DN loses respect for Raymer

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that is insane ... it isn't as if they are responding to a run of the mill auto case or tort action. This is a novel claim that involves some of the trickier areas of law.

Someone has to tear apart the Complaint, paragraph by paragraph, count by count. Then you have to meet with the client to dicsuss what all is meant by the allegations that are made. Assuming they aren't general counsel for WPTE, they have to understand the corporate structure of the WPTE and exam all the contracts with all the casinos, and all the contracts with the Discovery channel, and all other contracts that they have that might impact the release issue. In this case, they did research on Full Tilt and the princiapls of that company, and then I am sure did a ton of investigation of the 7 plaintiffs. Facts have to be tracked down and checked. Hell, someone probably had to sit down and research the poker industry and determine the extent to which there are big-buy tournaments, etc.

Then all the issues of law have to be researched and discussed. You have the anti-trust allegations, you have contract issues with the release, and I am not sure what area of law the speed of the blinds falls under [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]. I am sure there were issues of venue, etc. Then the associates have to write memoranda of law on all these issues that are reviewed by partners, and then they all sit down to kick around the law and what the possible defenses would be.

Finally, they get around to writing the Answer that has to be painstakingly checked and rechecked. I can easily see this entire process taking a couple hundred hours. Remember this is considered very complex litigation, with novel facts, and some complicated legal theories, with millions of dollars riding on it, the Plaintiff's claims that they aren't in it for the money notwithstanding.

I dealt with some complex litigation dealing with asbestos property damage, as well as school desegregation. We spent those types of hours on research, meeting, drafting, etc.

I think it would easily take 3 or 4 people a week or two to complete the response to this lawsuit, and at 60 hours per week billable, that is going to get you to 200 pretty quickly.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that all of that has to be done. But it doesn't really have to be done for the sake of preparing the answer.

Take this, for example:
[ QUOTE ]
Hell, someone probably had to sit down and research the poker industry and determine the extent to which there are big-buy tournaments, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is going to be important to the actual case. But for purposes of filing the answer, the defendent just has to allege that it has no market power because there are zillions of competitive big buy-in events out there. It doesn't matter whether it's true.

The defendant may have spent $50K in attorneys fees already, in total. But I don't think it's fair to earmark it all for the preperation of the answer. Answers, by their nature, are usually pretty generic. I know that antitrust allegations aren't the same as simple tort allegations, but the same kitchen sink rule would apply: Figure out what all the possible defenses to each cause of action are, and plead each of them. It's largely a legal exercise that doesn't require a ton of factual investigation.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that is insane ... it isn't as if they are responding to a run of the mill auto case or tort action. This is a novel claim that involves some of the trickier areas of law.

Someone has to tear apart the Complaint, paragraph by paragraph, count by count. Then you have to meet with the client to dicsuss what all is meant by the allegations that are made. Assuming they aren't general counsel for WPTE, they have to understand the corporate structure of the WPTE and exam all the contracts with all the casinos, and all the contracts with the Discovery channel, and all other contracts that they have that might impact the release issue. In this case, they did research on Full Tilt and the princiapls of that company, and then I am sure did a ton of investigation of the 7 plaintiffs. Facts have to be tracked down and checked. Hell, someone probably had to sit down and research the poker industry and determine the extent to which there are big-buy tournaments, etc.

Then all the issues of law have to be researched and discussed. You have the anti-trust allegations, you have contract issues with the release, and I am not sure what area of law the speed of the blinds falls under [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]. I am sure there were issues of venue, etc. Then the associates have to write memoranda of law on all these issues that are reviewed by partners, and then they all sit down to kick around the law and what the possible defenses would be.

Finally, they get around to writing the Answer that has to be painstakingly checked and rechecked. I can easily see this entire process taking a couple hundred hours. Remember this is considered very complex litigation, with novel facts, and some complicated legal theories, with millions of dollars riding on it, the Plaintiff's claims that they aren't in it for the money notwithstanding.

I dealt with some complex litigation dealing with asbestos property damage, as well as school desegregation. We spent those types of hours on research, meeting, drafting, etc.

I think it would easily take 3 or 4 people a week or two to complete the response to this lawsuit, and at 60 hours per week billable, that is going to get you to 200 pretty quickly.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that all of that has to be done. But it doesn't really have to be done for the sake of preparing the answer.

