Fossilman's Account Hacked?

[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.

[eboller]

[ 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?

Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg, does the absence of such events represent a monopoly for the WPT? Sure, they are one of the only ones with a product right now, but what barriers to entry into the marketplace has the WPT employed? What is keeping any entity from starting another tour at the hundreds of other casinos out there? Just because the WPT and WSOP are the only games in town does not constitute a monopoly if there is nothing preventing another entity from signing up some casinos, getting a tv deal and producing another show. Is WPT doing something to keep others from the marketplace?

Eric

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no "right" to play in big buy-in open poker tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how exactly do YOU define "open"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was reponding to Mr. Raymer's post in which he defines "open" to be "open to the public."

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Please specify the type of questions that you think the WPT should, or might, ask me or any of the plaintiffs that have anything to do with online poker. Either there are none that are relevant, or if it is relevant, the answer will be no.


[/ QUOTE ]

How about this one:

"Mr. Raymer, you allege that the WPT, by offering you 'unacceptable' player waivers and 'unfavorable' tournament structures, are 'unfairly' denying your right as a poker professional to make a living. Isn't it true, however, that a substantial portion of your income as a poker pro actually comes from endorsements by an offshore, illegal online poker site?"

(I'm not saying I agree with the relevancy of this line of questioning, but it has it's own logic in the irrational, never-never-land world of anti-trust litigation, which the plaintiffs have opened in the first place.)

[Copernicus]

Many people keep going back to denying rights to "make a living". The causes of action have nothing to do with the ability to make a living. Restraint of trade != not being able to make a living.

the answer to your hyptothetical question is an objection that it is irrelevant.

The argument that there are hundreds of casinos available for large televised tournaments ignores several realities of the business"

-relatively few corporations own the vast majority of the major casinos
-part of the attraction to the general TV public is the glamour of the locations. A lot of casual viewers are going to be hooked by the Bellagio fountains, that arent going to be thrilled by the Terribile's buffet line
-online is the feeder to the large televised tournaments through their satellites. If one satellite prize is a 10,000 entry plus all expenses paid to the Podunk Indian Reservation and the other is to a Monte Carlo WPT event, which one is going to attract the larger particpation?
-if someone comes along with a better technology than the hole camera and wants to build a product around it (I have a technology/product combination that Im trying to develop, though its nowhwere near the production stage), they have limited opportunities to do so because the venues to support the launch the new product are restricted. That means the WPT has huge leverage in licensing that technology, which in turn limits the attractiveness of the investment in the new technology.

[richardamsu]

I have not been involved in anti trust litigation but I have been involved in various commercial litigation actions.
My experience my be atypical but my questions for Greg and the other attorneys are:

Greg - You may be correct in saying that your relationship with Pokerstars is not relevant to the case. But, if you are deposed by the WPT, can't they ask these questions anyway? Maybe the rules are different in Federal Court than State Court, but in State Court they attorneys can ask anything they want. You can choose not to answer or refuse to answer on advice of counsel but you can't force them to abandon that line of questioning until you get to court.

Also - What are the discovery rules? Even if you refuese to answer questions about PS as not relevant, won't all your financial records, including all of your correspondance with PS be discoverable? Not just for you, but for all of your co defendants. Again, you may be correct in that it is not relevant to the narrow question you ask but if I am the WPT, I am going to make sure I understand every nuance of the relationship with the online sites. The potential "exposure" of the details of these relationship is what seems to be most troubling for many in this discussion. I would hate for legitimate business arrangements to be taken out of context to harm poker overall. To not think this could happen is naive.

For the WPT - What is the harm in allowing the players to have some say on how their image is marketed? For example, if a poker chip manufacturer wanted to pay a licesing fee to use Greg's likeness - Why not give Greg the opportunity to 1) Approve the deal with some % coming back to him 2) Veto the deal by paying the WPT the license fee the poker chip manufacturer would pay? 3)Give him some length of time to get a matching/similar offer from a competing chip manufaucturer?

Also, the players are paying a fee to enter these tournaments and getting none of the upside from the images. They are only splitting the prize pool generated by entry fees. I understand the fee they pay does not pay for broadcating equipment, talent, etc.. but it would seem fair to me if you licesne the images obtained during the tournament for anything other than to sell the broadcast (say for a video game), you should at least consider kicking in some of the revenue into the prize pools at WPT events. Then at least the players are potentially earning something for their images.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Many people keep going back to denying rights to "make a living". The causes of action have nothing to do with the ability to make a living. Restraint of trade != not being able to make a living.

the answer to your hyptothetical question is an objection that it is irrelevant.


[/ QUOTE ]

But my understanding is the lawsuit alleges the "restraint of trade" by the WPT takes the form of the players not being able, because of waivers required by the WPT, to profit from their fame. So showing that these players do in fact profit substantially from other endorsements seems very relevant from the standpoint of the lawsuit.

In other words, even accepting the (imho fallacious) logic that the WPT is attempting to "restrain trade," it could be feasibly argued in rebuttal that the player waivers aren't actually restraining trade much at all, as evidenced by the players' substantial endorsement deals from, among other sources, online poker sites.

