A German court has ruled that it is legal to sell anti-Nazi T-shirts that use the swastika.

A lower court had ruled that Jurgen Kamm, who runs a business called "Nix Gut" or "Nothing Good," was in violation of a law against displaying the swastika, giving the Hitler salute or wearing Nazi uniforms. He was fined almost $5,000.

Kamm, who describes himself as left-wing, sells T-shirts, badges and bumper stickers that bear a swastika with a red slash through it or show someone putting a swastika in a garbage can.

The Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe found that his wares "clearly and unambiguously" carry an anti-Nazi message, Deutsche Welle reported.

Following the 25-year sentence in federal prison, Young will face five years of supervised release for operating a prostitution ring spanning from Michigan to Hawaii. Young recruited and directed females – including minors – to engage in prostitution. Young transported women and children and facilitated their transportation across state lines by car and airplane. Young reaped substantial financial benefit and laundered the proceeds of his illegal prostitution activities with the help of co-conspirators.

Young’s sentencing comes after his plea of guilt to 26 offenses including sex trafficking of children, sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, transportation of a minor for criminal sexual activity, transportation for prostitution, sexual exploitation of children, possession and interstate distribution of child pornography, threatening interstate communications, possession with the intent to distribute marijuana, felon in possession of a firearm, money laundering, and use of an interstate facility in aid of racketeering. In addition, Young was also convicted of producing and distributing child pornography for his use on a Web site to advertise the availability of his prostitutes including a 17-year-old-girl he exploited.

As part of his sentence, Young was also ordered to forfeit property gained through and used in furtherance of his crimes including computer equipment, furs, clothing, jewelry, electronics and cash.

Young’s co-conspirators have also been convicted of their role in the prostitution operation. Young’s Honolulu associates, Mark Luke White and Hae Sun Kim face sentencing later this year. Jeffrey McCoy, one of Young’s co-defendants pleaded guilty and was sentenced in Hawaii earlier this year. A second Detroit associate, George Abro, who laundered the proceeds and assisted in the prostitution ring, pleaded guilty to federal offenses in October 2006 and will be sentenced later this year as well. A Chicago dentist, Dr. Gary Kimmel, is under indictment and charged with financial offenses related to his support of Young's organization and is scheduled for trial in September 2007.

The investigation is being conducted by the FBI, Michigan State Police, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, IRS, the Detroit Major Crimes Task Force, the Detroit Police Department, and the Macomb County Enforcement Team.

In Hawaii, the investigation was led by the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force comprised of members from the State Attorney General’s Office, the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Honolulu Police Department with substantial assistance from Assistant U.S. Attorney Wes Porter of the District of Hawaii.

The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Kayla Bakshi of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney John O’Brien of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan and Assistant U.S. Attorney Wes Porter for the District of Hawaii. In the spring of 2003, the Violent Crimes and Major Offenders Section of FBI headquarters, in partnership with CEOS and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, initiated the Innocence Lost Initiative, designed to address the growing problem of children forced into prostitution. To date, the Innocence Lost Initiative has resulted in 275 open investigations, 697 arrests, 160 informations or indictments, and 136 convictions in the federal and state systems.

Hicks waived her right to jury trial in open court before U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Droney. She faces a maximum penalty of up to life in prison and a fine of up to $1.25 million. “Sex trafficking is an abhorrent crime that too often occurs in our own backyards, and too often victimizes children,” said Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “It is a top priority of the Justice Department to root out and prosecute those who so ruthlessly victimize others.”

“The charges to which this defendant admitted her guilt clearly show that prostitution is not a victimless crime,” said, Kevin J. O’Connor, U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut. “The federal government is committed to prosecuting sex trafficking crimes, particularly when minors are abused and women are forced to commit sexual acts against their will and under the threat of violence.”

Human trafficking prosecutions are a top priority of the Department. In the last six fiscal years, the Civil Rights Division, in conjunction with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, has increased by six-fold the number of human trafficking cases filed in court.  In 2006, the Department obtained a record number of convictions in human trafficking prosecutions. The case is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Hartford and Windsor Police Departments, and the Internal Revenue Service. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Genco and Andrew J. Kline of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.

The only number that is down for Stevens & Lee's 2006 financial performance is its hours billed, as the firm posted double-digit increases in revenue and profit.

The firm saw a 10.3 percent increase in gross revenue, from $102 million in 2005 to $112.5 million in 2006.

The revenue per lawyer grew by 14.8 percent, from $610,000 in 2005 to $700,000 in 2006. The profits per equity partner increased by 16 percent, from $655,000 in 2005 to $760,000 in 2006.

Stevens & Lee has a small non-equity tier, with 13 of the 161 attorneys in 2006 falling into that category. Managing partner Joseph M. Harenza said only about five of those attorneys are income partners, while the others are senior counsel or something similar. Of the attorneys, 99 were equity partners, dropping from 103 in 2005. The average compensation for all partners rose from $635,000 in 2005 to $700,000 in 2006.

Harenza attributes the firm's overall growth to an increase in revenue through a focus on specialized legal work and a simple cost-containment strategy. He said this is the 10th straight year the Reading, Pa.-based firm has seen improved financial results.

