The FCC and Comcast got their day in court Friday afternoon on the net neutrality issue. A three-judge federal appeals court followed a line of questioning that seemed to favor Comcast, but a decision may not come for months.

The issue is whether Comcast violated FCC rules in blocking Bit Torrent traffic and, also, the broader issue of whether the FCC has the authority to restrict Comcast and other carriers supplying broadband. A back story in the complex issue is highlighted by carriers' complaints that consumers' growing usage of broadband is clogging networks.

"This case underscores the importance of the FCC's ongoing rulemaking to preserve the free and open Internet," said FCC chairman Julius Genachowski in a statement. "I remain confident the commission possesses the legal authority it needs and look forward to reviewing the court's decision when it issues."

Comcast attorney Helgi Walker said the FCC's effort to challenge the cable firm was "a policy statement" and, as such, was not enough for the FCC to reprimand Comcast for seeking to control the flow of Internet traffic over its network. She told the judges: "You can free us of this black mark on our record."

If the decision goes against the FCC, it will still have the option of going to Congress to seek new legislation to deal with the net neutrality issue.

The Supreme Court on Monday morning temporarily blocked a federal judge in San Francisco from showing on YouTube proceedings from a trial that will determine whether a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The court's decision is not the final word; the stay sought by same-sex marriage opponents expires Wednesday. The court said that will permit justices "further consideration." The trial is scheduled to start Monday.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer was the only justice to object.

"I agree with the court that further consideration is warranted, and I am pleased that the stay is time-limited," Breyer wrote. But he said the court's standards for issuing a stay were not met because there is not a likelihood of "irreparable harm" if the proceedings were available on the Internet.

Two bay area couples are asking Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker to rule that same-sex marriage is a right embedded in the Constitution and that it was violated last year when California voters passed Proposition 8, a ballot measure confining matrimony to members of the opposite sex.

A California appeals court ruled in favor of octuplets mother Nadya Suleman Friday, denying a call for an independent guardian to monitor her children's finances.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana called the petition an "unprecedented, meritless effort by a stranger" and directed an Orange County probate court to vacate its order for an investigation into the family's finances.

Paul Petersen, an advocate for children in the entertainment industry, argued that Suleman's children were vulnerable and that an independent guardian should be appointed to look after their financial interests.

The appeals court said the probate judge erred because Petersen failed to show that Suleman was engaging in financial misconduct.

Suleman gave birth to octuplets on Jan. 26, 2009. The medical curiosity of their delivery turned to public outrage when it was learned that the single, unemployed mother had been caring for her six other children with the help of food stamps and Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters.

A former emergency room doctor who deliberately braked in front of two bicyclists, causing them to crash and suffer serious injuries in the road rage incident, was sentenced Friday to five years in prison.

Christopher Thomas Thompson, 60, was sentenced in Los Angeles County Superior Court. He was in tears as he apologized to the victims.

"The physical and mental scars are my fault," he said, telling them that he has recurring nightmares about one of the cyclists crashing through the windshield of his car.

But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Scott Millington said he was concerned about a lack of remorse. The defendant was apologetic today, but remarks he made soon after the crash indicated otherwise, the judge said.

Thompson, who worked at Beverly Hospital in Montebello, has been jailed since he was convicted in November of assault with a deadly weapon, battery with serious bodily injury, reckless driving and mayhem.

Prosecutors say he had argued with the two cyclists before suddenly slamming on his brakes in front of them on Mandeville Canyon Road on July 4, 2008, causing them to crash and suffer serious injuries. One cyclist who went through the car window suffered broken teeth, cuts and had to have his nose reattached. The other cyclist suffered a separated shoulder after crashing to the pavement.

Under terms of a settlement announced by Oregon Attorney General John Kroger, a California law firm is prohibited from providing loan modifications in Oregon and is required to pay $28,857.

"I will not hesitate to take action against companies that attempt to take advantage of Oregon homeowners in distress," Kroger said.

The settlement followed an Oregon Department of Justice investigation that determined The USMAC Law Group had violated state law by collecting advance fees for loan modifications to prevent foreclosure sales.

The DOJ's investigation also focused on alleged non-compliant contract language and deceptive infomercial advertisements for the firm's loan modification program that aired nationally on satellite television.

Loan modification companies are prohibited from collecting advance fees and using confusing contract language by the 2008 Oregon Mortgage Rescue Fraud protection Act.

The USMAC Law Group will provide $6,857 in refunds to two Oregon consumers and an additional nine Oregon consumers who contracted with The USMAC Law Group may also be eligible for refunds. The remaining $22,000 will be paid to the Oregon Department of Justice. No wrongdoing was admitted by The USMAC Law Group in agreeing to the settlement.

The settlement with The USMAC Law Group comes as part of a crack down on unscrupulous loan modification work to fight the foreclosure crisis by the Department of Justice, the Department of Consumer and Business Services, the Oregon Legislature and consumer groups, Kroger said.

A Swiss court ruled that the nation's top financial regulator acted in an "unlawful" manner when it forced UBS AG to release client data to U.S. authorities, reigniting a debate over bank-secrecy practices.

The decision, if upheld, could complicate efforts to extract client data by tax authorities in other countries. Private bankers have argued that whittling away Switzerland's banking-privacy laws has led to withdrawals by wealthy individuals.

Nearly one year ago, Finma, the Swiss financial-services regulator, ordered UBS to hand over details on nearly 300 accounts to U.S. authorities in order to settle a tax dispute. The regulator said it had to move quickly because, according to Swiss officials, U.S. authorities were threatening to indict the bank over the tax issue.

Finma argued that a potential indictment was a "clear and present" danger that UBS might not survive. Moreover, Finma added, UBS already had admitted to aiding tax fraud through hidden offshore accounts. The court disagreed, saying Finma had exceeded its authority and should have referred the matter to the government. The government backed Finma's move last February.