DOCSLIB.ORG

Volume 69.3 Full Issue

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EDITOR’S NOTE Welcome to the third issue of Volume 69 of the Federal Communications Law Journal (“FCLJ”), the official journal of the Federal Communications Bar Association (“FCBA”). Over the summer, the FCLJ welcomed 50 new talented individuals to our membership. Our team has worked tirelessly to create a satiating Annual Review issue that encompasses a range of topics, including data security regulation, media ownership rules, Open Data Initiatives (“ODIs”), and international cybersecurity regimes. In the first Note, Alex Bossone addresses the lack of federal consumer data security regulation in an age where consumers suffer from identity thefts and cyber-attacks. Mr. Bossone suggests an augmentation of the FTC’s existing data security powers and an emulation of the FCC Enforcement Bureau’s approach to mandate an effective legal framework. In the second Note, Bryan Schatz explores the shortcomings of the current media ownership rules. Mr. Schatz proposes solutions that can free up the Quadrennial Review and help the FCC promulgate and enforce new media ownership rules. In the third Note, Monica Savukinas examines how the Obama administration encouraged federal agencies to use ODIs for innovation. Ms. Savukinas suggests that the FCC use ODIs through prize contests, hackathons, and open dialogue with developers, as part of its innovation policy. This issue also features an interesting article on international cybersecurity, penned by Zahra Dsouza, who is currently a Law Clerk at Kohn Swift & Graf P.C. and an LL.M. graduate of Temple University Law School. Noting the growing problem of malicious cybersecurity incidents, Ms. Dsouza assesses the futility of Cybersecurity Incident Response Teams (“CSIRTs”) as a response to such incidents, as they have been without a clear mandate. Ms. Dsouza proposes structural recommendations that may enable CSIRTs to respond to cybersecurity incidents at a global level. Finally, the FCLJ proudly presents a series of case briefs to provide an overview of the significant legal movements in the communications law field in the past year. The editorial board is grateful for the support of the FCBA and The George Washington University Law School this year, as we have enjoyed the addition of new FCLJ Committee members, adjunct professors, and faculty advisor. For this issue, the FCLJ sends a special thanks to the lawyers who shared their insights at the FCC’s Year-in-Review CLE Seminar, as the event has provided the editorial board with guidance on structuring the case briefs. We welcome your feedback or questions to [email protected], and please direct article submissions to [email protected]. This issue and our archive will be available at www.fclj.org. Jane Lee Editor-in-Chief Editor-in-Chief JANE LEE Senior Managing Editor Senior Production Editor DONALD L. CROWELL III HALEIGH S. DAVIS Senior Articles Editor Senior Notes Editor CASSANDRA HORTON ALISON CHEPERDAK Senior Publications Editor Executive Editor DEVRON BROWN ROSIE BRINCKERHOFF Managing Editors Articles Editors Production Editor Notes Editors RYAN FARRELL ERICA PERLMUTTER KRISTIN CAPES ROSIE BRINCKERHOFF OMID RAHNAMA MCKENZIE SCHNELL ANTIONETTE CARRADINE AMY LOPEZ CHRISTINA REESE Associates LINDSEY BERGHOLZ SAMANTHA DORSEY TINA DUKANDAR MICHAEL FARR KATHERINE GRABAR DYLAN KNIGHT BETHANY KRYSTEK AUSTIN POPHAM JARRED RAMO ADAM SANDLER NEGHEEN SANJAR PHIL TAFET MICHAEL WALLACE Members IRELA ALEMAN AANJALI' ANDERSON JOY BAGWELL ABIGAIL BECNEL BRETT BENNETT JUSTIN CONIARIS STEPHEN CONLEY YEH DAHM KWEON AUSTIN DE SOTO ERICA DEL VALLE ANH DO SENRUI DU HISHAM EL MAWAN CHRISTOPHER FREY AARON GUSHIN WILLIAM F. HANRAHAN JR. TIMOTHY HARTMAN DANIELLE HERNANDEZ KIMBERLY HONG GEORGE HORNEDO LEIGH IDLEMAN KRISTA JOHNSON KURT KESSLER ALICIA KINGSTON KATHERINE KREMS SEUNG KWAN SHIN CHRISTY LEWIS TESS MACAPINLAC GEVORG MARGARYAN MARINE MARGARYAN NA NA JEON DANIELLE NEAL CHRISTA NICOLS LAURA NOWELL CASEY PATCHUNKA JOSEPH QUARCOO KEVIN ROAN JOHN ROBERTS ALAA SALAHELDIN DESPENA SARAMADIS BISMA SHAHBAZ DANIEL SMALL JUN SONG BYRON STARKEY AYESHA SYED LAURA TAVERAS LANTIGUA BROOKE T HOMPSON MILLICENT USORO JOHN WOOD JU YUN SON Faculty Advisors PROFESSOR ARTURO CARRILLO PROFESSOR DAWN NUNZIATO Adjunct Faculty Advisors JODIE GRIFFIN ETHAN LUCARELLI SARAH MORRIS MEREDITH ROSE SHERWIN SIY Published by THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL and the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS BAR ASSOCIATION Federal Communications Law Journal The Federal Communications Law Journal is published jointly by the Federal Communications Bar Association and The George Washington University Law School. The Journal publishes three issues per year and features articles, student notes, essays, and book reviews on issues in telecommunications, the First Amendment, broadcasting, telephony, computers, Internet, intellectual