Fossilman's Account Hacked?

[True North]

[ QUOTE ]
i would venture that most players wish that actual negotiations were going on instead of being quick so sue. just my thought though

[/ QUOTE ]
It's fairly difficult to negotiate with an organization whose only stance is to maintain the status quo and who will not be budged off that position for anything.

[mattnxtc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would venture that most players wish that actual negotiations were going on instead of being quick so sue. just my thought though

[/ QUOTE ]
It's fairly difficult to negotiate with an organization whose only stance is to maintain the status quo and who will not be budged off that position for anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then this begs the question:

Is the status quo good enough for the majority? If so then the minority are fighting an uphill battle.

heck all the seven had to do was go to these other pros..tell them they want to see changes made and have the others agree..then they can go to the WPT with a bigger backing...

but if the majority dont mind the WPT the way it is then its going to be a long battle for the seven

[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

[PokerSlut]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Because, if you cannot manage your business properly, you should automatically be exempt from lawsuits filed against you.

[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

[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 ]

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can certainly debate whether antitrust law is "bad law" or not. And we can also debate whether or not there should be limitations (and what kind) to the WPT's business practices.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one of the main points of the lawsuit, that options in setting up competing tournaments are limited due to agreements that the WPT has with casinos. The fact that the WPT might be the only game in town is therefore extremely relevant.

[ QUOTE ]
What if the WPT simply closed up shop? Would these players then "sue" to make them offer tournaments?


[/ QUOTE ]

Undoubtedly someone would take their place if it was profitable to do so. You're being ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

You act like this is breaking some new kind of antitrust ground. (I'm not a lawyer but it sure doesn't sound like it to me.) I don't really see how it would be bad for players if a court told organizations such as the WPT that they cannot prevent the casinos who host their tournaments from hosting other televised tournaments.

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that the founders of the WPT took an investment risk in creating it with the hope of turning a profit in the future (some of which would obviously come from marketing the likeness etc.. of the players). They created a contract which stated what the players had to agree too and the players signed it.

Now, after sometime these seven players have realized that the use of their likeness etc... is not helping or perhaps even hurting their bottom line. So they have filed this suit to try and end the practice.

I obviously do not know all of the details and am just making an opinion from what I have read. If the above is true, then it seems that the statement about doing this for the good of all the players is misleading.

If players don't like the contract then they don't have to play in the WPT. It seems like you guys might be making this bit about them locking up the casinos more of an issue than it really is.

My issues with all of this basically amounts to three things:

1. Are the seven players motives in this suit really what they are saying, or are their additional reasons that may hold more importance?

2. The WPT contract may be something that some players think is excessive. If that is the case, then don't play. They can't last very long with no players.

3. This relates to #2. How much does not playing in the WPT effect these seven players ability to make a living? How does it effect the masses of other players which these seven claim to be harmed by the practice?

[/ QUOTE ]

you could say the players didn't have to sign it and, if they didn't like it, shouldn't have. and then should quietly abide by what they agreed to. but it is also a fair point that WPT may have overreached and asked for unreasonable rights. so both sides are just trying to get all they can. they're each trying to game the other. using the law to adjust the contract isn't necessarily immoral. I mean it is the law. if the contract is illegal, are you going to say that the players should abide by it anyway?

both sides are trying to get all they can. they ask for more than they expect, so they have room to make concessions. and they both will take all they can. if you make a concession for the deal, and then point out that the concession is against the law, you've just outnegotiated them. they accepted something they should have known better than to think they can have. and that they asked for it in the first place, and accepted it, shows a kind of bad faith.

[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.