Fossilman's Account Hacked?

[bruceypants]

[ QUOTE ]
Treble damages are commonly asked for, and rarely given. Its a negotiating chip, not necessarily the ultimate goal. In fact I doubt this case will ever see a courtroom, its generally the kind of negotiation that only takes place because a lawsuit was filed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This case has already seen a court room as the complaint was filed in a federal court. I do not know how often treble damages are awarded, but the fact remains that this is a personal lawsuit against the WPT (not a class-action), and thus only the 7 plaintiffs stand to gain financially.

As you said in an earlier post:

[ QUOTE ]
There are two things that concern me about the case.
(1) the discussion of damages in this case, it seems as if (and I might be wrong) only the litigants would receive financial compensation if WPT/Lakes is found guilty. The goal should be policy change not financial gain

[/ QUOTE ]

Policy change might be a goal in this case, but personal financial gain of the 7 plaintiffs is certainly a goal (as evidenced by the request for treble damages). Again, I have no problem with personal greed, but Greg's claim that he is doing this for the benefit of all poker players is BS. The 7 plaintiffs stand to benefit directly while other poker players may see a tiny, tiny residual benefit.

Plus, it's not like WPTE is Microsoft or something. Look at their stock chart:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=WPTE&t=1y

These guys may not even be around in a year. All I see here is greedy poker players kicking the entity that made them famous while that entity is nearly down and out. This lawsuit is a total joke. Raymer probably makes more on endorsements in a month than the WPTE earns all year.

Plus, if these tourney donkeys would learn how to play cash games, they wouldn't have to worry about the WPT's so-called "monopoly."

[Tornado69]

Seems anything Greg says/does is backed up 100% by everyone here and he can do no wrong ...

[waxie]

[ QUOTE ]
For those who thinkt he lawsuit is stupid, really need to read the terms they are agreeing to before they play in a WPT event.

Now, don't get me wrong. I agree, the WPT has helped take poker to that next level where some of these players can make a damn fine living without really having to risk any money at all...HOWEVER.

When you sign the release to play in a WPT event you give them rights to use your image throughout the "universe" "in perpituity." That is what it says on the contract.

What does that mean? If they ever opened a casino on Jupiter, they can use your image to promote it whether that is tomorrow, or 1,000,000 years from now.

You don't like it? Then don't play in any WPT events. Well guess what? They locked up the good ones.

Do you realise how this can conflict with a player's current endorsement deals?

Howard Lederer has a poker video game, WPT creates one, uses Lederer's image on theirs to help compete with his own.

Once again. If you don't want to play by their rules, then go play elsewhere. But where can these players then play? They're effectively being strong armed into signing what could hopefully be ruled an unenforceable contract, their ability to play and earn a living is hindered. Sound a bit like a monopoly?

You guys sit on here and bitch about Harrah's all day long. The problems will only get worse, because Poker is a game with no teams, the players are in it for themselves, so there will be no concerted effort to take down the giants, or at least bring them to a bargaining table to help the players gain a bit of equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the smartest post in the thread thus far.

[bruceypants]

To give you an idea of how ridiculous this lawsuit is, take a look at the WPT's financials:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor...sp?Symbol=WPTE

Look at that income line: $189,000. That's right, over the last four quarters, the WPTE has produced a whomping $189K in profit. If I was a judge, I would start laughing when I saw this case. What "monopoly" only makes $189K per year?

This is a frivolous lawsuit if I ever saw one.

[Caldarooni]

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, he is either stupid for repeatedly expressing an worthless opinion, or he is acting at the request of the WPT or one of their agents. Hence, I said he is stupid or a sockpuppet. I really don't see how there is a legitimate 3rd option.


[/ QUOTE ]

Stupid sockpuppet?

[ahnuld]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I will not know him for his "class" anymore then...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats stupid, everybody has bad days where they dont feel like dealing with this [censored].

If you want to judge him, go read his posts from a few years back. Make your judgement on that.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]


If you want to judge him, go read his posts from a few years back. Make your judgement on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or on THIS THREAD.

(shameless plug; all in good fun)

[bruceypants]

I wonder how the exchange between the judge and Greg's "world-class antitrust lawyers" would go? Maybe something like this:

Plaintiffs' world-class antitrust lawyer (P): "Judge, we have brought this case before you because the WPT has an unlawful monopoly over poker players ... or something."
Judge (J) : "Very well then. State your case."

P: "Judge, the WPT forces the plaintiffs to sign an agreement wherein the WPT can use the likeness of the players."
J: "Are there other donkaments the plaintiffs can particpate in?"

P: "Yes, but those tourneys will not give the plaintiffs as much exposure. If plaintiffs play in those tourneys, they will not be able to get good endorsements. Thus, we assert that the WPT has an unlawful monopoly over donkaments."
J: "I see. And how much has the WPT earned as a result of this monopoly?"

