The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Research In Motion’s (RIM) appeal Mon., essentially upholding 2 lower-court rulings that could result in a shutdown of RIM’s popular BlackBerry service. The court didn’t agree with RIM’s argument that the lower courts improperly extended U.S. patent law protection to a company that serves its approximately 3 million subscribers from Canada.

Privacy concerns aside, analysts seemed unruffled by a Justice Dept. suit against Google. They express doubt about any long-term effects on the firm. The suit seeks search-query records to defend a porn-access law; earlier, Google spurned a DoJ request for the data (WID Jan 20 p4). ABI Research said the govt. “unfairly” subpoenaed Google for records, but ABI Broadband & Multimedia Dir. Vamsi Sistla told us he doesn’t think “it will impact Google’s share value or market cap.” An 8.5% Fri. selloff of Google shares was a “temporary blip” the result of lukewarm tech sector performance, Yahoo’s “not- so-attractive earnings” (WID Jan 18 p9) and a recent spike in Google insider selling, Sistla said. DoJ’s suit shouldn’t have “any meaningful impact on financial results” on Google, Stanford Group said Mon. Stanford raised its 4th-quarter 2005 and full-year 2006 estimates for Google, predicting that next week the firm will report increased OIBDA over 100% and EPS over 200% for all of 2005, and foreseeing a 50% rise in OIBDA and over 40% EPS growth in 2006. ComScore Media search data for Dec. 2005 showed Google “significantly” increasing monetization from Nov., ComScore said, explaining an upgrade of Google to buy. Stanford analysts couldn’t be reached to elaborate on doubts DoJ’s suit will affect Google financials. Scoring DoJ for trying to make Google “support their own agendas” in justifying the Children’s Online Protection Act (COPA), Sistla said the case has “nothing to do with the privacy of the users,” since DoJ told Google it could remove identifiable personal data from material sought. He said the govt. case is “definitely not the last” against search engines trying to force them to help in non-criminal matters, adding that complying search firms “will probably learn a lesson or two from Google’s stance.” Sistla predicted Congress will query search- engine firms on cooperating with govt. regarding their search records and index information. That is “probably going to open up an opportunity for a better solution down the line” than suits, he said. Google “probably did earn some brownie points in the eyes of their users” for not yielding to DoJ, but if Google had cooperated, “average users really don’t have anywhere to go. Everybody just sold out,” he said.

Cable family tiers may not meet consumer needs, FCC Chmn. Martin and Comr. Copps said a day after senators carped about the packages’ paucity of sports and other popular content (CD Jan 20 p1). Martin, though less critical than Copps, said he shares some worries voiced Thurs. by Sen. Lautenberg (D.-N.J.) and Va. Republican Sen. Allen and other legislators.

The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) should act “aggressively” to stop Germany from easing regulation of Deutsche Telekom (DT), Comptel said last Fri. In comments to the European Commission earlier this month, the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs (BMWi) said effective competition shouldn’t be equated with absence of market power. The govt. hinted it might give DT a regulatory break, something the telco has sought for its new fiber VDSL network (CD Jan 11 p10). Comptel said the paper validated concerns it raised in Dec. that “Germany is moving away from regulating the ex-monopolist.” Such an action, even for a limited time, “would devastate competition in the broadband and other emerging sectors.” If competition rules are lifted as the BMWi appears to suggest, Comptel said, it will devalue competitors’ investments and hamper new foreign investment.

The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) should act “aggressively” to stop Germany from easing regulation of Deutsche Telekom (DT), Comptel said last Fri. In comments to the European Commission earlier this month, the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs (BMWi) said effective competition shouldn’t be equated with absence of market power. The govt. hinted it might give DT a regulatory break, something the telco has sought for its new fiber VDSL network (CD Jan 11 p10). Comptel said the paper validated concerns it raised in Dec. that “Germany is moving away from regulating the ex-monopolist.” Such an action, even for a limited time, “would devastate competition in the broadband and other emerging sectors.” If competition rules are lifted as the BMWi appears to suggest, Comptel said, it will devalue competitors’ investments and hamper new foreign investment.

