LAWYERSCHILE EL MUNDO INTERNACIONAL DEL ABOGADO

Rodrigo González Fernández y un grupo de egresados de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad la Republica en Chile ha decidido poner al alcance de todo el mundo de la profesion legal importantes materias en Ingles para ir practicando el trabajo en materia de Tratados internacionales y que nuestra profesión estará en primera linea. Invitamos a todos a opinar, debatir, participar activamente.Es el primer blog legal en inglés de latinoamerica.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

IBM Seeks Patent on Absence of Patents

FROM LEGAL BLOG WATCH

IBM Seeks Patent on Absence of Patents

IBM, it appears, abhors an IP vacuum. By way of news-for-nerds blog Slashdot comes word that IBM is seeking to patent a tool for identifying areas within industries in which little patenting activity is taking place -- thus allowing businesses to step in and fill that IP void. Filed last week with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, IBM's application seeks to patent Methodologies and Analytics Tools for Identifying White Space Opportunities in a Given Industry. "White space," as the application explains, "is a term generally used to designate one or more technical fields in which little or no IP may exist."

The need for the invention, the application says, stems from the fact that existing processes for identifying white space -- such as Internet searches -- are labor intensive, time consuming and largely ineffective. Yet rooting out this intelligence could be "critical to the competitive advantage of a business entity," which could use this knowledge "to maximize the value of its IP" within that fallow field of patenting. So how would IBM's invention address this? The abstract provides this description:

A method for analyzing predefined subject matter in a patent database being for use with a set of target patents, each target patent related to the predefined subject matter, the method comprising: creating a feature space based on frequently occurring terms found in the set of target patents; creating a partition taxonomy based on a clustered configuration of the feature space; editing the partition taxonomy using domain expertise to produce an edited partition taxonomy; creating a classification taxonomy based on structured features present in the edited partition taxonomy; creating a contingency table by comparing the edited partition taxonomy and the classification taxonomy to provide entries in the contingency table; and identifying all significant relationships in the contingency table to help determine the presence of any white space.

If I understand it in the least bit -- which I readily admit I may not -- the patent would cover an "intelligent search" tool that would analyze and extract text from within one set of documents or data (such as patents) and look for similar concepts within a second set of documents or data. The result would be to identify concepts and key words that occur with less frequency in the second data set, suggesting the existence of white space. As Slashdot points out, this patent comes from a company that in 2006 made a public commitment to pursuing greater clarity and transparency in patents.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on September 30

CONSULTEN, OPINEN , ESCRIBAN LIBREMENTE
Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en RSE de la ONU
www.consultajuridicachile.blogspot.com
www.el-observatorio-politico.blogspot.com
www.lobbyingchile.blogspot.com
www.biocombustibles.blogspot.com
www.calentamientoglobalchile.blogspot.com
oficina: Renato Sánchez 3586 of. 10
Teléfono: OF .02- 8854223- CEL: 76850061
e-mail: rogofe47@mi.cl
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación y consultoría en LIDERAZGO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – BIOCOMBUSTIBLES , y asesorías a nivel internacional y están disponibles para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

Friday, September 26, 2008

Government Seizes WaMu and Sells Some Assets

REPRINTS
SHARE

By ERIC DASH and ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

Published: September 25, 2008

Washington Mutual, the giant lender that came to symbolize the excesses of the mortgage boom, was seized by federal regulators on Thursday night, in what is by far the largest bank failure in American history.

Times Topics: Washington Mutual Inc.

Times Topics: JPMorgan Chase & Company

F.D.I.C. Statement on Takeover of Washington Mutual Office of Thrift Supervision Statement

Managing Globalization Blog (IHT)

Why It's Not Socialism

Go to Blog »

Add to Portfolio

Go to your Portfolio »

Readers' Comments

Share your thoughts on this article.

Regulators simultaneously brokered an emergency sale of virtually all of Washington Mutual, the nation's largest savings and loan, to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 billion, averting another potentially huge taxpayer bill for the rescue of a failing institution.

The move came as lawmakers reached a stalemate over the passage of a $700 billion bailout fund designed to help ailing banks, and removed one of America's most troubled banks from the financial landscape.

Customers of WaMu, based in Seattle, are unlikely to be affected, although shareholders and some bondholders will be wiped out. WaMu account holders are guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation up to $100,000, and additional deposits will be backed by JPMorgan Chase.

