A listing of recent antidumping and countervailing duty messages posted to CBP's Web site, along with the case number(s), period covered, and CBP message number, is provided below. These messages are available by searching on the listed CBP message number at http://addcvd.cbp.gov.
Wi-Fi packet data is not “readily accessible to the general public,” even on open connections, so Google can be sued under the Wiretap Act for its Street View collection of such data, U.S. District Judge James Ware in San Francisco ruled last week. The company has repeatedly apologized for what it characterized as bad judgment by some engineers in designing the software for its Street View cars to broadly collect router and “payload” data -- conduct for which it’s under investigation by the FCC and for which it has been penalized by European authorities. But Google claimed in a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, that the collection didn’t violate the Wiretap Act because the Wi-Fi broadcasts were “readily accessible,” and further that the plaintiffs’ California wiretap and “unfair” business claims were preempted by federal law. Ware agreed with Google that the state claims were preempted. But the judge said the plaintiffs’ claims clearly fall under the Wiretap Act. Plaintiffs said the Wiretap Act’s exception for “radio communication” doesn’t apply to the “electronic communication” that Google collected. Ware said Congress did the court no favors by failing to define “radio communication” in the law. But the references to “radio communication” in the law are “drafted for the particular design of radio broadcast technologies,” not other communications technologies that use radio waves, Ware said. If he interprets the term broadly to include wireless Internet and cellphones, “this exception could lead to absurd results,” he said: The law already includes an exception for intercepting radio communications from “ships, aircraft, vehicles, or person in distress,” which would make cellular-call interceptions legal in vehicles. Under another exception, a broad definition would allow eavesdropping on airplane Wi-Fi, the judge added. Other legislative definitions for compound terms such as “electronic communication” suggest Congress aims for narrow and “nuanced” definitions, Ware said. The legislative history around the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which updated the Wiretap Act, also indicates Congress put limits on how broadly to interpret exceptions to liability for radio-based technologies that are “architected in such a way as to be private,” he said. The plaintiffs claim that Wi-Fi data can’t be readily accessed “without the use of sophisticated packet sniffer technology” such as that Google used -- hence their claims fall under the Wiretap Act, Ware said: It’s not relevant that the networks were open and not password-protected. The judge gave plaintiffs until Aug. 1 to file an amended complaint. The Association for Competitive Technology, a group in which Microsoft figures prominently, applauded the ruling against what it termed Google’s “Wi-Spy” behavior. “Google has been a bad actor in our industry when it comes to privacy,” broadly harming the reputation of Internet and mobile app developers, said ACT President Jonathan Zuck. A Google spokesman told us the company believes the claims are “without merit” and it’s still “evaluating our options at this preliminary stage.”
Wi-Fi packet data is not “readily accessible to the general public,” even on open connections, so Google can be sued under the Wiretap Act for its Street View collection of such data, U.S. District Judge James Ware in San Francisco ruled last week. The company has repeatedly apologized for what it characterized as bad judgment by some engineers in designing the software for its Street View cars to broadly collect router and “payload” data -- conduct for which it’s under investigation by the FCC (WID May 19 p7) and for which it has been penalized by European authorities (WID March 22 p7). But Google claimed in a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, that the collection didn’t violate the Wiretap Act because the Wi-Fi broadcasts were “readily accessible,” and further that the plaintiffs’ California wiretap and “unfair” business claims were preempted by federal law. Ware agreed with Google that the state claims were preempted. But the judge said the plaintiffs’ claims clearly fall under the Wiretap Act. Plaintiffs said the Wiretap Act’s exception for “radio communication” doesn’t apply to the “electronic communication” that Google collected. Ware said Congress did the court no favors by failing to define “radio communication” in the law. But the references to “radio communication” in the law are “drafted for the particular design of radio broadcast technologies,” not other communications technologies that use radio waves, Ware said. If he interprets the term broadly to include wireless Internet and cellphones, “this exception could lead to absurd results,” he said: The law already includes an exception for intercepting radio communications from “ships, aircraft, vehicles, or person in distress,” which would make cellular-call interceptions legal in vehicles. Under another exception, a broad definition would allow eavesdropping on airplane Wi-Fi, the judge added. Other legislative definitions for compound terms such as “electronic communication” suggest Congress aims for narrow and “nuanced” definitions, Ware said. The legislative history around the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which updated the Wiretap Act, also indicates Congress put limits on how broadly to interpret exceptions to liability for radio-based technologies that are “architected in such a way as to be private,” he said. The plaintiffs claim that Wi-Fi data can’t be readily accessed “without the use of sophisticated packet sniffer technology” such as that Google used -- hence their claims fall under the Wiretap Act, Ware said: It’s not relevant that the networks were open and not password-protected. The judge gave plaintiffs until Aug. 1 to file an amended complaint. The Association for Competitive Technology, a group in which Microsoft figures prominently, applauded the ruling against what it termed Google’s “Wi-Spy” behavior. “Google has been a bad actor in our industry when it comes to privacy,” broadly harming the reputation of Internet and mobile app developers, said ACT President Jonathan Zuck. A Google spokesman told us the company believes the claims are “without merit” and it’s still “evaluating our options at this preliminary stage.”
The International Trade Commission is publishing notices on the following AD/CV injury, Section 337 patent, and other trade proceedings (any notices that warrant a more detailed summary will appear in a future issue of ITT):
The International Trade Administration is publishing notices on the following AD/CV proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, the scope, affected firms, or effective dates will be detailed in a subsequent ITT article):
"Everyone, except me, will have the same boss” the day after the sale of BJ’s Wholesale Club, CEO Laura Sen told employees in an email Wednesday morning following the announcement of BJ’s proposed sale to private equity firms Leonard Green & Partners and CVC Capital Partners for $2.8 billion in cash. BJ’s published the email in an amended proxy statement filed Wednesday at SEC soon after the proposed sale was announced.
Consumer intentions to buy new TV sets jumped significantly in June, according to preliminary data released Tuesday by The Conference Board. Of 5,000 homes surveyed, 17.2 percent said they plan to buy new TV sets in the next six months, compared with 15.2 percent who said so in May and 7.5 percent in June 2010. Still, the Consumer Confidence Index fell for the second straight month, “driven by a less favorable assessment of current conditions and continued pessimism about the short-term outlook,” The Conference Board said. Fewer consumers in June than in May “foresee conditions improving over the next six months,” it said. “Inflation fears eased considerably in June, but concerns about income prospects increased. Given the combination of uneasiness about the economic outlook and future earnings, consumers are likely to continue weighing their spending decisions quite carefully."
The International Trade Administration is publishing notices on the following AD/CV proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, the scope, affected firms, or effective dates will be detailed in a subsequent ITT article):
The International Trade Administration has issued the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review of fresh garlic from China (A-570-831) for the period November 1, 2008 through October 31, 2009.
CBP has announced that the fiscal year 2011 preliminary Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (commonly referred to as the Byrd Amendment) “amounts available” report has been delayed.