property, mass media, privacy, communications and information policymaking, and other related fields. As the official journal of the Federal Communications Bar Association, the Journal is distributed to over 2,500 subscribers, including Association members as well as legal practitioners, industry experts, government officials and academics. The Journal is also distributed by Westlaw, Lexis, William S. Hein, and Bloomberg Law and is available on the Internet at http://www.fclj.org. The Journal is managed by a student Editorial Board, in cooperation with the Editorial Advisory Board of the FCBA and two Faculty Advisors. Federal Communications Bar Association The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) is a volunteer organization of attorneys, engineers, consultants, economists, government officials and law students involved in the study, development, interpretation and practice of communications and information technology law and policy. From broadband deployment to broadcast content, from emerging wireless technologies to emergency communications, from spectrum allocations to satellite broadcasting, the FCBA has something to offer nearly everyone involved in the communications industry. That is why the FCBA, more than two thousand members strong, has been the leading organization for communications lawyers and other professionals since 1936. Through its many professional, social, and educational activities, the FCBA offers its members unique opportunities to interact with their peers and decision-makers in the communications and information technology field, and to keep abreast of significant developments relating to legal, engineering, and policy issues. Through its work with other specialized associations, the FCBA also affords its members opportunities to associate with a broad and diverse cross-section of other professionals in related fields. Although the majority of FCBA members practice in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area, the FCBA has ten active regional chapters: Atlanta, Carolina, Florida, Midwest, New England, New York, Northern California, Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountain, and Texas. The FCBA has members from across the United States, its territories, and several other countries. FCBA Officers and Executive Committee Members 2017–2018 Julie M. Kearney, President Robert E. Branson Lee G. Petro, President-Elect Karen Brinkmann Megan Anne Stull, Treasurer Micah M. Caldwell Natalie G. Roisman, Assistant Treasurer Stacy Robinson Fuller Joshua S. Turner, Secretary Russell P. Hanser Ari Q. Fitzgerald, Assistant Secretary Diane Griffin Holland M. Anne Swanson, Delegate to the ABA Barry J. Ohlson Joiava T. Philpott, Chapter Representative Roger C. Sherman Robyn R. Polashuk, Chapter Representative Angela M. Simpson Kristine Fargotstein, Young Lawyers Representative Krista Witanowski FCBA Staff Kerry K. Loughney, Executive Director Janeen T. Wynn, Senior Manager, Programs and Special Projects Wendy Jo Parish, Bookkeeper Megan N. Tabri, Member Services Administrator/Receptionist FCBA Editorial Advisory Board Lawrence J. Spiwak Jeffrey S. Lanning Emily Harrison Jeremy Berkowitz The George Washington University Law School Established in 1865, The George Washington University Law School is the oldest law school in Washington, DC. The school is accredited by the American Bar Association and is a charter member of the Association of American Law Schools. The Law School is located on the GW campus in the downtown neighborhood familiarly known as Foggy Bottom. GW Law has one of the largest curricula of any law school in the nation with more than 250 elective courses covering every aspect of legal study. GW Law's home institution, The George Washington University, is a private, nonsectarian institution founded in 1821 by charter of Congress. The Federal Communications Law Journal is published by The George Washington University Law School and the Federal Communications Bar Association three times per year. Offices are located at 2028 G Street NW, Suite LL-020, Washington, DC 20052. The Journal can be reached at [email protected], and any submissions for publication consideration may be directed to [email protected]. Address all correspondence with the FCBA to the Federal Communications Bar Association, 1020 19th Street NW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20036-6101. Subscriptions: Subscriptions are $30 per year (domestic), $40 per year (Canada and Mexico), and $50 per year (international). Subscriptions are to be paid in US dollars, and are only accepted on a per-volume basis, starting with the first issue. All subscriptions will be automatically renewed unless the subscriber provides timely notice of cancellation. Address changes must be made at least one month
Recommended publications
  • The America COMPETES Acts: the Future of U.S. Physical Science & Engineering Research?

