Wpt Lawsuit

[Morpheus 0]

Isn't the PPT also run by WPTE? I'm surprised that Raymer participated in the first PPT event but he's suing the WPTE for the WPT events......wouldn't they have to sign the same release form???In regards to the whole lawsuit, I think the 7 ungratefuls are taking a business approach to the whole thing. The WPTE has not done anything wrong YET, but the fact that they COULD is what worries them. Daniel seems to be more trusting of the WPTE than the others......the problem with that is if the people you trust (within the WPTE) get replaced......then you're in trouble (potentially). My two cents......

[ibthepenny 0]

The first season of ppt was filmed before these players started there boycott.

[WallstreetMSU 0]

can someone clarify for me...What exactly are they suing for? Are they suing b/c they had to sign a release? or what exactly happened? I didnt quite understand what DN was saying in his video blog. And who else is suing beside raymer?

[jooka 0]

Isn't the PPT also run by WPTE? I'm surprised that Raymer participated in the first PPT event but he's suing the WPTE for the WPT events......wouldn't they have to sign the same release form???In regards to the whole lawsuit, I think the 7 ungratefuls are taking a business approach to the whole thing. The WPTE has not done anything wrong YET, but the fact that they COULD is what worries them. Daniel seems to be more trusting of the WPTE than the others......the problem with that is if the people you trust (within the WPTE) get replaced......then you're in trouble (potentially). My two cents......

The PPT you're watching on TV was filmed close to 2 years ago now I belueve. Also, I think the release was changed this year to what it is now.

[jooka 0]

can someone clarify for me...What exactly are they suing for? Are they suing b/c they had to sign a release? or what exactly happened? I didnt quite understand what DN was saying in his video blog. And who else is suing beside raymer?

www.wptlawsuit.com

[sdnuol 0]

what a jopke

[The Czar 0]

Not to start bashing people, but how much convincing did it take for Bub to get Annie on board. My guess is, he emailed her and told her to sign the sheet. End of story. She may not even know she is involved at this point.

[WallstreetMSU 0]

I read about half of the complaint....There are some things i agree with and do not agree with. I agree that it is wrong to have to forfeit your buy in for the tournament if you refuse to sign the release. You should get your money back if you did not have a chance to read and sign the release before you bought in. I also agree that it is wrong to use footage of people for WPT video games when their rights are already exclusive to other companies. The same with promoting the WPT bootcamp with footage of those who have a competing poker camp.What i dont agree with, is the compaint against certain casino's only allowing WPT events in their casinos. I dont understand the problem with this. In Nevada, casinos are allowed to refuse service for any reason to its patrons. I would assume this would apply the same to not allowing the service of hosting other tournaments. There are plenty of great casino's besides these twelve. I understand some of it but some of it seems pretty ridiculous. This is gonna be a huge mess for the poker world.

[pokerbully 0]

I read about half of the complaint....There are some things i agree with and do not agree with. I agree that it is wrong to have to forfeit your buy in for the tournament if you refuse to sign the release. You should get your money back if you did not have a chance to read and sign the release before you bought in. I also agree that it is wrong to use footage of people for WPT video games when their rights are already exclusive to other companies. The same with promoting the WPT bootcamp with footage of those who have a competing poker camp.What i dont agree with, is the compaint against certain casino's only allowing WPT events in their casinos. I dont understand the problem with this. In Nevada, casinos are allowed to refuse service for any reason to its patrons. I would assume this would apply the same to not allowing the service of hosting other tournaments. There are plenty of great casino's besides these twelve. I understand some of it but some of it seems pretty ridiculous. This is gonna be a huge mess for the poker world.

Even though Daniel mentions in the Vblog that Lyle Berman would be happy to use the WSOP release, I don't believe that was ever offerred to the players. I think they could have avoided all of this if that offer was made.My theory is that the WPT did not negotiate in good faith. They probably did not believe that these players would hire lawyers and file the suit. Now that they did, the WPT has to look tough so they have some negotiating power. This will probably be settled within a month, because neither side wants to pay the lawyers all the money to take it to court.

