Fossilman's Account Hacked?

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
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."


[/ QUOTE ]

I checked with my attourny, A monopoly can be declared even if the company has never turned a profit. I think you can stop trolling that part of your argument now, feel free to commence finding some other reason to ridicule the case if you wish but the scope of WPT's profit has nothing to do with it. So let the court decide if the WPT is a monopoly, thats it's job.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]

If the plaintiffs win and are awarded these damages, I think the WPT would have a tough time surviving as a going concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Step One: The players have to win. Its a fairly safe wager to assume that this will be settled before a judge ever gets the opportunity to rule on the case.

Step Two: Even if the plaintiffs take the case through to the end and they win, then the issue becomes if there is any damages. They could win the case and get no damages outside of legal fees (which are very hard to collect in many states), or possibly no financial compensation and still win the case.

Look at the case for what it is, not what it might become if they win.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to doubt whether this suit can survive summary judgement, but that has nothing to do with motivation for bringing it. The use of litigation to effect change in the market is very common. The name plaintiffs often have such change as a goal, "class action" status is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree with you more.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[EricOF]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

P: "Judge, the WPT forces the plaintiffs to sign an agreement wherein the WPT can use the likeness of the players."


[/ QUOTE ]

What you are failing to understand is that not only can the WPT use your likeness...they can use it "universally" "in perpituity." Read the terms you are agreeing to by signing their releases.

Anywhere, and everywhere throughout the universe forever, no end in sight.

No one, and I guarantee you that even the 7 on the lawsuit is saying that the WPT should not be able to use their likeness..they should only be able to do so in a limited fashion..in other words for use in promoting the tournament that is airing, and to help promote it the following year, and for use in promoting the tv show...not for use in whatever they decide to promote for the remainder of your life and beyond.

Where do you think the use of your likeness should end? Let's say you sign an endorsement for Coca Cola, and WPT signs a deal with Pepsi...do you thinkt hey should be able to put your face on a Pepsi can that says..."bruceypants when he plays in WPT tournamens enjoys a refreshing Pepsi"

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like there might be good reason to be wary of signing WPT release. No problem. Now, back to something more pertinent ... how is the WPT violating anti-trust law? Don't like the release? Play elsewhere.

This suit is DOA.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

If the plaintiffs win and are awarded these damages, I think the WPT would have a tough time surviving as a going concern. It would actually be a form of ironic justice to see the plaintiffs win, only to have their main platform for exposure go out of business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Their main platform for exposure is the WSOP through ESPN, with Fox probably a distant second. The WPT is going out of business due to it's own poor management decisions, you've noted how little they made despite being first to put together a poker series to cash in on the WSOP poker boom.

If the WPT can't afford to lose this lawsuit, then why won't they settle it in three seconds by making minor changes to the release and bring back some of the most popular players?

The truth is the WPT management doesn't know what they are doing, and they putting themselves out of business. They are already being replaced by better poker shows, the world (including poker pros) isn't going to miss them as the boom will continue without the WPT.

[alphatmw]

DN's response

Actually Raymer, your post shows how close minded you can be. You state that there are only two options, either A) I'm stupid, or cool.gif I'm a sock puppet for the WPT. You also state that I haven't studied the suit.

You are wrong on all three fronts. First of all, I am not a lawyer but I have spoken to several lawyers about this case. Lawyers that I trust. Now maybe I'm "stupid" for trusting some of these lawyers, but I don't think so.

Without the WPT you'd likely still be selling pieces of yourself to buy into events. That's not supposed to insult you, it's just the truth. The WPT is the key reason that poker has become such a big hit. We could argue that fact, but I just don't see how anyone could possibly argue that the WPT was the catalyst for the WSOP, online poker, and the huge fields we play in today.

Frankly, as I've stated before, I really don't even care who is right or wrong in this case. It is my opinion, that everyone will lose because of this lawsuit. While you think you are doing the poker world a favor, I strongly believe that all of the negative attention is the last thing we need right now.

Why do you care if the WPT made a deal with MGM/Mirage to hold only WPT events there? If you want to run a tournament, try the Wynn, Stratosphere, Luxor, Golden Nugget, Palms, Hard Rock Cafe, Barbary Coast, Gold Coast, Red Rock, Imperial Palace, Green Valley Ranch, the Orleans, or the hundreds of other casinos in Las Vegas that are available.

Lastly, you guys just don't seem to see the bigger picture. Sure, you say this has nothing to do with PokerStars or online poker in any way, but man, it would be totally naive to think that that won't come up. That you will be put under major scrutiny concerning the legality of your relationship with PokerStars. It's going to happen, and the seven of you could potentially make us all suffer.

With the legality of online poker making headlines today, the last think you should want is for some smug politician to find a "new cause."

[streetz]

both of these guys should just STFU and play some poker. the majority of poker players do not play in nor gives a crap about the WTP.

[Peter McDermott]

[ QUOTE ]

We could argue that fact, but I just don't see how anyone could possibly argue that the WPT was the catalyst for the WSOP, online poker, and the huge fields we play in today.


[/ QUOTE ]
Surely the catalyst was Channel 4's Late Night Poker?

Once they had the idea to show hole cards during play,
and got significant audiences after midnight in a
country where poker was rarely played, any idiot could
copy that proven formula.

[chicagoY]

"remove drDre"

See, that's why I love Fossilman so much. We both hate rap.

[redsoxsalty]

another negreanu post from his fcp forum:

"If they genuinely wanted to do "what's best" for the poker players out there, maybe THEY should have asked the poker players if this is a war they wanted to fight? Maybe they should have consulted with me and the others, asking if we'd either like to be a part of it, or even ask for our opinions on what this will do to poker.

They didn't. Instead, they appointed themselves "leaders of the players movement" without a vote, or without even listening to the public. "