[ekdikeo]

[ QUOTE ]

The WPT has been around for a while. Has this happened ever? If not, then it seems a bit silly to be suing against a hypothetical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Happened or not, it's something that SHOULDN'T be in their contracts, and from what I understand, if it were removed, then there wouldn't be any issues going on.

I've been involved in a few gargantuan lawsuits in my time, and have learned a few things, for sure. One of them is that if you want a sizeable business to pay attention to you, you have to do it through their legal department.

I'm not a gambling man (I often tell people the only people gambling when I'm playing poker are my opponents [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) but I'd put down 10:1 that Fossilman knows a lot more about lawyers, lawsuits, trademarks, and branding, than at least 95% of this group. Combined. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I also highly, highly, HIGHLY doubt that this lawsuit would have any affect whatsoever on any lawmakers view of poker -- No lawmaker in the U.S. wants us to be able to use our money for this purpose. When money gets transferred around willy nilly without documentation, it makes it very difficult for them to keep track of what you owe them. Certainly with all the numbers of politicians demanding a ban on online play, and all the ones repeating the 'gambling is evil' mantra, or whatever the hell they are doing, they sure as heck aren't representing the interests of their constituents.

I haven't seen any of the documentation on the lawsuit (anyone have links to it?) but I'd guess that this is a civil suit, and not a criminal suit, so really it's under most lawmakers radars. And there's the "7 people vs. a company that made $185,000 last year" angle, too.

Wow, I wish the TEXTAREA on this forum was a lot larger, so I could more easily review what the hell i'd written.

The BEST thing for poker, I think, would be to have as many pros as possible take a visible stance against the attempts at legislating online play out of existence, and non-online play to only casinos. I'd hate to have to go to Vegas or Atlantic City just to drink beer with my buds and play cards, but some places, that's the only thing that's legal.

I wonder what business has the politicians paid for and under their thumb? The big casinos shouldn't, they could leverage their big Vegas names, and turn billions of $ through. Only reason I can think of that politicians would be trying to get against it is either (a) the whacko branch of the religious side [differentiating that from the sane people that are religious] (b) taxes.