Fossilman's Account Hacked?

[NicksDad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to mention two things. This is in reply to several different posts throughout the thread.

First, I was wrong to insult Daniel. Whatever my feelings, I should have kept the negative comments to myself. They don't help me or the cause we are fighting in this lawsuit, and they might have been hurtful to Daniel. For that I am sorry, and I do apologize.

Second, many people make the comment that if players don't like the WPT release, they can simply choose not to play. That is true. However, what if you wish to play in an open-to-the-public big-buyin televised tournament? Other than the WPT, where can you do this? The WSOP, of course; as well as the U.S. Poker Championships at the Taj. So, for a month and a half in Vegas you can play the WSOP, and then with the Circuit events and the Taj that's another half dozen events per year. What else?

I know of no other options within the U.S. Events like the NBC Heads-up Championship and Poker SuperStars Invitational don't count, because they are not open to the public.

So, if you have other events you think meet the above definition, let us know. I'm pretty sure there are none at the present.

Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

pure class, no surprise though.

The first thought when you said "where else can you play" for some reason it made me laugh thinking about the PPT saying "everyone wants to be a PPT champion" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But seriously what would be the hardest part about setting up your own tour?

I would think with your connections you could pull it off. It may take a few years to plan and negotiate with casinos but what would be the hardest part? I'm sure you could talk Poker Stars into sponsoring something.

Then if you do it right you could be the one writing the rules instead of being asked to follow them.

[TimDugan]

[ QUOTE ]
However, what if you wish to play in an open-to-the-public big-buyin televised tournament?

[/ QUOTE ]

From my limited experience with anti-trust laws (I'm in law school and I took ONE class on "Sports Law" that was PART anti-trust), this sounds like the "relevant market" you're trying to define (this is one of the elements of an anti-trust case: defining a relevant market).

I'm guessing the WPT would argue that the market is all poker tournaments, which as Greg stated, there are plenty of tournaments out there. It seems that one of the bigger issues of the anti-trust part of the case might hinge on the issue of what the "market" for poker tournaments is. It seems to me that once the market is defined by the court, the rest will fall into line quite quickly.

Is that right at all? I'm just a third-year law student with no real interest in IP law, but I do find this case interesting. I'm just trying to wrap my head around it :P

[relayerdave]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, what if you wish to play in an open-to-the-public big-buyin televised tournament?

[/ QUOTE ]

From my limited experience with anti-trust laws (I'm in law school and I took ONE class on "Sports Law" that was PART anti-trust), this sounds like the "relevant market" you're trying to define (this is one of the elements of an anti-trust case: defining a relevant market).

I'm guessing the WPT would argue that the market is all poker tournaments, which as Greg stated, there are plenty of tournaments out there. It seems that one of the bigger issues of the anti-trust part of the case might hinge on the issue of what the "market" for poker tournaments is. It seems to me that once the market is defined by the court, the rest will fall into line quite quickly.

Is that right at all? I'm just a third-year law student with no real interest in IP law, but I do find this case interesting. I'm just trying to wrap my head around it :P

[/ QUOTE ]

http://ftrain.blogspot.com/2006/07/q...is-of-wpt.html

I am a practicing litigator in the same building as Dewey Ballantine, Greg's L.A. attorneys. I have handled more than a few Sherman/Cartwright Act cases and am extremely familiar with Cal.'s Business and Professions Code 17200 jurisprudence. The two items quoted above have it about right. The real issue is discerning anti-competitive market power in the relevant market.

Greg, you know this already, but the most practical question issue for you is: who is your Judge in the Central Distrct? I know most of them fairly well---and some of them all too well. And FWIW, not knowing all the pertinent details, your interference with contract causes of action look pretty good to me.

Dave

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, many people make the comment that if players don't like the WPT release, they can simply choose not to play. That is true. However, what if you wish to play in an open-to-the-public big-buyin televised tournament? Other than the WPT, where can you do this? The WSOP, of course; as well as the U.S. Poker Championships at the Taj. So, for a month and a half in Vegas you can play the WSOP, and then with the Circuit events and the Taj that's another half dozen events per year. What else?

I know of no other options within the U.S. Events like the NBC Heads-up Championship and Poker SuperStars Invitational don't count, because they are not open to the public.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the operative phrase here is "open-to-the-public big-buyin televised tournament?" And the key word is "televised." There are many "open-to-the-public big-buyin tournaments" that aren't televised. So many so that any tournament poker player wishing to make their living playing tournaments could do so. I believe that when you define your market, that is going to be your problem as to this argument. The fact is that you have ample income earning opportunities every week across the USA ... they just aren't televised.

