PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 108-237.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 5, 2003
Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2003 - Amends the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993 to provide that, in any action under the antitrust laws, the conduct of a standards development organization (SDO) while engaged in a standards development activity shall be subject to a rule of reason standard.Limits the amount recoverable and attorney's fees with respect to standards development activity engaged in by an SDO.States that an SDO may, not later than 90 days after commencing activity for the purpose of developing or promulgating voluntary consensus standards or 90 days after enactment of this Act, whichever is later, file simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Commission a written notification disclosing: (1) the name and principal place of business of the SDO; and (2) documents showing the nature and scope of such activity. Allows an SDO to file additional disclosure notifications as appropriate to extend protections under this Act to standards development activities that are not covered by, or that have changed significantly since, the initial filing.Includes standards development activity within notice, disclosure, and withdrawal from notification requirements of the Act.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 108-237.
Became Public Law No: 108-237.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote. (consideration: CR H3654-3660; text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H3654-3656)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote.(consideration: CR H3654-3660; text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H3654-3656)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1086.
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
The committee substitute as amended agreed to by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S3610-3619; text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S3610-3613)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 376.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5104-5105)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5104-5105)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes debate on H.R. 1086.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5104-5106)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Supplemental report filed by the Committee on Judiciary, H. Rept. 108-125, Part II.
Supplemental report filed by the Committee on Judiciary, H. Rept. 108-125, Part II.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 63.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 108-125, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 108-125, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Hearing Held by Full Committee Task Force on Antitrust.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1086 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1086 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1086 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1086 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.