5/1. The House Science Committee amended and approved HR 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. This bill would authorize the appropriation of over $2 Billion over three years for nanotechnology research and development programs at the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The majority of the funding would go to the NSF.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), and others.

The Committee approved four amendments. It approved an amendment offered by Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI), Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA) and Rep. David Wu (D-OR) that requires interdisciplinary research centers to exchange technical information and best practices, to partner with states and industry, and to accelerate commercialization.

The Committee approved an amendment offered by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) that adds a new section pertaining to Science and Technology Graduate Scholarships for Service programs.

The Committee approved an amendment offered by Rep. Sheila Lee (D-TX) and Rep. Wu that requires that research programs include minority serving colleges and universities.

The Committee approved also an amendment offered by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) that clarifies that research on societal and ethical concerns includes a study of environmental implications, and the implications of possible development of non-human intelligence.

5/1. The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing S 189, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) is the sponsor of the bill. Sen. George Allen (R-VA) is one of ten cosponsors of the bill. However, Senators Allen and Wyden are the bill's two most vocal promoters. Sen. Allen presided at the hearing. Sen. Wyden and Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) also participated in the hearing.

Sen. Allen (at right) quipped that when he and Sen. Wyden first addressed this issue in the 107th Congress, "many of our colleagues thought that nanotechnology was too small of an issue".

He continued that "we must continue to lead the world in the nanotechnology revolution". He said that "we are falling a bit behind in so far as our research and development in nanotechnology." He cited competition from Japan, the European Union, Russia, Korea, and China.

He said that the government should "foster the conditions precedent for researchers and innovators to compete, contribute and succeed, both domestically and internationally." He added that "the government's role is to make sure that the field is fertile".

He said that "this is why Sen. Wyden and I introduced S 189, to provide in an organized and collaborative way, an approach to nanotechnology research and commercial economic development. Our strategic goal is logical and very clear. We want to leverage the government, academic, and corporate research capabilities and assets ... to compete and succeed worldwide."

He explained that "our legislation authorizes $678 Million for grants to support basic fundamental research and development, and establish research centers of excellence that will bring together experts the various disciplines, agencies and private sector, as well as universities."

The Subcommittee heard from two panels of witnesses from the federal government, universities, and commercial entities. See, prepared testimony of James Murday (Chief Scientist of the Office of Naval Research), James Roberto (Oak Ridge National Labratory), Clayton Teague (National Nanotechnology Coordination Office), Davis Baird (University of South Carolina), Jun Jiao (Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Portland State University), Kent Murphy (CEO of Luna Innovations), and James Von Ehr (CEO of Zyvex Corporation).

Von Ehr of Zyvex stated that "Our most competitive industries are also our least regulated -- semiconductors, personal computers, software, and the Internet, to name just a few. S.189 has a light regulatory touch, and I urge you to follow the example of the Internet, and avoid premature regulation while the industry develops. There will be pressures from the usual anti-technology voices to ban or limit nanotechnology, but we should continue on the path of progress that has always been our nation’s strength. We also need to inject private sector competition into our nanotechnology program."

Murday, of the Office of Naval Research said that the Department of Defense (DOD) has an interest in nanotechnology in three areas. The first is "nanoelectronics, phontonics and magnetics". This includes "information technology devices, sensors to acquire information, the logic to process it, memory to store it, communicate and transmit that information". He predicted that "the electronics industry, I believe, by the end of this decade, essentially every electronic device that you, myself, and the defense acquisition will want to buy, will be enabled by a nanostructure".

He elaborated that these new devices will be central to information warfare, network centric warfare, uninhabited combat vehicles, automation, and training through virtual reality. (He also discussed the DOD's other two uses of nanotechnology: nanomaterials and bionanotechnology.)

The bill would create a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel that would be made up of persons "who are qualified in the science of nanotechnology and other appropriate fields". It would advise the National Science and Technology Council, which in turn, would oversee federal nanotechnology research and development program.

Sen. Wyden stated at the hearing that this is a matter on which there has been some debate. He stated that he favors having guidance from nanotechnology experts. Another proposal would give the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology the oversight role. Sen. Wyden stated that this group, while highly qualified, lacks people with a background in nanotechnology.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), is a cosponsor of the bill, but not a member of the Commerce Committee. He submitted a statement in which he advocated that "The task of providing an advisory role for the overall direction of the program should not be a top-down process, but rather should fall to a group of members from both academia and industry that represents the range of nanotechnology disciplines and who are well-versed in the difficult challenges facing this emerging field."

