Lawsuit- Does It Come Down To...

[All_In 0]

then there could be issues i think..didn't microsoft get in trouble for exclusive contracts, because it was deemed a monopoly?it unfairly allowed them to have the dominant web browser and stifled competition.Does the WPT require ALL casinos to sign exclusive contracts?If so, I would have a problem with that. They are holding an event at Fallsview Casino in late Oct (Niagara Falls, Canada). Is Fallsview unable to book Canadian poker tournaments there now?

[MyTheory 0]

if they're holding the wpt event in an area with only one casino then it could be considered monopolizing but here in vegas the monopoly probably won't hold because we have so many casinos here. they might get into some kind of trouble for their apparent rules against casinos they have contracts with not "competing." We won't really know what is going to happen until they even decide whether to settle or to go to court. All anyone knows for sure is that Steve Lipscomb is an attorney who undoubtedly, with a team of other attorneys, drafted all the contracts before they were put out there to be signed. When you have attorneys running a company and attorneys suing a company run by attorneys, there is bound to be all kinds of jargon thrown out there that most people won't understand.

[SeanPhillippi 0]

Microsoft got into trouble because the tactics they used were anti-competitive, and because they were deemed a monopoly. The WPT is not a monopoly. They are a part of an oligopoly at best, and part of a duopoly at worst. I know some stuff about the law, but I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, and the WPT will win this lawsuit if it goes to court. The WPT should go to court too because they will win.Here are the reasons why. Microsoft’s actions made it so that no one else could compete with them, or at least that is what the courts decided. The WPT does exclude casinos from holding other tournaments, but there are so many other casinos around that the WPT’s actions are almost defiantly not going to be found as anti-competitive. It is possible for other entities to hold tournaments at one of the many casinos that do not have contracts with the WPT. The high barriers to entry and the very few number of tours has nothing to do with the WPT as that is a very natural occurrence in all duopolies/oligopolies (like some random person trying to start an airline to compete with Delta).The name/likeness claim has no merit what so ever. To have a legally binding contract you just need three things, and I know quite a bit about contact law. Those three things are offer, acceptance, and consideration. That’s all you need to have a valid contract. Offer and acceptance are just what they seem, as in something needs to be offered and someone needs to accept it (and signing the contract is acceptance). Consideration is a pretty easy concept. Consideration just means that both parties need to either give up a legal right or bind themselves to do something that they were previously not bound to do. The players give up the rights to name/likeness plus the buy-in (among other things), and in exchange the WPT binds itself to hold a poker tournament. Consideration is clearly present here, so the contracts the players signed are valid. An example of an invalid contract due to lack of consideration is DN paying me $10,000 not to shoot someone. That contract would be invalid because I am already under an obligation (the law) not to shoot someone, so I am not doing anything for the $10,000.Contract law can get tricky in certain instances, but in this case it is very clear cut. It may not be a good contract, but that is no basis for a lawsuit or to say that the contract is not valid. Both parties entered into the contract in good faith, so I cannot even fathom an argument that the poker players are making.

[All_In 0]

Here are the reasons why. Microsoft’s actions made it so that no one else could compete with them, or at least that is what the courts decided. The WPT does exclude casinos from holding other tournaments, but there are so many other casinos around that the WPT’s actions are almost defiantly not going to be found as anti-competitive. It is possible for other entities to hold tournaments at one of the many casinos that do not have contracts with the WPT.

couldn't u have said there were many manufacturers and distributers as well? but MS ended up tying most of them up.there are a finite number of casinos that can hold tournaments, even in vegas. certainly more finite than the number of computer manufac. and distributers. you just need to get most of them.what other pro tours do u consider to be competitive with the WPT?and what about the canadian casino, fallsview? does this mean that the WPT is basically squashing the competition in canada? there is a canadian poker tour, but it is very small time compared to the WPT. Now it cannot even hold a poker tourney in fallsview (the most upscale casino in ontario, if not canada)?