The statistic the firm places the most emphasis on, Harenza said, is one The American Lawyer does not calculate for its Am Law survey.

The firm calls it the net income per lawyer, and calculates the number by subtracting expenses from the total revenue with the exception of attorney compensation, Harenza said. The firm reported that number at $557,000, compared to 2005's net income per lawyer of $479,000.

Altman Weil consultant Bill Brennan said his firm looks to RPL and the net income per lawyer as the two most important indicators of a firm's financial health.

Stevens & Lee reported a 69 percent return on the dollar to its partners and an 80 percent return to its lawyers for 2006.

Of the $112.5 million in gross revenue, $75.5 million went to equity partner compensation and another $3 million went to non-equity partners.

There are about 40 nonlawyer professionals in the firm that are paid as employees, Harenza said.

Brennan said the percent return on the dollar for partners could often be a very misleading number because the fewer equity partners there are, the higher the return is for each of them. That isn't the case with Stevens & Lee, which has a much lower leverage than many Am Law 200 firms with about 0.62 non-equity attorneys to every equity partner. For all intents and purposes, non-equity partners and of counsel are counted as associates when calculating leverage.

Harenza said Stevens & Lee's model is different than several other firms when it comes to increasing revenue and profits. His firm, he said, focuses on upping revenue per lawyer and lowering expense per lawyer and then doles out the remaining profits to each attorney tier. Other firms, he said, take what revenue they have left and figure out which attorney fits into which tier.

Harenza said the firm would be able to put its PPP over $1 million if it moved to a 2-to-1 leverage, and up to $1.25 million at a 3-to-1 leverage. Brennan said there is validity to that argument because if the lower paid partners were made associates, the average of the higher paid equity partners would naturally increase.

"Many law firms 'manage' their profits per partner statistic by defining who is an equity partner," he said.

Unsophisticated readers of the Am Law 100, he said, could be easily deceived by that statistic.

A big part of why Stevens & Lee has been able to remain so profitable with low leverage traditionally had to do with its choice of locale. Based in Reading, the firm has offices in places like Pennsylvania's Lancaster, Scranton, Valley Forge and Wilkes-Barre. Harenza said location is no longer the only factor in cost containment.

In the last few years, the firm has opened offices in more expensive markets like Princeton, N.J., Philadelphia and New York City.

Harenza said the expense per attorney in 2003, before the Princeton and New York offices opened, was about $96,000. After the launch of the Princeton office, the cost went up to $101,000, and up even further to $120,000 once the New York office was opened, he said.

In order to combat those rising costs, Harenza said he continues to invest in technology to lower the need for support staff and continues to strive for higher-end work to increase revenue.

Harenza said the firm saves on expenses by centralizing its marketing and technology teams into one office as opposed to having a representative from each group in every office, as many large firms do.

He said large firms with offices all over the world are going to start moving in the direction of centralized support functions.

Stevens & Lee is spending money on technology training in order to reduce costs in the long run, and is working on the demographics of the firm. Harenza said the firm is seeing some of the more senior attorneys migrate out and has a need for first- and second-year associates and fifth- to eighth-year associates.

Harenza said he is trying to make every lawyer specialize in an industry segment and possibly in a sub-specialty with the hopes of commanding higher rates.

"My job is to get higher yield and rates from clients," he said.

Although the firm's geographic locations have been a draw for clients because of lower rates, Harenza wants to increase those rates through higher-end work, and says he has the room to do it. The firm's rates are currently substantially lower than those of Philadelphia and, particularly, New York firms, he said.

More than just looking to increase the rates he charges now, Harenza wants to handle specialty work that automatically commands higher fees and he thinks clients are willing to pay for that specialization.

Stevens & Lee works off a pyramid chart that breaks legal work into three sections: commodity work, experiential work and unique or specialized work. As clients have consolidated, the rates for everyday, commodity work have become more price-sensitive, Harenza said. That phenomenon has even pushed some of the more sophisticated experiential work into the commodity section of the pyramid, he said.

The ultimate goal for Stevens & Lee is to achieve as much of that 5 percent of the legal work that is at the top of the pyramid, he said.

"What I'm trying to do is move this entire business, business by business, up that curve," he said.

In 2005, Stevens & Lee saw a 12.7 percent increase in gross revenue over 2004's financial performance, a 9 percent increase in revenue per lawyer and an 8.3 percent increase in profits per equity partner.

The lawsuit was filed at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York “for massive intentional copyright infringement of Viacom’s entertainment properties”.

Viacom wants 1 billion dollars from Google and YouTube, also requesting an injunction that would prohibit the two Web giants (which are now one, after Google’s acquisition of YouTube last year for 1.65 billion dollars) from further displaying Viacom’s copyrighted materials on YouTube or on Google Video.

Google immediately responded saying: “We are confident that YouTube has respected the legal rights of copyright holders and believe the courts will agree. YouTube is great for users and offers real opportunities to rights holders: the opportunity to interact with users; to promote their content to a young and growing audience; and to tap into the online advertising market. We will certainly not let this suit become a distraction to the continuing growth and strong performance of YouTube and its ability to attract more users, more traffic and build a stronger community."

