Wpt Fires Back

[kennyg1966 0]

come on this is not a matter of the one that is right will win....like all other law suits. It's a matter of who has the best lawyers money can buy. Just ask O.J !

I've been gone when did daniel get an eagle? link?

No big deal it was a PAR 5 175yd. down hill with the wind!

[dirtystacks 0]

So, I read the WPT Answer.1. WPT argues that poker is flourishing. They discuss all of the increased activity associated with the poker boom. Consequently, they conclude that they could not be restricting competition. Unfortunately for the WPT, this is not how the law or logic works. Logically, it does not necessarily follow that the presence of competition in a market necessitates that all players within that market aren't engaging in anti-competitive activity. Legally, the Sherman Antitrust Act, at least with respect to price fixing claims, does not focus on the result. It focuses on the agreement. So, two relatively small players in a competitive industry may still engage in conduct that violates section 1 of the Sherman Act despite their inability to actually affect competition.2. The WPT argues that their releases are necessary. Without these releases, no network would broadcast their footage. I would have to do more research to determine if this is true, but at first glance, it is doubtful this is the case. Certainly some release is required, but it is unlikely that a release as broad as the one in question is necessary.3. The WPT argues that the restrictions with host casinos are a) reasonably necessary and B) only comprise a fraction of the available casinos for televised poker tournaments. This part really goes back to another post I made about this whole price fixing claim. If the court buys the price fixing characterization, it is completely irrelevant whether the agreements are with 1% of the casinos or 90% of the casinos. Second, if the court buys the price fixing characterization, these restrictions would be per se unreasonable. Basically, they aren't going to give the WPT the chance to explain the business reasons behind the restrictions; they will simply declare the restrictions unreasonable as a matter of law.4. The WPT argues they have done nothing to restrict competition. This is absurd. Of course they have done something to restrict competition. They have prevented the host casinos from allowing competitors to host COMPETING televised tournaments. They say they have done nothing after admitting to these restrictions in the previous paragraph. Someone should fire the associate who wrote that.5. The WPT argues that it has done nothing top prevent these players from exploiting the value of their likenesses. They note that these 7 players have entered into numerous contracts to profit from their notoriety. If you don't see the problem with this argument then you aren't thinking about the issues here. Of course the WPT has done something to prevent these players from exploiting the value of their likeness. These players argue that the WPT release interferes with these other contracts. By requiring the release, the WPT makes the players choose between WPT events or these other contracts. Yes, the players have been able to enter into the contracts. They also haven't been able to play in WPT events. Finally, the WPT takes credit for the creating the value the players are trying to exploit (they say plaintiffs participation in early WPT events made them famous). While this may be true of Lederer, it is certainly not true with respect to Raymer or Hachem.6. Now we get to the online gambling hook. It is important to note, this is in a preliminary statement. It has no bearing on the plaintiffs claims nor does it relate to a defense or counterclaim the WPT has asserting. Basically, this whole paragraph is DOA. It really won't be addressed as the lawsuit continues. When/if the attorneys from Gibson try to bring this crap up, the proper response from the plaintiffs is "Objection: Relevance." Second, they talk about the DOJ's stance that online gambling is illegal. Woopee. The DOJ is tasked with law enforcement. The courts determine if they are correct that current law attaches criminal penalties to online gambling. But let me ask you this: If the DOJ truly believes that online poker is illegal why have they not brought actions against the major online poker sites? They don't think they'll win. Take the DOJ's 'advisory' statements for what they are worth--not much. The WPT treats these statements as if they are dispositive on this issue. They are not even close. This is just posturing. And it's not going anywhere. If the WPT really thought they could do anything more than spew hot air, they would have filed a counterclaim (which they are required to do now if they really believe this anticompetitive conduct BS) or they would argue that the lawsuit itself is frivolous litigation that is in itself anticompetitive and a violation of the antitrust laws.

[pokergeekinaz 0]

My problem with their argument involving Full Tilt is that the other 3 plaintiffs are involved with sites that sponsored WPT events in the past (Duke with UB and Poker Stars with Hachem and Raymer) has bluedom mentioned. I know the Aruba event is off of the calendar for this season, but not sure about the PS event.Plus, WPT's own Mike Sexton is the spokesman for Party Poker, which sponsored the WSOP this year, a rival TV show (that's how he got in to the TOC).The creditability argument won't work in this case.

[acesfull333 0]

Going to be an interesting fight on this one... it probably will stir things up in Congress, and they might come down against poker.. but I don't think the fight will end there....

[jooka 0]

http://img.worldpokertour.com/media/article/214.pdfsomeone asked for the link.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Poker NewsMost interesting part....."The most interesting portion of the 22 page answer filed yesterday by WPT counsel is the WPT actually attempts to turn the tables. One portion of the answer asserts that any of the players in this suit that are affiliated with, or participate in the business decision making process of an online poker room are actually putting the WPT at an unfair advantage"I swear I remember someone saying that the WPT would bring up online poker. If I could only remember who it was.(sw)

Oh, oh, oh!!! I know, I know! Hate to say I told you so, but it looks like I don't have a choice. If only these guys knew what it meant to be a pimp...