[Marchione 0]

i dont really agree with daniel's point of view but i have to say that was his best blog he has posted in a long time !!!he is offering another side to the issue.do you think it will come out that howard is a convicted felon

[golfingdaddy 0]

DN,I think you are being just a bit short-sighted about "what they have or have not done" in regards to your identity. With stacked recently released here's a hypothetical for you: Say you signed a 2 year exclusive deal with Myelin Media LLC for using your likeness in their VG & any subsequent sequel. At the same time WPT signs a deal with 2k sports to produce their VG. Because the release you signed states:"Player consents to such filming and exploitation of the Programs, and hereby irrevocably grants to WPT the right to film, record, edit, reproduce and otherwise use Player's name, photograph, likeness, signature, biographical information, appearance, actions ... ...(including, without limitation, merchandising, commercial tie-ins, publications, home entertainment, video games, commodities, etc.), in whole or in part, by any and all means, media, devices, processes and technology now or hereafter known or devised in perpetuity throughout the universe."Now you have a problem if the game programmers insert you into the WPT game (as is their legal right - whether they've done it or not) because Myelin Media potentially could sue you for breaching your exclusive contract, as well as gain punitives for your participating in a competing product while under exclusive agreement and potentially hurting their sales. You can see how this might set off a chain reaction of problems. The entire subject is not about, "well they haven't done anything yet." It IS about protecting your true product; your identity & likeness. If WPT decides to sell DN bobbleheads & DN jerseys & chipsets, will you then say you deserve compensation for using your likeness? Legally, you will have signed a contract stating they can use your likeness for whatever purpose they want FOREVER.I do appreciate your faith in people and choice to let that faith guide your interest, however if you discussed this particular release with a lawyer or agent, I think they would suggest against such a wide release. From what I understand, the WSOP release relates only to the use of your likeness in relation to the broadcast of the event or promotion thereof, not ancillary items & future undetermined avenues of revenue like the WPT requires.From the nature of your comments, it doesn't sound like you've spoken with Chris or Howard about their positions. Maybe, you could serve as a mediator between the two groups as your conversations with Lyle suggest a comfort with the situation. Good Luck in the ME & the golf game in between (how great is it to have 4 days of 1st round action and you can play some golf while still in the tourney.)PS. One other thing...To think that the WPT created the "explosion of poker" and made the people who have become household names is a little bit of exageration. The players pay the tourney fee, the prizes come out of the entry fees & the facilities are paid for by the 6% or so off the top. WPT did not invest any money into the tourney other than to film & produce the "show" as we see it on the Travel Channel. While exposure is worth something in terms of monetary value, the players, You included, have made the show what it is. We want to see DN vs Lederer vs Ivey vs Ferguson vs Lindgren et al. And WPT is not paying you or anyone else to participate, and when they sell their season DVDs they don't pay royalties to the talent that made the show. If your favorite tv show required the actors to pay their own money into a pot and whoever won an emmy for their performance won the majority of the money, while nominees got a small percentage back, and role players or particpants got nothing; would you view the network as getting a bum rap?

[MyTheory 0]

