Fossilman's Account Hacked?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought Daniel was smart enough to understand that maybe he should educate himself on an issue before jumping to (and publicizing) a conclusion. Maybe I was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
For what it's worth -- and it may be relevant here -- Daniel is also a young-earth creationist.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, here's a copy of the complaint:

http://www.wptlawsuit.com/files/2919.../Complaint.pdf

[ QUOTE ]
1. This action is brought to enjoin, and to seek treble damages for, continuing violations of the federal and state antitrust laws ...

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks like you 7 personally stand to benefit greatly if treble damages (3X [censored] DAMAGES!) are awarded. I can't believe you tried to snow this whole board with your poker Santa Claus act.

[/ QUOTE ]
Greg mentioned that his attorneys are competent. The law awards treble damages for violations of federal antitrust laws; therefore a competent attorney will include a prayer for for treble damages in the complaint.

You're reading way too much into things if you're trying to draw any conclusions from the prayer beyond that.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If the plaintiffs win and are awarded these damages, I think the WPT would have a tough time surviving as a going concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Step One: The players have to win. Its a fairly safe wager to assume that this will be settled before a judge ever gets the opportunity to rule on the case.

Step Two: Even if the plaintiffs take the case through to the end and they win, then the issue becomes if there is any damages. They could win the case and get no damages outside of legal fees (which are very hard to collect in many states), or possibly no financial compensation and still win the case.

Look at the case for what it is, not what it might become if they win.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
In this type of case, it wouldn't be unusual at all for the plaintiffs to win damages in the amount of $1 -- which, trebled, would be $3. (The main point is the injunctive relief, not damages.)

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
The WPT gave several players an opportunity to sell books, games, and DVD's.

[/ QUOTE ]
The WPT effectively prohibits players from marketing games or DVDs. Typically, when you sign a deal to market a video game, for example, it must be an exclusive deal -- i.e., you must assure the game manufacturer that you won't be out there selling a competing game next week. But with the WPT release as it is written, this assurance cannot be made. A week after Daniel's "Stacked" comes out, the WPT can market its own video game with Daniel's name and likeness all over it.

[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
greg it is good to see you are not an asss kisser and say whats on your mind. no money is worth compromising your style.
the lawsuit is commendable. it lets the court determine what is legal and perhaps correct. that is how it should be if two parties cannot come to an aggreement. it is not bad for poker in fact it is great for poker. whether wpt has gone too far or not, at least all others realize they have to consider the players or they may have to battle it out in court. the players-(who are us)- are what makes these companies the money, and deserve the respect due.

[/ QUOTE ]

good to hear your input Ray. It may suprise you to learn that Chuck Norris also is on Raymer's side in this. Perhaps you two can use this common ground to end the terrible feud that has torn this nation apart.

for the sake of all humanity,

-donkey

[integrate]

Concerning on which the "market" is based on, tournament poker is not the only option.

How about cash games? Before the WPT, I am not exactly sure how many bigger buy-in tournaments were around, but there were always cash games where most professional poker players made their earnings. Exactly what justifications do these 7 players have that they cannot simply play in cash games to make their living?

I have been playing poker for about 4 years now and have maybe played in a total of 5 tournaments where I COULD have made a substantial amount of money. However, I was not fortunate nor lucky enough. 95% of the money I have made from poker has been from cash games.

I suppose they have an argument if they say they only choose to play in tournaments, but tournaments are not the only option...it is a privilege to play in these tournaments and not a right. They [the 7 players] are using the excuse of the release in order to boycott the WPT [obviously as noted]. Now, because they are boycotting the WPT they technically have nowhere else to play, correct? Because they have nowhere else to play, they want to setup their own tournaments in casinos which are WPT sponsored (It is understandable why they would want to host mainly in those WPT sponsored casinos as they are the most popular in the United States), but cannot for that reason; this puts a limitation on tournament revenue for those "people" involved. I use quoatations when using the word "people" because there is almost no doubt that the 7 are putting an underlying connection of this whole issue to online gaming sites. How they are saying that online gaming companies are not involved is beyond me if they are accusing the WPT of putting a strangle hold on the so-called tournament market. I assume they will say that they want to host their own tournaments so that they have somewhere to play, but it is undoubtedly because they want more of an opportunity for company revenue.

