PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 30, 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
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1799 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 S.1799 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 S.1799 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 S.1799 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.