By taking on all of WaMu's troubled mortgages and credit card loans, JPMorgan Chase will absorb at least $31 billion in losses that would normally have fallen to the F.D.I.C.

JPMorgan Chase, which acquired Bear Stearns only six months ago in another shotgun deal brokered by the government, is to take control Friday of all of WaMu's deposits and bank branches, creating a nationwide retail franchise that rivals only Bank of America. But JPMorgan will also take on Washington Mutual's big portfolio of troubled assets, and plans to shut down at least 10 percent of the combined company's 5,400 branches in markets like New York and Chicago, where they compete. The bank also plans to raise an additional $8 billion by issuing common stock on Friday to pay for the deal.

Washington Mutual, with $307 billion in assets, is by far the biggest bank failure in history, eclipsing the 1984 failure of Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust in Chicago, an event that presaged the savings and loan crisis. IndyMac, which was seized by regulators in July, was one-tenth the size of WaMu.

But fears of the fallout from the government takeover of a big bank were balanced with the removal of one of the largest remaining clouds looming over the banking industry.

"This institution was a big question mark about the health of the deposit fund," Sheila C. Bair, the chairwoman of the F.D.I.C., said on a conference call Thursday. "It was unique in its size and exposure to higher risk mortgages and the distressed housing market. This is the big one that everybody was worried about." She said that the bank's rapidly deteriorating condition prompted regulators to seize it Thursday, and not on a Friday as is typical for bank closures.

For weeks, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department were nervous about the fate of WaMu, among the worst-hit by the housing crisis, and pressed hard for the bank to sell itself. Washington Mutual publicly insisted that it could remain independent, but the giant thrift had quietly hired Goldman Sachs about two weeks ago to identify potential bidders. But nobody could make the numbers work and several deadlines passed without anyone submitting a bid.

But as panic gripped financial markets last week after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, WaMu customers started withdrawing their deposits. The government then stepped up its efforts, at points going behind WaMu's back to work privately with four potential bidders on a deal. On Wednesday afternoon, the government solicited formal written bids. On Thursday morning, regulators notified James Dimon, chairman and chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, that he was the likely winner.

"We are building a company," Mr. Dimon said in a brief interview. "We are kind of lucky to have this opportunity to do this. We always had our eye on it."

But the seizure and the deal with JPMorgan came as a shock to Washington Mutual's board, which was kept completely in the dark: the company's new chief executive, Alan H. Fishman, was in midair, flying from New York to Seattle at the time the deal was finally brokered, according to people briefed on the situation. Mr. Fishman, who has been on the job for less than three weeks, is eligible for $11.6 million in cash severance and will get to keep his $7.5 million signing bonus, according to an analysis by James F. Reda and Associates. WaMu was not immediately available for comment.

The government has dealt with troubled financial institutions differently. Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual, which were less entangled with the rest of the financial system, were allowed to collapse. But the government took emergency measures to stabilize Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the American International Group, the insurance giant.

Federal regulators had been trying to broker a deal for Washington Mutual because a takeover by the F.D.I.C. would have dealt a crushing blow to the federal government's deposit insurance fund. The fund, which stood at $45.2 billion at the end of June, has been severely depleted after suffering a loss from the sudden collapse of IndyMac Bank. Analysts say that a failure of Washington Mutual would have cost the fund as much as $30 billion or more.

The deal will end WaMu's 119-year run as an independent company and give JPMorgan Chase branches in California and other markets where it does not have a big presence.

Until recently, Washington Mutual was one of Wall Street's strongest performers. It reaped big profits quarter after quarter as its then chief executive, Kerry K. Killinger, enlarged its presence by buying banks on both coasts and ramping up mortgage lending.

His goal was to transform what was once a sleepy Seattle thrift into the "Wal-Mart of Banking," which would cater to lower- and middle-class consumers that other banks deemed too risky. It offered complex mortgages and credit cards whose terms made it easy for the least creditworthy borrowers to get financing, a strategy the bank extended in big cities, including Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. With this grand plan, Mr. Killinger built Washington Mutual into the sixth-largest bank in the United States.

But underneath the hood, the bank's machinery was failing.

Then the housing market began to crumble. Like so many other financial institutions, the bank tried to hedge its mortgage bets — but did so poorly. It retrenched on its branch-building ambitions. But none of that was enough to deflate ballooning losses on mortgage loans, nor defuse ticking time bombs like interest-only and pay-option amortization products that had reeled in bottom-grade borrowers.

