Government Rejects Request to Clean up Asbestos

LegalView Reports About the Government's Rejection of a Monetary Request to Clean up An Asbestos-Tainted Site

LegalView updated its mesothelioma blog to include news of the government denying federal funds to an area in Arkansas that was left tainted with asbestos after nearly 150 World War II structures were destroyed in a fire. The government rejected the requests from the town of Chaffee Crossing where citizens are currently at risk of contracting mesothelioma cancer.

Denver, CO - LegalView.com, the number one resource for everything legal on the Web, recently reported on its mesothelioma blog that federal funds were denied to cleanup an asbestos-tainted town in Arkansas. Chaffee Crossing is the site of a recent fire, which destroyed nearly 150 World War II (WWII) structures, releasing asbestos fibers and dust into the area potentially increasing the risk of citizens developing mesothelioma. The city requested federal funds from the government to assist the cleanup of the town, which is considered by several citizens there to be a Superfund Site. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is refusing to deem the site a Superfund because it claims that levels of asbestos in the air after the fire were too low to be deemed as such. However, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality found asbestos contamination in some areas to be much higher than EPA tests recorded. For those who live in the area or who have previously been exposed to asbestos, using LegalView's mesothelioma portal to locate a mesothelioma attorney is the best way to protect oneself.

Asbestos is a material that is derived from vermiculate, a mineral often mined for uses in construction and as building insulation. Asbestos was widely used as insulation in many early 20th Century constructions, such as those burned in Chaffee Crossing. However, after discovering the link of inhaling asbestos to an incurable form of lung cancer, the use of asbestos was discontinued and the EPA has spent billions of dollars in the removal of asbestos across the country. Individuals who have been exposed to asbestos are advised to contact an experienced mesothelioma law firm to receive an attorney consultation on developing a mesothelioma lawsuit in which compensatory damages can be sought. Mesothelioma is a painful and deadly illness that takes decades to reveal itself, by which time it can be too late to find ways in paying for medical expenses. Use the mesothelioma portal to learn more about this and other recent asbestos-related news.

Additionally, LegalView offers several other information portals relating to a range of issues such as the Baxter Heparin recall, traumatic brain injury (TBI) treatments and Erb's Palsy jury verdicts. Heparin is a blood thinner injected into patients undergoing heart surgery or similar procedures. It is used to prevent blood clots, which can be fatal during surgery. Recently, the Baxter Healthcare Corporation issued a Heparin recall because several patients had reported severe allergic reactions to the drug, which has been associated with at least 19 patient deaths. LegalView.com reported updates continually to readers as this story unfolded, providing insightful and imperative news for victims of the Heparin recall. Similarly, individuals can use the TBI practice area to learn the most up-to-date news on brain injury lawsuits, jury verdicts, treatments as well as how to locate brain injury lawyers.

For information on Erb's Palsy, a condition that usually develops because of labor complications, visit Erb's Palsy lawsuit as the condition is usually preventable and caused by a physician pulling on a baby during birth.

About LegalView:
LegalView.com is a public service brought to you by Legal WebTV Network, LLC, a Limited Liability Corporation created by a group of the nation's most highly respected law firms: Anapol Schwartz; Brent Coon and Associates; Burg Simpson; Cohen, Placitella and Roth; James F. Humphreys and Associates; Lopez McHugh; and Thornton and Naumes. For more information on the accomplishments and track records of LegalView.com's superior sponsoring law firms and to get in touch with LegalView attorneys, visit LegalView at www.LegalView.com.

Press Contact: Katie Kelley
Company Name: LegalView
Phone: 720-771-3246
Website: http://mesothelioma.legalview.com

Parked Domain Traffic Value

Exploring The Value Of Parked Domain Traffic

by Janel Landis , Friday, July 25, 2008

I have been reading about the lawsuit recently filed against Google that alleges traffic received from parked domain sites was low quality.  What is most interesting about this topic are the sharply conflicting viewpoints online marketers have concerning the value of traffic from these sites. 

The first perspective is that of savvy search marketers, who have analyzed referring URL traffic and know that the majority of traffic from these sites is unqualified.  What they have found is that the only instances of qualified traffic from parked domain sites occurs on domains that are typos of their own domain, their brand terms. 

