Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Daniel claims that the term "ungrateful 7" was "coined by other media outlets." If so, then why haven't I found that term used anywhere else but here? Here are some searches: google google news google groups. I also search several poker chat sites directly and couldn't find it. What "media outlets" is Daniel referring to?I found it amusing that Daniel used the Survivor release as a comparison. Back in January, I surveyed a bunch of TV releases from sports, reality, and game shows, including the Survivor II release. In addition to all the obvious differences between Survivor and the WPT that others have pointed out, the Survivor release isn't anywhere near as bad as the WPT release.Daniel, you should talk to an antitrust lawyer before calling me a nutcase and posting that I'm totally wrong about the suit. Besides being a licensed attorney myself, and having done a lot of research into the relevant law, I've talked to the top lawyers in this field. (I suppose next you'll be posting more personal attacks, such as how I wear the same dirty clothes, day in and day out.)
I was wondering when you were gonna show up.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Daniel claims that the term "ungrateful 7" was "coined by other media outlets." If so, then why haven't I found that term used anywhere else but here? Here are some searches: google google news google groups. I also search several poker chat sites directly and couldn't find it. What "media outlets" is Daniel referring to?I found it amusing that Daniel used the Survivor release as a comparison. Back in January, I surveyed a bunch of TV releases from sports, reality, and game shows, including the Survivor II release. In addition to all the obvious differences between Survivor and the WPT that others have pointed out, the Survivor release isn't anywhere near as bad as the WPT release.Daniel, you should talk to an antitrust lawyer before calling me a nutcase and posting that I'm totally wrong about the suit. Besides being a licensed attorney myself, and having done a lot of research into the relevant law, I've talked to the top lawyers in this field. (I suppose next you'll be posting more personal attacks, such as how I wear the same dirty clothes, day in and day out.)
Woah...is that really Andy Bloch?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see why it has to be any more complicated then "If you don't like it, don't play." There isn't even close to a hint of a monopoly for the WPT. They don't have to sign and play if they don't want to. They can play in the 8 brazillion other tourneys across town. Case closed.
Well, perhaps you would be correct if section 1 of the Sherman Act required a company to have a monopoly for a violation. It, however, does not. Nowhere in section 1 is there anything remotely resembling a market share or monopoly requirement. There is for section 2 violations, but I don't believe the players allege a section to monopolization/attempted monopolization offense. From a non-legal perspective, they can't really play in other tournaments. WPT has locked up the major casinos and prevented other televised tournaments. Relevant market is defined by cross-elasticity of demand. Some $200+35 at Motel 6 is not a close substitute for a $10k buyin televised event. But/for WPT's contracts, the major casinos would probably have other televised events and would compete with each other. I don't understand why people don't get this. The WPT has done great things for tournament poker--true. However, you can't say that there wouldn't be any major tournaments like this without the WPT. I think the poker boom and WSOP coverage combined with online satellites has really fueled the dead money in majors. So why do people feel it is okay for the WPT get to come in and take complete control of televised tournaments at all of these casinos? Before you defend them, you should really think about what they're doing. They are intentionally locking out competitors and reserving extremely broad rights unnecessarily. How can you consider that fair play?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see why it has to be any more complicated then "If you don't like it, don't play." There isn't even close to a hint of a monopoly for the WPT. They don't have to sign and play if they don't want to. They can play in the 8 brazillion other tourneys across town. Case closed.
"Antitrust" laws deal with more than just monopolies. (Congress probably should have used the word "competition" instead of "antitrust" in the title of its laws, to make that clearer.) Many anticompetitive behaviors, such as price fixing, are illegal whether or not they create a monopoly (or monopsony).For example, two or more gas station chains can't legally agree to fix prices, no matter how many other gas stations are available. Likewise, two or more businesses, or sports teams, can't legally cap salaries, without negotiating with a union.
Link to post
Share on other sites
if the WPT goes tit's up ~ can a 3rd party buy the release's and use them as they see fit.meaning could the releases be considered an asset
Presumably if the contracts are valid and there aren't any non-assignment clauses WPT could sell the rights. It's possible that this would be considered a material alteration of the original release and a court would void it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"Antitrust" laws deal with more than just monopolies. (Congress probably should have used the word "competition" instead of "antitrust" in the title of its laws, to make that clearer.) Many anticompetitive behaviors, such as price fixing, are illegal whether or not they create a monopoly (or monopsony).For example, two or more gas station chains can't legally agree to fix prices, no matter how many other gas stations are available. Likewise, two or more businesses, or sports teams, can't legally cap salaries, without negotiating with a union.
