instruction:
In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.
question:
(CNN) -- For five years, Taliban militants held Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl captive. They released images of him from time to time. In one piece of footage, he appeared gaunt, eating slowly. In another, the soldier stood next to a bearded man with a gun and looked at the camera for a moment. Bergdahl's forehead was furrowed, and there appeared to be cuts on his face. Fast forward to late May when the 28-year-old was freed in exchange for five senior Taliban members held by the U.S. military. The news of Bergdahl's freedom initially was met with jubilation, but it quickly turned as many called for an investigation into his disappearance and captivity. Some critics accused the soldier of deserting his comrades in war. Less than two months later, the Army announced Monday that Bergdahl has completed medical care and mental counseling at an Army hospital in San Antonio. He is going to get back to work, the Army said. The soldier will soon take a desk job at Fort Sam Houston, said U.S. Army North spokesman Don Manuszewski . Bergdahl will be assigned to a unit responsible for homeland defense, civil support operations and security cooperation programs involving countries such as Canada, Mexico and the Bahamas. Manuszewski wouldn't offer any details about what Bergdahl will be doing day to day but said the former captive will not be treated "any different than any other soldier." When he's not in an office, Bergdahl will live in barracks and share a bathroom with other service members. He'll have his own room, the spokesman said. 'Sponsor' to help Bergdahl readjust . Bergdahl went missing on June 30, 2009, in Afghanistan's Paktika province, where he was deployed with the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division. An Army fact-finding investigation conducted in the months after his disappearance concluded that Bergdahl left his outpost deliberately and of his own free will, according to an official, who was briefed on the report. But there was no definitive conclusion because that would require knowing Bergdahl's intent -- something officials couldn't learn without talking to him, a U.S. military official has said. The last step in the investigation would likely include hearing Bergdahl's account. At Fort Sam Houston, Bergdahl will have a "sponsor" to help him adjust to Army life again, Manuszewski said, which he called routine for anyone new at the post. The Army tries to match people who are of a similar age, with a sponsor sometimes being a few ranks above the post newcomer. The New York Times reported Monday that two soldiers will help Bergdahl readjust to Army life. A lot of stress expected for soldier . Just how all this change will feel only Bergdahl will know. But there's little doubt scrutiny of him will be intense and constant, said M. David Rudd, who specializes in mental health trauma. He is a former dean of the University of Utah's College of Social and Behavioral Science and was also the president of the American Association of Suicidology. "The stress level is going to increase dramatically," said Rudd, who is now the president of the University of Memphis. "The issue of stigma in the military -- the circumstances that surround his disappearance and the questions raised ... are probably going to provoke significant passions" in other troops. Some fellow soldiers have publicly blasted Bergdahl as a deserter. Longtime war correspondent Mike Boettcher, who has worked in Afghanistan, said he believes Bergdahl is going to have a tough time readjusting. Gunmen kidnapped Boettcher in El Salvador in 1985, and he struggled to regain his footing after being freed. As a reporter covering emotionally wrenching topics, he felt he had to work extra hard to prove he could handle it. "What you're worried about is how other people think of you," Boettcher told CNN on Monday. "In my own instance, I felt like people were treating me like a fragile egg. So I felt I had something to prove." For Bergdahl's family, there will be change, too. The casualty assistance workers who helped the service member's relatives during his captivity will conclude their services Monday, Manuszewski said. If Bergdahl's family members need help, they can call the post and ask for it. "We are treating him the same way we would treat any other person assigned here," Manuszewski said. "If the family called ... we would do what we could to support them." Col. Timothy Marsano, a spokesman for the family, declined to tell CNN if Bergdahl's new job assignment had brought any kind of communication between the soldier and his family. Since his release, there has not been a reunion, at least a public one. In mid-June, the FBI said it was investigating threats against Bergdahl's parents. Bergdahl venturing off-base, rubbing elbows with public . Fellow soldiers call Bergdahl a deserter . CNN's Holly Yan contributed to this report.
answer:
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will take desk job at Army post in Texas, military spokesman says .
Bergdahl has finished therapy at an Army hospital in San Antonio .
Stress will "increase dramatically" for soldier, mental health expert says .
He was released in May after five years in exchange for the U.S. freeing five Taliban members .


