Courts
Judge Deals Setback To Maker Of Blackberry Device
     A federal district court in Virginia has declined to enforce the terms of a settlement between the makers of the Blackberry communications device and a patent holding company. U.S. District Judge James Spencer said a $450 million settlement between Blackberry communications device maker Research in Motion and patent holding company NTP is not valid. He also declined to delay the court's proceedings, pending the Patent and Trademark Office's re-examination of NTP's patents. The PTO earlier this year declared that the patents were invalid after re-examining them. The PTO must go through further proceedings before it reaches a final conclusion on the patents' validity. The development raises the prospect that RIM could be forced to stop supporting and selling the devices in the United States. But on Wednesday, the company said it is designing a software alternative, which it may implement to continue operating its service in the United States.

Courts
Supreme Court To Address Key Patent Infringement Case
     The Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on one of the most contentious debates gripping the world of technology policy when it said it would hear an appeal of a patent infringement case against online auction house eBay. The justices will tackle some of the same questions that lawmakers face on Capitol Hill. They must decide if courts should treat companies that do not make products but merely enforce patents the same as companies that do manufacture or implement their inventions. They also must mull over whether courts should automatically stop patent infringers from making and distributing their infringing products. The case concerns a long-running lawsuit against eBay by patent-licensing and software company MercExchange. Meanwhile, the court declined to review an appeal of a trademark infringement case addressing when a trademark is being illegally used for commercial purposes.

Courts
High Court Hears Arguments On Patent Competition Issue
     The Supreme Court on Tuesday considered whether judges in antitrust cases should assume that patent owners can force consumers to buy products at uncompetitive prices. Under current law established by high court precedents set since 1945, judges assume that patent owners possess "market power." The term refers to a seller's ability to successfully raise prices or restrict production and output in a certain market. Tuesday's oral arguments over Illinois Tool works Inc. et al. v. Independent Ink concern the question of whether the justices should overturn the court's own precedents to clarify the rules. The justices appeared skeptical of arguments advanced by Independent Ink attorney Kathleen Sullivan. She is an attorney at the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges and a former dean of the Stanford Law School.

Antitrust
Counsel: Microsoft Taking Antitrust Compliance Seriously
     Microsoft rolled out its top legal brass to demonstrate to a federal district court judge that it is taking its antitrust compliance duties seriously. The software giant's general counsel, Brad Smith, made an unusual appearance along with other company legal compliance attorneys in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for the company's periodic antitrust compliance court hearing. Both Microsoft and the attorneys representing the plaintiff states and the federal government meet quarterly at the court to provide the judge overseeing the case, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly with an update on the progress of Microsoft's protocol licensing efforts. Smith reassured Kollar-Kotelly that Microsoft was taking its antitrust duties seriously, and that he wanted to "convey personally" the connection of the company's efforts. He told the judge that Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer had been involved in the company's firm-wide effort to better comply with antitrust law, and that the company had asked former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky for advice on its compliance efforts.

On The Hill
Martin Urges Congress To Regulate Cable Content
     FCC Chairman Kevin Martin urged Congress to grant the FCC authority to regulate the content or the manner in which the cable television industry provides programming to the public, presenting a dramatic challenge to the cable sector. Martin also repudiated a report about cable television pricing issued one year ago by the agency under former Chairman Michael Powell. Martin called the study "problematic and at times biased." The report found that "a la carte" pricing would raise prices and reduce choices for consumers, a result that Martin called "unlikely." One of Martin's proposals was that laws against "indecency" be applied to cable and satellite programming. If adopted, it would be the first time such content has been regulated since the industry began in 1948. Martin's views, together with that of 24 other presenters, were voiced during the first half of an all-day "open forum on decency" conducted by the Senate Commerce Committee. Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, presided.

Telecom
Industry Seeks To Streamline Video Franchise Pacts
     The move to streamline video franchise agreements was supported by many telecommunications industry players, and a federal and state regulator, at several conference panels. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin "has made it very clear that he intends to do whatever he can to meet President's Bush's goal; the president has been unwavering in his commitment to rollout of broadband facilities," said agency Media Bureau Chief Donna Gregg. Gregg said increased competition in the marketplace for pay-television services was instrumental to driving the deployment of high-speed, or broadband, Internet facilities. Speaking at a conference hosted by the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies, Gregg said Bell companies "cannot even financially justify the decision to invest in broadband facilities" unless they have the clear ability to offer such services. Bell companies are pressing for legislation to offer state- or nation-wide services.

Security
FAA Restrictions Bar Wider Use of Border Patrol Drones
     President Bush wants to fly unmanned drones along the southern border as part of his broader immigration reform initiative unveiled this week, but border patrol officials are still negotiating with the Federal Aviation Administration about where and when it can deploy the systems. "We're going to use drones to be able to help enforce the border in rural Texas and in rural New Mexico and rural Arizona," Bush said. "Slowly, but surely, technology is being employed up and down the border, and that's a key part of our strategy." The president's proposal also includes a guest worker program and bolstering immigration laws. After more than two years of negotiations, the Homeland Security Department's U.S. Customs and Border Protection Directorate recently finalized a deal with the FAA to fly one drone in the Tucson, Ariz., area. The directorate also issued an environmental impact study in September that helps clear the way for an expansion of UAV operations from the western corner of Arizona to the eastern corner of Texas.