With rising mortgage payments and higher gas and food bills, WaMu's losses in its big credit card loan portfolio also surged.

By then, however, WaMu's troubles had set off alarm bells on Wall Street, which ground its share price down daily.

With options narrowing, WaMu frantically reached out to several banks and big private equity firms, including the Carlyle Group and the Blackstone Group.

In March, JPMorgan Chase saw an opportunity and urged WaMu in a letter to consider a quick deal. On the same weekend that Mr. Dimon negotiated his daring takeover of Bear Stearns, he secretly dispatched members of his team to Seattle to meet with WaMu executives. When JPMorgan Chase offered WaMu $8 a share, largely in stock. But Mr. Killinger balked at the deal.

In April, David Bonderman, a founder of the TPG private equity firm, and a group of institutional investors agreed to infuse $7 billion of capital into the bank. Mr. Killinger kept his job, and Mr. Bonderman, who had served as a WaMu director from 1997 to 2002, returned with a board seat and 176 million WaMu shares priced at about $8.75 each — steep discount of more than 25 percent to that day's share price.

While the deal was sweet for Mr. Bonderman, it eroded the value for existing shareholders, enraging them. They moved on June 2 to strip Mr. Killinger of his chairmanship. Mr. Bonderman, meanwhile, watched his golden bet turn to dross. In a statement Thursday, TPG said: "Obviously, we are dissatisfied with the loss to our partners from our investment in Washington Mutual."

Talks Implode During a Day of Chaos; Fate of Bailout Plan Remains Unresolved

Mitch Dumke/Reuters

Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, left, and Senator Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee, spoke to reporters.

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN, CARL HULSE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: September 25, 2008

News Analysis: McCain Leaps Into a Thicket (September 26, 2008)

Political Memo: In a Time of Crisis, Is Obama Too Cool? (September 26, 2008)

Checkpoint: Taking On the Mortgage Giants (September 26, 2008)

Managing Globalization Blog (IHT)

Why It's Not Socialism

Go to Blog »

Readers' Comments

Share your thoughts on this article.

This article was reported by David M. Herszenhorn, Carl Hulse andSheryl Gay Stolberg and written by Ms. Stolberg.

WASHINGTON — The day began with an agreement that Washington hoped would end the financial crisis that has gripped the nation. It dissolved into a verbal brawl in the Cabinet Room of the White House, urgent warnings from the president and pleas from a Treasury secretary who knelt before the House speaker and appealed for her support.

"If money isn't loosened up, this sucker could go down," President Bush declared Thursday as he watched the $700 billion bailout package fall apart before his eyes, according to one person in the room.

It was an implosion that spilled out from behind closed doors into public view in a way rarely seen in Washington.

By 10:30 p.m., after another round of talks, Congressional negotiators gave up for the night and said they would try again on Friday. Left uncertain was the fate of the bailout, which the White House says is urgently needed to fix broken financial and credit markets, as well as whether the first presidential debate would go forward as planned Friday night in Mississippi.

When Congressional leaders and Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, the two major party presidential candidates, trooped to the White House on Thursday afternoon, most signs pointed toward a bipartisan agreement on a grand compromise that could be accepted by all sides and signed into law by the weekend. It was intended to pump billions of dollars into the financial system, restoring liquidity and keeping credit flowing to businesses and consumers.

"We're in a serious economic crisis," Mr. Bush told reporters as the meeting began shortly before 4 p.m. in the Cabinet Room, adding, "My hope is we can reach an agreement very shortly."

But once the doors closed, the smooth-talking House Republican leader, John A. Boehnerof Ohio, surprised many in the room by declaring that his caucus could not support the plan to allow the government to buy distressed mortgage assets from ailing financial companies.

Mr. Boehner pressed an alternative that involved a smaller role for the government, and Mr. McCain, whose support of the deal is critical if fellow Republicans are to sign on, declined to take a stand.

The talks broke up in angry recriminations, according to accounts provided by a participant and others who were briefed on the session, and were followed by dueling news conferences and interviews rife with partisan finger-pointing.

Friday morning, on CBS's "The Early Show," Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the lead Democratic negotiator, said the bailout had been derailed by internal Republican politics.