Have you ever accidentally typed your search query into the domain address bar instead of the search box?  I am pretty sure everyone has done this before and often, simply out of habit, even followed the misplaced word with a ".com".  In a presentation I gave at a conference a few months ago, I used the examples www.homesecurity.com and www.bookkeepping.com as visuals of sites that contain no original content, just ads.  These are the types of sites that deliver the majority of parked domain traffic.  How often are people actually making this mistake?  According to Google's keyword tool, the keyword home security drove approximately 1 million searches on Google and its search network in June 2008. 

Let's move on to the much smaller segment of parked domain sites that actually will drive qualified traffic: the domain typos.  Unfortunately, many companies have not protected themselves by registering common misspellings of their domain -- so when returning customers mistype the URL in the address bar, they are delivered to parked domain sites.  An example of this is www.lininsandthings.com: Notice that linen is misspelled in the URL. In this instance, the searcher was already going to Linens-N-Things, and in this way they would be a highly qualified click.  However, Linens-N-Things would now have to pay for a click to get their customer, rather than connecting to them directly.

The second perspective is that of the domainers themselves.  They claim that address-bar-driven traffic is highly qualified; however, the click revenue generated from these types of sites is the sole source of revenue available from them.  Again, they contain no original content, no products and no value.  The backbone of their argument lies in statistics that show direct navigation traffic is the most qualified traffic to a site; however, what they fail to interpret is that this statistic does not pertain to an indirect or unintentional visit. 

As the industry has matured, the engines have provided marketers with better tools to exclude distribution of ads on these types of sites.  Google allows advertisers to block parked domain sites altogether from their campaigns, and Yahoo allows advertisere to exclude sites individually.  The most perplexing part of the recent lawsuit filing is that it only challenges Google, yet Yahoo's search network distribution is much more riddled with these types of sites than Google's.  The www.homesecurity.com and www.bookkeepping.com examples I used above both serve Yahoo ads.  If this is truly going to be a class action suit and it gains any traction, I anticipate it just may involve both companies.

Post your response to the public Search Insider blog.

See what others are saying on the Search Insider blog.

Janel Landis is senior director of search development and strategy at SendTec, Inc., a St. Petersburg, Fla.-based multichannel, integrated marketing firm specializing in search engine marketing, direct response television and lead generation.
 
Search Insider for Friday, July 25, 2008:
http://blogs.mediapost.com/search_insider/?p=839

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this issue was forwarded to you and you would like to begin receiving a copy of your own, please visit our site - www.mediapost.com - and become a complimentary member.
For advertising opportunities see our online media kit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you'd rather not receive this newsletter in the future click here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We welcome and appreciate forwarding of our newsletters in their entirety or in part with proper attribution.
(c) 2008 MediaPost Communications, 1140 Broadway, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10001

 

Auction Rate Credit Linked Certificates Downgraded

Fitch Downgrades Capstan Master Trust Auction Rate Credit Linked Certificates Series 1-4

NEW YORK-- July 23, 2008 --Fitch Ratings has removed from Rating Watch Negative and downgraded the following series of Capstan Master Trust (collectively, Capstan). The following rating actions are effective immediately:

Capstan Master Trust Series 1

--$150,000,000 certificates due 2017 downgraded to 'A' from 'AAA'.

Capstan Master Trust Series 2

--$150,000,000 certificates due 2017 downgraded to 'A' from 'AAA'.

Capstan Master Trust Series 3

--$150,000,000 certificates due 2017 downgraded to 'A' from 'AAA'.

Capstan Master Trust Series 4

--$150,000,000 certificates due 2017 downgraded to 'A' from 'AAA'.

The actions reflect Fitch's view on the credit risk of the rated certificates following the release of Fitch's new Corporate CDO rating Criteria.

Capstan Series 1 through 4 are four series of auction rate credit-linked certificates, the proceeds from which were used to directly purchase $600,000,000 of credit linked certificates (the 'Underlying Collateral') referencing a static portfolio of primarily investment grade corporate assets, which was privately-rated by Fitch in July 2007. The Underlying Collateral is the sole asset of Capstan. Periodic interest payments on the auction rate credit-linked certificates are determined and paid according to an auction process, as described in the transactions' governing documents. In addition, Capstan has entered into a basis swap with Deutsche Bank AG (rated 'AA-/F1+'; Outlook Stable by Fitch), whereby income from the Underlying Collateral is transferred to Deutsche Bank AG in exchange for periodic interest payments due on the auction rate credit-linked certificates. The rating of Capstan is directly linked to the credit risk of the Underlying Collateral. Thus, the downgrades reflect Fitch's view on the credit risk of the Underlying Collateral for the deal, which was downgraded to 'A' from 'AAA' on July 23, 2008.