[WallstreetMSU 0]

dude, there is no way that WPT has a "Monopoly" over the casino's poker tournaments. That is the biggest load of dung i have ever heard. The casino that intends on hosting a WPT event goes into an exclusive agreement with the WPT. Its just like McDonalds going into an exclusive agreement with Coca-Cola to only sell their products. WPT has exclusive agreements with about 13 casinos in the world. How many casinos are there around the world? A whole lot more than 13. Their is no monopoly going on. If the casino doesnt want to host their tournaments, they dont have to.This case has no chance of winning and these 7 should realize how stupid they are being.

[dna4ever 2]

They are a part of an oligopoly at best, and part of a duopoly at worst.

this was my favorite part of this thread because I have never heard oligopoly and duopoly used in a sentence before.

[wilheldp 0]

this was my favorite part of this thread because I have never heard oligopoly and duopoly used in a sentence before.

Have you ever taken a course on Marketing before? I heard those terms a ton last semester in an Industrial Marketing class.

[TulaneFlyr 0]

Hi guys, I don't post much on any of the forums, as I tend to be a lurker. I watch all of the video blogs of Daniel's and I have to stand up for the "ungrateful 7" (U7) for a moment. I am an attorney, and I can only assume that through Brian Balsbaugh (if Daniel is represented by him) that Daniel has had much better representation to this point in his life than them. My biggest issue is what would Daniel's reaction be if the shoe was on the other foot. Daniel has already honored exclusivity agreements, and found them to be not necessarily beneficial. (The Wynn thing) The U7 are representing 7 players who have been negatively affected in their work by a term in a contract. Daniel was admimant less than a week ago in telling people "Poker is my job, I take it seriously." Well, poker is the U7's job, too. What would Daniel be saying if on June 20th, 5 days before his first tournament entry in the WSOP, MTV and the makers of STACKED contacted him and said, "well Daniel, it seems our legal department has reviewed the WSOP release that you need to sign to play in their TV tournaments and, well, jeez, we think that your signature on them would put you in breach of contract with us." I would expect press conferences, Daniel exploding on Blogs, in his syndicated collumns, on MTV and the WSOP either speaking with him and probably caving in. The Lawsuit of the U7 in this case is just a next step. They have done the discussions, done the public relations battle, and still they aren't legally able to play in WPT events. The question comes to why is it a legal question, which Daniel dismisses with character attacks. The legal question (dissolved off the other interpersonal issues) is whether it is an unfair trade practice for the WPT to require a release for participation in events which has previously not required same, and events which serve as the principal income for certain individuals, where 1) such release contains quasi-contractual terms without consideration, 2) such release is essentially a contract of adhesion, 3) such release allows for the usage of likeness rights in media not directly related to the purpose of such a release and 4) such release does not allow a forum for redress of differences.Now I must say, I haven't read the lawsuit, only the articles about it, and watched Daniel's rants about it. I believe that the release is an unfair trade practice. Lets even use Daniel's Survivor example. If I read the release to say that they could use my image in any way shape or form for this chance to win $1,000,000.00, I would expect that they would probably have me on TV, commercials, video games, other games, etc. Lets say they take the image rights and partner with Massengill to create "Survivor Douchebags." Each one would have a face of someone who was an idiot on Survivor. I think that would be really insulting, to say the least, and would be totally unfair. If I fought against them, they would probably hit me with the release, saying you allowed it. Then they would present me with the additional term that I would be liable to pay THEIR attorneys if I sue them. So, I win NOTHING, I get not only called a douchebag, but I get my friends putting them on my door, my boss handing them to me, and if I fight, someone will sue me back for damages, plus bring up everything I ever did wrong in my past. Is that fair practices?Lets say I see that, and I say, ok, I am ok with this release except that its too broad, I wish to modify it to only include your unlimited powers in TV, movie, film magazine, games, but anything else I would like to have the ability to review and approve my likeness usage. They would say, as Daniel said, no, sign the release or don't play. That is an adhesive contract. Technically, those terms are not legally enforceable. Most courts uphold them under Daniel's theory that, you