"I didn't know I was going to be the referee for an internal G.O.P. ideological civil war," Mr. Frank said, according to The A.P.Thursday, in the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, not to "blow it up" by withdrawing her party's support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal.

"I didn't know you were Catholic," Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson's kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: "It's not me blowing this up, it's the Republicans."

Mr. Paulson sighed. "I know. I know."

It was the very outcome the White House had said it intended to avoid, with partisan presidential politics appearing to trample what had been exceedingly delicate Congressional negotiations.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Senate banking committee, denounced the session as "a rescue plan for John McCain," and proclaimed it a waste of precious hours that could have been spent negotiating.

But a top aide to Mr. Boehner said it was Democrats who had done the political posturing. The aide, Kevin Smith, said Republicans revolted, in part, because they were chafing at what they saw as an attempt by Democrats to jam through an agreement on the bailout early Thursday and deny Mr. McCain an opportunity to participate in the agreement.

The day seemed to hold promise as it began. On Wednesday night, Mr. Bush had delivered a prime-time televised address to the nation, warning that "our country could experience a long and painful recession" if lawmakers did not act quickly to pass a huge Wall Street bailout plan.

After spending Thursday morning behind closed doors, senior lawmakers from both parties emerged shortly before 1 p.m. in the ornate painted corridors on the first floor of the Capitol to herald their agreement on the broad outlines of a deal.

They said the legislation, which would authorize unprecedented government intervention to buy distressed debt from private firms, would include limits on pay packages for executives of some firms that seek assistance and a mechanism for the government to take an equity stake in some of the firms, so taxpayers have a chance to profit if the bailout plan works.

"I now expect we will indeed have a plan that can pass the House, pass the Senate, be signed by the president, and bring a sense of certainty to this crisis that is still roiling in the markets," said Robert F. Bennett, Republican of Utah, a member of the banking committee.

Elisabeth Bumiller contributed reporting.

Law Bloggers Opine on McCain's Proposal to Postpone the Debate

Law Bloggers Opine on McCain's Proposal to Postpone the Debate

Though McCain's recent proposal to suspend his campaign and postpone Friday's presidential debate so he can focus on working out the details of the financial bailout in Washington is more of a political than a legal event, law bloggers are nonetheless taking sides on McCain's decision and Obama's response. Here's a sampling of what the legal blogosphere has to say.

• Whose Approach is Right - McCain's or Obama's? Law bloggers are split fairly evenly over whether McCain's decision to suspend the debate is an admirable and sensible approach, or a political ploy. Siding with McCain are Hugh Hewitt of Town Hall, who views McCain's proposal as "an example of great leadership" and sees Obama's refusal to go along as his "Katrina moment." Mike Cernovich of Crime & Federalism views McCain's approach as "audacious," likely leaving Obama's staff with a sinking "why didn't we think of it first" feeling.

On the other end of the spectrum, Al Nye, The Lawyer Guy says McCain's campaign suspension is "politics, pure and simple." Ann Althouse seems to be of mixed mind: She says that McCain's announcement showed leadership, but concedes that McCain went for political theatrics and "if McCain had really been serious about this, he should have worked it out with Obama in private."

Finally, Howard Wasserman at Prawfs Blawg and Michael Dorf both argue that irrespective of politics or what needs to be done in Washington, the debate must go on so that the public can learn more about the issues.

• Will Postponement Violate Fair Broadcast Laws? David Oxenford of the Broadcast Law Blog wonders whether McCain's failure to show up would violate the FCC's equal opportunity rules. He explains:

If Barack Obama were to appear at the debate and answer questions, and that appearance was televised, would the stations that carried the debates later be subject to a claim for equal opportunities by the McCain campaign? Under FCC precedent, the answer would be "yes." [...] What would this mean if a station was to cover a debate where Obama showed and McCain did not? If the McCain campaign were to timely request equal opportunities, stations would have to provide to McCain time equal to the amount of time that Obama appeared on screen, and McCain could do anything with that time that he wanted - he would not have to answer questions from the debate moderator. Thus, traditionally, if only one candidate shows up for a scheduled debate that is supposed to be broadcast, the debate (or at least the broadcast) is canceled.

• How Would Your Law Firm Juggle Two Important Clients? For me, McCain's proposal triggered the question of how a law firm might juggle two important client matters. For example, if a firm had an important Supreme Court argument scheduled, but another client needed a fire put out earlier that week, it's doubtful that the firm would cancel one matter to deal with the other. Though I wholeheartedly agree with McCain's insistence on focusing on the bailout and coming to Washington to do so (and believe that Obama should do the same), I don't understand why McCain can't address both the budget and still go forward with the debate. If law firms can multitask, why can't politicians do the same?

