rjr says that is not good enough. the statute says if you are going to get funding, in the to of a policy that opposes sex trafficking. one would think that would be not that controversial. i do not know a lot of organizations that are like go sex trafficking. but whether the government can say to you -- you have to express a personal point of view, or whether that is okay because it is part of a governmental funding program. in the last case i will mention is the amount holly case, the successor to a case i had done last year. it was resolved when the other side gave up. it had nothing to do with me. under the fair housing act, a major civil rights legislation that deals with how it is that you sell housing in the country, but it has invoked that wonders are only offering rates to a particular neighborhood and people of certain races, whether you can bring an impact claim under the federal housing act. the difference between these claims is that the impact is discrimination and that is unintentional. you have some po

rjr has one. it says if you're going to get a pat it have to explain what it is you have a patent for. it is so i will know what it is that i cannot do. i know what has been created. you have to have a policy that opposes sex trafficking. what think that would be not that controversial. can the government say to you they have to address a personal point of view or it is ok? this was resolved and the other side gave up. under the fair housing act, which is a major piece of civil rights legislation they can allege that lenders are only offering particular rates to particular neighborhoods, whether you can bring a impact claim under the federal housing act. if you did not intend to discriminate, what you have done is illegal. this is all you need. they have not determined whether it is available under the act. thank you very much. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. it is good to be here. i have offered to form rossell tom earlier over -- i had offered to arm wrestle tom earlier. cases invo

rjr's says that is not good enough.r says if you get aids and finding you have done apollo sea that opposes sex trafficking. that should not be that difficult but it does raise the interest day first amendment question that the government says you have to express a particular point* of view or is it just government funding? >> but not for any reason of the question under the fair housing act it is often invoked in with the neighborhood with the you could have an impact claim is that to the discrimination that is unintentional. policy to have the adverse effect and even if you did not intend of what you have done is illegal. which it turns out is all you need. the supreme court is not consider that other question. thank you very much. [applause] >> it is good to be here. working with arkansas game and fish but now i realize he was so heavily invested. and fall saying race and gay-rights. thank you. in october you probably read about it. and then giving an event they should vantage so to change the university so i was den

three other cases quickly, rjr has a petition of the rules for a definite miss in patent law. there's a standard in the federal statute that says if you are going to get a patent you have to definitely explain what it is you have it for. the reason is that on a as somebody that might make a product might know what it is that i can't do, and i know what invention has been created, and the rjr much as the exclusive jurisdiction over the cases applies that to be definite it has to be comprehensible. like we have some sense and if we had a big trial, then we could figure it out and rjr says this isn't good enough to read there's an interesting file for the international development that says if you are going to get aids funding, you have to have a policy that opposes sex trafficking. one would think that wouldn't be the controversial. i don't know a lot of organizations that are like those sex trafficking, but it does raise an interesting amendment question whether the government can say to you look, you have to express this particular point of view or whether that is okay because

rjr has a surreptitious about the rules for definition and patent law. there is a standard of the federal patent statute. you have to definitely explain what it is you have a patch and four. the reason is so wide as someone who might make a similar project will know what it is that i can do and i know what the invention been created. the rjr says in his case at the standard, federal circuit jurisdiction of these cases apply to be definite and reprehensible. we have some sense if we had a trial we could figure it out and that's not good enough. there's a very interesting theoretician À la die a statute that says if you're going to get aids funding, you have to have a policy that opposes sex trafficking. one would think that would be not that controversial. i don't know a lot of organizations that are let go sex trafficking. but it does raise a first amendment question of whether the government can save you, you have to express a particular point of view or whether that's okay because it's part of a government spending program. the last case i will mention

rjr has a surreptitious but the rules for the definite miss -- indefinite minsk. it says if you're going to get a patent you have to definitely explain what it is you have a task force. the reason this audience somebody might know what is i can do we and i know what it's invention has been created and the federal circuit much of its use of jurisdiction of wise is it has to be comprehensible. we have a sense of we have a big trial then we can to get rid of, and rjr says that is not good enough. there's an interesting server petition filed by the development of a statute that says if you are going to get aids funding, you have to have a policy that opposes sex trafficking. now, one would think that wouldn't be that controversial. i don't know a lot of organizations that are like go six trafficking. but it does raise an interesting first amendment question of whether the government can say to you you have to express the point of view or whether that is okay because it is a part of the government funding program. that is an interesting question and the last case that