How will this WPTE statement affect legislation?

CaryDarling · #1 08-25-2006, 04:16 PM

They have responded to the suit against them by Lederer and gang and included this in their response:

"For example, Full Tilt Poker, a website started by Plaintiffs Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer and with which at least two other Plaintiffs are affiliated, already competes unfairly against WPTE by using the tremendous revenues it obtains from promoting online gambling in the United States and accepting online bets from persons located in the United States – activities declared by the US Department of Justice as illegal under existing law – to subsidize the poker programming it offers television networks. WPTE, on the other hand, complies with the letter and spirit of the law as currently interpreted by the DOJ and employs numerous safeguards to ensure no one in the United States can place a bet on its online poker website, leaving websites like Full Tilt Poker (and its owners Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer) to reap these illicit profits."

You know damn well, that anyone with half a brain that is against online poker will use this statement to promote their argument.

TheMathProf · #2 08-25-2006, 04:29 PM

I don't think that argument will completely fly if there is evidence that they knew and accepted that players qualified for their tournaments through paid online satellites. I'm not sure if such evidence exists, though.

Kevmath · #3 08-25-2006, 05:34 PM

I'm sure it's been mentioned in the broadcasts that certain players have qualified thru online satellites.

CaryDarling · #4 08-25-2006, 05:49 PM

I'm not worried about the WPT's argument, my concern is someone using their statement to say..."see, even so and so knows playing poker online is illegal."

blueodum · #5 08-25-2006, 10:52 PM

Party Poker, UB and PokerStars have in the past sponsored WPT events. So the WPT is obviously not opposed to doing business with those who provide online poker to US players; if they were, they would not accept sponsorship from these "rogue" sites.

This is a civil suit involving a minor industry - as such, it is a non-starter in the wider voting community. The enemies of online poker in the US already have their "ammunition" for the voting public ready.

renodoc · #6 08-25-2006, 11:31 PM

Insane.

The WPTE are taking a really big gun and blowing off their feet.

Stupid.

MiltonFriedman · #7 08-26-2006, 05:11 PM

"WPTE, on the other hand, complies with the letter and spirit of the law as currently interpreted by the DOJ and employs numerous safeguards to ensure no one in the United States can place a bet on its online poker website, leaving websites like Full Tilt Poker (and its owners Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer) to reap these illicit profits."

WPT hired a former DOJ Anti-trust guy to head their defense. Predictably, he shot from the hip without thinking.

The WPT Online site does not itself take US player bets. However, it is part of a Network which does so ... The WPT Online site is supported in no small part by the action of US players through the Network. Who does he think the WPT players play against ?

WHY bring the website business of WPT into issue ?

If you want to call someone a felon et cetera ... be sure your own record is clean. .... Besides, it is not like the WPT never was in bed with PartyPoker and UltimateBet in promoting those sites.

This lawsuit is supposed to be about the "releases", hardly an issue worth burning the house down over for the WPT.

Poor for the WPT Online, poor for the Society of Seven, great for DOJ ....

DavidNB · #8 08-26-2006, 05:53 PM

WPT only receives entry fee from another poekr site to enter US players. That a big difference from allowing someone to play. Actually, it was a smart counter statement agaisnt the lawsuit agaisnt them.
http://www.wptonline.com/about/terms.do

MiltonFriedman · #9 08-26-2006, 06:59 PM

I may be wrong above, WPT's online site players may not be aggregated with anyone taking US players' poker action. It certainly does not have a lot of players.

I had concluded from the June press release that they were part of a network. That may have been an error, the reference to Mansion might not necessarily mean it is a network. Rather, the "customized source code" reference may mean the opposite:

"WPT ENTERPRISES CONCLUDES AGREEMENT WITH CYBERARTS FOR TECHNOLOGY TO RE-LAUNCH ONLINE BUSINESS

The Gaming Software Developer Built Software That Currently Runs Mansion.com and Will Provide Customized Source Code Version to WPTE

LOS ANGELES (June 27, 2006) – WPT Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ: WPTE) today announced that it has reached an agreement with CyberArts--a Silicon Valley company that has developed one of the world's most advanced online software solutions for poker-- to provide technology and software for re-launching WPTE’s online gaming business.

“This relationship will make it possible for us get to market faster with a superior product,” said Steve Lipscomb, founder and CEO of WPTE. “Now, like most companies that have been successful in the online gaming space, we will be able to build a unique offering and control our own destiny. We have been searching for a powerful alternative to our current technology for some time and are convinced that this is the perfect solution.”

CyberArts, the designer of the software that currently powers the poker room for Mansion.com, has long been established as a pioneer in gaming technology.... "

It remains comforting to see that a publicly traded US company WPT is in the business of operating an online gaming site, albeit one reportedly operating only overseas ...

I wonder if Antigua's WTO lawyers can make anything out of that scenario .... "US allows US company WPT to go overseas to compete in business outlawed within the US, while prosecuting UK and Antigua companies for operating taking US business"

Milton