Status of the ILC Main Linac BPM R&D

An introduction and the status of R&D activities for a high-resolution, "cold" beam position monitor (BPM) and the related read-out electronics are discussed. Two different BPM detector concepts, to be attached to the SC quadrupole and located inside the ILC cryomodule, are currently under investigation: A resonant dipole-mode cavity-style BPM pickup, developed at Fermilab, and a re-entrant resonant coaxial waveguide BPM, designed by CEA-Saclay. While the 1.5 GHz dipole-mode cavity BPM is still in the R&D phase, the re-entrant BPM has already passed first beam tests, including its read-out system. Furthermore, the LAPP group is developing radiation tolerant digital read-out systems, which are tested at the CLIC test facility (CTF).Comment: LCWS / ILC08 conference contribution, 6 pages, 6 figure

Third Time’s The Charm? The Horseracing Integrity Act of 2019

Horseracing in the United States may be in serious trouble. Thirty-four horses have died at the Santa Anita Racetrack. There have been calls to suspend racing or to ban horseracing all together. There have also been numerous cases where horses have been disqualified for doping violations. On top of it all, on September 13, 2019, the New York Times alleged that Justify, who won the Triple Crown in 2018, failed a drug test after the Santa Anita Derby, which would mean that the horse should have been banned from the Kentucky Derby and hence ineligible for the Triple Crown. On March 9, 2020, 27 people, including the trainer of champion Maximum Security, were charged in what authorities described as a widespread international scheme to drug horses to make them race faster. In the midst of today’s bitter political climate, can a rare bipartisan Horseracing Anti-Doping and Safety bill succeed? This is the third time that Congressional Representatives Andy Barr (R-KY) and Paul Tonko (D-NY) proposed a version of The Horseracing Integrity Act. Will the third time be the charm for passage

Event Reconstruction with MarlinReco at the ILC

After an overview of the modular analysis and reconstruction framework Marlin an introduction on the functionality of the Marlin-based reconstruction package MarlinReco is given. This package includes a full set of modules for event reconstruction based on the Particle Flow approach. The status of the software is reviewed and recent results using this software package for event reconstruction are presented.Comment: 6 pages, 2 .eps figures, to appear in Proc. LCWS06, Bangalore, March 200

The Evolving Law of Employee Noncompete Agreements: Recent Trends and an Alternative Policy Approach

Businesses increasingly rely on employee non-compete agreements to protect their assets and forestall competition by former employees, a trend that will likely continue given the ascendancy of the information economy and the fundamental changes taking place in the post-industrial employment relationship. The proper balance between and among the competing interests of employers, employees and society implicated by post-employment restraints will continue to be an important public policy issue. This paper analyzes recent developments in the law of employee non-compete agreements and proposes an alternative framework to judge the enforceability of post-employment restraints on competition. Under our proposed policy framework, employee non-compete agreements designed to prevent the exploitation of the former employer’s customer relationships would be enforceable under a modified common law reasonableness standard. Trade secrets, however, would no longer be deemed a protectible interest justifying a covenant not to compete. Employers could prevent competition by a former employee only under the inevitable disclosure doctrine, which we contend provides a more balanced and fair resolution of the competing interests of employers and employees with regard to trade secrets and post-employment competition. By substituting a carefully framed injunction based on demonstrated necessity (inevitability) for the enforcement of a non-compete agreement based only on the potential for trade secret misappropriation, the proposed framework would support a climate of employee mobility while providing businesses an adequate level of protection for their trade secrets

Employee Non-competes and Consideration: A Proposed Good Faith Standard for the 'Afterthought' Agreement"

This article proposes a good faith standard for the so-called “afterthought” agreement—a non-compete agreement given to and signed after an employee has commenced work. This issue has perplexed commentators and divided courts. The majority hold that continued employment is sufficient consideration for an existing at-will employee’s promise not to compete. A minority of courts require “independent” or “separate” consideration—such as a promotion, pay raise, or some other obligation incurred by the employer. The requirement of good faith would provide an important deterrent to employers who might otherwise seek to unfairly use their superior bargaining position to secure a mid-stream non-compete agreement, and additionally provide a significant incentive for employers to be open and transparent during all stages of the negotiation process for an afterthought agreement. At the same time, a good faith standard would permit employers the flexibility they need to protect their business assets by securing non-compete covenants as employment relationships develop and change over time. We propose a two-prong test for good faith. The substantive component would consider the business justification for an afterthought agreement, including changes in the employment relationship justifying a non-compete agreement. The process component of the good faith standard would consider the means by which the employer secured the employee’s assent to the non-compete agreement, including whether the employee was apprised of the non-compete provision during pre-hire negotiations and any coercive activity used to secure the employee’s consent