The Lawsuit Is Good For Poker

[Jack Harris 0]

I've read the entire complaint. The player's will get everything they want from the WPTE and WPTE knows it.Raymer, Gordon, Lederer, Duke, Bloch, Ferguson, Hachem are right to believe that WPTE will agree to negotiate with players rather than submit to federal court-direction, and they are right that WPTE will feel the burden of impending legislation looming over the WPTE’s fortunes.The plaintiff’s oppose signing the WPTE releases that grant WPTE – for zero consideration – the right to exploit the player’ names, likenesses and images to promote various WPT-branded products and services.Opposing the plaintiff’s, WPTE believes the asserted antitrust and other claims severely distort the facts and misrepresent the current state of competition in the poker industry.The crux of the case against the WPTE is the claim that WPTE agreements are entered into that restrain competition for the services of poker players who wish to compete in WPTE tournaments.WPTE and the conspiring casinos find themselves in a situation not entirely unlike that of the the Hollywood studio system of old. Re: The 1948 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Paramount Pictures, et al, in 1949, invoking the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Justice Department forced the studios to divest themselves of their theaters. Over the years actors, directors and other artisans redefined themselves as free agents. Paramount studio felt the burden on impending legislation looming over the company fortunes, and decided to voluntarily divest their theater chain rather than submit to a court-directed liquidation. Paramount entered into a divorcement decree with the Justice Department on February 25, 1949.WPTE and the conspiring casinos will agree to voluntarily negotiate releases with players in the future.

[rivergirl 2]

this topic has already had wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many threads really.i'm happy you took the time to research it but ......it belongs in a different part of the forum...perhaps you could reply to one of the 1000000 other threads on this subject in general.

[Jack Harris 0]

rivergirl, I read every one of those threads -- none contained any useful comment. Your comment was equally useless, IMHO. Rather than flame, please ignore this thread. DN placed himself in opposition to the player's, so the thread belongs here.

[rivergirl 2]

i will agree that for the most part, the threads are mostly flames...however, if none of them contained and useful information, in your opinion, why not just add your info to them. i don't intentionally mean to flame but the horse has been beaten so many times it's already been packaged by Elmer's and distributed to elementary schools across the country. however....you're entitled to your opinion and you've obviously done your homework..i would suggest putting it up in general tho, and letting as many people as possible read it....it may open some eyes

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

While I'm glad you took the time to get educated on the subject, I think you're missing the main objection that DN has. The lawsuit is bringing absolutely unnecessary negative attention to poker. Like it or not, in the course of the lawsuit and the coverage of the lawsuit, the legality of pros who back / own / support online poker sites will get brought into question. That right there threatens to put a bigger hurt on poker than the WPT release.

[revg 0]

I've read the entire complaint. The player's will get everything they want from the WPTE and WPTE knows it.Raymer, Gordon, Lederer, Duke, Bloch, Ferguson, Hachem are right to believe that WPTE will agree to negotiate with players rather than submit to federal court-direction, and they are right that WPTE will feel the burden of impending legislation looming over the WPTE’s fortunes.The plaintiff’s oppose signing the WPTE releases that grant WPTE – for zero consideration – the right to exploit the player’ names, likenesses and images to promote various WPT-branded products and services.Opposing the plaintiff’s, WPTE believes the asserted antitrust and other claims severely distort the facts and misrepresent the current state of competition in the poker industry.The crux of the case against the WPTE is the claim that WPTE agreements are entered into that restrain competition for the services of poker players who wish to compete in WPTE tournaments.WPTE and the conspiring casinos find themselves in a situation not entirely unlike that of the the Hollywood studio system of old. Re: The 1948 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Paramount Pictures, et al, in 1949, invoking the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Justice Department forced the studios to divest themselves of their theaters. Over the years actors, directors and other artisans redefined themselves as free agents. Paramount studio felt the burden on impending legislation looming over the company fortunes, and decided to voluntarily divest their theater chain rather than submit to a court-directed liquidation. Paramount entered into a divorcement decree with the Justice Department on February 25, 1949.WPTE and the conspiring casinos will agree to voluntarily negotiate releases with players in the future.

Pathetic...