Take this, for example:
[ QUOTE ]
Hell, someone probably had to sit down and research the poker industry and determine the extent to which there are big-buy tournaments, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is going to be important to the actual case. But for purposes of filing the answer, the defendent just has to allege that it has no market power because there are zillions of competitive big buy-in events out there. It doesn't matter whether it's true.

The defendant may have spent $50K in attorneys fees already, in total. But I don't think it's fair to earmark it all for the preperation of the answer. Answers, by their nature, are usually pretty generic. I know that antitrust allegations aren't the same as simple tort allegations, but the same kitchen sink rule would apply: Figure out what all the possible defenses to each cause of action are, and plead each of them. It's largely a legal exercise that doesn't require a ton of factual investigation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can certainly agree that what they do prior to the Answer will be used elsewhere in the litigation. But, we will have to agree to disagree as to what a firm like this would do before they file the answer.

I can't imagine that they wouldn't do the due diligence that I suggest before they are able to (1) advise their client as to what the best course of action is, (2) advise their client as the best defense to set forth, as well as any counter-claims, (3) be willing to sign their names to an Answer. Again, this isn't a run of the mill case, and I can't imagine that they wouldn't do the research I suggest in order to best Answer the case.

As to what amount of this work is actually allocated to the "Answer" I can't tell you, and is splitting hairs in my mind. I think we can agree that much of the research that I suggested might be done would have been done during the negotiations that were probably ongoing prior to the receiptof the complaint. But, I can assure you that a firm of this quality isn't just going to throw a bunch of defenses together and file what amounts to a "form" answer. They researched, and they researched it big time. Yeah, they threw in the kitchen sink, but there are also a lot of specifics in the Answer.

So, let's not say that they paid $50,000 for the answer. Instead I will say that by the time the Answer was filed, WPTE was into their attorneys for at least $50,000 for their advice and work on the Plaintiff's claims and subsequent lawsuit, however those bills would be allocated.

NCAces

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I can certainly agree that what they do prior to the Answer will be used elsewhere in the litigation. But, we will have to agree to disagree as to what a firm like this would do before they file the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not disagreeing with you on the matter of timing -- just on whether it should be considered part of the cost of preparing the answer. But as you correctly point out, that's really just a matter of semantics.

[ QUOTE ]
So, let's not say that they paid $50,000 for the answer. Instead I will say that by the time the Answer was filed, WPTE was into their attorneys for at least $50,000 for their advice and work on the Plaintiff's claims and subsequent lawsuit, however those bills would be allocated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.

[Lawman007]

Leave it to two lawyers to turn an interesting thread into a mind-numbing, speculative pissing match over how much an answer cost. LOL

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

I still maintain that anyone who can obtain a monopoly to operate online poker in Mainland China WILL control the global online and TV poker industries by the year 2015.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that a monopoly on the Chinese online poker market will someday be very valuable. I'm just saying they shouldn't lose the rest of the world along the way. If China's economy grows 10% per year while the other developed countries grow 3% per year, in 2015 China's GNP will still be one third of the U.S GNP, and less than one fifth the size of the US combined with leading european nations. And the law of large numbers means it's unlikely that China will be able to maintain a 10% annual growth rate for another decade, so even this scenario is far too optimistic.

A chinese monopoly will still be too small in 2015 to give them any ability to dominate the entire online market.

[alphatmw]

negreanu is a sock puppet for the WPT. brucey is a shill for the WPT. seriously, anyone who disagrees with raymer becomes the bitch of the opposite side? god i wonder if raymer was on a debate team in high school. it would have been hilarious.

"you're pro-abortion commennts confuse me, sir. are you being paid by planned parenthood to speak?"

"so you're against the iraq war? are you being bribed by liberal pot smoking hippies?"

"so you defend flag burning eh? are you taking it up the ass by each member of the ACLU?"

[olivert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I still maintain that anyone who can obtain a monopoly to operate online poker in Mainland China WILL control the global online and TV poker industries by the year 2015.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that a monopoly on the Chinese online poker market will someday be very valuable. I'm just saying they shouldn't lose the rest of the world along the way. If China's economy grows 10% per year while the other developed countries grow 3% per year, in 2015 China's GNP will still be one third of the U.S GNP, and less than one fifth the size of the US combined with leading european nations. And the law of large numbers means it's unlikely that China will be able to maintain a 10% annual growth rate for another decade, so even this scenario is far too optimistic.