This may also be where the 7 of you -- who have a lot to gain due to the "televised" aspect -- lose your connection with most other players who have little to gain (directly) by the "televised" aspect. For 99% of the poker players, being on TV is nice, but it doesn't result in any more money for them. Whether they are playing in a big buy-in tourney at the Commerce, or a WPT tournament doesn't matter to their pocketbook. I think that is why some people are attributing bad motives to you as a group and why they don't think you are representing poker players in general.

Personally, I think this is going to be your toughest claim to prove ... that in your market there aren't ample other opportunities for you to earn your living doing what you do.

I happen to think the WPT release stinks, so I hope you prevail. I just hope it is by settlement, not actually getting to the courtroom.

NCAces

[West]

What you say is true, obviously getting those releases changed only really benefits people like themselves, and the few in the future who are lucky enough to get in a similar position. But on the off chance that you or I are ever in that position, I'm sure you wouldn't want them to have the right to sell your name to promote products you don't want to promote, for example.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think this is going to be your toughest claim to prove ... that in your market there aren't ample other opportunities for you to earn your living doing what you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the counter argument to that would be that it's not that they can't earn a living playing poker, it's that the WPT's agreements with casinos limit the opportunies for competing televised events - which doesn't really have anything to do with Greg and co. being able to make money from playing poker outside of the WPT.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
What you say is true, obviously getting those releases changed only really benefits people like themselves, and the few in the future who are lucky enough to get in a similar position. But on the off chance that you or I are ever in that position, I'm sure you wouldn't want them to have the right to sell your name to promote products you don't want to promote, for example.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think this is going to be your toughest claim to prove ... that in your market there aren't ample other opportunities for you to earn your living doing what you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the counter argument to that would be that it's not that they can't earn a living playing poker, it's that the WPT's agreements with casinos limit the opportunies for competing televised events - which doesn't really have anything to do with Greg and co. being able to make money from playing poker outside of the WPT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good comments ... for my own edification, I went to Wikipedia ... Anti-trust: A business with a monopoly over certain products or services may be in violation of antitrust laws if it has abused its dominant position or market power.

One of the problems that I see with their lawsuit is the definition of the market. I think that is why alot of us originally state, "it isn't like there aren't other options." This is obviously something they know they have to deal with - Greg has a canned response to it, as he should. They know this will be brought up. They are trying to very narrowly define the market ... big buy-in poker tournaments that are televised. I think the judge is going to question this greatly when (1) there are tons of other, non-televised tournaments that they can play in every day, and (2) there are a number of other big buy-in poker tournaments that are televised and open to the public that they can enter. Just because they have to sit out of the 17 WPT events, they have somewhere around 50 WSOP events, including Circuit Events. In other words, WPT will easily be able to show that the Plaintiffs have at least 3 times more big buy-in, televised events than the WPT offers. Most might come in a 45 day period, but who cares?

I would also point out that I don't think they are going to be able to show that because 17 Casinos and sister properties can't have other televised tournaments that they are in some way damaged. The Trump properties alone would enable the "Platiniffs 7" to hold their own televised tournaments. With all the card rooms in CA that aren't tied down, not to mention the international casinos, anyone who had a good business plan right now could start televised tournaments. There are just too many places in Vegas and elsewhere that aren't tied down due to these agreements.

I think that the WPT should amend their over-reaching agreement. And that is exactly what the Plaintiffs are trying to do ... exert pressure that will result in a settlement. But, I think they have a tough row to hoe.

NCAces

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
I would also point out that I don't think they are going to be able to show that because 17 Casinos and sister properties can't have other televised tournaments that they are in some way damaged. The Trump properties alone would enable the "Platiniffs 7" to hold their own televised tournaments. With all the card rooms in CA that aren't tied down, not to mention the international casinos, anyone who had a good business plan right now could start televised tournaments. There are just too many places in Vegas and elsewhere that aren't tied down due to these agreements.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. In fact, in DN's response (which is quoted earlier in this thread), he listed at least a dozen casinos in Vegas alone that don't have contracts with the WPT, and I'm sure there are plenty of others in AC, Tunica, etc.