The key drivers of the downgrade on the Underlying Collateral include Fitch's updated corporate CDO rating criteria as well as the deterioration of the average portfolio quality from 'BBB/BBB+' on the closing date (July 2007) to 'BBB-' on July 16, 2008, representing an average downgrade of 2 notches across 51.2% of the portfolio. Currently, 18.4% of the portfolio carries a below investment grade rating, approximately 12.0% of the portfolio is on Rating Watch Negative and 17.6% is on Negative Outlook by Fitch. Moreover, 24.0% of the portfolio is concentrated in the banking & finance sector which is currently under stress.

Given Fitch's view of concentration and the current credit quality of the portfolio, the credit enhancement level of 9.8% is not sufficient to justify the current rating of the Underlying Collateral.

Fitch released updated criteria on April 30, 2008 for Corporate CDOs and, at that time, noted it would be reviewing its ratings accordingly to establish consistency for existing and new transactions. As part of this review, Fitch makes standard adjustments for any names on Rating Watch Negative or with a Negative Outlook, reducing such ratings for default analysis purposes by two and one notch, respectively. Fitch has previously noted that its review will be focused first on ratings most exposed to risks it has highlighted in its updated criteria. Consequently, the certificates were placed on Rating Watch Negative on May 15, 2008. As previously indicated, resolution of the Negative Watch status depends on any plans managers/arrangers may choose to modify either the structure or the portfolio. In this case, the arranger has confirmed that it does not intend to make any modifications.

Fitch's rating definitions and the terms of use of such ratings are available on the agency's site, www.fitchratings.com. Published ratings, criteria and methodologies are available from this site, at all times. Fitch's code of conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, affiliate firewall, compliance and other relevant policies and procedures are also available from the 'Code of Conduct' section of this site.

Contacts

Fitch Ratings
Derek Miller, +1-312-368-2076 (Chicago)
Kevin Kendra, +1-212-908-0760 (New York)
Media Relations:
Julian Dennison, +44 020 7682 7480 (London)
Sandro Scenga, +1-212-908-0278 (New York)

EPA Required To Regulate Invasive Species Pollution

Stanford Environmental Law Clinic Announces Ninth Circuit Upholds Case Requiring U.S. EPA to Regulate Invasive Species Pollution

STANFORD, Calif.-- July 23, 2008 --The Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School today announced that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of environmental organizations seeking to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate ship discharges under the Clean Water Act. Dealing a setback to the shipping industry, the decision follows a 2005 lower court ruling that the EPA had illegally exempted ship discharges from Clean Water Act requirements. That decision gave the agency until September 2008 to end the regulatory exemption and issue permits to ships, an order that the EPA appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

"The EPA spent nearly ten years fighting against using the nation's only comprehensive law to combat an environmental plague that is costing the U.S. economy billions of dollars," said Deborah Sivas, Director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School, which represented the three plaintiff groups. "We are gratified that the Appeals Court has held the EPA accountable so that this country can begin to control the dangerous tide of invasive species."

The court's ruling today upholds the lower court's order directing the EPA to take specific action to ensure that shipping companies comply with the Clean Water Act and restrict the discharge of invasive species in ballast water. In mid-June, the EPA issued a draft permit to regulate all vessel discharges. The draft permit requires treatment of a wide range of pollutants contained in ballast water and many other types of ship discharges.

Nina Bell, Executive Director of the Portland, Ore.-based Northwest Environmental Advocates, said the court's decision will properly shift some of the burden of invasive species from taxpayers to shippers. "The Ninth Circuit's decision is very important for the taxpayers who have been paying the huge price of the EPA's continuing refusal to implement the Clean Water Act," said Bell. "If the EPA had used its Congressional mandate thirty years ago, this country would have been using the Clean Water Act to effectively control ship discharges for all that time," she added.