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

Oh, oh, oh!!! I know, I know! Hate to say I told you so, but it looks like I don't have a choice. If only these guys knew what it meant to be a pimp...

I'm sorry; please clarify. Do you mean one, Greg Raymer, does not indeed have the characteristics typical of a 'pimp'? I'm having a hard time believing this.

[Flack_attack 0]

If only these guys knew what it meant to be a pimp...

If only......Btw I second DDIDM.

[dirtystacks 0]

Oh, oh, oh!!! I know, I know! Hate to say I told you so, but it looks like I don't have a choice. If only these guys knew what it meant to be a pimp...

This reporter's characterization of what the WPT's answer actually does is pretty inaccurate. They mention this stuff in a preliminary statement but they don't actually make any legal claims.EDIT: And on further reflection, I note that the WPT is making many comments in their preliminary statement which mirror the comments you made on the blog. Is this simply because you spoke extensively with Lyle Berman about the suit and you knew what they intended to say? If so, you should realize that the arguments they make are legally and logically suspect. They are pure posturing. The WPT's lawyers know that 95% of the stuff in those preliminary comments is completely irrelevant and won't be involved in any substantive proceedings.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

If the Senate decides to pass the bill and online poker officially becomes illegal in the US, wouldn't it be illegal for any business to buy advertising time during poker shows ? Shouldn't it also be illegal for ESPN and the travel channel to show poker programming ? It all promotes playing poker.I'm NOT saying I want all of this to happen, just saying if I can't play poker anymore, I want some company who can afford a team of lawyers getting involved.Regarding the WPT's side of the lawsuit.........can anybody explain to me what they mean by the players linked to online sites having an advantage ? I realize that I'm probably being dense here, but I don't understand what point they are trying to make. Thanks in advance.

The advantage the seven players have is that they can (according to the U.S. Gov't and the WPT) advertise their site on television, while the WPT, who works within the laws cannot. The reason they bring this up, is that these players are trying to claim that the WPT is "unfairly" making deals with casinos to run only WPT events. It's all just ridiculous, and I've lost respect for most everyone involved in the lawsuit from the players side. Aside from Joe Hachem, who frankly, I'm not really sure realizes what he got himself into.I have a lot more faith and trust in poker's greatest ambassadors than I do the seven players who, IMO, over value their worth to the poker world. I'd rather side with people like Mike Sexton, Chip Reese, Barry Greenstein, and the like, before siding with seven players who went about this whole thing in the entirely wrong way.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

I'd rather side with people like Mike Sexton, Chip Reese, Barry Greenstein , and the like, before siding with seven players who went about this whole thing in the entirely wrong way.

Geez, you must feel strongly about this..

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Geez, you must feel strongly about this..

I freakin' love that guy. Seriously, he makes me lass my butt off. His ego is ginormous, and he is really quirkly, but he is a smart guy who has poker's best interest at heart. So does Mike Sexton... so does Chip Reese... so do I. The other seven? No, I don't think so.

[nutzbuster 7]

Barry seems very odd, but real smart. I like him. And Ace on the River is excellent.Man I hope this crap all works out in the end. So far, so bad.

[Naismith 0]

Wow. I wasn't entirely certain how this was going to be "bad for poker" when it originally came out, but that was really ugly. This could start a slippery slope for all of internet poker that, truthfully, could end in disaster. I don't blame Daniel for being worried.

[dirtystacks 0]

The advantage the seven players have is that they can (according to the U.S. Gov't and the WPT) advertise their site on television, while the WPT, who works within the laws cannot. The reason they bring this up, is that these players are trying to claim that the WPT is "unfairly" making deals with casinos to run only WPT events.

"According to the US Govt"? Do you mean according to the Department of Justice? The DOJ does not make nor do they interpret the laws.Daniel, under antitrust law, online poker sites and live tournaments are completely distinct markets. Although some online sites may also run televised tournaments, it's not completely clear that these shows or tournaments compete effectively with the WPT's events. Mansion Poker dome's BS show cannot even compare to a televised $10k buyin WPT event. The problem here though is that the WPT hasn't made a counterclaim--essentially an antitrust claim against the players or those sites, which they should have done in their answer. This isn't a case where the WPT can say, "Well, they're doing something too so that's a defense for us." The law simply doesn't work like that. If both parties are violating antitrust laws, the proper procedure entails each party bringing a claim against the other one.

Wow. I wasn't entirely certain how this was going to be "bad for poker" when it originally came out, but that was really ugly. This could start a slippery slope for all of internet poker that, truthfully, could end in disaster. I don't blame Daniel for being worried.

Because one reporter blew a preliminary statement with no legal impact out of proportion? It's not like this is national news. Please.