Now, I have no idea how much these players make from the online sites, nor how that compares to the (alleged) potential income they could make if it weren't for the WPT contracts. However, given the claims of the lawsuit and from the defendant's perspective, all that seems quite relevant.

P.S.: Wow, I just realized this is my "addict" post.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]


For the WPT - What is the harm in allowing the players to have some say on how their image is marketed? For example, if a poker chip manufacturer wanted to pay a licesing fee to use Greg's likeness - Why not give Greg the opportunity to 1) Approve the deal with some % coming back to him 2) Veto the deal by paying the WPT the license fee the poker chip manufacturer would pay? 3)Give him some length of time to get a matching/similar offer from a competing chip manufaucturer?

Also, the players are paying a fee to enter these tournaments and getting none of the upside from the images. They are only splitting the prize pool generated by entry fees. I understand the fee they pay does not pay for broadcating equipment, talent, etc.. but it would seem fair to me if you licesne the images obtained during the tournament for anything other than to sell the broadcast (say for a video game), you should at least consider kicking in some of the revenue into the prize pools at WPT events. Then at least the players are potentially earning something for their images.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt the WPT would agree to this for the simple reason that they claim repeatedly that they will not market players images like this. To make this agreement is to admit that they will. Which begs the question, if they are not going to market the players images outside of direct promotion of the show, why do they insist on having the right to market said images?

And I doubt the players would agree in any case because equally (or more) important than being compensated for the use of their images is the ability to control the use of the image. You expect them to agree to pay if they want to veto the use of their image?

Suppose a player had his family broken up by alchoholism and alcohol abuse eventually led to the death of one of his parents. You think he's going to be happy he's getting five percent when the WPT licenses his image to a liquor manufacturer? How about a gun-control advocate who finds Smith & Wesson has the rights to use his image in connection with their armor piercing bullets (All-In Baby!)? Etc Etc Etc. In some very real sense, your image, your look, your voice, is you. How strange to want to control how that is used in connection with commercial products.

--Zetack

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
Please specify the type of questions that you think the WPT should, or might, ask me or any of the plaintiffs that have anything to do with online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about these?

"Mr. Raymer, isn't it true that you are employed by an illegal online poker site?"

"Mr. Lederer, isn't it true that you own and profit from an illegal online poker site?"

I know you weren't a litigator, Greg, but do you honestly think that the fact that someone is employed by and/or owns an operation that is viewed as illegal by the United States government wouldn't be admissibile as to that person's credibility as a witness?

And how are you going to answer those questions? You can't say "no." You can't say "yes," because you would possibly be incriminating yourself criminally. You can't say "I plead the Fifth," because that would ruin your credibility with the judge or jury.

Greg, I'm a big fan of yours, and I think the world of you as a player and as a person. However, I hate to say that
I think this lawsuit is about nothing but greed, plain and simple. I don't think that you or your co-plaintiffs have truly thought this thing through as far as the possible implications on your own personal financial situations and the poker community as a whole, especially the online poker community.

I recently read in the litigation forum that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is going to try to get the anti-online poker bill passed by the Senate when they come back in September. That is one of his top priorities. If the Senate passes it, it will become law because the House has already passed it by a huge margin and Bush has said he will sign it. That law will essentially shut down Americans' access to online poker sites by preventing the transfer of money to and from those sites and requiring internet service providers to block access to those sites.

You and your co-plaintiffs have made tremendous amounts of money because of online poker. You would probably still be a 9 to 5 patent attorney and a few million dollars poorer if it weren't for online poker. Why in the world would you want to draw negative attention to poker in general, and online poker in particular, in this political climate? It just doesn't make any sense to me at all. How many millions are enough?

For multimillionaires like you and Hachem and Lederer to claim that the WPT release has impaired your ability to earn a living is just laughable to me. If the release truly prevented you from engaging in other business opportunities, don't you think that somebody like Negreanu would support your lawsuit? He works for an online poker site, has a video game, appeared in a Pepsi commercial, is writing a book, and doing God-knows-what-else, and he has signed every WPT release he's ever been asked to sign.

Sorry, Greg, but I'm not buying it. I still respect you as a player and a person, but I think you're wrong about this lawsuit, and I was very surprised when I learned that you were a plaintiff in it. I think that this lawsuit has the potential to do far more harm than good, both to the plaintiffs' personal situations and to the poker community as a whole.

[TruePoker CEO]

... please, stfu.

Every post you make is going to add at least an hour to whatever deposition time you may have to endure.

I applaud your willingness to post lucid, educated discussions. However, the public good from your posts on this litigation topic will pale in comparison to the cost you will face come deposition day/week/month.

Consider who you are trying to address at this point in the process and at what level / No one open to any reasonable discourse could have been swayed by that rant by Mr. Negreanu (July 26). If anyone were, you have already provided ample reply to whatever points were made.

If your counsel has not yet forcibly gagged you on this, do yourself the favor.

I mean this as friendly advice.