Sphere: Related Content

Posted by Carolyn Elefant on September 25, 2008

Small Firms Gained in 2007, but What Does the Future Hold?

from legal blog watch

Small Firms Gained in 2007, but What Does the Future Hold?

As with their Am Law 100 counterparts, small firms ranging in size from two to 150 lawyers experienced a banner year of growth, reports a study by Incisive Legal Intelligence's survey group (Disclosure: Incisive Media is Legal Blog Watch's parent company). From the press release:

-- Average hourly billing rates for senior partners reached $352, a gain of almost five percent over the prior year, while billing rates for 5th year associates increased to $227, a three percent increase.
-- Average gross revenue per lawyer for respondents reached $430,483, an increase of four percent over the prior year, while overhead expenses increased by only two percent. Average law firm profitability increased this year by more than five percent to $260,120 per lawyer.
-- Equity partner/shareholder total compensation increased by three percent, from an average of $364,837 in 2007 to $374,049.
-- Starting salaries for new law school graduates rose to $85,000, a three percent increase from the prior year and a 22.3 percent increase over the past five years.

Whereas most generally assumed that the growth experienced by Am Law 100 firms would no longer be sustainable in 2008 and beyond, no such predictions have yet emerged for smaller firms. My own hunch is that these smaller firms may prosper in tough economic times, in large part because they provide a more affordable alternative. For example, while smaller firm billing rates rose by 5 percent to $352, that's a bargain compared to the $1,000/hour rates that some large firms charge. Moreover, based on the statistics, it appears that small firms have made an effort to keep overhead costs under control; in 2007, gross revenues increased by 4 percent, but overhead only went up by 2 percent.

Do you run or work for a small firm? How is 2008 stacking up so far and what are your predictions for the future?

Sphere: Related Content

Posted by Carolyn Elefant on September

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

In Bailout Furor, Wall Street Pay Becomes a Target

By STEVE LOHR

Published: September 23, 2008

Congress wants Wall Street to feel it where it hurts: the wallet.

The New York Times

The stratospheric pay packages of Wall Street executives have become a lightning rod issue as Congress shapes a $700 billion bailout for financial firms. Proposals circulating on Capitol Hill vary, but they all would impose some limits or approval authority on salaries of executives whose firms seek help.

The moves in Washington mirror the popular outcry — in constituent e-mail messages and postings in the blogosphere — over the prospect of Wall Street's tarnished titans walking away with tens of millions of dollars a year while taxpayers pick up the bill.

But Wall Street, its lobbyists and trade groups are waging a feverish lobbying campaign to try to fight compensation curbs. Pay restrictions, they say, would sap incentives to hard work and innovation, and hurt the financial sector and the American economy.

"We support the bill, but we are opposed to provisions on executive pay," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president for government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group. "It is not appropriate for government to be setting the salaries of executives."

Yet some formal restraint on executive pay seems unavoidable, even sensible, some finance experts and economists said.

Arthur Levitt Jr., a former Wall Street executive as well as a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said pay curbs on executives whose firms take part in the bailout were essential for Congressional approval and were reasonable.

The finance industry, Mr. Levitt added, will continue to offer handsome salaries for the successful, though not as high as in the boom years. "The golden egg has disappeared," he said.

Scott A. Shay, chairman of Signature Bank, which holds no high-risk securities, called a limit on executive pay for firms participating in the bailout only fair.

"If that doesn't happen, you are effectively advantaging the institutions that made those risky bets at taxpayers' cost," Mr. Shay said. "What sense does that make?"

Across the Atlantic, there is also an appetite for stepping into pay practices in the finance industry. This week, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain called "unacceptable" the practice of linking bonus payments to high-risk investments that delivered hefty profits in the short term.

His Treasury minister, Alistair Darling, echoed that view by saying that Britain's main regulator, the Financial Service Authority, should take a hard look at regulating pay.

Angry sentiments on the issue in Congress were palpable on Tuesday, when Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, testified before the Senate banking committee.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the committee, said the "authors of this calamity" should not walk away enriched.

The presidential candidates, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, have also called for pay limits.