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the operative phrase here is "open-to-the-public big-buyin televised tournament?" And the key word is "televised." There are many "open-to-the-public big-buyin tournaments" that aren't televised. So many so that any tournament poker player wishing to make their living playing tournaments could do so. I believe that when you define your market, that is going to be your problem as to this argument. The fact is that you have ample income earning opportunities every week across the USA ... they just aren't televised.

This may also be where the 7 of you -- who have a lot to gain due to the "televised" aspect -- lose your connection with most other players who have little to gain (directly) by the "televised" aspect. For 99% of the poker players, being on TV is nice, but it doesn't result in any more money for them. Whether they are playing in a big buy-in tourney at the Commerce, or a WPT tournament doesn't matter to their pocketbook. I think that is why some people are attributing bad motives to you as a group and why they don't think you are representing poker players in general.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the reason that the emphasis is being placed on "televised" tournaments is because these events provide far more exposure for the online cardrooms that these pros are affiliated with. Greg can obviously correct me if I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt that Pokerstars is going to pay his entry fee for some random, non-televised event at the Bellagio, Commerce, etc., since a strong performance by him in that kind of event will bring virtually no publicity to them.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, many people make the comment that if players don't like the WPT release, they can simply choose not to play. That is true. However, what if you wish to play in an open-to-the-public big-buyin televised tournament? Other than the WPT, where can you do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why this is relevant. There is no "right" to play in big buy-in open poker tournaments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this lawsuit does not allege that the WPT has in any way committed fraud or breach of contract. Rather, I understand the basis of the complaint is the theory the WPT has committed "antitrust" violations because of it's business practices.

The antitrust laws are themselves arbitrary and non-objective, and this lawsuit is a dubious exploitation of what is already bad law. We can debate whether the WPT's business practices are good for the poker entertainment industry (Raymer and co. may be correct that they are not), but nevertheless they have a right to offer whatever contracts to players, make whatever agreements with casinos, and set-up tournaments however they want, provided no fraud is involved.

That the WPT might (literally) be the only game in town is not relevant. They should have the right to conduct their business, for better or worse, in any honest manner they wish. The marquee players of course have the right to boycott or even set-up competing tournaments if they (perhaps correctly) conclude they are not getting good value from the WPT.

The negative consequences of this lawsuit that Mr. Raymer somewhat blithely dismisses are huge. These players are attempting by force to make the WPT offer better (according to them) player contracts and tournaments via the government. This grossly violates the rights of the WPT freely to conduct their business, however poorly. If anyone is being "uncompetitive" here, it is these players, who want to use the blunt instrument of governmental force to change the WPT to their liking. What if the WPT simply closed up shop? Would these players then "sue" to make them offer tournaments?

Do we really want to set the precedent that the government be intimately involved to specify how the WPT and similar organizations conduct their business? This seems like a much, much, bigger downside long-term than whatever (supposed) ill-advised policies the WPT is adopting with regard to players.

[sholler]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why this is relevant. There is no "right" to play in big buy-in open poker tournaments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this lawsuit does not allege that the WPT has in any way committed fraud or breach of contract. Rather, I understand the basis of the complaint is the theory the WPT has committed "antitrust" violations because of it's business practices.

The antitrust laws are themselves arbitrary and non-objective, and this lawsuit is a dubious exploitation of what is already bad law. We can debate whether the WPT's business practices are good for the poker entertainment industry (Raymer and co. may be correct that they are not), but nevertheless they have a right to offer whatever contracts to players, make whatever agreements with casinos, and set-up tournaments however they want, provided no fraud is involved.

That the WPT might (literally) be the only game in town is not relevant. They should have the right to conduct their business, for better or worse, in any honest manner they wish. The marquee players of course have the right to boycott or even set-up competing tournaments if they (perhaps correctly) conclude they are not getting good value from the WPT.

The negative consequences of this lawsuit that Mr. Raymer somewhat blithely dismisses are huge. These players are attempting by force to make the WPT offer better (according to them) player contracts and tournaments via the government. This grossly violates the rights of the WPT freely to conduct their business, however poorly. If anyone is being "uncompetitive" here, it is these players, who want to use the blunt instrument of governmental force to change the WPT to their liking. What if the WPT simply closed up shop? Would these players then "sue" to make them offer tournaments?

Do we really want to set the precedent that the government be intimately involved to specify how the WPT and similar organizations conduct their business? This seems like a much, much, bigger downside long-term than whatever (supposed) ill-advised policies the WPT is adopting with regard to players.

[/ QUOTE ]