did have a choice, you could have said no. I disagree with the suggestion above that there has been an offer, acceptance and consideration in this case. What EXACTLY does the WPT offer as consideration for signing the release? The acceptance is the signature clearly, but there is no clear offer. They kinda offer you the ability to participate in an activity which already existed for several years, where the prize pool is not modified by the WPT, where their argument has always been the "fame" surrounding television coverage will be the reason to allow showing of your hole cards and signing this release. Well, with fame has brought lawyers and competition, and anti-competitive agreements. Chris Ferguson would be sued by activision immediately after his pen left the page of a WPT release. I am sure they have put that threat in writing to him. Its not the WSOP that will sue Chris, its the exclusive VIDEO GAME part of the contract he has with activision. What does likeness rights for a video game have to do with paying your own money to play in a tournament where you are trying to get other people's money? If this was more like the PPT, where you were going after a third party's money, that would be totally different. They can set the parameters on how their money is given out. There is no consideration for the release, and it is probably faulty in that way too.I just sit here, and I listen to Daniel and I wonder, what would happen the other way around? What if his relationship with MTV contractually didn't allow him to appear on any other television network? Therefore, his signature of either a WPT, WSOP or even High Stakes Poker release would be breaching his contract? If he couldnt' play in any of those tournaments, or in the HSP game, would he feel it was fair, would he sit back and just take it? He would probably kick himself pretty hard for signing the agreement he did with MTV, he would probably consider the risk/reward of breaching the contract, but I think ultimately, he would end up at the same place the U7 have. They are frustrated that an overly broad unenforced term in a release is legally restricting their participation in events that got them the fame that got them those restrictive contracts in the first place. Finally, I am disappointed in Daniel for one part of his argument. Everyone has skeletons in their closet, parts of their past they aren't proud of, and other things which they would prefer not to be public but if made so, would alter their character in public. As a lawyer, but also as a kid, I was taught by my mother, if you don't like what someone has to say, attack what they said, not who they are. The message of the U7, in my mind, isn't affected at all by their pasts. But Daniel, and I am sure the Defendants to the lawsuit, will continue the character attacks. Why? It doesn't make me like your position anymore. It doesn't impress me. It actually shows me that the argument you are presenting must be so weak that you have to resort to character attacks. If you notice above, I used Daniel as an example, but I didn't attack him personally. I see no need to resort to that. Daniel, if you dispute what they are saying, you have the right and the mic to use as you see fit. I would just encourage you to use it to attack their arguments, not their characters. I expect plenty of flames (starting with the ones calling me stupid, fat, ugly and digging up that dog incident from third grade) I welcome them. A good discussion of this topic would be welcome. Have fun flaming!Mike

[hime 0]

I just find it a little troubling that DN is in so close with Lyle Berman and keeps talking about all these tactics that are going to be used against the 7 and that they're going to get dragged through the mud. Is that really what should be happening here?Not to mention, if WPT has a provision in their release saying that they have the rights to the player likenesses and that's what the 7 object to, and meanwhile, Lyle and other WPT folks are assuring Daniel, "Hey, we aren't going to use your likenesses to promote this that and the other..."CHANGE THE RELEASE.Why doesn't the WPT step down off the perch here for a minute, meet with these players under some sort of arbitration and work towards a solution that benefits everybody?Or hell, let the players with exclusive contracts scratch out the parts of the release they don't agree to. The WPT isn't doing that for some reason, and that seems shady to me. If the WSOP release is WORSE (which the 7 have said in the past is not true, that it doesn't mention oh, "the universe"), then why are they still playing in the WSOP?The WPT is acting very shady in the whole thing. I understand I don't have as much knowledge as Daniel or the 7, but I think the 7 have some legitimate points and should not be so handily discounted.(Sometimes I think it's almost like they're using Daniel as a wedge, telling him all these things to scare them into stepping down. That is some dodgy **** right there.)