A chinese monopoly will still be too small in 2015 to give them any ability to dominate the entire online market.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making 3 mistakes in your analysis:

1. Poker is NOT a "mass market" activity. It is still a niche activity. Only 1 out of 300 people in the US watch every episode of the WSOP on ESPN. That should give you an idea of how many people actually play poker regularly in the U.S.: about 1 million or so, which is nowhere near the "50 million" that the industry is trumpeting.

2. Poker does NOT have to be a "mass market" activity in China in order for China to be the biggest poker market in the world. If 1 out of 1000 people in China were to play Texas Hold'em, then China will have more Hold'em players than the U.S. The overall GDP of a country really doesn't matter to a business when the business is only trying to capture 0.1% of the country's population.

3. It is actually to WPTE's advantage to have online poker BANNED in the U.S., so that WPTE's online poker competitors, especially the likes of Full Tilt, PokerStars, and even Harrah's WSOP unit, will have their "air supply" choked off.

One possible blueprint for WPTE to completely take control of the global online and TV poker industry looks something like this:

1. Partner with MGM MIRAGE and the Ho Family in order to attempt to lobby the Chinese government to grant WPTE a total monopoly in online poker and TV poker in Mainland China.

2. Lobby the U.S. Congress to ban online poker in the U.S.

WPTE's U.S. TV business is not worth that much based on current valuation, and WPTE will never have an online poker business in the U.S. market anyway.

WPTE really doesn't have much if anything to lose at this point if the U.S. were to ban online poker, especially if WPTE were able to obtain a government-sanctioned monopoly in China.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I'm just amazed that somebody can be so gung-ho against the position we are taking, without being aligned with the WPT.



[/ QUOTE ]

Some of us are "gung-ho" against the position you are taking even though we are not only NOT aligned with the WPT, but also that we agree WPT's policies are both bad for the players' interests as well as the long-term prosperity of the poker industry in general.

The reason is because some of us recognize the right of the WPT to conduct their business however they want, regardless of how poorly, or whether they are the only organization offering big, open, televised tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

[someguyintucson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or what if you totally trusted the powers that be at the WPT to not use your likeness for anything, only for them to sell out to someone else who will screw you blind? That would be one heck of a selling point to say that you have releases signed by 99 of the top 100 players. Where you can use their likeness to sell anything from diet pills to butt paste.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Greg Raymer Butt Paste. Holy Shyte!

The mind boggles (or shudders, in my particular case).

--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, even if they can, you know they're not going to use me for the diet pills.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that I'd be more worried about erectile dysfunction products or maybe an ad for a man-bra [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

2. Poker does NOT have to be a "mass market" activity in China in order for China to be the biggest poker market in the world. If 1 out of 1000 people in China were to play Texas Hold'em, then China will have more Hold'em players than the U.S. The overall GDP of a country really doesn't matter to a business when the business is only trying to capture 0.1% of the country's population.


[/ QUOTE ]

GDP does matter, because in China the GDP averages around $2,000 per person, while it averages about $40,000 per person. Even if China produces more poker players than the U.S., it won't matter if the vast majority are playing $.01/$.02.

[ QUOTE ]

3. It is actually to WPTE's advantage to have online poker BANNED in the U.S., so that WPTE's online poker competitors, especially the likes of Full Tilt, PokerStars, and even Harrah's WSOP unit, will have their "air supply" choked off.


[/ QUOTE ]

Think carefully about this. The U.S. just imprisoned the CEO of BetOnSports, a U.K. Citizen, for operating an enterprise that was legal in the countries it was hosted in and run from. Do you really think the management, and board of directors of the WPT (Lyle Berman for example) want to leave the U.S. forever to avoid imprisonment? It will only take one U.S. player gaining access to their web site for the U.S. justice department to apply for arrest warrants.

Getting online poker banned in the U.S. reduces their TV audience, doesn't increase the amount of players at their web site (unless they violate U.S. law) and exposes the WPT to unlimited and impossible to manage liabilities.

Oliver, while I have no doubt the WPT is trying to penetrate the chinese market, I think you are seeing too many conspiracy theories. And remember, "penetrating the chinese markets" is the last strategy of failed businesses nowadays, like "building a web business" was in 1999.