Lower courts have yet to interpret the landmark Supreme Court MGM v. Grokster ruling, which found peer-to-peer(P2P) networks can be liable for users’ sharing copyrighted files, but attorneys are amassing arsenals to deploy on high-tech clients’ behalf in a post- Grokster world. The now-defunct P2P network settled its fight with the entertainment industry late last year (WID Nov 8/05 p1, June 28/05 p1), but as new modes emerge, legal experts await cases testing Grokster’s updated liability standards. Intellectual property (IP) attorney John Hornick Wed. gave D.C. Bar Assn. members some rules of the road.

The FCC’s long-awaited BRS/EBS order has been withdrawn from circulation so new Comr. Tate can get up to speed on its complex issues, industry sources said this week. The order involves leasing spectrum assigned to educational institutions for wireless broadband use. Meanwhile, lobbying continues. Motorola defended itself against the Assn. of Home Appliance Mfrs. (AHAM) charges that its recent data on the interference threat from microwave ovens and other IMS devices were based purely on “discredited” information and an NTIA study that tested old gear. A group representing ITFS license holders urged an end to secrecy on the terms of leases filed at the FCC.

More than a dozen constitutional law experts disputed the Justice Dept.’s defense of the Bush Administration’s secret, warrantless electronic spying on U.S. citizens, saying in a letter that DoJ’s argument “fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance.” Former FBI Dir. William Sessions, onetime Deputy Attorney Gen. Philip Heymann and a handful of lawyers who worked in the executive branch under President Bush told Congressional leaders this week that the National Security Agency (NSA) program “appears on its face to violate existing law.”

A La. state appeals court dealt a big blow to a municipal broadband project in Lafayette, La., striking down a city bond ordinance that would have raised $125 million to finance the Lafayette Utilities System (LUS) broadband venture. The 3rd La. Court of Appeals overruled a lower court, saying the bond ordinance violated anti- subsidy provisions of the state Local Government Fair Competition Act. Lafayette can’t proceed with the bond issue, planned for March, until it “complies with applicable law,” said the court. It was weighing a BellSouth appeal challenging a part of the bond ordinance under which LUS could have pledged residual revenue from other utility services to guarantee timely repayment of its telecom bonds. The provision, included to get lower interest rates, would be an illegal cross subsidy absent a requirement that the telecom bonds go into default first, BellSouth said. The city argued that revenue pledges could be activated at any time so long as the telecom unit repaid the pledge at market interest rates. The court flatly rejected the city’s argument. It said the law is very specific in requiring that telecom bonds be repaid “solely” with revenue from telecom services. The court said the law requires a bond default to activate a revenue pledge. It characterized the city’s plan for backing up its telecom bonds as a “revenue assignment,” which is prohibited. The court ensured fair competition by upholding the state law’s subsidy provisions, BellSouth said. Disappointed city leaders said they are mulling their next step. Options include an appeal to the state Supreme Court, a bond ordinance rewrite and revising the municipal competition law.

A La. state appeals court dealt a big blow to a municipal broadband project in Lafayette, La., striking down a city bond ordinance that would have raised $125 million to finance the Lafayette Utilities System (LUS) broadband venture. The 3rd La. Court of Appeals overruled a lower court, saying the bond ordinance violated anti- subsidy provisions of the state Local Government Fair Competition Act. Lafayette can’t proceed with the bond issue, planned for March, until it “complies with applicable law,” said the court. It was weighing a BellSouth appeal challenging a part of the bond ordinance under which LUS could have pledged residual revenue from other utility services to guarantee timely repayment of its telecom bonds. The provision, included to get lower interest rates, would be an illegal cross subsidy absent a requirement that the telecom bonds go into default first, BellSouth said. The city argued that revenue pledges could be activated at any time so long as the telecom unit repaid the pledge at market interest rates. The court flatly rejected the city’s argument. It said the law is very specific in requiring that telecom bonds be repaid “solely” with revenue from telecom services. The court said the law requires a bond default to activate a revenue pledge. It characterized the city’s plan for backing up its telecom bonds as a “revenue assignment,” which is prohibited. The court ensured fair competition by upholding the state law’s subsidy provisions, BellSouth said. Disappointed city leaders said they are mulling their next step. Options include an appeal to the state Supreme Court, a bond ordinance rewrite and revising the municipal competition law.