Any response with pertinent information is appreciated as I only wish to gather more facts on the issue.

Sidenote: I will add that I am quite disappointed in Greg's personal attack on Daniel. I admire both of them as poker players but my view has changed drastically on Greg. I did not expect him to make such distasteful comments.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
For another example, EA Sports produces video games using the likeness of just about every player on a professional roster in every sport without compensating players on an individual level. EA Sports derives the right use the likenesses of these athletes through licensing contracts with the various commissioners' offices.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's with the players' associations, not the commissioners' offices, but same general idea.

The general rule is that if more than three players' likenesses are to be used in a single advertisement or video game or whatever, the association negotiates the deal and the money goes to all players through the association. If three or fewer players are used in the marketing, the players bargain individually and get the money themselves.

So when EA Sports uses every NFL player in its video game (or half of them or whatever -- anything more than three), all players share in the endorsement revenue from the deal. But when Brett Favre does a commercial for a car dealership, Favre himself gets the endorsement revenue from the deal.

I may have some details wrong, but that's the general idea.

In either case, though, the players are being compensated.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly what justifications do these 7 players have that they cannot simply play in cash games to make their living?

[/ QUOTE ]
I take it you haven't read the complaint? Nowhere do the plaintiffs allege that they can't make a living playing cash games. (Actually, I haven't read the complaint either, but I am quite confident that no such allegation appears.)

The issue isn't whether the plaintiffs can make a living.

The issues are whether the release is legally binding (despite its being a contract of adhesion that contains non-standard, and possibly unconscionable, terms); and whether the clause prohibiting host casinos from hosting other televised events is anti-competitive and therefore unlawful. (Personally, I would like to hear a pro-competitive justification for it.)

[integrate]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly what justifications do these 7 players have that they cannot simply play in cash games to make their living?

[/ QUOTE ]
I take it you haven't read the complaint? Nowhere do the plaintiffs allege that they can't make a living playing cash games. (Actually, I haven't read the complaint either, but I am quite confident that no such allegation appears.)

The issue isn't whether the plaintiffs can make a living.

The issues are whether the release is legally binding (despite its being a contract of adhesion that contains non-standard, and possibly unconscionable, terms); and whether the clause prohibiting host casinos from hosting other televised events is anti-competitive and therefore unlawful. (Personally, I would like to hear a pro-competitive justification for it.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do know that the legal complaint is that if the release is legally binding, but I have heard on numerous occassions where players such as Howard Lederer are saying that not being able to play in the WPT is hurting them by restricting their ability to, what I am assuming is, making a living.

[Lawman007]

I think that one of Daniel's most valid points is the attention that this lawsuit will focus on the plaintiffs' relationships with the online poker sites. Our government views online poker sites as being illegal, and most, if not all, of these seven plaintiffs are highly compensated employees of these sites. Heck, don't Lederer and Ferguson own part of Full Tilt?

If I was the WPT's attorney, those would be the first things I would question these plaintiffs about under oath during their depositions. Contrary to Raymer's assertions, I think the fact that the plaintiffs are employed by and/or own poker sites that our government views as illegal would be both relevant and admissible in the lawsuit.

Forget about the ridiculous ".com" vs. "net." distinction. I'm looking at ads in Cardplayer magazine right now in which Raymer and Hachem appear in ads for "PokerStars.com."

With all of the current publicity about the illegality of online poker sites and the House passing an anti-online poker bill that the Senate is about to vote on, I think this lawsuit is only going to make things worse in that regard. Why on earth would anyone want to call more attention to this type of thing in today's political climate? These seven poker players may very well end up killing the goose that laid the golden egg.