    The America COMPETES Acts: the Future of U.S. Physical Science & Engineering Research?

    The America COMPETES Acts: The Future of U.S. Physical Science & Engineering Research? Jeffrey L. Furman Boston University & NBER 21 June 2012 paper prepared for the NBER Innovation Policy & the Economy Workshop Washington, DC April 2012 * Acknowledgements: I thank Lee Branstetter, Aaron Chatterji, Cristin Dorgelo, Heather B. Gonzalez, Stuart Graham, David M. Hart, Naomi Hausman, Ben Jones, Tom Kalil, Kei Koizumi, Julia Lane, Cindy Lopes Bento, Steve Merrill, Fiona Murray, and Scott Stern for discussions, references, and helpful comments. Daniella Kaye provided valuable research assistance. The content of this paper reflects solely the views of the author and any errors are the responsibility of the author alone. Author contact information: Jeffrey L. Furman, Boston University School of Management, 595 Commonwealth Ave – #653a, Boston, MA 02215, [email protected]. The America COMPETES Acts: The Future of U.S. Physical Science & Engineering Research? Abstract The America COMPETES legislation, including the initial America COMPETES Act of 2007 (ACA 2007) and America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (ACA 2010), was one of the prominent bipartisan legislative achievements of the past decade and was seen as having the potential to be the most notable science and innovation policy initiative of the new millennium. The aims of the COMPETES Acts were to substantially increase the extent of Federal funding for physical science and engineering research in the United States and to improve the country’s research infrastructure and STEM capabilities in these areas. This paper contributes to early evaluation of the America COMPETES Acts (ACA) by providing an overview of the history and goals of these Acts and by tracking the subsequent Federal funding and implementation of the associated ACA programs.
  • Oral Statement of OSTP Director John P

    Oral Statement of OSTP Director John P

    Oral Remarks of Dr. John P. Holdren Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President of the United States to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate on Advancing American Innovation and Competitiveness March 10, 2010 Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, Members of the Committee, I’m pleased to be here with you today to discuss the Obama Administration’s responses to the America COMPETES Act to date, our support for reauthorizing the Act, and the important investments in R&D and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education the Administration is proposing in order to continue to fulfill the vision of the Act going forward. A little more than a half a century ago, Americans gazed astonished into the night sky at the glint from a Russian satellite – the first artificial satellite to orbit the Earth. As a nation, we quickly grasped the significance of that event, and we responded aggressively with massive new investments in research and development and a new commitment to science and math education. We created NASA and DARPA, and we built new labs and manufacturing facilities to tackle the scientific and engineering challenges that suddenly loomed large. Today we face another “Sputnik moment”, albeit one not so easily recognized because the indications are more diverse and subtle than seeing a Russian satellite overhead when we had none. But the relevant facts include these: • America has fallen from 1st in the world in broadband penetration to the middle of the pack among developed nations.1 • In science education, one widely used international assessment shows American 15- year-olds ranked 25th in math and 21st in science among OECD countries.2 • And for the first time, in 2008, non-Americans were granted more U.S.
  • Report Brief

