John Roberts Overview (Updated)

President Bush just announced his nominee for the Supreme Court. Reaction has been mixed based upon his limited judicial experience and his reluctance to answer certain questions posed during his previous confirmation experience. Here's more:

Bio (from here)

Judge Roberts was confirmed by the Senate to a judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 8, 2003, and sworn in on June 2 by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Judge Roberts graduated from Harvard College in 1976, and received his law degree in 1979 from Harvard Law School. Following graduation from law school, he served as law clerk for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the following year to then-Associate Justice Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Roberts served as Special Assistant to United States Attorney General William French Smith from 1981 to 1982 and Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan from 1982 to 1986. He then joined Hogan & Hartson where he developed a civil litigation practice, with an emphasis on appellate matters. From 1989 to 1993 he served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States. He returned to Hogan & Hartson in 1993. At the time of his confirmation, Judge Roberts was the senior partner in charge of Hogan & Hartson's appellate practice. He is a member of the American Law Institute and the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers.

USA v. Microsoft
He argued for the United States against Microsoft in early 2001. Microsoft was appealing the district ruling that they violated the Sherman Act. Here is an overview of the case:

Microsoft Corporation appeals from judg-
ments of the District Court finding the company in violation
of ss 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and ordering various
remedies.

Fox Television v. FCC
It also appears that he joined in support of Fox Television Stations, Inc. in their quest to overturn the National Television Station Ownership rule and the Cable/Broadcast Cross-Ownership rule. As I understand it, the NTSO rule prohibited any station from owning assets that would reach above 35% of the national audience. "The CBCO Rule prohibits a cable television system from carrying the signal of any television broadcast station if the system owns a broadcast station in the same local market (ref)."

The official summary of the case is as follows:

F.C.C.'s decision not to repeal or to modify the National Television Station Ownership rule was arbitrary, where it could not show why the rule is necessary to the public interest, and therefore was in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act; and its decision to retain the Cable/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule was arbitrary where it failed to justify its retention of the rule as necessary to safeguard competition.(from findlaw)

The current media rules, as a result of this ruling and Roberts' arguments can be found here.

RIAA v. Verizon
Roberts was a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals when they heard an appeal on the RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services case. "This case concerns the Recording Industry Association of America's use of the subpoena provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ... to identify users the RIAA believes are infringing on the copyrights of its members.(ref)."
Specifically, the RIAA demanded that Verizon disclose information about the identities of susbscribers who were involved with trading Mp3s. Verizon refused to comply on the grounds that they are merely acting as a "conduit" for information and are in no way responsible for the actions of its users.
During arguments,

One of the judges, John Roberts, questioned whether Verizon should have been forced to turn over the names without the RIAA having to file a lawsuit. Roberts hypothesized that if someone entered his open library door, "that doesn't make me liable for copyright infringement." But Roberts also added that the case concerned a man who made 600 copyrighted works available. "Is there any legitimate purpose for making available for copying 600 copyrighted works?" the judge asked.(ref)

Roberts and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals eventually agreed that Verizon Internet Services was not responsible for disseminating such information about its subscribers. This decision was eventually upheld, indirectly, by the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case. This was one of the earliest decisions establishing the limits of the otherwise tyrannical DMCA. More information about the case can be found at the EFF here.

Update: I found this article as a link on lostremote.com. It goes into detail about some recent cases that Judge Roberts has presided over on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, there appears to be a few problems with the articles. At one point, the author refers to the nominee as Rogers. His name is not Rogers, it's Roberts. In the article, the author refers to Roberts' involvement with the "broadcast flag" and Northpoint Satellite case. However, Rogers was on the three-judge panel for both of those cases and not Roberts. More information on those cases can be found here and here, respectively. I have called the author to determine the nature of the misunderstanding (either his or mine, the latter more likely than the former).

Update 2: The article linked to above (relinked here) has been quickly corrected. The cases heard by Rogers and Roberts are now acurately identified. The B&C author should be commended for that quick fix.