The plaintiff groups cautioned that the shipping industry has already shifted its fight from the courts to lobbying Congress. "As soon as we won the district court case in 2005, the shipping industry immediately turned to Congress for a special exemption from the Clean Water Act, to preserve their ability to pollute at the nation's expense," Bell said.

Live species from other countries are carried to U.S. waters in ballast water that ships use for stabilization. The ballast water is discharged into bays, estuaries, and the Great Lakes as ships approach port and when cargo for export is loaded. Over 21 billion gallons of ballast water from international ports is discharged into U.S. waters each year. The cost of damage caused by invasive species to the U.S. economy is estimated in the billions of dollars annually.

"The San Francisco Bay and Delta have been completely invaded by non-native species introduced by commercial ships coming to our ports. Species such as the Asian clam and Chinese mitten crab are clogging the intake pipes of drinking water facilities and power plants, harming the commercial fishing industry, and destroying native species habitat," said Sejal Choksi, San Francisco Baykeeper.

The absence of effective federal action, combined with the high cost of invasive species to the environment, industries, and drinking water sources, has led numerous states to pass their own pollution control laws. Michigan and Minnesota require shippers to have discharge permits. California has the strictest controls on the discharge of ballast-borne invasive species in the world. Six Great Lakes states?New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin?joined the environmental groups' lawsuit to persuade the court to require a federal regulatory program.

The challenge was brought by Northwest Environmental Advocates, San Francisco Baykeeper and The Ocean Conservancy, three of the signers of a petition filed with EPA in January 1999. EPA denied the petition in 2003, triggering the lawsuit. The Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School and Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center (PEAC) at Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Ore., represent the three organizations.

About Northwest Environmental Advocates

Northwest Environmental Advocates, based in Portland, Ore., works through advocacy and education to protect and restore water and air quality, wetlands, and wildlife habitat.

About Baykeeper

Founded in 1989, Baykeeper works to reverse the environmental degradation of the past and promote new strategies and policies to protect the water quality of the San Francisco Bay. For nearly two decades, Baykeeper and its Deltakeeper project have been the premier watchdogs of the water quality of the vast San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed.

About the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford

The Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School (http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/clinics/environmental) enables students to provide legal assistance to nonprofit organizations on a variety of environmental issues, focusing primarily on natural resource conservation. The clinic's clients include large national environmental organizations and a variety of regional and local grassroots groups. Working under clinic attorneys, students routinely investigate cases, assist clients in developing legal strategies, draft comment letters, court pleadings, and briefs, present testimony before administrative agencies, and argue cases in state and federal courts. Clinic students also provide policy advice and work on regulatory and legislative reform in the environmental field.

About Stanford Law School

Stanford Law School (www.law.stanford.edu) is one of the nation's leading institutions for legal scholarship and education. Its alumni are among the most influential decision makers in law, politics, business, and high technology. Faculty members argue before the Supreme Court, testify before Congress, and write books and articles for academic audiences, as well as the popular press. Along with offering traditional law school classes, the school has embraced new subjects and new ways of teaching.

Contacts

Media:
Stanford Law School
Amy Poftak, 650-725-7516
Assistant Director of Communications
poftak@law.stanford.edu
or
Comment:
Stanford Law
Deborah Sivas, 650-723-0325
dsivas@stanford.edu
or
NWEA
Nina Bell, 503-295-0490
nbell(at)advocates-nwea.org
or
Baykeeper
Sejal Choksi, 925-330-7757
sejal@baykeeper.org

Baxter Heparin Information on Additional Heparin Recall

LegalView Expands Baxter Heparin Information Portal to Include Information on an Additional Heparin Recall

LegalView updated its Baxter Heparin information portal to add information on the most recent recall of the blood-thinning drug. Heparin, which is used to control blood during surgical procedures, was recently discovered to have a Heparin-like contaminant that sickened many and caused at least 19 deaths.

Denver, CO  -  March 31, 2008 -- The Baxter Heparin practice area on LegalView's site, the source for everything legal on the Web, was recently expanded to explain details of an additional Heparin recall . Heparin has been linked to hundreds of allergic reactions among patients as well as having been connected with 19 deaths. B. Braun Medical Inc. issued the most recent recall of Heparin, which was supplied from Scientific Protein Laboratories - the same company that supplied Baxter Healthcare Corporation with the contaminated Baxter Heparin. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and B. Braun Medical Inc., no one was reportedly sickened off of the Heparin from B. Braun Medical but it did have a "heparin-like contaminant," which was enough for the company to recall the drug.