But how does the WPT's waiver affect your ability to compete any more then (I will use your comparison) a single gas station with outrageous prices prevents you from buying gas at the 8 million other gas stations? Just don't play/Just don't pay as the case may be.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the law suit is justified, I don't know if they will win, but the release is amazing, I mean they are allowed to use your likness for anything for the rest of the WPTs existance. That is a bit much.This is one of those things that people don't care about until they get F'ed over and then it is too late.I have been boycotting the WPT since they started (to bad nobody cares :club: )Also how can this be bad for poker? it is got to be good for poker players right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
But how does the WPT's waiver affect your ability to compete any more then (I will use your comparison) a single gas station with outrageous prices prevents you from buying gas at the 8 million other gas stations? Just don't play/Just don't pay as the case may be.
I have not taken a course in antitrust law, but from what I understand actual harm is irrelevant (unlike say a tort claim) so it doesn't matter whether or not they can or do go to anyone 'gas station'. The issue is whether or not competition is infringed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But how does the WPT's waiver affect your ability to compete any more then (I will use your comparison) a single gas station with outrageous prices prevents you from buying gas at the 8 million other gas stations? Just don't play/Just don't pay as the case may be.
Look, you can argue that the law shouldn't be what it is, but that's not what is at issue here. The law is that agreements between competitors to fix prices are illegal. Period. But I'll entertain your argument. First, economically, competitors getting together and fixing prices, even if they have a small market share, still affects competition. The idea is to use the law to maintain a free market. The free market fails when a cartel (group of competitors) fix prices and engage in other anticompetitive conduct. So, perhaps you now decide to go to another gas station that is farther from your house. That costs you money. As a practical matter, the stations getting together probably have some level of control in a relevant geographic market. They can set prices slightly higher than market by agreeing with surrounding competitors. Second, courts don't want to be in the position of having to judge whether this or that agreement to fix prices really affects competition. They have basically said, "Look, the only purpose for these things is anticompetitive. We're not messing with it." In the railroad industry, for example, the arguments for price-fixing used to be fairly compelling. There's a huge initial cash outlay. Once you build the tracks, you have basically unlimited capacity. In these cases competitors will price below long run aggregate cost and run each other out of business. The court said tough luck.I mean, how about this. Let's say two software companies have the top operating systems, Windows and MacOS. They decide they aren't making enough money. They get together and decide to charge $10K per license. Is that bad for the market? You may argue, they have a monopoly. Together they may, if you define the product market that way. So what? If you don't want to pay $10k, write your own software. Or use Linux or some other software that doesn't work with your programs. This would be a bad outcome for consumers.Now, the expected result in the long run is that other competitors would enter the market. However, in the shortrun consumers would be boned. But you're right. Consumers have the free choice. If they don't like it they can just not use computers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

All that being said, I don't see why these player's are involving themselves in these concerns, I am not sure how it really impacts their ability to make money which seems to be their primary concern.It impacts every serious poker player. If there were a more competitive market for high stakes televised tournaments, casinos would have to compete more vigorously by, for example, offering better structures, lower juice and/or better playing conditions in general. How could that not be of benefit to every player?Vigorous, but fair, competition is the foundation of the success of capitalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the law suit is justified, I don't know if they will win, but the release is amazing, I mean they are allowed to use your likness for anything for the rest of the WPTs existance. That is a bit much.This is one of those things that people don't care about until they get F'ed over and then it is too late.I have been boycotting the WPT since they started (to bad nobody cares :club: )Also how can this be bad for poker? it is got to be good for poker players right?
It is bad for poker because it brings lots of negative publicity to the entire game and puts it in the public spotlight. Poker players sueing poker companies can't look very good to all the outsiders. We already have the govt up our ass trying to ban everything.