YouTube and Google’s lawyers subsequently declared that the DMCA is enough to prove Google’s innocence.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law which criminalizes production and dissemination of technology whose primary purpose is to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself. It also heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 8, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended title 17 of the U.S. Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of Online Providers from copyright infringement by their users.

On May 22, 2001, the European Union passed the EU Copyright Directive or EUCD, similar in many ways to the DMCA.

"Here there is a law which is specifically designed to give Web hosts such as us, or... bloggers or people that provide photo-album hosting online ... the 'safe harbor' we need in order to be able to do hosting online," said Alexander Macgillivray, Google's associate general counsel for products and intellectual property, during an interview with Reuters.

"We will never launch a product or acquire a company unless we are completely satisfied with its legal basis for operating," Macgillivray added.

Viacom’s complaint contends that almost 160,000 unauthorized clips from its cable networks, which include MTV, Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon have been posted illegally on YouTube and that these clips had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.

Viacom is especially at risk of losing money from advertisement when its content is displayed on YouTube, since many of its popular shows, like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report or South Park, are aimed at younger audiences, which are also heavy Internet users.

Viacom slammed YouTube’s copyright policy saying that: “YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others’ creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google.  Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws.  In fact, YouTube’s strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site, thus generating significant traffic and revenues for itself while shifting the entire burden – and high cost – of monitoring YouTube onto the victims of its infringement.”

Notwithstanding Viacom’s accusations, Macgillivray is confident that Google will win, citing also a previous dismissal of another copyright lawsuit, filed by Nevada attorney Blake Field.

"This is an area of law where there are a bunch of really clear precedents, so Amazon and eBay have both been found to qualify for the safe harbor and there are a whole bunch more," Macgillivray said.

"We will continue to innovate and continue to host material for people, without being distracted by this suit."

Hutchison Law Group PLLC, the leading provider of strategic business and intellectual property counsel to the Southeast’s life science and technology communities, is pleased to announce that Thomas E. Holsten and Caroline Horton Rockafellow have joined the firm’s Intellectual Property Practice Group, and Amalie L. Tuffin has joined the firm’s Corporate and Securities Practice Group.

“We are excited to have these talented, experienced attorneys join our firm,” said Hutchison Law Group Executive Committee Member Bill Wofford. “For many of our clients, the creation and exploitation of intellectual property is essential to their success. Tom will help life science companies build valuable patent portfolios and Caroline will play a key role in licensing and commercializing these patents and other technologies.”

Helga Leftwich, another Member of Hutchison Law Group, added, “We have a highly sophisticated and growing corporate and corporate finance practice, and Amalie’s deep knowledge of tax and equity compensation will help us continue to provide excellent service to clients in these ever-changing areas of the law.”

Thomas E. Holsten focuses on patent law matters for clients in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including counseling clients on patent protection strategies, coordinating and conducting due diligence investigations of patent portfolios and preparing and prosecuting patent applications. He has assisted clients with a variety of technologies in areas such as peptide hormonal therapeutics, genomics, bioinformatics, gene expression, small molecule and genetic engineering. Prior to joining Hutchison Law Group, Holsten practiced at the law firm of Arnold & Porter LLP in Washington, DC. Prior to law school, he was a patent agent and research assistant with Monsanto Company, a leading global provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products. Holsten was also involved in research at the University of California at Davis concerning the cloning and characterization of agriculturally important genes. He received his J.D. from Franklin Pierce Law Center and earned a B.S. in Biology from East Carolina University.

Caroline Horton Rockafellow provides counsel to life science and information technology companies, concentrating her practice on legal issues impacting the use and commercialization of intellectual property. Rockafellow speaks and writes often on intellectual property matters and is a member of numerous organizations and associations. She is the immediate past co-chair of the RTP chapter of the Licensing Executives Society (LES). Rockafellow is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Prior to joining Hutchison Law Group, Rockafellow practiced at the RTP law firm of Daniels Daniels & Verdonik, in addition to serving as in-house counsel at both a biotechnology company and a software development corporation. She received her J.D. and Masters in Intellectual Property from Franklin Pierce Law Center and earned her undergraduate degree in Chemistry from Drury University.

Amalie L. Tuffin focuses her practice on corporate governance and transactions, in addition to domestic taxation for life science and information technology companies. Prior to joining Hutchison Law Group, Tuffin practiced at the RTP law firm of Daniels Daniels & Verdonik. She was previously associated with Peabody & Arnold in Boston. Tuffin is a member of both the Committee on Negotiated Acquisitions and Committee on Venture Capital and Private Equity of the American Bar Association's Business Law Section. She received her J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, where she served as a member of the Hastings International and Comparative Law Review and as an Editor of the Communication/Entertainment Law Journal. In addition, she earned her LL.M. in taxation from Boston University. Tuffin received her A.B. cum laude from Harvard University.

Combined, these attorneys bring over three decades of experience to Hutchison Law Group and its clients.

www.hutchlaw.com