4/29. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime held a hearing on HR 21, the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act", sponsored by Rep. James Leach (R-IA), and HR 1223, the "Internet Gambling Licensing and Regulation Commission Act".

Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) said in his opening statement that "Federal law is currently unclear as to whether or not all types of Internet gambling is illegal. The statute that most directly restricts the use of the Internet to place bets is the ``Wire Act´´ under section 1084 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. However, because this statute was written before the age of the Internet and the use of wireless communication, there is ambiguity as to what type of betting is or is not covered. Also, the types of gambling mentioned in the statute may not cover all of the different types of gambling available on the Internet."

The hearing addressed two approaches. The Leach approach would attempt to functionally bar internet gambling by prohibiting the use of financial instruments, such as credit cards, in any transaction involving illegal internet gambling. The Conyers bill would establish a commission to study the feasibility of regulating internet gambling. The Congress has already established, and received the report from, another commission. The Leach approach is HR 21 in the House, and S 627 in the Senate.

Rep. Coble (at right) spoke with reporters after the hearing. He stated that he leans towards the Leach approach. He elaborated that his reason was best expressed by Merle Haggard in the song titled "Kentucky Gambler". The final line is "And it seems to me a gambler loses much more than he wins; much more than he wins."

Rep. Leach, who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, testified as a witness. He stated, as he has at prior hearings, that this is a moral and social issue. He also argued that this is a "jobs" issue, because internet gambling drains money out of the economy to offshore operations, but unlike the casino gambling industry, provides no jobs in the U.S. He also argued that this is a money laundering issue.

He argued that "Gambling in general and Internet gambling in particular provide one the most accessible platforms for money laundering. Money launderers tend to seek out areas where there is a low risk of detection by law enforcement. Internet gambling is a particularly attractive method to launder money because of the heightened level of anonymity and a virtual lack of governmental regulation. Nearly 80 percent of the $10 billion in revenue generated by Internet gambling sites  is impossible to account for, since most operators are located in the Caribbean and other jurisdiction with loose regulatory structures and limited financial reporting requirements."

Jeffrey Modisett, an attorney in the Los Angeles office of the law firm of Bryan Cave, stated in his prepared testimony that he prefers the Conyers approach. He argued that the Leach approach "is likely to be ineffective" because gamblers will migrate to other forms of payment. He also rebutted Rep. Leach's arguments regarding money laundering. He asserted that credit card transactions are transparent, while other forms of payment are not.

He stated that "the majority of Internet wagers are placed by credit cards, and credit card transactions are almost always transparent. I do not believe that the Leach bill will stop Americans from gambling on the Internet; however, I do believe it will change the manner in which they do so. If Internet gamblers cannot use their credit cards, many (perhaps most) of them will instead opt for e-cash accounts, electronic funds transfers, wire transfers to accounts at offshore banks, and other less visible means to settle their accounts." (Parentheses in original.) He concluded that "To the extent that there is a potential for money laundering in the Internet gaming space, creating a market for less transparent payment solutions will presumably make illicit activities, including money laundering, substantially worse."

William Hornbuckle of MGM Mirage also opposed the Leach approach. He stated in his prepared testimony that internet gambling is ubiquitous and impossible to control.

John Malcolm, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, also testified. He is in charge of the Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS). He stated in his prepared testimony that "The Department of Justice generally supports the efforts of the drafters of H.R. 21 and S. 627 to enable law enforcement to cut off the transfer of funds to and from illegal Internet gambling businesses. With respect to H.R. 1223, the Department has concerns, which I shall address below, about the feasibility and desirability of regulating Internet gambling."

He also analyzed the money laundering issue. He said that "Another major concern that the Department of Justice has about on-line gambling is that such businesses provide criminals with an easy and excellent vehicle for money laundering. This is due in large part to the cash-intensive nature of the industry, the fact that most Internet gambling sites are located offshore, and the volume, speed, and international reach of Internet transactions."

He added that "On-line casinos are a particularly inviting target because, in addition to using the gambling that on-line casinos offer as a way to hide or transfer money, on-line casinos offer a broad array of financial services to their customers, such as providing credit accounts, fund transmittal services, check cashing services, and currency exchange services." He also said that "The anonymous nature of the Internet and the use of encryption make it difficult to trace the transactions".

Malcolm also offered some criticisms of specific provisions of HR 21. For example, he testified that "the Justice Department opposes Section 3(c)(4)(B) of H.R. 21, which provides, in essence, that interactive service providers that are not liable under H.R. 21 shall not be liable under Section 1084 of Title 18, United States Code, unless the ISP has actual knowledge of the bets and wagers and owns, controls, operates, manages, supervises, or directs a website at which unlawful bets or wagers are offered, placed, or received. This provision constructively amends Section 1084, an existing federal criminal statute, and weakens its application by imposing a far higher standard of liability than traditional aiding and abetting liability, which applies to everyone else who must comply with the law." He added that "ISPs should be singled out for uniquely favorable treatment".