    Report Brief

    RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM TWO YEARS LATER Accelerating Progress Toward a Brighter Economic Future. Summary of a Convocation (2009) In October 2005 the National Academies released Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, urging the United States to make the investments needed to “compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century.” The report recommended 20 specific actions in four broad areas: K-12 Science and Mathematics Education, Science and Engineering Research, Science and Engineering Higher Education, and Incentives for Innovation. Since its release, the report has inspired and guided the actions of policymakers, business leaders, and educators. President Bush incorporated ideas from the report into his American Competitiveness Initiative, and Congress included many of the report’s recommendations in the 2007 America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (America COMPETES Act). The private sector has created organizations like the National Math and Science Initiative (NMSI), and many states have taken actions of their own. A 2006 convocation of state leaders and other stakeholders highlighted state achievements and catalyzed multistate collaborations. Most progress stemming from the report, however, has occurred outside the U.S.. Little action has been taken in this country to strengthen education, research, and innovation systems. The America COMPETES Act authorized expenditures and programs in research and education, but appropriations for these programs are not yet available. In addition, short-term concerns have distracted policymakers from investing in the nation’s future. On April 29, 2008, about 500 representatives of business, government, and academia met in Washington, D.C., for a second convocation organized by the National Academies, with support from the National Math and Science Initiative.
  • America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues

    America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues

    America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues Deborah D. Stine Specialist in Science and Technology Policy April 17, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34328 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Form Approved Report Documentation Page OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 2. REPORT TYPE 17 APR 2009 00-00-2009 to 00-00-2009 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Congressional Research Service,Library of Congress,101 Independence REPORT NUMBER Ave, SE,Washington,DC,20540-7500 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10.
  • An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal Funding for Physical Sciences and Engineering Research

    An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal Funding for Physical Sciences and Engineering Research

    An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal Funding for Physical Sciences and Engineering Research John F. Sargent Jr. Specialist in Science and Technology Policy September 8, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41951 Efforts to Double Federal Funding for Physical Sciences and Engineering Research Summary Federal funding of physical sciences and engineering (PS&E) research has played a substantial role in U.S. economic growth and job creation by creating the underlying knowledge that supports technological innovation. Some Members of Congress and leaders in industry and academia have expressed concern that recent public investments in these disciplines have been inadequate in light of the emergence of new global competitors and the science and technology- focused investments of other nations. A 2005 National Academies report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, requested by several Members of Congress, recommended doubling federal basic research funding over seven years, with an emphasis on selected fields, including PS&E, to address this issue. President George W. Bush subsequently launched the American Competitiveness Initiative, which sought, in part, to double funding over 10 years for targeted accounts at three federal agencies with a research focus on physical sciences and engineering—the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology. In 2007, Congress enacted the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) which set authorization levels for FY2008-FY2010 for the targeted accounts that established, implicitly, a seven-year doubling path.
  • Gao-13-612, America Competes Acts

    Gao-13-612, America Competes Acts

    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees July 2013 AMERICA COMPETES ACTS Overall Appropriations Have Increased and Have Mainly Funded Existing Federal Research Entities GAO-13-612 July 2013 AMERICA COMPETES ACTS Overall Appropriations Have Increased and Have Mainly Funded Existing Federal Research Entities Highlights of GAO-13-612, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found Scientific and technological innovation In fiscal years 2008-2012, $52.4 billion was appropriated out of the $62.2 billion and a workforce educated in STEM authorized under the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote fields are critical to long-term U.S. Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act of 2007 (COMPETES economic competitiveness. Leaders in 2007) and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (COMPETES government, business, and education 2010). Almost all of these funds went to the entire budgets of three existing have expressed concern about the research entities—the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute nation’s ability to compete with other of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) technologically advanced countries in Office of Science (Science)—including all of the programs and activities the these fields. In this context, Congress entities carry out. Appropriations for NSF, NIST, and Science generally increased passed COMPETES 2007 and under the acts but did not reach levels authorized by the acts. In addition to reauthorized the act with COMPETES authorizing the budgets of these entities, COMPETES 2007 and COMPETES 2010, each with the overall goal of 2010 specifically authorized funding for 40 individual programs, including some investing in research and development programs within and some outside of these entities.
  • Third Circuit