question:
This week the Supreme Court heard two historic cases on marriage. Even though I was a lawyer in the litigation and in the courthouse both days, I can't predict which way the court will come down. But the outcomes range from nothing at all to fundamentally restructuring the foundational unit of western civilization. Hollingsworth v. Perry is about whether state laws defining marriage as one man and one woman violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Windsor asks whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for federal law and programs as between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. DOMA passed in 1996 with 78% of the U.S. House and 85% of the Senate and was signed by President Bill Clinton. The whole nation is focused on the litigation. Ironically, it's possible that neither case will be decided on the merits. In Hollingsworth, California's governor and attorney general abdicated their duties by refusing to defend their state constitution. So pursuant to California law, the sponsors of Prop 8 — officially registered with the state — stepped in to defend the law, represented by Charles Cooper at Cooper Kirk and the Alliance Defending Freedom. In Windsor, the defendant was the federal government. But President Barack Obama declared that he believes DOMA is unconstitutional and ordered his Justice Department not to defend it. So per its rules, the U.S. House voted to authorize Paul Clement  — probably the greatest Supreme Court lawyer practicing today — to defend DOMA. Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts. One requirement is that there must be adversity between the parties. Since the defendants in both cases refused to defend their own laws, the court will consider whether the Constitution allows these third-party legal teams to become a proper party to the lawsuits. There's a second issue in Windsor. Edith Windsor entered into a gay marriage in Canada in 2007 and lived in New York. When her partner died in 2009, Windsor sued to contest the federal estate tax she paid, claiming a spousal exemption. But New York did not create gay marriage until 2011, so Windsor was not harmed by DOMA not allowing the federal government to recognize her marriage, since if the IRS used state definitions Windsor would still be regarded an a single woman. Thus it's possible she lacks standing to sue over the issue. It also raises the issue of whether courts must recognize polygamous marriages, which are legal in dozens of nations worldwide. The swing vote regarding the Article III issues in both cases is probably Chief Justice John Roberts. He openly expressed skepticism in Hollingsworth and led the Court in an hour-long debate in Windsor solely focused on whether the court has jurisdiction. Assuming the court does decide the merits, the implications are historic. Windsor would alter America's system of federalism. Only the states determine who can get married. But the federal government is free to decide whom to confer federal benefits on — largely economic entitlements and federal issues such as immigration. Federalism is a two-way street. But if DOMA Section 3 is invalidated, the states will be able to dictate whom the recipients of federal benefits are. If Windsor is historic, Hollingsworth is earth-shattering. If the Supreme Court declares a constitutional right to marriage other than one-man, one-woman, then all traditional marriage laws in all 50 states will be invalid, and there will be a serious debate (already in a lower federal court) of whether polygamists also have a constitutional right to national recognition. On the merits, the court seems unlikely to declare an unwritten constitutional right to gay marriage, though arguments did not go as well for DOMA. Justice Anthony Kennedy is likely the swing vote in both. As Justice Samuel Alito said this week, the Internet and cell phones have been around on this planet longer than gay marriage. It is an energetic debate in all 50 states, and this summer we will learn whether the Supreme Court will shut down this debate by making it a constitutional issue on which the American people are not allowed to vote.
answer:
Ken Klukowski: Cases heard by Supreme Court could result in momentous change .
He says there are questions of whether cases could be tossed because of special circumstances .
If court issues sweeping ruling, it could deprive voters of chance to weigh in .
Klukowski: Gay marriage is such a new phenomenon that court shouldn't freeze the debate .


question:
(CNN) -- On August 24, a jury of nine in a California federal court handed down a ruling that sent shockwaves through the global wireless phone industry. Samsung, the world's largest phone maker, was found guilty of infringing on key Apple hardware design and software elements. Samsung got Apple's attention because of its size, but every Android device manufacturer now needs to consider potential exposure areas that could put them in the crosshairs as Apple tries to slow Android growth. The appeals game will surely play out over the next many months. In the meantime, consumers will feel the pain as devices potentially get more expensive and software changes begin to creep into their Android smartphones. If appeals rulings uphold the initial verdict, the mobile ecosystem as we know it will look very different in one to two years. This would be driven by fundamental changes in the look and feel of non-Apple phone hardware, changes to the Android mobile operating system and potentially the emergence of a third popular mobile operating system. Smartphone market changes coming . Android phones account for 56% of the U.S. smartphone market. Friday's ruling was very sobering for the Android device manufacturers that have driven this growth. Until recently, smartphone design patent ownership seemed like a gray area. The court has now made it clear that, in fact, it is very black and white. All phone manufacturers will need to be a lot more careful from here on out when it comes to design, and patents they want to avoid, license or partner on. This could result in phones being more expensive for consumers. Over the next year, consumers lose in this equation. Android phone makers will be scrambling to develop temporary workarounds to steer clear of any potentially infringing Apple patents. The time spent working on these fixes will reduce time spent on development of new, innovative features. In the case of Samsung, it is likely the only device manufacturer with the resources and scale to develop and implement fixes rapidly, mitigating the immediate impact on consumers. If there are other phone makers in Apple's sights, they will be taking advantage of a much-needed head start to begin developing workarounds now to avoid a lawsuit. Sure, Android consumers could always turn to Apple, but some are turned off by the company's one phone per year release schedule and continued hesitancy to incorporate the latest mobile advances such as 4G and larger screens. Consumers who want to stay in the open and highly-customizable Android ecosystem could experience some temporary frustration. Creating the next iconic device . This ruling could prove to be the catalyst for major industry change. Smartphone product roadmaps are all but decided for the next year. Beyond that, every device manufacturer will be thinking outside of the "rectangular slab form-factor" box in an attempt to create the next big consumer trend. This will be easier said than done given that consumers have become accustomed to the current crop of devices. Device manufacturers know that consumers can't tell them what they want, they can only tell them what they don't want. This will result in phone makers traveling into unchartered territory in the hopes of capturing consumer attention and emotion. Choice will likely also come in the way of new mobile operating system platforms. It is no coincidence that Microsoft and Nokia's stock opened higher the day after the ruling. Apple stated during the trial that these companies have proven that it is possible to innovate in the smartphone market without copying Apple. Of course, Apple does have patent and design agreements with Microsoft and both companies have a mutual interest in slowing Android growth. As wireless carriers and device manufacturers seek to diversify their product lineup in the wake of the ruling, Microsoft might finally have its day in mobile. It is very likely that we'll eventually see a three horse mobile operating system race among Apple, Android and Microsoft. Short term is not pretty, but long term looks good . The short-term might not be pretty, but long-term, the industry is poised to break free from the homogenous rounded rectangular slabs with grid-based apps we're all familiar with today. This ruling will encourage accelerated innovation from device manufacturers, which will move beyond the constraints of a single form factor. Ultimately, the consumer will choose what designs will win and which implementation of hardware and software integration is most elegant. Today's constraints will define how the industry will innovate tomorrow. It might be a tough road, but there are promising days ahead. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jefferson Wang.
answer:

In the short term, the California verdict could raise smartphone prices and development time .
Android phone makers will scramble to steer clear of potential patent infringements .
Manufacturers will be thinking outside of the "rectangular slab form-factor" box .
As manufacturers diversify, Microsoft might finally have its day in the mobile sun .