Remember when everyone thought the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) only had authority to act with regard to “enforcement” as opposed to other IP policy matters? That limitation is nowhere to be found in the 2008 legislation that created the position or in its legislative history, and there is nothing in this bill that limits the Assistant Secretary's powers either.

In addition, the Secretary of Commerce is given carte blanche to hire as many Deputy Assistant Secretaries to help as the USPTO can afford. This means that overnight, the USPTO would become the home of yet another office dedicated wholly to the protection of intellectual property.

Have we told you that the USPTO already has personnel dedicated to Intellectual Property Enforcement? It should come as no shock to anyone that these new positions, as well as the attache positions, are likely to be filled by those who believe that more IP enforcement is always better.

Fifty days.

That's the median time it took for eight legislative bills - on economic espionage, identity theft, abortion in the District of Columbia - to circulate in the House of Representatives before they were put on the agenda for Tuesday's markup session by the House Judiciary Committee.

Zero days.

That's how long the ninth bill on the agenda, a measure submitted by Judiciary chair Lamar Smith, existed before it was submitted for Tuesday's markup. Unlike the other eight (H.R. 6029, H.R. 4362, H.R. 3803... ), Smith's Intellectual Property Attaché Act didn't even have a number. It had yet to be introduced into the House legislative system.

That's legislating the future of copyright, the Internet and creative content, Lamar Smith-style.

On January 23^rd, the United States Senate will reconvene to begin legislative business for 2012. After the first order of business is taken care of, Majority Leader Harry Reid will then continue the process he started on December 17th of moving PIPA towards a Senate floor vote. This process is known as invoking "cloture," which is a rule that allows any Senator to impose a 30 hour time limit on debate subject to three-fifths of the Senate agreeing to end debate. Senator Ron Wyden has stated he will filibuster PIPA along with Senators Jerry Moran, Maria Cantwell, and Rand Paul and together they will use the full 30 hours available resulting in the cloture vote being held the next day.

On January 24^th, Majority Leader Reid’s cloture motion will have matured its 30 hours and he will then be allowed to call for an up-or-down vote on moving forward to consider PIPA. If three-fifths of the U.S. Senate agree by voting yes on cloture (ending debate), then the bill can be taken up for consideration and the process where Senators can offer amendments will begin as well as another cloture motion (resulting in another 30 hours of debate). The general rule of thumb is a bill that has 60 Senators in support of its passage will take about three days to pass the U.S. Senate.

However, if 60 Senators do not vote yes on cloture, then Senators Wyden, Moran, Cantwell, and Paul will be allowed to continue to speak in opposition to PIPA forever. That being said, what would likely happen in the aftermath if PIPA fails to gain 60 yes votes is the bill is withdrawn and a compromise is negotiated. If no compromise is possible, then the bill officially dies. It is important to note that three-fifths of the Senate must vote yes to move PIPA forward. For example, if 59 Senators voted yes on cloture and 41 Senators voted present or do not vote at all, it fails to pass. The key factor in cloture is three-fifths of the Senate voting yes on cloture and not how many votes are against PIPA.

Mr. Stone surreptitiously issued unauthorized subpoenas to an unknown number of internet service providers ("ISPs"), demanding the disclosure of the identities of anonymous Defendants so that he could pressure the alleged downloaders of pornography into settlement. Incredibly, months later Mr. Stone participated in the briefing of the very question of whether he should be allowed to issue discovery... all the while allowing ISPs to process the improperly issued subpoenas. Plaintiff's counsel's behavior demonstrates blatant contempt for the rule of law and the authority of this Court.

Moreover, the full extent of Mr. Stone's actions is not yet known because he refuses to meet and confer. Accordingly, rather than requesting a specific form of relief, Defendants instead ask this Court to order Mr. Stone to fully account for his actions so that the Court and Defendants can be made aware of the harm inflicted and so that they may respond accordingly. Once the Court has ascertained the full extent of Mr. Stone's actions, and the extent to which his client should properly bear responsibility for his actions ostensibly performed on his client's behalf, the Court can then decide whether an award of attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505, discovery sanctions under the Federal Rules, or some other relief is appropriate. Defendants ask this Court to impose some sanction for Mr. Stone's conduct to send a message that should hardly be necessary: abusing the Court's authority to improperly investigate and push settlements onto litigation opponents will not be tolerated.

Inquiring further, I was able to obtain a copy of the subpoena that you sent to Comcast and of your cover letter, which concealed from Comcast the fact that Judge Godbey had never granted you permission to serve subpoenas in this case. Inquiring still further of other major ISP's, we have learned that you have served other subpoenas in the case, that the date required by one of the notices of subpoena for a response to avoid identification is January 31, and that some ISP's have provided you with identifying information.

We are very disturbed by this information. Because the rules of procedure to not allow you to take discover at this phase of the lawsuit without express judicial permission, the subpoenas that you have issued to the ISP's that we have been able to contact to date essentially misrepresented that discovery was open in the case, and gave you access to information to which you are not entitled. It is, as well, arguably a serious abuse of process that may be independently actionable. Given the fact that your standard practice is to send settlement demand letters to Does once they are identified, we must acknowledge the possibility that you have been communicating with our clients. Yet, because those clients are represented by counsel (until the disposition of the discovery motion), your contacting them directly would be a serious violation of legal ethics, because we have never given you permission to contact our clients.

Take a deep breath, and repeat after me: "My [business model, product, business unit, brand, offering] has a finite life. I'm going to make that life as happy and productive as possible, but I also have to think about what's next."