Look, you can argue that the law shouldn't be what it is, but that's not what is at issue here. The law is that agreements between competitors to fix prices are illegal. Period. But I'll entertain your argument. First, economically, competitors getting together and fixing prices, even if they have a small market share, still affects competition. The idea is to use the law to maintain a free market. The free market fails when a cartel (group of competitors) fix prices and engage in other anticompetitive conduct. So, perhaps you now decide to go to another gas station that is farther from your house. That costs you money. As a practical matter, the stations getting together probably have some level of control in a relevant geographic market. They can set prices slightly higher than market by agreeing with surrounding competitors. Second, courts don't want to be in the position of having to judge whether this or that agreement to fix prices really affects competition. They have basically said, "Look, the only purpose for these things is anticompetitive. We're not messing with it." In the railroad industry, for example, the arguments for price-fixing used to be fairly compelling. There's a huge initial cash outlay. Once you build the tracks, you have basically unlimited capacity. In these cases competitors will price below long run aggregate cost and run each other out of business. The court said tough luck.I mean, how about this. Let's say two software companies have the top operating systems, Windows and MacOS. They decide they aren't making enough money. They get together and decide to charge $10K per license. Is that bad for the market? You may argue, they have a monopoly. Together they may, if you define the product market that way. So what? If you don't want to pay $10k, write your own software. Or use Linux or some other software that doesn't work with your programs. This would be a bad outcome for consumers.Now, the expected result in the long run is that other competitors would enter the market. However, in the shortrun consumers would be boned. But you're right. Consumers have the free choice. If they don't like it they can just not use computers.
I don't even see how competitive pricing comes into this. There is no pricing here. Just an exclusive agreement. This happens everywhere in society. How many times do you go to a place and ask for a Coke and they say, is Pepsi okay? Pepsi made a deal with the place who agreed to only sell Pepsi. Is this grounds for an anti competitive lawsuit? Very same thing as a casino saying, sorry, only WPT here. If you want WSOP, go across the street!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't even see how competitive pricing comes into this. There is no pricing here. Just an exclusive agreement. This happens everywhere in society. How many times do you go to a place and ask for a Coke and they say, is Pepsi okay? Pepsi made a deal with the place who agreed to only sell Pepsi. Is this grounds for an anti competitive lawsuit?
Depending on a variety of factors, it could be grounds for a lawsuit. There is actually a long history of antitrust battles in the soft drink industry. Pepsi lost a lawsuit against Coke a few years ago, but if Coke had required all restaurants and stores that sold Coke to sell ot exclusively then Coke would surely have lost. Last year, Coke lost a fight in Europe, and even had to open up space for competitors in the fridges it provides to stores.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be interesting when everyone gets around to stating the obvious, " The WPT effectively tried (has) taken advantage of being the 1st significant poker circuit by hijacking the players likeness' without compensation." All of this could have easily been settled by restricting their release to include only the production of the show & any advertising relating to said show. I can see why the WPT would want this (future money making outlets) but when the players "see the light;" common sense would suggest that they realize they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The entire lawsuit could have been avoided if WPT would have negotiated in good faith with the players who objected. As for the anti-trust case...Would anyone be talking about it if the players who sued were able to play in WPT events? I'll assume (yeah I know what that makes me), the players who found they couldn't play due to the WPT's release researched starting their own circuit, only to find out that a significant portion of the prestigous locations were "locked up" by the WPT agreement. Again, the WPT could easily have limited their release to include only the players filmed participation and avoided this whole episode.Andy, or Daniel or anyone else who might know...Is the same release used for the actors who participate in say the WPT Celebrity Pro-Am?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Depending on a variety of factors, it could be grounds for a lawsuit. There is actually a long history of antitrust battles in the soft drink industry. Pepsi lost a lawsuit against Coke a few years ago, but if Coke had required all restaurants and stores that sold Coke to sell ot exclusively then Coke would surely have lost. Last year, Coke lost a fight in Europe, and even had to open up space for competitors in the fridges it provides to stores.
But that would probably be a section 2 violation, which as I understand it, you are not alleging. (I could have overlooked it; I skimmed the complaint.Under section one, those would be considered vertical non price restraints. They'd be analyzed under the rule of reason, and a court would probably let them stand. I think the key for the WPT lawsuit is getting the court to buy the horizontal price fixing characterization as opposed to looking at it as a vertical arrangement.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...