Heparin is blood-thinner injected into patients who are undergoing surgical procedures such as heart disease or kidney dialysis. It is a drug that has been imported to the United States since the 1930s and is derived from pig intestines. Many surgeons find that Heparin is an extremely important drug because it prevents blood clots from forming during surgery, which can result in death among patients. However, earlier this year, a rash of individuals who had been given Heparin during a surgical procedure had allergic reactions. Individuals who have been affected by the contaminated Heparin should consider contacting a Heparin lawyer to learn about developing a Heparin class action lawsuit for which compensation may be derived from manufacturers if the tainted drug.

The Baxter Heparin that was initially recalled had been tainted with a chemical known as over-sulfated chondroitin sulfate. Through an FDA investigation, it was discovered that a Chinese company that produces the drug was responsible for the tainted Heparin. Although an investigation continues to be ongoing as to whether the chemical was intentionally or accidentally introduced into a batch of the Heparin. According to news reports, using the over-sulfated chondroitin sulfate allows for a reduction in the production of production for Heparin.

For information on additionally recalled prescription drugs or to report an adverse reaction to a prescribed drug, visit LegalView's many unsafe drugs information portals. Here, readers will find information on recently recalled drugs as well as prescription drugs under investigation such as Chantix, Avandia and Trasylol Aprotinin.

Chantix is a smoking cessation drug from Pfizer that was first introduced to the market, with FDA approval, in mid-2006. However, in late-2007 the FDA began an investigation into nearly 400 reports of suicidal tendencies and behaviors among patients. Additionally, nearly 37 suicides have been associated with the Chantix side effects, which include psychotic episodes, depression, suicidal thoughts and erratic behavior.

Avandia is a prescription drug used to treat diabetes 2 among patients; however, the drug has been linked to several serious side effects including an increased risk of heart disease and a higher chance of early onset osteoporosis. Individuals who are taking Avandia are advised to locate an experienced pharmaceutical law firm to receive consultation on an Avandia lawsuit.

Trasylol, also known as its generic version Aprotinin, is similar to Heparin in that it is used during surgical procedures to control blood loss. A study was released in 2006 from the New England Journal of Medicine, which found that the use of Trasylol Aprotinin increased the chances of a patient developing heart disease, kidney disease, stroke and death. Patients who received or may have received Trasylol or it's generic version should use LegalView's information portal to find an Trasylol attorney.

About LegalView:
LegalView.com is a public service brought to you by Legal WebTV Network, LLC, a Limited Liability Corporation created by a group of the nation's most highly respected law firms: Anapol Schwartz; Brent Coon and Associates; Burg Simpson; Cohen, Placitella and Roth; James F. Humphreys and Associates; Lopez McHugh; and Thornton and Naumes. For more information on the accomplishments and track records of LegalView.com's superior sponsoring law firms and to get in touch with LegalView attorneys, visit LegalView at www.LegalView.com.

Press Contact: Katie Kelley
Company Name: LegalView
Phone: 720-771-3246
Website: http://baxter-heparin.legalview.com

Negative Watch Rating On State Loan Bonds

Fitch Places Two State Loan Pool Programs on Rating Watch Negative

CHICAGO-- July 07, 2008 --Fitch has placed the following state loan pool bond programs which use debt service reserve fund surety bonds from MBIA Insurance Corp. (MBIA) and Ambac Assurance Corp. (Ambac) on Rating Watch Negative:

--Oregon Bond Bank, revenue bonds, rated 'AA';

--New Mexico Finance Authority, subordinate lien public project revolving fund revenue bonds, rated 'AA-'.

In the bond programs above, MBIA and Ambac provide credit enhancement in the form of debt service reserve fund surety bonds, which are sized at the least of maximum annual debt service, 10% of principal, or 125% of average annual debt service. Fitch recently withdrew its rating on MBIA and Ambac and is considering in its reviews on the above loan pool programs how the cash flows are currently performing, their expected performance under various stress scenarios, the likelihood that a claim will be made on the debt service reserve fund surety policy, and other program resources. Fitch is also reevaluating the credit value that Fitch places on the guarantors' abilities to meet their surety bond obligations. In doing so, Fitch will rely on its internal assessments of the guarantors, other agencies opinions, and other market views.