[blueodum 0]

rivergirl, I read every one of those threads -- none contained any useful comment. You are wrong. Many of the comments were quite useful, at least using your original post in this thread as the standard.Like it or not, in the course of the lawsuit and the coverage of the lawsuit, the legality of pros who back / own / support online poker sites will get brought into question. That right there threatens to put a bigger hurt on poker than the WPT release.No it won't. The plaintiffs won't bring it up, and the WPT has it's own online site, so it's not in their interest to bring it up either. This is a civil case and it will receive no publicity in the mainstream press whatsoever.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

rivergirl, I read every one of those threads -- none contained any useful comment. You are wrong. Many of the comments were quite useful, at least using your original post in this thread as the standard.Like it or not, in the course of the lawsuit and the coverage of the lawsuit, the legality of pros who back / own / support online poker sites will get brought into question. That right there threatens to put a bigger hurt on poker than the WPT release.No it won't. The plaintiffs won't bring it up, and the WPT has it's own online site, so it's not in their interest to bring it up either. This is a civil case and it will receive no publicity in the mainstream press whatsoever.

WPTOnline does NOT advertise in the U.S., nor does it accept customers from the U.S. Quite a difference. As for me "thanking" the players, fat chance. What they are fighting for is a waste of time IMO. An anti-trust suit... why? Do they have plans of starting a tour of their own? If so, they could do that anyway. More importantly, if you want to look at the model of a monopoly look no further than Harrah's. They own the properties AND they own their exclusive tour.

[revg 0]

I wanted to stay out of this, but I can't. It just fires me up, you people.The World Poker Tour is IMO responsible for making household names out of Andrew Bloch, Phil Gordon, Joseph Hachem and Greg Raymer and now they are plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the WPT???If it wasn't for the WPT these 7 poker players would not even be able to use their likeness to promote anything because no one would know who they are or care for that matter.The WPT is host to thousands of poker players and a mere few step up to cause problems. Most players playing in the WPT consider themselves fortunate to be there and would never dream of fighting the very organization that is in large part responisible for their success.Way to bite the hand that feeds you. Good job.Maybe these 7 players should have a talk with Barry Greenstein. Barry is one that is not a greedy man. I hear he gives a lot of his winnings to charity and such. These 7 are on the totally other side of the coin fighting and being greedy instead of being thankful for everything that the WPT has done for them. IMO the WPT has done WAY more for those 7 players than they even realize.

This is a civil case and it will receive no publicity in the mainstream press whatsoever

Oh, is this a fact? do you have a crystal ball?Cheers,Greg

[sdnuol 0]

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

WPTOnline does NOT advertise in the U.S., nor does it accept customers from the U.S. Quite a difference. As for me "thanking" the players, fat chance. What they are fighting for is a waste of time IMO. An anti-trust suit... why? Do they have plans of starting a tour of their own? If so, they could do that anyway. More importantly, if you want to look at the model of a monopoly look no further than Harrah's. They own the properties AND they own their exclusive tour.

I tried to save you the time of replying to this retarded thread. I have failed. Shazbot.

[SoCooLBob 0]

Excuse please ... I just wanted to test some of my posting abilities. Though I joined over a year ago, I've only revisited for what to me is like a first time ... today.Also, I thought, given your graphics appreciation, you might be interested in this.

[doctorp32 0]

Actually WSOP has made most of them household names. I think that only 1 of them as made a WPT final table.But REV you are right

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Actually WSOP has made most of them household names. I think that only 1 of them as made a WPT final table.But REV you are right

Important to Note: Without the WPT the WSOP wouldn't be what it is today. To argue that would be silly. The WPT started the poker boom, and ESPN/WSOP took advantage of all of the new interest in poker.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

Andy Bloch has 2 WPT final tablesPhil Gordon has 2 WPT final tablesLederer has 2 WPT final tablesAnnie Duke has 1 WPT ladies night final table and bubbled one regular WPT final tableso... no

[pokerdan97 0]

Does this mean that the players owe everything to the WPT ? If the WPT doesn't want to use their images or says they won't then why do they have all that nonsense in their clause then ? Why not just eliminate all that ? Myself I definetely would not want any company to have my signature stating they can use my image for anything they please without paying me anything.