The Crime Subcommittee has scheduled a meeting for 4:00 PM on Tuesday, May 6, to mark up HR 21, the Leach bill.

4/29. Attorney General John Ashcroft submitted the annual FISA report [2 paragraphs] to the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts. It states that 1228 applications were made, and that ultimately, all 1228 were granted.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), at 50 U.S.C. § 1807, provides that "In April of each year, the Attorney General shall transmit to the Administrative Office of the United States Court and to Congress a report setting forth with respect to the preceding calendar year (a) the total number of applications made for orders and extensions of orders approving electronic surveillance under this subchapter; and (b) the total number of such orders and extensions either granted, modified, or denied."

Ashcroft (at right) wrote, in relevant part, that "During calendar year 2002, 1228 applications were made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for electronic surveillance and physical search. The Court initially approved 1226 applications in 2002. Two applications were ``approved as modified,´´ and the United States appealed these applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, as applications having been denied in part. On November 18, 2002, the Court of Review issued a judgment that ``ordered and adjudged that the motions for review be granted, the challenged portions of the orders on review be reversed, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's Rule 11 be vacated, and the cases be remanded with instructions to grant the United States' applications as submitted ...´´ Accordingly, all 1228 applications presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2002 were approved."

See also, November 18, 2002, opinion [PDF] of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.

The reporting requirements imposed upon the Department of Justice (DOJ) by the FISA are minimal. On February 25, 2003, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced S 436, the "Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act of 2003". The bill would increase the public reporting requirements of the DOJ regarding its implementation of the FISA.

The bill would require that "the Attorney General shall issue a public report setting forth with respect to the preceding calendar year (1) the aggregate number of United States persons targeted for orders issued under this Act, including those targeted for ... electronic surveillance ..." and "pen registers". It would also require public reporting of the number of times that information acquired through FISA orders is authorized for use by the Attorney General in criminal proceedings.

See also, TLJ stories titled "Senators Introduce Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act" and "Senators Release Report on FISA Implementation", TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 612, February 26, 2003.

5/1. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), a Democratic think tank, hosted a panel discussion titled "Next Steps for Reinventing Government". The speakers were Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Will Marshall (PPI), and Robert Atkinson (PPI). Atkinson also released a report [58 pages in PDF] titled "Network Government for the Digital Age". See also, executive summary.

This report contains numerous recommendations, including "Reinvent government agencies, particularly through information technologies" and "Create information-driven, network governance". It adds that "The ability of IT to enable all kinds of information to be cheaply collected, widely shared, and available in real time makes it possible to govern in fundamentally new ways."

The speakers, and the report, criticized old "command and control" methods of regulation. The report elaborates that "The federal government likes to maintain the illusion that it can control what goes on within these myriad programs by erecting a long list of regulations on what they can and cannot do. ... The result of rigid bureaucratic rules is that program managers are often constrained from doing what they need to do to make their programs effective."

The report states that the government should "support a host of new public private partnerships and alliances". It also states that the government should "foster bottom-up complex adaptive systems" or "CASs". The report recommends a "shift from a rigid governance system based on top-down management (mainframe governance) to an adaptive system based on widely distributed information power (Internet governance). Where bureaucracy relies on rigid, broadly applied rules to get desired results, CAS's rely on ubiquitous, real-time information feedback systems to continually adapt to get results." (Parentheses in original.)

While the report contains generalized recommendations, it offers few details on how these recommendations would be implemented in specific areas of regulation. Tech Law Journal asked the speakers what would be the implications of these recommendations for how the government regulates spectrum use. They offered no analysis.

4/30. President Bush signed S 151, the PROTECT Act. This bill incorporated HR 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act. PROTECT is an acronym for "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today". While this bill is popularly know as the "Amber Alert" bill, it also contains several technology related items, including a ban on use of certain misleading domain names, provisions pertaining to computer generated images, and an expansion of the list of offenses that may serve as a predicate for the issuance of a wiretap order.

§ 521 of the conference report [118 pages PDF], which is also known as the "Truth in Domain Names Act", provides that "Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both". It further provides that "Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both."