Fitch's rating definitions and the terms of use of such ratings are available on the agency's public site, www.fitchratings.com. Published ratings, criteria and methodologies are available from this site, at all times. Fitch's code of conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, affiliate firewall, compliance and other relevant policies and procedures are also available from the 'Code of Conduct' section of this site.

Contacts

Fitch Ratings
Adrienne M. Booker, +1-312-368-5471 (Chicago)
David Litvack, +1-212-908-0593 (New York)
Christopher Kimble, +1-212-908-0226
(Media Relations, New York)

Can I Get A Little Privacy Please...?

Google's Privacy Policy Link: Too Little, Too Late?  

By Wendy Davis, Monday, July 7, 2008
Now that it's facing a genuine privacy crisis, Google has decided to quell a completely insignificant privacy dust-up. The search giant has finally placed a link to its privacy policy on the home page. Previously, users had to click on multiple links, or search on the terms "Google privacy policy," to reach the information.

This purely cosmetic change might placate some watchdogs, who argued that Google was violating California law by not including the link on its home page, but does nothing to solve the larger problem: Google stores too much information about its users.

Among other data, the company retains logs showing users' IP addresses and their search queries. Google contends that IP addresses don't usually reveal people's identities. But that assertion ignores the reality that examining all of a person's searches can in itself reveal identity. In other words, users' identities can be deduced whether the IP address is real or a made-up sequence of numbers -- as long as it's paired with all of the searches originating from a single computer.

Last week, a federal judge ordered Google to disclose to Viacom complete user logs for YouTube, including all users' IP addresses, screen names and which videos they watched. Google and Viacom have since tried to quell privacy concerns, with Google saying it will ask to "anonymize" IP addresses, even though that won't necessarily preserve users' privacy as long as all of their information is still paired with the same identifier. Viacom has also said it will handle all information confidentially.

As privacy advocates point out, Google wouldn't be facing this problem now if it hadn't compiled and stored these records in the first place.

Louis Stanton, the federal judge who issued the order in the YouTube lawsuit, wrote in his opinion that Google argues in its public policy blog that IP addresses aren't necessarily personally identifiable. "We have proposed broad global privacy standards, and are strong supporters of the idea that data protection laws should apply to any data that could identify you. The reality is though that in most cases, an IP address without additional information cannot," the blog states.

But, on other sections of its site, Google equates IP addresses with personally identifiable information. "Due to user privacy concerns, Google Analytics doesn't report on personally identifiable information, including a visitor's IP address," the company states on a site about Google's analytics tool.

In other words, even Google realizes that, for all practical purposes, IP addresses should be treated as personally identifiable information. Given the events of last week, the company should rethink the wisdom of retaining such data.

Post your response to the public Online Examiner blog.
See what others are saying on the Online Examiner blog.

If this issue was forwarded to you and you would like to begin receiving a copy of your own, please visit our site - www.mediapost.com - and click on [subscribe] in the e-newsletter box.

For advertising opportunities see our online media kit.  If you'd rather not receive this newsletter in the future click here.  We welcome and appreciate forwarding of our newsletters in their entirety or in part with proper attribution.
(c) 2008 MediaPost Communications, 1140 Broadway, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10001

---

From what I've seen the IP address can provide very specific information that can track people. This is especially true if a time and date stamp is included with the log informaiton, which it generally is. you may need a court order to get the information from the person's ISP, but that's not all that hard if you have a reason to request it. I think we need this. While tracking people can be as benign but annoying as showing you ads based on past activity, it can also be abused on a more serious level. On the other hand if everyone can mess around on the web with little or no chance of being identified or tracked..., well, we already have enough spammers, hackers, crackers, and Turkish script kiddies to keep us busy.

Perhaps Google should encrypt the IP address and some of the other information to keep it from being abused, well abused by anyone except them. Of course if we saw signs of abuse then we would know it was them, wouldn't we...?



 

j2 Global Communications Patent Lawsuit Gets Protus Response

Protus Responds to Patent Lawsuit brought by j2 Global Communications

OTTAWA-- July 03, 2008 --Fast growing Canadian technology company Protus IP Solutions responded today to a competitor's patent infringement suit by noting that the asserted patents are not relevant to the company or any of its products.

