Before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, staff had been in discussions to reconcile two visions of database protection legislation, but both sides on the issue agree that the waning weeks of the congressional session are unlikely to produce an accord.
In addition, no legislation on database protections has been proposed this year. Congress last year saw some heavy debate on how databases should be protected, and that debate has continued to some extent, though mostly in staff discussions. Many companies that deal in content are seeking greater protections, while those that specialize in making that content available, such as portal companies, oppose a tightening of intellectual-property protections.
"I wouldnt say that talks have broken down or that were at an impasse," said Pete Sheffield, a spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which in the past has sided with the portals. "[But] obviously the events of a few weeks ago have, to a large degree, dictated resources and time and attention."
A spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee agreed, saying that there has been no breakdown in communications between the two committees, but that the anti-terrorism package -- recently offered in a compromise form -- is the primary order of the day.
Sheffield added that Congress failure to send any of the 13 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2002 to the president also means that must-pass legislation will, as usual, take up the majority of Congress time before adjournment, expected either at the end of October or the beginning of November.
Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., in June warned high-tech industry executives to come to an accord on database intellectual-property protections, or else Congress would do it for them.
"The time isnt too far away when [Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman W.J. "Billy"] Tauzin and I will retire to a room and write database legislation and announce to you what we have decided upon," Sensenbrenner told high-tech leaders at a conference sponsored by the Computer and Communications Industry Association, one the fiercest opponents of the Judiciary bill.
The Commerce Committees version of database protection has received widespread high-tech support because it allows the appropriation of previously compiled database material to be added to, and then sold as an essentially new compilation of information.
The Judiciary version, which last year was sponsored by Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., sets up a number of intellectual property protections for database owners, but according to the Commerce Committee, makes them so stringent that private citizens, companies and investors would be punished by fines and jail time for the relatively innocuous appropriation of material contained in other peoples databases.
Newsbytes Staff Writer Brian Krebs contributed to this report.
Robert MacMillan, Newsbytes