§ 201 of the conference report amends 18 U.S.C. § 2516 to expand the list of offenses that may serve as predicates for the issuance of a court order authorizing a wiretap. It adds offenses pertaining to sex crimes against children, and child obscenity and pornography

§§ 501-513 of the conference report pertain to child obscenity and pornography prevention. These sections are, in part, a response to the Supreme Court's April 16, 2002, opinion [PDF] in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, in which the Court held unconstitutional on First Amendment and overbreadth grounds provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) banning computer generated images depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The House and Senate bills had previously diverged on this issue. §§ 501-513 reflect a compromise between the House and Senate versions of the bill.

The problem addressed by the bill is that the Supreme Court's opinion opened the door for all digital child pornographers to escape conviction by falsely asserting that their images are computer generated. This is an assertion that is difficult for prosecutors to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The bill restates the ban, but provides as an affirmative defense the argument that no children were actually used. That is, it shifts the burden of proof on the issue of virtual pornography from the prosecution to the defense. The bill provides that "It shall be an affirmative defense ... that ... the alleged child pornography was not produced using any actual minor or minors."

President Bush stated in a release that "The new law also confronts an evil that is too often a cause of child abuse and abduction in America -- the evil of child pornography. In the past, prosecutors have been hindered by not having all the tools needed to prosecute criminals who create child pornography. Under the Protect Act, we've seen images of children, even those created with computer technology, will now be illegal, giving prosecutors an important new tool. Obscene images of children, no matter how they are made, incite abuse, raise the dangers to children and will not be tolerated in America."

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the sponsor of the House version of the bill, stated in a release that "This legislation marks a great victory in our efforts to protect children from child predators. By taking forceful steps to prevent, investigate, and prosecute crimes against children, this legislation truly constitutes the most important and far-reaching child protection legislation in the last twenty years. Some doubted this legislation could be enacted because they mistakenly believed Congress lacked the willpower. Those doubters were wrong and our children will be safer under this legislation as a result."

The Department of Justice also issued a release on the PROTECT Act.

8:30 AM - 5:30 PM. Day three of a three day conference hosted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) titled "Spam Forum". The event will address the proliferation of unsolicited commercial e-mail and explore the technical, legal, and financial issues associated with it. For more information, contact Brian Huseman at 202 326-3320 or Lisa Tobin 202 326-3218. See, agenda and notice in the Federal Register, February 10, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 27, at Pages 6747-6748. The FTC states that "Members of the press unable to attend the forum may call in", Dial 1-888-532-9659; confirmation number: 16237492. Location: FTC, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

9:30 AM. The Copyright Office (CO) will hold full day hearing regarding the exemption of certain classes of works from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 20, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 54, at Pages 13652 - 13653, and revised notice in the Federal Register, April 23, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 78, at Pages 19966 - 19967 (changing the dates, times and locations). See also, CO web page on rulemakings on anticircumvention, the relevant statutory sections at 17 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2105, and story titled "Copyright Office to Hold Hearings on DMCA Anti Circumvention Exemptions", TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 628, March 21, 2003. Location: Postal Rate Commission, 1333 H Street, NW., Third Floor.

Day two of a two day conference hosted by the Computer Law Association (CLA) titled the "2003 World Computer and Internet Law Congress". See, brochure [12 pages in PDF] for schedule, prices, and registration information. Location: Fairmont Washington Hotel.

Deadline to submit applications for grants to the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) under its FY2003 Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program. See, notice in Federal Register, March 3, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 41, at Page 9973.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its second draft [2.60 MB in PDF] of Special Publication 800-50 titled "Building an Information Technology Security Awareness and Training Program". Submit comments to Mark Wilson at sp800-50@nist.gov.

The Supreme Court will begin a recess. It will return on Monday, May 19.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Beery Systems v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, No. 03-1009. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

Day one of a three day meeting of the American Cable Association titled "10th Annual Washington Summit & 2nd Quarter Board of Directors' Meeting". Location: Wyndam Hotel.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding AOL Time Warner's petition [58 pages in PDF] requesting relief from the FCC's January 22, 2001 Memorandum Opinion and Order (MOO) approving the merger of AOL and Time Warner, and imposing conditions upon AOL Time Warner regarding instant messaging services. Specifically, AOL Time Warner seeks relief from the condition restricting its ability to offer internet users streaming video advanced Instant Messaging based high speed services (AIHS) via AOL Time Warner broadband facilities.