The plaintiff (j2 Global Communications) has accused Protus' popular MyFax Internet fax services of infringing two patents. The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas.

Last year Protus defeated j2 Global Communications in another patent lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Judge Dean Pregerson issued an order on November 13, 2007 dismissing the case against Protus, with prejudice (meaning the patents cannot be reasserted against Protus). The case was closely followed by technology and communications companies because j2 Global Communications, prior to targeting Protus, licensed the patents to more than 30 companies. Protus was the first company to challenge these patents in the courts and was awarded a decisive victory.

"This is another meritless case by j2. In the last case the court held that the patents did not apply to Protus' services," said Andrea Girones, General Counsel at Protus. "We are confident that this case will be dismissed as well."

"I'm not surprised that j2 feels compelled to continue to clog the courts with these unfounded lawsuits," said Joseph Nour, Protus' Chief Executive Officer. "Protus' MyFax is the fastest growing Internet fax service in the market and is aggressively gaining market share against j2's eFax. We are confident that we will win this case on its merits and MyFax will continue to erode j2's market share."

About Protus

Protus® provides the highest quality software as a service (SaaS) communications tools for small-to-medium-businesses (SMB) and enterprise organizations, including award-winning MyFax, the fastest growing Internet fax service; my1voice, the cost-effective, feature-rich virtual PBX phone service that travels with the user from phone to web; and Campaigner and CampaignerPro, software-as-a-service email marketing solutions with advanced automation features. Protus' commitment to delivering a superior user experience has resulted in a continually growing and loyal customer base, allowing market leadership in industries including finance, insurance, real estate, healthcare, transportation and government. For more information about Protus and its family of communication tools, call 888-733-7007 or visit www.protus.com.

Contacts

Protus
Sue Rutherford
613-733-0000 x 519 or srutherford@protus.com
Tech Image
Tracy Shryer
847-279-0022 x230 or tracy.shryer@techimage.com

Program to Protect Consumers Against Fraud

MoneyGram Announces Program to Protect Consumers Against Fraud

MINNEAPOLIS-- July 02, 2008 --MoneyGram International is adding to its existing efforts to protect consumers from fraud-induced money transfers in response to concerns from state Attorneys General. Through an agreement of voluntary compliance, MoneyGram is taking steps to enhance consumer protections and further address the problem of wire transfer fraud. The company and 44 states plus the District of Columbia are cooperating on a five-year plan to raise public awareness of the dangers of fraud through a variety of tactics including enhanced consumer education, more prominent fraud warnings for money transfer customers and enhanced training for agents.

Besides enhancing its own education efforts, MoneyGram will contribute $1.1 million to the AARP Foundation for Consumer Education to fund a fraud awareness program aimed at the elderly, who are often targets for fraud. This program is expected to get underway in the next three to six months.

"We are very pleased to help launch this program," said Tony Ryan, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of MoneyGram International. "We are committed to helping to stop fraud and protect consumers, and we know that this is an issue that none of us can tackle alone."

"AARP Foundation's fight against consumer fraud advances AARP's goal of ensuring the economic security of people 50 and over," said AARP Foundation President Robin Talbert. "Preventing consumer fraud and abuse are critical components of financial security. AARP, the AARP Foundation and hundreds of community volunteers have been fighting fraud directed at older consumers for more than 10 years. We are very proud of our outreach and education."

MoneyGram will also pay $150,000 to the Attorneys General Executive Committee to cover costs.

MoneyGram International, Inc. is a leading global payment services company. The company's major product and services include global money transfers, money orders and payment processing solutions for financial institutions and retail customers. MoneyGram has 152,000 global money transfer locations in 180 countries and territories. For more information, visit the company's website at www.moneygram.com.

Contacts

MoneyGram International
Michael Fox, 203-682-8218
mfox@icrinc.com

Ohio Residents Not Worried About Gambling Addiction

Lakes Entertainment, Inc. Announces Status of Ohio Petition Drive

MINNEAPOLIS-- July 01, 2008 --Lakes Entertainment, Inc. (NASDAQ: LACO) announced today that it is currently on pace to collect over 700,000 signatures to place a referendum permitting one casino in Ohio on the November 4th ballot. Ohio law requires at least 402,225 valid signatures to place the referendum on the November 4, 2008 ballot. Although it has obtained more than the required number of signatures, the Secretary of State has not verified that the signatures are valid. The verification will occur when the petition and signatures are submitted to the Secretary of State on or before August 6, 2008.