P: "They cruuuushed the tourney scene to the tune of 189 thousand dollars last year."
J: "189 thousand? Did you mean to say 189 million?"

P: "No, your honor, the WPT made 189 thousand bucks over the last four quarters."
J: "If this were the Internet, I would be ROFLMAO. Are you seriously coming into my court room to tell me that 189 thousand dollars in annual income is a monopoly. I feel like I'm in an episode of Austin Powers."

P: "Yes, your honor. That is what we are saying. We are world-class antitrust lawyers."
J: "So your clients do not want the WPT to make any money? Are they trying to put the WPT out of business? Don't they benefit from the exposure they get as a result of playing on the World Donkey Tour? Would they have those endorsements if it weren't for the exposure provided by the WPT?"

P: "Sure, our clients benefit some, but why should the WPT get to keep that 189 thousand dollars they made off the backs of my clients? That's outrageous."
J: "[sigh]While your credentials are impressive and I understand that one of your clients took an antitrust class in law school, 189 thousand dollars in profit does not a monopoly make. I'm throwing this case out. Tell your clients they better be careful or they will end up killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. CASE DISMISSED!"

[Tornado69]

Wow there's 17 WPT tournaments a year. How many other hundreds if not thousands of tournaments are there out there ? How many cash games are there out there ? How many televised tournaments are there out there ? TONS. What monopoly does the WPT have I'm still unaware of. Yes it would be nice for them to have that clause taken out where they can use your image but it's their company and they have made agreements and contracts with the casinos themselves. What right do you have to interfere with their business arrangements ?

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
To give you an idea of how ridiculous this lawsuit is, take a look at the WPT's financials:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor...sp?Symbol=WPTE

Look at that income line: $189,000. That's right, over the last four quarters, the WPTE has produced a whomping $189K in profit. If I was a judge, I would start laughing when I saw this case. What "monopoly" only makes $189K per year?

This is a frivolous lawsuit if I ever saw one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't measure a monopoly by how much money they've pissed away through poor management decisions, you measure it by how they restrict competition.

You (and Daniel) seemed to be concerned that the WPT might be damaged if they lose this lawsuit, when in fact I think the opposite is true. The WPT may benefit greatly from changing their business practices, and it looks like it will take a suit to make that happen.

The issue about the players release is a trivial one for the WPT. It's unlikely they gain much from having it, but it's a huge problem for top players. Ownership of a players image is worth more to the player than it is to the WPT. How can a pro player license their image to any company when the WPT can simply license that same image to that companie's biggest competitors? Why would any company pay as much for non-exclusive rights? Why would any company pay the WPT as much for rights that don't include participation by the pro in company events? If the WPT and players both own the same rights, the total value of the rights is diminished greatly.

Changing the release so the WPT can only use their image in conjunction with normal promotion of the events shouldn't hurt the WPT at all. But they'll benefit from having top pros in their events. Currently the WPT is hurting for the following reasons.

1) They signed a horrible contract with the travel channel that didn't pay them enough and also brought them into a large legal conflict with the travel channel when they started the PPT. And I've never seen a PPT event so it looks like they aren't able to get decent distribution for those episodes.

2) Their tournaments are boring and repetitive. Some of it is that not enough top pros are featured. Some of it is the same boring all-in fest at the final table (without featuring any real poker play or any play from earlier in the tournament. I'm so bored that I haven't watched in a while, but I'll also include the same boring set, same boring announcers as well. Nothing has changed in five years of their events except losing their most popular personality. Sadly I prefer watching the allin fest that's Poker Superstars on Fox, just because I'm more interested in watching a table full of pros than one full of anonymous luckboxes.

ESPN's coverage, while not perfect, at least tells you a story of what happened in many of the events (esp. the main event), and shows you some interesting post flop play. It's announcers are getting tiring as well, but ESPN remains heads and shoulders above the WPT.

Lastly, the WPT didn't create the poker boom, it capitalized on it. Once Moneymaker won the main event, they were the chief beneficiary.

If the WPT goes away, tournament poker will still be as popular, and still be heavily televised. The only difference is that it will be produced in a much more interesting fashion. My guess is the WPT needs a new management team, but not sure if that can even happen. I question whether their poker site is a good idea or not. If it is, they certainly fumbled the ball on getting it up and running fast enough. They need to make some proactive moves before the WPT brand continues to fall farther and farther behind the WSOP brand.

But if the WPT is going to stay, they definitely need to get the top pros back in their tourneys. Compromising on this stupid release would end this lawsuit and bring the pros back in about ten seconds. Otherwise they'll continue to fade into obscurity.