    Third Circuit

    Full_Name City State Last_Name Next Clerkship Opening Accepting Applications Mail, Email or OSCAR? Post Grad Experience? Notes Thomas L. Ambro Wilmington DE Ambro 2021 posted on OSCAR online preferred Stephanos Bibas Philadelphia PA Bibas 2020 and 2021 posted on OSCAR online, email, do not send paper preferred Michael A. Chagares Newark NJ Chagares 2022 posted on OSCAR online, paper requires district court clerkship Robert E. Cowen Trenton NJ Cowen No longer hiring term clerks n/a n/a D. Michael Fisher Pittsburgh PA Fisher 2020 posted on OSCAR online May be reducing workload/going to 2021 but not accepting applications 3 clerks. Does not want paper Julio M. Fuentes Newark NJ Fuentes now no online prefers prior clerkship or work experience applications, will post on OSCAR Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. Newark NJ Greenaway 2020 yes paper requires one year post-grad work experience not hiring at this time, no other Morton I. Greenberg Trenton NJ Greenberg information no paper prefers prior clerkship Thomas M. Hardiman Pittsburgh PA Hardiman 2020 posted on OSCAR online Kent A. Jordan Wilmington DE Jordan 2021 yes paper Cheryl Ann Krause Philadelphia PA Krause 2021 posted on OSCAR online prefers prior clerkship Paul Matey Newark NJ Matey 2021 posted on OSCAR mail, email preferred Prefers candidates with a public interest background and work Theodore A. McKee Philadelphia PA McKee not accepting applications no paper experience Richard Lowell Nygaard Erie PA Nygaard No longer hiring term clerks n/a n/a David J. Porter Pittsburgh PA Porter 2020, 2021, 2022 posted on OSCAR online, paper, email May be reducing workload/going to Marjorie O.
  • March 12, 2013

    March 12, 2013

    REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES March 12, 2013 The Judicial Conference of the United States convened in Washington, D.C., on March 12, 2013, pursuant to the call of the Chief Justice of the United States issued under 28 U.S.C. § 331. The Chief Justice presided, and the following members of the Conference were present: First Circuit: Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch Judge Paul J. Barbadoro, District of New Hampshire Second Circuit: Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon, Eastern District of New York Third Circuit: Chief Judge Theodore A. McKee Judge Joel A. Pisano,1 District of New Jersey Fourth Circuit: Chief Judge William B. Traxler, Jr. Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow, District of Maryland 1Designated by the Chief Justice as a substitute for Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster, Western District of Pennsylvania, who was unable to attend. Judicial Conference of the United States March 12, 2013 Fifth Circuit: Chief Judge Carl E. Stewart Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance, Eastern District of Louisiana Sixth Circuit: Chief Judge Alice M. Batchelder Chief Judge Thomas A. Varlan, Eastern District of Tennessee Seventh Circuit: Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook Judge Ruben Castillo, Northern District of Illinois Eighth Circuit: Chief Judge William Jay Riley Judge Rodney W. Sippel, Eastern District of Missouri Ninth Circuit: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski Judge Robert S. Lasnik, Western District of Washington Tenth Circuit: Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe Judge Dee V. Benson, District of Utah Eleventh Circuit: Chief Judge Joel F. Dubina Judge W. Louis Sands, Middle District of Georgia 2 Judicial Conference of the United States March 12, 2013 District of Columbia Circuit: Chief Judge Merrick B.
  • Public-Private Partnerships for Organizing and Executing PRIZE-BASED COMPETITIONS

    Public-Private Partnerships for Organizing and Executing PRIZE-BASED COMPETITIONS

    at Harvard University Public-Private Partnerships for Organizing and Executing PRIZE-BASED COMPETITIONS June 11, 2012 Raymond Tong† & Karim R. Lakhani‡ † Consultant, The Boston Consulting Group; Former Researcher at The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University. ‡ Assistant Professor, Harvard Business School; Principal Investigator, Harvard-NASA Tournament Lab; Faculty Associate, The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University. Acknowledgements The authors and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society would like to thank the following individuals for their invaluable contributions to the research effort. Their helpful inputs were integral to the development of this white paper: Aman Bhandari (HHS), Georgina Campbell (MIT), Jason Crusan (NASA), Christopher Grewe (US Treasury), Jackie Haven (USDA), Jean Lupinacci (EPA), Andrew Petro (NASA), Gretchen Crosby Sims (Joyce Foundation), Abdul R Shaikh (NCI), and Josh Wyner (Aspen Institute). In addition, we are grateful for the thoughtful guidance of our partners at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, most notably: Robynn Sturm Steffen, Advisor to the Deputy Director in Open Innovation and Cristin Dorgelo, Assistant Director for Grand Challenges. In the course of our research, a number of prizes were reviewed, including, but not limited to: Apps for Healthy Kids, Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence, Battle of the Buildings, Community Health Data Initiative, Health 2.0, MIT Clean Energy Prize, NASA Centennial Challenges, NASA Tournament Lab, Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE, and the SME Finance Challenge. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 I. Introduction 6 II. Prize Types 7 III. Prize Benefits 8 IV. Prize Lifecycle 9 A. Design 10 B. Operation 12 C.
  • 2013 America COMPETES Act Reauthorization

