaa dot org. The demonstration will be from 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM in the Rayburn Foyer. The briefing will be in Room 2168A of the Rayburn Building at 12:00 NOON.
1:30 - 4:30 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP) will meet to discuss "U.S. Priorities in the Doha Development Agenda". See, notice in the Federal Register, October 18, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 200, at Page 60597. Location: Room 1205, DOS, 2201 C Street, NW.
2:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold a hearing on pending judicial nominations. The SJC frequently cancels of postpones meetings without notice. See, 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.
9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee may hold an executive business meeting. The SJC rarely follows the agenda for its business meetings. The SJC frequently cancels of 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.
10/31. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Microsoft v. Eolas Technologies. See, Order List [16 pages in PDF] at page 15. This is Sup. Ct. No. 05-288
Eolas is the licensee of U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906, titled "Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document". Eolas has asserted, successfully, that Microsoft's web browser, Microsoft Internet Explorer (MSIE), incorporates the invention disclosed in this patent.
On August 11, 2003, a trial jury of the District Court returned its verdict that MSIE infringed this patent. The jury also awarded damages of $521 Million. See, story titled "Jury Returns Verdict of Infringement Against Microsoft in Eolas Browser Patent Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 716, August 12, 2003. Microsoft appealed.
See, story titled "Federal Circuit Vacates in Eolas Patent Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,087, March 3, 2005.
Microsoft is represented by Carter Phillips of the Washington DC office of the law firm of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood. Eolas is represented by Martin Lueck of the Minneapolis law firm of Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi.
The Court of Appeals number is 04-1234. The Supreme Court number is 05-288. See also, Supreme Court docket.
See also, Microsoft's Eolas web page.
10/28. The U.S. District Court (NDCal) issued an order [PDF] in Google v. Microsoft that stays Google's action in federal court in the state of California until the completion of Microsoft's action against Google in state court in Washington.
On July 19, 2005, Microsoft filed a complaint in Superior Court, King County, Washington, its home court, against Google and Kai-Fu Lee, alleging that Kai-Fu Lee, a former employee, breached his employee confidentiality and non-compete agreement with Microsoft, by going to work for Google on competing projects. On September 13, 2005, the court in Washington issued a Preliminary Injunction [13 pages in PDF] that provides that until trial, Kai-Fu Lee and Google are enjoined from engaging in certain activities.
See, stories titled "Microsoft Sues Former Employee Who Joined Google" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,178, July 20, 2005, "Court Holds Hearing on Microsoft's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Against Google" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,210, September 9, 2005, and "Trial Court Issues Preliminary Injunction in Microsoft v. Kai-Fu Lee and Google" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,214, September 15, 2005
Google and Kai Fu Lee filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (NDCal), Google's home court. The District Court just issued its stay order in this action.
This case is Google, Inc. and Kai-Fu Lee v. Microsoft Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, D.C. No. C-05-03095 RMW, Judge Ronald Whyte presiding.
10/31. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published in the Federal Register its Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. See, Federal Register, October 31, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 209, at Pages 65540 - 65601.
10/31. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published in the Federal Register is Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. See, Federal Register, October 31, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 209, at Pages 65638 - 65648.
10/31. The Department of Justice (DOJ) published in the Federal Register its Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. See, Federal Register, October 31, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 209, at Pages 64852 - 64893.
10/31. The Department of Commerce (DOC) published in the Federal Register its Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. See, Federal Register, October 31, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 209, at Pages 64394 - 64482.