The proposals in Washington are still tentative, and often vague. A Senate draft document calls for a ban on incentive payments that the Treasury deems "inappropriate or excessive" and a "claw-back" provision, requiring executives to give up pay or severance benefits if the firm's financial results are later shown to be overstated.

Other proposals call for a ban on severance payments and allowing large shareholders, with a stake of 3 percent or more, to propose alternative slates of directors. This would be an effort to tackle excessive pay practices by opening up and strengthening corporate governance.

Some corporate governance experts say hastily devised compensation curbs in the bailout package would be a mistake and perhaps open the door to unintended consequences.

"Clearly, the level of pay at some of the Wall Street firms was appalling, given the performance," said Charles M. Elson, a corporate governance expert at the University of Delaware. "But the bailout is about saving the economy, while executive pay is a separate, and complex, issue."

In 1993, Mr. Elson noted, Congress limited the tax deductibility of executive salaries to $1 million, unless it could be demonstrated that the extra pay was linked to performance incentives. That move, he said, contributed to the practice in later years of very generous grants of stock options, which helped drive executive pay to new heights.

In 2007, the total compensation of chief executives in large American corporations was 275 times that of the salary of the average worker, the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research organization, estimates. In the late 1970s, chief executive pay was 35 times that of the average American worker.

Wall Street has been the top tier of the corporate pay range, with executives earning eight-figure salaries. Its bonus system, which rewards short-term trading profits, has been singled out as an incentive for Wall Street executives to expand their highly profitable business in exotic securities and ignore the risks.

"This financial crisis is a direct result of the compensation practices at these Wall Street firms," said Paul Hodgson, a senior analyst at the Corporate Library, a governance research group.

One possible answer, compensation analysts and economists say, would be to stretch out payments for several years, encouraging executives to pursue the long-term health and stability of the firms they head.

"I'm of a free-market, conservative bent, but I am sympathetic to some reshaping of executive pay on Wall Street," said Kenneth S. Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard. "For sure, I would consider very long-term payouts, up to 10 years out."

Whether Congress acts on executive pay or not, Wall Street pay levels are destined to come under pressure, said Michael Karp, chief executive of the Options Group, an executive search firm. The fallout from the financial crisis and the consolidation in the industry, he said, inevitably mean that more people will be competing for fewer jobs, dragging down salaries.

"Of course, superstars will always get paid," Mr. Karp said. "But they won't be the way they used to be."

Eric Dash, Landon Thomas Jr., Leslie Wayne and Ben White contributed reporting.

More Articles in Business »A version of this article appeared in print on September 24, 2008, on page A1 of the New York edition.

Free trial. Read the complete New York edition of The Times on computer, just as it appears in print.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

'Lebanon: Homosexuality in Lebanon'

'Lebanon: Homosexuality in Lebanon'
by Nash Suleiman

Homosexuality is one of the topics you would find on the black list of any Middle East government and almost in all of its societies and cultures. And while the presence of homosexuality can be spotted in every country in the region, governments and societies are still intolerant to such life style. Intolerance can even reach a point of denial as it was witnessed during Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinajad's speech at Columbia University in 2007.

Lebanon stands out as a more tolerant space for homosexuality in the region compared to Saudi Arabia for example where homosexuality is often punished by flogging, life imprisonment and even beheading. Lebanon's homosexuals enjoy the first association for gay people in the Middle East, called the Helem Foundation. In addition to that, Lebanon also has gay bars and nightclubs. But the real life for this section of the community is not paved with roses. A quick round up of blogs and spaces promoting this issue in Lebanon should give the reader a brief peek into how this community lives.

Mazaj at Majaz75 wrote about homosexuality in the Middle East and the role of religion in it, expressing his personal opinion on the matter:

Some people relate the attitude towards homosexuality in Arab countries to Islam, but that's not completely true. Arabs, Muslims and Christians, consider homosexuality to be a sin. All Arabs are attached to religion; the Church and the Mosque have a key role in Arabs lives. Born as a Muslim, I feel it is very important to explain Islam's and Sheiks'* views of homosexuality.

Some scriptures of the Quran, the Holy Book of Islam, were taken out of context, added to a Hadith** not correctly reported to Prophet Muhammad, and conveyed to Muslims by ignorant Sheiks to form a general look at homosexuality as a sin that is against the nature intended by god for humans. In this Hadith, gay guys caught in act are to be killed by throwing them down from the highest building in town. Considering that most buildings in most Arab peninsula's towns were about 5-7 meters high at that time, this Hadith seems very ridiculous.