[pokeresq 0]

Important to Note: Without the WPT the WSOP wouldn't be what it is today. To argue that would be silly. The WPT started the poker boom, and ESPN/WSOP took advantage of all of the new interest in poker.

So Daniel, are you willing to give Moneymaker the right to use you mage for free because his win was good for poker? After all, it would be silly to argue that you have not benefited from the interest in poker his win generated. Of course, everyone also admits that Greg (especially) and Joe have been good ambassadors for the game as well, so perhaps if they need support they can count on yo ... oh never mind.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

So Daniel, are you willing to give Moneymaker the right to use you mage for free because his win was good for poker? After all, it would be silly to argue that you have not benefited from the interest in poker his win generated. Of course, everyone also admits that Greg (especially) and Joe have been good ambassadors for the game as well, so perhaps if they need support they can count on yo ... oh never mind.

Of course not. The WPT shouldn't have that right either... and they don't. But that's another long and boring story I don't want to get into. Do y'all really think it's just a coincidence that the WPT has never used a players name and likeness to promote a product?

Does this mean that the players owe everything to the WPT ? If the WPT doesn't want to use their images or says they won't then why do they have all that nonsense in their clause then ? Why not just eliminate all that ? Myself I definetely would not want any company to have my signature stating they can use my image for anything they please without paying me anything.

There is a very good reason for that. Compared to a show on network television the release is very relaxed. If they didn't cover their tracks with very broad terms in the release they could open themselves up to a bunch of frivolous lawsuits. The release is their to protect the WPT. A right they should absolutely have since... well, since it's their freakin' show!

[Balloon guy 158]

What lawsuit?

[sdnuol 0]

What lawsuit?

sw

[blueodum 0]

Oh, is this a fact? do you have a crystal ball?Yes it is a fact. Can you honestly imagine this piddly civil suit getting airtime on CNN when there are always wars, murders and natural disasters going on? Use some common sense. NO ONE OUTSIDE THE POKER WORLD CARES OR WILL CARE ABOUT THIS.DN wrote:More importantly, if you want to look at the model of a monopoly look no further than Harrah's. They own the properties AND they own their exclusive tour.I've never claimed Harrah's were better. Obviously these 7 folks like Harrah's release better than the WPTE's, since they all participated in the recent WSOP (you'll have to ask them why).Perhaps counterintuitively, the fact that Harrahs owns the casinos and the WSOP tournament circuit makes it less susceptible to anti-trust laws than if it didn't. Everything is taking place under one ownership umbrella, whereas the WPTE and the casinos have separate ownership and are "conspiring".The WPT started the poker boom, and ESPN/WSOP took advantage of all of the new interest in poker.Sigh. Many people would disagree with this characterisation - I'll leave it at that. But if you keep insisting on this oversimplication, maybe the feeble-minded will agree. The WSOP has far deeper roots and if there were no hole cams and no WPT, the online sites would still be feeding thousands of players to it.

[revg 0]

Oh, is this a fact? do you have a crystal ball?Yes it is a fact. Can you honestly imagine this piddly civil suit getting airtime on CNN when there are always wars, murders and natural disasters going on? Use some common sense. NO ONE OUTSIDE THE POKER WORLD CARES OR WILL CARE ABOUT THIS.

Trust me buddy, when the United States Government is LOSING OUT ON TAX DOLLARS because of online gambling you can bet the farm that THEY WILL CARE. Everything is about money my friend and you are sadly mistaken if you don't think ANYONE outside of the poker world will care about this matter.So this is still not fact. It's merely speculation on both our parts, but I am 90% sure that I am correct. I guess only time will tell.

Sigh. Many people would disagree with this characterisation - I'll leave it at that. But if you keep insisting on this oversimplication, maybe the feeble-minded will agree. The WSOP has far deeper roots and if there were no hole cams and no WPT, the online sites would still be feeding thousands of players to it.

