|
|
|
|
#1
09-30-2006, 07:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: industry giants say, \"Not so fast\"
Hard to read with all the flashing on that page. I'm sure EOG, theRX, PSO, and SBR will follow suit with positive articles of their own.
|
|
#2
09-30-2006, 09:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: industry giants say, \"Not so fast\"
This article reeks. I don't see how any of those 'industry giants' can't see how stupid it is to be 'releasing' statements after the bill has already been passed. The time for action was before it went through. I mean, what do these bums really think they are going to accomplish?
[ QUOTE ] amulet: i spoke with the general counsel of one of the top sites 3 weeks ago. he reiterated that that they had studied the legislation and that they felt; 1. it was unlikely to pass . 2. it would be declared unconstitutional in time. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Mason Malmuth (09/17/06): Here's what we plan to do. On Monday, we're going to call our attorney to make an appointment. In addition to some other legal matters, we plan to discuss the legislation , the PPA, and exactly what our role should be. Just for a little background, our attorney and his firm specialize in intellectual property and Internet Gambling. He also does all the intellectual property work for Steve Wynn and Kirk Kikorian, and has been our attorney since 1987. In previous conversations, the feeling was that the legislation would not pass and the best role for us was not to do anything , and the opinion on the PPA was consistent with mine. However, now with the possibility of the legislation being attached to another bill, things may have changed. So all of these subjects will be brought up again. [/ QUOTE ] Seems like alot of this type of thinking is going around. Flight_Risk
|
|
#3
09-30-2006, 09:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: industry giants say, \"Not so fast\"
[ QUOTE ]
This article reeks. I don't see how any of those 'industry giants' can't see how stupid it is to be 'releasing' statements after the bill has already been passed. The time for action was before it went through. I mean, what do these bums really think they are going to accomplish? [ QUOTE ] amulet: i spoke with the general counsel of one of the top sites 3 weeks ago. he reiterated that that they had studied the legislation and that they felt; 1. it was unlikely to pass . 2. it would be declared unconstitutional in time. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Mason Malmuth (09/17/06): Here's what we plan to do. On Monday, we're going to call our attorney to make an appointment. In addition to some other legal matters, we plan to discuss the legislation , the PPA, and exactly what our role should be. Just for a little background, our attorney and his firm specialize in intellectual property and Internet Gambling. He also does all the intellectual property work for Steve Wynn and Kirk Kikorian, and has been our attorney since 1987. In previous conversations, the feeling was that the legislation would not pass and the best role for us was not to do anything , and the opinion on the PPA was consistent with mine. However, now with the possibility of the legislation being attached to another bill, things may have changed. So all of these subjects will be brought up again. [/ QUOTE ] Seems like alot of this type of thinking is going around. Flight_Risk [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, they must all use the same do-nothing lawyer. LOL This has to have been the worst read in the history of poker.
|
|
#4
09-30-2006, 09:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
xpost from STTF
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This article reeks. I don't see how any of those 'industry giants' can't see how stupid it is to be 'releasing' statements after the bill has already been passed. The time for action was before it went through. I mean, what do these bums really think they are going to accomplish? [ QUOTE ] amulet: i spoke with the general counsel of one of the top sites 3 weeks ago. he reiterated that that they had studied the legislation and that they felt; 1. it was unlikely to pass . 2. it would be declared unconstitutional in time. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Mason Malmuth (09/17/06): Here's what we plan to do. On Monday, we're going to call our attorney to make an appointment. In addition to some other legal matters, we plan to discuss the legislation , the PPA, and exactly what our role should be. Just for a little background, our attorney and his firm specialize in intellectual property and Internet Gambling. He also does all the intellectual property work for Steve Wynn and Kirk Kikorian, and has been our attorney since 1987. In previous conversations, the feeling was that the legislation would not pass and the best role for us was not to do anything , and the opinion on the PPA was consistent with mine. However, now with the possibility of the legislation being attached to another bill, things may have changed. So all of these subjects will be brought up again. [/ QUOTE ] Seems like alot of this type of thinking is going around. Flight_Risk [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, it seems like they all use the same lawyer. LOL [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Hello Bobby, We appreciate and share your concerns about the bill which passed in the US Congress today regarding the funding of internet gaming, as an attachment to a Port Security bill. PokerStars' management and legal team are examining the bill at this time. Until we understand the potential impact of the bill , we cannot comment on how it will impact our players or PokerStars. Please note that the bill includes a 270-day window for enforcement procedures to be established, so we do not expect to see any immediate changes in the ability to transfer funds to and from PokerStars. Also please remember that your money is safe on PokerStars. All player funds are in a segregated account at the Royal Bank of Scotland. As always, we thank you for playing on PokerStars. Regards, Grant PokerStars Support Team [/ QUOTE ] You mean to tell me you're still examining the bill and don't already know the potential impact by now? Wow. Flight_Risk
|
|
#5
10-01-2006, 12:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: industry giants say, \"Not so fast\"
"This article reeks. I don't see how any of those 'industry giants' can't see how stupid it is to be 'releasing' statements after the bill has already been passed. The time for action was before it went through. I mean, what do these bums really think they are going to accomplish? "
It makes perfect sense to address the problem in public AFTER the law passes. IG bills have been voted on for the last 6 or 7 years and failed every time. As late as 24 hours before it passed the consensus was that there wasnt time left on the agenda to pass it. To raise the profile of the issue with that kind of prognosis for passage could well have been counter-productive. Given the Antigua precedent I am sure that sites have formulated a strategy to respond. Whether the law was tightly written enough to block any response remains to be seen. Lets see how thorough the responses and not be so quick to judge execs competent enough to build mutli-billion dollar businesses. There isnt a chance in hell they buried their heads in the sand over this. And the above contention that the statements are intended to prop up stock values is ludicrous. If there are no teeth in the statement that make sense, the stock is going down.
|
|
#7
10-01-2006, 12:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: industry giants say, \"Not so fast\"
yeah youre right, thats why their stock valuations make them penny stocks. [/sarcasm]
|
|
#8
10-01-2006, 03:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: industry giants say, \"Not so fast\"
[ QUOTE ]
There isnt a chance in hell they buried their heads in the sand over this. [/ QUOTE ] I have yet to see one single bit of action on the part of the online casinos that would make me believe this. I hope that you are right, but am afraid that you are wrong.
|
|
#10
10-01-2006, 03:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: industry giants say, \"Not so fast\"
"The time to oppose this bill was before it passed. It is going to be much, much more difficult to do anything about it now that it has passed."
What exactly were they supposed to do before the bill was passed? From what I understand, offline companies can't hire lobbying groups or donate to politicians. That means the only thing they "could" have done was send out mass emails to members (some of them did). I suspect most did not want to scare their membership over something that almost everyone agreed had little or no chance to pass. Now that an actual law has passed, they have something they can fight. Before, it was just a bill moving through the US congress, and they being companies based in another country had no legitimate way to weigh in, correct? I'm not an expert on these things by any means, but I'm pretty sure that online poker sites were handicapped by the fact that they're not based in the USA and therefore can't take part in our mucked up lawmaking. That being said, I'm thoroughly disgusted with poker industry leaders here in the USA like 2p2 who sat on their hands when they could have at least matched what several online poker sites did and email their members that there was a threat.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