Majaz adds:
Being raised in a strict Muslim family, I struggled with my homosexuality in my early adolescent years, but I also had access to some rare Islamic scriptures, which allowed me to have a great look to how Islam dealt with homosexuality. I had come to the conclusion that Islam considers sexuality to be an identity, something to be born with. I also discussed this conclusion with well-known moderate Sheikhs, who confirmed it to me. Nevertheless, even the most moderate ones insisted that it is not acceptable to convey this fact about homosexuality in Islam to people for so many unconvincing reasons.

GayMiddleEast.com, a news site that focuses on the homosexual communities in the Middle East, posts an article written in a local Lebanese newspaper about an architect called Danny and his daily struggle in Lebanon as a homosexual:

Danny said he was open about his sexuality in Europe, but has been forced to keep a low profile in Lebanon mainly for two reasons: a non-tolerant society, and fear of his parents' reaction.

"Being gay in Lebanon is very hard," he said."I come from a highly conservative family, and if my parents knew about my sexuality it would be devastating for the both of us," he said in a low, shaky tone. "I don't want to ever think about their reaction if they knew." Danny added that he has never tried to be open with any of his friends about his sexuality, saying he preferred to stay "in the closet" for the time being.

"I can never consider being open about my sexuality over here," he said, explaining it might cause him a lot of trouble, especially at work.

"I have seen how colleagues at work react when they encounter a person who they suspect is gay," he said. "They avoid him as if he has a disease, and even harass him sometimes."

Another post by GayMiddleEast.com refers to few incidents that occurred a couple of years ago regarding two social clubs known for their homosexual crowd:

On the night of November 12, 2005, 6 men were arrested in Acid nightclub, a known gay venue in Sin el Fil. No charges were pressed against them. The detainees were released after 3 days of detention. Although no physical abuse was reported, the police were verbally abusive towards the men.

A week later, another known gay club, X-OM, was raided. The police checked IDs and inquired about drug use in the venue. No arrests took place that night.

Acid and X-OM were probably targeted by the police for their openly gay clientele, although legally they had no pretext for any arrests. Article 534 of the Lebanese penal code explicitly states that "penetrative sex against nature" is punishable by law, and not homosexuality per se or the adoption of a gay identity. Laws against public indecency may be enforced if excessive displays of affection or other such behavior is witnessed, but this does not entail the same sort.

Meem, a community of lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, queers and questioning women in Lebanon, moderates a blog where members can post and share experiences and news. Pazuzu, in her post, shares a personal experience she went through while walking home one night:

Well, I passed by a couple of guys, one those men that scare you (or is it any man that scares you when you are in my situation?). Anyway, typically the first sign of your vulnerability in these situations is that the predators start discussing you in your face:

- Bint yamma sabe hayda?

And for our non Arabic readers :

- Is he a boy or a girl?

But it's fine I guess, it wasn't the first time that my sexual identity was questioned, though I didn't look particularly boyish that day. The real treat was when the second guy opens his mouth. I guess he was encouraged by his friend's attitude, thinking maybe I am a boy that likes to look like girls, to be honest, I am not sure what he was thinking but he said to me:

-Baddak nitsalla? Ta3a nitsalla

Again, respecting the non Arabic readers:

-Wanna have fun? Let's have fun together

Al Jaras, a local Lebanese TV station, was commenting over some photos of Portia de Rossi and Ellen DeGeneres' wedding when Jexy at Meem's blog realized that in addition to pronouncing Portia's name wrong, the TV presenter went on insulting the homosexuals in general as she describes it:

The first thing that was on my mind: "Seriously you dummy! You wanna trash them? Fine! But at least get the names right!". And what added up, she was talking at the same time about the Indian man that married a certain animal! Is this where we belong? In the same category of man/animal marriage!? She kept displaying the photos over and over again, adding up "Hayda dod el din [this is a sin]!". The heavenly angels assigned her to label people and decide what's wrong and what's against religion! I wanted to call and ask her: "Honey, if the sight of Ellen and "Borita" sickens you this much…why do u keep displaying them?" But then again, every word she was saying was showing nothing but IGNORANCE.

Learn more about the gay community in Lebanon by visiting Helem Association and Meem Foundation.