These seven players have absolutely no chance to win this case against the WPT. The civil suit they're filing because of the release or the anti-trust suit. The reason is simple...in order to have a suit, you have to have damages. In order to have damages you have to PROVE loss of some type. Since none of these players can prove that they would win money in these events they have no grounds for damages. Also, since participation in these tournaments is "at will" or "elective" they have no grounds for damages. They're not forced to play in these tournaments. It's a choice and because of that, the courts are going to look at their signing of their contracts as choice. Since the players chose to sign contracts with various other companies and therefore can't compete in the WPT events because of possible conflicts of interest, it's their fault they can't play, not the fault of the WPT. It's an either or situation with the court and they're going to see it as "you chose to make this decision and because of this you can't do this other thing because it's in breach of your existing contracts that you CHOSE to sign." The only choice these players really have is to file an injunction against the WPT that will nullify any signing of a release for exclusive likeness rights and whatnot but, even that will probably fail. Seeing that the WPT isn't doing anything wrong. If a player signs that release, he signs it by his own choice and to his own detriment. If players have a problem with this, they need to take the release to their attorney before they sign it. As much respect as I have for these players, they really have no solid ground for a lawsuit. Remember, without being able to prove damages, you can't have a case and when you can't prove that you were going to make money in an event luck is any kind of factor, you can't prove damages. Not to mention, if they do somehow manage to win this case, there will be a windfall of similar suits against the WPT, Harrah's and the WSOP and televised tournament poker will essentially be ruined. Ok, the anti-trust suit. Also, the WPT is doing nothing wrong. Apparently, the players are claiming the WPT has a monopoly over the MGM/Mirage properties. Well, MGM/Mirage signed those contracts with full knowledge of what was happening. Definition of Monopoly: a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade. In order for the WPT to have a monopoly they would not only have to control MGM/Mirage but also Harrah's, Coast, Maloof, Station, Hilton and the dozens of other casinos here in vegas. Since they only have contracts with MGM/Mirage they are only holding one interest and not the many that are available here (excluding Harrah's). Because of that, when they go to court, they are going to be hit in the face with the fact that there are other major gaming corporations in vegas that would be happy to put on a televised tournament for all the obvious reasons. If, on the other hand, MGM/Mirage owned all the casinos in Vegas, thus meaning no WSOP, then they could consider it a monopoly since MGM/Mirage would have an exclusive contract disallowing any other televised poker tournaments in Las Vegas casinos. Even in that case, they still might not consider it a monopoly because it would only restrict other televised poker tournaments in Las Vegas and not at other casinos in the United States. However, with the WSOP being owned by Harrah's, if the WPT suit was found in favor of the players, it would bring the WSOP down as well. Interestingly enough, you haven't seen any players bringing a suit up like this against Harrah's because they don't run anything other than WSOP tournaments. All of these factors will be taken into strong consideration if they do go to court which will be a major blow to the seven players bringing this lawsuit against the WPT. I don't agree with everything these companies do but, the fact is, they aren't really doing anything wrong. If you sign the release forms without knowing what they really mean, you're still responsible for the action. With poker getting so much negative press because of the upcoming senate decision of online gaming, this lawsuit could potentially be very bad for those players who enjoy playing in tournaments. Thanks for everyone who takes the time to read this.JNote: I'm not an attorney as I'm required by law to state at the end of any legal information provided. All of this information came from various references and can be found online or in any legal library. Most of what is states is an opinion based on the published and publicised facts of this lawsuit.Monopoly: n. A game created by Charles Darrow that was purchased by Parker Brothers in 1935. It is one of the most popular games in the world selling more than 100million copies in twenty-six languages and braille. It's fun!

[TheCinciKid 0]

Not to start bashing people, but how much convincing did it take for Bub to get Annie on board. My guess is, he emailed her and told her to sign the sheet. End of story. She may not even know she is involved at this point.

She's quoted in the news article about in on Cardplayer. Obviously she knows what's going on.

[XX44466XX 0]

Daniel, thanks for your blog about the WPT lawsuit. I respect your candor in regards to the politics of the greater picture of the game and industry. Sorry to hear you got stuck so hard. Enjoy the golf and GL in the ME!

[All_In 0]

What i dont agree with, is the compaint against certain casino's only allowing WPT events in their casinos. I dont understand the problem with this.

This is what Microsoft did with exclusive contracts. They crushed any competition by requiring the manufacturers who sold the computers to only deal with them.the wpt is the only pro tour with any real prestige and popularity. it comes down to determining if the WPT is a monopoly. then certain laws have to be followed, because they can use that position to crush any upstarts. it just snowballs. MS then had a dominant web browser, IE, by using their dominant position as an OS (helped by their exclusivity contracts) to bundle it in.

[WallstreetMSU 0]

i understand, but there is no way you can convince someone that the WPT is a monopoly. They have the exclusivity of 12 or 13 casinos out of how many in the world??? how many in vegas???? The casinos and WPT went into a contract, just like McDonalds has an anti-competitive contract with Coca Cola. Does that mean that Coca Cola has a monopoly on all the McDonalds?The WPT does not have a monopoly on poker tournaments.Casinos have the right to host whichever tournaments they want.