9:30 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing titled "Media Ownership (Video Markets)". The witnesses will be William Shear (General Accounting Office), James Robbins (P/CEO of Cox Communications), Charles Dolan (Chairman of Cablevision Systems Corporation), Gene Kimmelman (Consumers Union), James Gleason (P/COO of CableDirect), and Leo Hindery (Ch/CEO of YES Network). Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Davis Broadcasting v. FCC, No. 02-1109. Judges Edwards, Sentelle, and Garland will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in E-Pass Technologies v. 3Com and Palm, No. 02-1593, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDCal). E-Pass filed a complaint in 2000 alleging that Palm handheld devices infringe its U.S. Patent No. 5,276,311, titled "Method and device for simplifying the use of a plurality of credit cards, or the like". The District Court granted summary judgment to defendants. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

9:00 AM - 3:45 PM. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) will host a one day conference titled "5th Annual NAB Human Resources Symposium". The event will review the FCC's current EEO broadcast rules. See, notice and online registration page. The event is free. Location: L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.

? 2:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights may hold a hearing on judicial nominations, filibusters, and the Constitution, focusing on when a majority is denied its right to consent. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

4:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will meet to mark up HR 21, the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act". The event will be webcast. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

TIME? The U.S. International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to discuss the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Study Group 16 meeting to be held in Geneva from May 20 to May 30. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 18, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 75, at Pages 19247 - 19248.

DEADLINE EXTENDED TO MAY 16. Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) [MS Word] regarding "Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band". Unlicensed devices would include, among other things, 802.11. See, notice in Federal Register, January 21, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 13, at Pages 2730-2733. See also, story titled "FCC Announces Notice of Inquiry Re More Spectrum for Unlicensed Use" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 566, December 12, 2002. For more information, contact Hugh Van Tuyl in the FCC's Office of Engineering & Technology at hvantuyl@fcc.gov or 202 418-7506. This is OET Docket No. 02-380. See, notice of extension [PDF].

9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Telecommunications Service Priority System Oversight Committee will hold a meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 11, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 70, at Pages 17839 - 17840. Location: 701 South Court House Road, Arlington, VA.

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee will meet to mark up numerous bills, including HR 1086, the "Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2003". The event will be webcast. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

9:30 AM. The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing titled "Trade in Services and E-Commerce: The Significance of the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee will hold an oversight hearing titled "Direct Broadcast Satellite Service in the Multichannel Video Distribution Market". The hearing will be webcast. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Atmel v. Silicon Storage Technology, No. 02-1522, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDCal). This is a patent infringement case involving semiconductor technology. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

1:00 PM. The Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service, which is chaired by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy, will hold a forum on "potential rule changes to strengthen compliance and oversight over the schools and libraries component of the federal universal service support mechanisms, often called the ``e-rate´´ program". For more information, contact Matthew Brill at 202 418-2400. See, notice [PDF]. Location: FCC.

9:30 AM - 4:00 PM. George Mason University School of Law will host a conference titled "Critical Infrastructure Protection: Legal Questions at the Forefront of National Security". Lunch will be provided. See, notice and agenda [PDF]. The event is free. However, an RSVP is required. Contact Emily Frye at 703 993-4170 or ffrye@gmu.edu. Location: 3301 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA.

2:00 PM. The Copyright Office (CO) will hold a hearing regarding the exemption of certain classes of works from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 20, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 54, at Pages 13652 - 13653, and revised notice in the Federal Register, April 23, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 78, at Pages 19966 - 19967 (changing the dates, times and locations). See also, CO web page on rulemakings on anticircumvention, the relevant statutory sections at 17 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2105, and story titled "Copyright Office to Hold Hearings on DMCA Anti Circumvention Exemptions", TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 628, March 21, 2003. Location: Postal Rate Commission, 1333 H Street, NW., Third Floor.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in New England Pub Comm v. FCC, No. 02-1055. Judges Ginsburg, Rogers and Tatel will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Coolsavings.com v. Brightstreet.com, No. 02-1568, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDCal). Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Telecommunications Committee and Legislative Committee will host a luncheon. The topic will be "Congressional Perspectives on Wireless Issues". The scheduled speakers are Bill Bailey, James Assey, Will Nordwind and Gregg Rothschild. The price is $15. RSVP to Wendy Parish at wendy@fcba.org by May 7 at 5:00 PM. Location: Sidley Austin, 1501 K St., NW, Conference Room 6E.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit applications to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for PEACESAT Program grants. Pan-Pacific Education and Communications Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT) grants are intended to support the acquisition of satellite communications to service Pacific Basin communities and to manage the operations of this network. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 9, 2003 Vol. 68, No. 68, at Pages 17354 - 17356.

Deadline to submit requests to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to participate as panelists at the FTC's June 18, 2003, public workshop on the costs and benefits to consumers and businesses of the collection and use of consumer information. See, FTC release.