    2013 America COMPETES Act Reauthorization

    25 Recommendations for the Reauthorization of the 2013 America COMPETES Act BY STEPHEN J. EZELL AND ROBERT D. ATKINSON | APRIL 2013 The America COMPETES Act, originally enacted in 2007 and Reauthorization of the reauthorized in 2010, has helped support the science, technology, and America COMPETES Act innovation enterprise that underpins U.S. economic growth. The in 2013 provides a prime opportunity to bolster impending 2013 Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act federal programs and affords an opportunity to introduce new or extend effective existing policies supporting science, programs and initiatives related to: innovation and technology technology, innovation, commercialization; federal institutional reforms to spur innovation; and and STEM education. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. INTRODUCTION America’s economy has changed substantially over the last 20 years. Innovation—the development of new products, services, and business models—has become the key factor in long-term U.S. competitiveness in a globalized world. Hopefully 2013 will be a year of renewed attention to the creation of a more robust national innovation policy. In particular, the America COMPETES Act is up for reauthorization after being initially passed unanimously in 2007, in part in response to the National Academies’ report Rising Above The Gathering Storm, and reauthorized on January 4, 2011. However, while the COMPETES Acts have contributed to improving federal innovation policy, much more can be done to improve the implementation, coordination, and overall success of science and technology policy and further its impact on the economy. In particular, the 2013 reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act should focus foremost on introducing policy initiatives and reforms that can better translate science and engineering research into U.S.
  • The Political Ideologies of Law Clerks and Their Judges

    The Political Ideologies of Law Clerks and Their Judges

    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2016 The olitP ical Ideologies of Law Clerks and their Judges Adam Bonica Adam S. Chilton Jacob Goldin Kyle Rozema Maya Sen Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Adam Bonica, Adam S. Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema & Maya Sen, " The oP litical Ideologies of Law Clerks and their Judges" (Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics No. 754, 2016). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Political Ideologies of Law Clerks and their Judges Adam Bonica, Adam Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema, & Maya Sen∗ February 29, 2016 We study the political ideology of judicial law clerks using a novel dataset that combines the most comprehensive data sources on political ideology and the identity of U.S. federal law clerks. First, we examine the distribu- tion of clerks' ideology and find that clerks tend to be disproportionately liberal, with clerks on lower courts being more liberal on average than clerks for higher courts. Second, we find that judges tend to consistently hire clerks with similar ideologies and that those ideologies track available measures of the judge's own ideology.
  • Council and Participants

    Council and Participants

    The American Law Institute OFFICERS DAVID F. LEVI, President ROBERTA COOPER RAMO, Chair of the Council DOUGLAS LAYCOCK, 1st Vice President LEE H. ROSENTHAL, 2nd Vice President WALLACE B. JEFFERSON, Theasurer PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, Secretary RICHARD L. REVESZ, Director STEPHANIE A. MIDDLETON, Deputy Director COUNCIL Kim J. ASKEw, K&L Gates, Dallas, TX JOSE I. ASTIGARRAGA, Reed Smith, Miami, FL DONALD B. AYER, Jones Day, Washington, DC SCOTT BALES, Arizona Supreme Court, Phoenix, AZ JOHN H. BEISNER, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Washington, DC JOHN B. BELLINGER III, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC AMELIA H. Boss, Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law, Philadelphia, PA ELIZABETH J. CABRASER, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, San Francisco, CA EVAN R. CHESLER, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York, NY MARIANO-FLORENTINO CUELLAR, California Supreme Court, San Francisco, CA IVAN K. FONG, 3M Company, St. Paul, MN KENNETH C. FRAZIER, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, Washington, DC STEVEN S. GENSLER, University of Oklahoma College of Law, Norman, OK ABBE R. GLUCK,Yale Law School, New Haven, CT YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland, CA ANTON G. HAJJAR, Chevy Chase, MD TERESA WILTON HARMON, Sidley Austin, Chicago, IL NATHAN L. HECHT, Texas Supreme Court, Austin, TX WILLIAM C. HUBBARD, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Columbia, SC SAMUEL ISSACHAROFF, New York University School of Law, New York, NY III COUNCIL KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC WALLACE B. JEFFERSON, Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend, Austin, TX GREGORY P.