Pittsburgh, PA â€“ September 8, 2005 â€“ In its ruling issued on September 7, 2005, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County refused to require Direct Response Technologies, Inc., (DRT) a leading provider of online media and technology solutions, to provide DRT’s proprietary information to PrimaryAds Inc.(PA), a client utilizing DirectTrackÂ® (DRT’s proprietary affiliate and ad serving technology) as the back bone for its network. PrimaryAds is a wholly owned subsidiary of Think Partnership, Inc. (AMEX â€“ THK), a direct competitor of DRT.
In the motion that it filed on August 26th to enforce the parties’ previously entered Consent Decree, PrimaryAds asked the Court to order DRT to include three specific data elements in the information that DRT has agreed to provide PrimaryAds. DRT refused to provide the three data elements on the basis that they constitute DRT’s proprietary information, and the Consent Decree expressly states that DRT need not provide PrimaryAds with any of DRT’s propriety information. The Court refused to order DRT to provide the three data elements. Instead, it simply ruled that both parties must abide by the Consent Decree, which ruling authorizes DRT to refuse to provide PrimaryAds with any of DRT’s proprietary information. DRT has been abiding by the Consent Decree since the beginning of this unnecessary litigation.
Think Partnership’s and PrimaryAds’ joint press release is expected and an obvious attempt to misrepresent to the public and to spin the Court’s ruling as a win for the THK/PA litigation team. PA states in its press release that its Motion to Enforce was granted, and the Court required DRT to comply with the Consent Decree by providing the business information and data identified on Exhibit A thereto. That statement is true. However, it is what PA omits that makes its press release misleading. What PA fails to mention is that DRT has always agreed to give PA the information on Exhibit A with one exception â€“ DRT will not include any of DRT’s proprietary information. The sole purpose of the Motion to Enforce was to force DRT to provide PA with three specifically identified data elements (which were expressly identified on the proposed order that PA submitted to the Court). However, the Court did not order DRT to provide PA with those three data elements. In fact, it deleted the reference to them in its order. Instead, the Court’s order simply requires DRT to provide the Deliverable in accordance with the Consent Decree — which therefore allows DRT to exclude any of its proprietary information, including (but not limited to) the three data elements. In short, the Court did not require DRT to include the very information that was the sole reason that PA filed the motion. Instead, it ordered DRT to do only what DRT has already agreed to do in the Consent Decree.
Jason Wolfe, President/CEO of DRT says â€œTHK must be very desperate for good press, albeit self generated and misleading, to issue a press release on this ruling. The order is consistent with our position. The Consent Decree signed by THK/PA gives DRT the right to exclude confidential and proprietary data with respect to the data we are required to deliver. PA’s press release seems to be a mirage to prop up the falling THK stock price, after announcing two recently failed transactions, and their stock price dropping over 60% in 2005. Wasting shareholder money on litigation shows the weaknesses of the THK management team and how out of touch they are with reality.â€
â€PA will receive the business information that it is entitled to in accordance with the Consent Decree. Our structured transition strategy has been aligned with the Consent Decree from the outset. If they have a mature product and a competent IT staff, they should be able to easily transition off of DirectTrack with the information we are providing. Considering their transition performance to date, they may be better served spending less money on litigation and more on technology and resources.â€™, adds George Bordo, COO of DRT.
Wolfe continues, â€œWe are getting tired of misleading and false threats from Gerry Jacobs. We have come to expect ponderous and wasteful litigation at the expense of their shareholders and the PA network transition timeline. We anticipate this long saga is not over as the fundamental arguments remain. We can assure them that any attempt to violate the Consent Decree and share our intellectual property will be aggressively pursued by us.
DirectTrackÂ® currently powers 120 networks including affiliate networks, ad serving networks, and co-registration networks. The DirectTrackÂ® â€˜network of networksâ€™ delivers roughly 12 billion ads per month, and over 65,000,000 clicks through its patent pending CrossPublicationâ„¢ technology. DirectTrackÂ® was launched as a low cost network platform for advertising and affiliate networks to get setup and launched quickly, and has proven that a company can grow rapidly utilizing the power of DirectTrackÂ® and the network of networks.
About Direct Response Technologies, Inc.
Direct Response Technologies, Inc. founded in 1994, is a media and technology firm dedicated to delivering performance-based results and technology solutions to clients. Direct Response Technologies is a privately held company with offices in Pittsburgh, PA, and New York NY. The company also operates an office in North Dakota in conjunction with the Department of Commerce of North Dakota.
Direct Response Technologies (http://www.directresponse.com) provides technology for (1) secure coupon delivery and tracking solutions through www.mycoupons.com ; (2) keyword tracking through www.keywordmax.com; (3) affiliate tracking through www.directtrack.com; and (4) gift certificates and gift card solutions through www.giftcards.com;
Direct Response Technologies, Inc.