HAHAHAHA, is this Greg Raymer??? Serioulsy man... Online poker exploded because of the WPT. The online sites would not be thriving like this without the WPT. Period. You are nieve if you think otherwise.In addition, I am not saying the WPT release is legal or right. All I am saying is that does the fact that the release may be illegal really call for a lawsuit right now? If the release truly is illegal, then why not wait until the WPT actually does something wong AND THEN take them to court? Why put up all this money and take this risk when nothing has even happened yet. I say sign the release, play in the WPT, if at a later date the WPT tries to screw you over then you should have no problem taking the WPT to court and winning your case.Cheers,Greg

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

Trust me buddy, when the United States Government is LOSING OUT ON TAX DOLLARS because of online gambling you can bet the farm that THEY WILL CARE. Everything is about money my friend and you are sadly mistaken if you don't think ANYONE outside of the poker world will care about this matter.So this is still not fact. It's merely speculation on both our parts, but I am 90% sure that I am correct. I guess only time will tell.HAHAHAHA, is this Greg Raymer??? Serioulsy man... Online poker exploded because of the WPT. The online sites would not be thriving like this without the WPT. Period. You are nieve if you think otherwise.In addition, I am not saying the WPT release is legal or right. All I am saying is that does the fact that the release may be illegal really call for a lawsuit right now? If the release truly is illegal, then why not wait until the WPT actually does something wong AND THEN take them to court? Why put up all this money and take this risk when nothing has even happened yet. I say sign the release, play in the WPT, if at a later date the WPT tries to screw you over then you should have no problem taking the WPT to court and winning your case.Cheers,Greg

Sanity and reasonable arguments are not appreciated here, sorry buddy. Seriously though, didn't ESPN not even have plans to film / carry the 2003 WSOP prior to the success of the WPT? The logic of the entire process baffles me. We have 7 pros who wouldn't be nearly as wealthy as they are without the poker boom suing an organization that was the / a major catalyst to the poker boom. They're filing suit because they feel forced to sign an illegal release that is no worse than other releases with the same broad terms they sign voluntarily at the WSOP. They're spending a large sum of their personal money to try and recover money from a company that is performing poorly at best. Several of the major pros involved in the suit are employees or owners of Tiltware, the company that is the backbone of Full Tilt Poker, which has run tournaments at places like Red Rock Casino, Monte Carlo, etc... despite the crux of their argument centering around the supposed monopoly the WPT has on tournaments.If only I was a lawyer, maybe THEN I'd understand?

[Jack Harris 0]

Having been involved in a federal lawsuit before, my take on the players' strategy is influenced by my experience in a federal court and working with a an attorney who handled the lawsuit. The player's are trying to force WPTE to negotiate the terms of their release--because the companies who have paid them fees to license their name are upset by their signing of the WPTE releases. It is perhaps clear to anyone with a legal background that the players' attorney expects WPTE to seek summary judgment and ask the judge to dismiss the complaint. Players are gambling that the federal judge will deny the motion for summary judgement, and let the case go to a jury. Then the attorney's for both sides will hash out a deal that satisfies both sides. The players will be in a better position to control their likeness and image/personae from then on, and that's why poker will be better off: because WPTE will not be the driving force in poker--the elite players like DN, HL, KF and others will be. Poker players will be able to control their image and play in tournaments. Everyone will be happy. Even the WPTE. Just my .02The players don't have to win the lawsuit before a jury, because they expect WPTE to negotiate with them rather than letting it go to jury.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

Having been involved in a federal lawsuit before, my take on the players' strategy is influenced by my experience in a federal court and working with a an attorney who handled the lawsuit. The player's are trying to force WPTE to negotiate the terms of their release--because the companies who have paid them fees to license their name are upset by their signing of the WPTE releases. It is perhaps clear to anyone with a legal background that he players' attorney expects WPTE to seek summary judgment and have the case dismissed. They are gambling that the federal judge will deny the motion for summary judgement, and let the case go to a jury. Then the attorney's for both sides will hash out a deal that satisfies both sides. The players will be in a better position to control their likeness and image/personae from then on, and that's why poker will be better off: because WPTE will not be the driving force in poker--the elite players like DN, HL, KF and others will be. Poker players will be able to control their image and play in tournaments. Everyone will be happy. Even the WPTE. Just my .02

You realize the release they sign for the WSOP has the same blanket statements they're pissed about in the WPT release?