"We are pleased with the number of signatures that we have obtained so far and believe it shows that a significant number of Ohio residents want a casino in their state," said Tim Cope, President of Lakes. "We anticipate gathering in excess of 700,000 signatures by August 6 and we anticipate verifying enough signatures in the requisite number of counties to place the referendum on the ballot."

Under the current development plan, construction of the planned casino would likely commence within 12 - 18 months after the referendum is approved, and the casino would open approximately 18 months after construction commences. The casino is expected to employ up to 5,000 people and could generate over $200 million in gaming tax revenues that would be divided directly among all 88 Ohio counties on a per capita basis.

About Lakes Entertainment

Lakes Entertainment, Inc. currently has development and management or financing agreements with four separate Tribes for casino operations in Michigan, California, and Oklahoma, for a total of five separate casino sites. Lakes is currently managing the Cimarron Casino for the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma and the Four Winds Casino Resort for the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians. Lakes is also involved in other business activities, including possible development of a Company owned casino resort project in Vicksburg, Mississippi and the development of new table games for licensing to Tribal and non-Tribal casinos. The Company also owns approximately 61 percent of WPT Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ: WPTE), a separate publicly held media and entertainment company engaged in the creation of internationally branded entertainment and consumer products driven by the development, production and marketing of televised programming based on gaming themes, including the World Poker Tour® television series, the operation of an online gaming website, the licensing and sale of branded products and the sale of corporate sponsorships.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a safe harbor for forward-looking statements. Certain information included in this press release (as well as information included in oral statements or other written statements made or to be made by Lakes Entertainment, Inc.) contains statements that are forward-looking, such as statements relating to plans for future expansion and other business development activities as well as other capital spending, financing sources and the effects of regulation (including gaming and tax regulation) and competition. Such forward-looking information involves important risks and uncertainties that could significantly affect anticipated results in the future and, accordingly, such results may differ from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of the company. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, obtaining a sufficient number of signatures to place the Ohio casino resort project on the November 4, 2008 Ohio statewide election ballot or if the referendum is placed on that ballot, that the referendum will pass, need for current financing to meet Lakes' operational and development needs; those relating to the inability to complete or possible delays in completion of Lakes' casino projects, including various regulatory approvals and numerous other conditions which must be satisfied before completion of these projects; possible termination or adverse modification of management or development contracts; Lakes operates in a highly competitive industry; possible changes in regulations; reliance on continued positive relationships with Indian tribes and repayment of amounts owed to Lakes by Indian tribes; possible need for future financing to meet Lakes' expansion goals; risks of entry into new businesses; reliance on Lakes' management; and the fact that the WPTE shares held by Lakes are currently not liquid assets, and there is no assurance that Lakes will be able to realize value from these holdings equal to the current or future market value of WPTE common stock. There are also risks and uncertainties relating to WPTE that may have a material effect on the company's consolidated results of operations or the market value of the WPTE shares held by the company, including WPTE's significant dependence on the GSN as a current source of revenue, and the risk that the WPT series does not find a domestic distribution outlet; difficulty of predicting the growth of WPTE's online gaming business, which is a relatively new industry with an increasing number of market entrants; reliance on the efforts of CryptoLogic to develop and maintain the online gaming website in compliance with WPTE's business model and applicable gaming laws; the potential that WPTE's television programming will fail to maintain a sufficient audience; the risk that WPTE may not be able to protect its entertainment concepts, current and future brands and other intellectual property rights; the risk that competitors with greater financial resources or marketplace presence might develop television programming that would directly compete with WPTE's television programming; risks associated with future expansion into new or complementary businesses; the termination or impairment of WPTE's relationships with key licensing and strategic partners; and WPTE's dependence on its senior management team. For more information, review the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Contacts

Investor Relations:
Integrated Corporate Relations
William Schmitt, 203-682-8200
investorrelations@lakesentertainment.com
or
For Further Information:
Timothy Cope, 952-449-7030