[tcroz 0]

All the .net's are "free" versions of the sites, which are legal to advertise

When you go to the ".net" site, you can not download software that includes 'real money' games. You can only download software for "play money" game. Therefore, they can say "this is not a gambling site"...because it is not.If you click over from the ".net" site to the ".com" site, or go there directly, on that site you can download software that includes both "real money" and "play money" games.That is why the ".net" sites can advertise and the ".com" sites can not.

[Aardhart 0]

I'd rather side with people like Mike Sexton, Chip Reese, Barry Greenstein, and the like, before siding with seven players who went about this whole thing in the entirely wrong way.

Do Mike Sexton, Chip Reese, and Barry Greenstein think it is reasonable for the WPT to demand rights to "use Player's name, photograph, likeness, signature, biographical information, appearance, . . . and exploitation thereof and of other audio-visual works (including, without limitation, “behind the scenes” productions and public service announcements) and any and all derivative, allied, subsidiary and/or ancillary uses related thereto (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," just for the right to play in a tournament with no money added?Why don't you blame the WPT, who is the party trying to destroy online poker and refusing to modify the stoopid release?EDITTED (to comment on DN's blog entry):

If only this group of seven would have done the right thing. If they had a beef, rather than have a totally bizarre press conference to announce the lawsuit (I mean, who does that???), they would have come to the poker community first.

Andy Bloch has been trying to fight the release for months. He has a blog post dated December 12 2005 on the topic. You have undermined his efforts to get the release changed and wanted everyone to blindly trust that the release does not mean what the plain language says. I also don't see how you can distinguish this lawsuit from the lawsuit that you filed against Harrah's and Activision, other than Harrah's and Activision did not pull some irrelevant smear campaign against you.

Outside of possibly Phil Gordon, I doubt that any of the other Plaintiffs were even millionaires before the poker boom.

Didn't Chris Ferguson win one million from winning the 2001 (or 2000) WSOP? I also think that Howard Lederer easily had a million before Moneymaker won the WSOP.I would like to see someone find the ratings from the WPT from March 2003 (it's start according to answer) and the ratings from the 2002 and 2003 WSOP broadcasts. I bet it would show that ratings for both shows rose after Moneymaker won it, making the boom more attributable to the WSOP than to the WPT.

[finztotheleft 0]

Shouldn't it also be illegal for ESPN and the travel channel to show poker programming ? It all promotes playing poker.Poker wouldn't be illegal; online poker would be. Except that it already sort of is illegal and this new law, should it pass, would not change the legal status of online poker (which the DoJ insists is already illegal). There would still be no federal law against actually playing poker (only fascilitating it and/or running an online poker site).[

I'm sorry, I should fully explain my thought process (which I'm still not saying is correct, it's just my warped thoughts on the matter).......Party Poker.com cannot advertise on tv because that would be "selling" online poker gambling, while the .net is only promoting online poker, but not gambling. Commercials shown during poker broadcasts and the shows themselves "sell" playing live poker tournaments for cash prizes (gambling). It is illegal to do that in my state (Massachusetts), so why does that get to be on tv ? Shouldn't they have to make the shows illegal for my protection too ? If the answer is no, because they are not making me play, then why aren't the .com commercials legal.....they do not make people play, they just suggest where it could be done. Why can they show beer commercials in front of minors who can not legally drink ? Wouldn't that lead them astray ? Why can they show commercials for Foxwoods casino in my state but they can't show commercials for pot (it's legal in Amsterdam) or brothels (Nevada)?Obviously, these are not "real" questions for you guys; they are for the idiots in Washington who are trying to take my online poker away............and the WPT who seems to want to nudge the politicians in that direction.

[Shizzmoney 0]

The reason they bring this up, is that these players are trying to claim that the WPT is "unfairly" making deals with casinos to run only WPT events.

I actually agree with the 7 on this issue, although I will admit "Mr. Pimp" DN's point on that they could always go somewhere else to run a poker tournament is a valid one......BUT what if the WPT someday just said, "Screw it, we arn't going to allow any other corportation run their own poker tour in a MAJOR casino (besides Harrah's casinos, who have their own WSOP brand) to compete with us, so we are just going to buy out every major casino's poker room rights to make sure that we are the only brand of poker tournament being held in them"? I really think with the growth of poker, that if say, a sponsor like Oakley for example, wanted to run their own brand of poker tournament (ex. The Oakley Poker Tour) but needed a big enough venue like the Bellagio or MGM to run a 500+ player field* that they shouldn't be held out of that because not only would it bring about more opportunities for players to compete, but it would also bring competition to the WPT (who would have to improve how they run things, although they run a pretty good show right now, but things could be improved like blind structures at the final table, payout structures, flexibile buy-ins, etc.). It's not to say that the WPT could buy out a casino or two for an exclusive brand (like Foxwoods), but I am just saying there is nothing in place right now that would stop the WPT from being a poker monopolous and just buying out every casino if they wanted to.*(I know DN mentioned that the Wynn, Red Rock, and other casinos could hold a tour if needed to.....but what if you had a tour that needed to hold more than their capacity? I don't know of the logisitics of how many people could fit into each of these rooms at one time, never mind the willingness of each casino to hold a big tournament with a potential huge field, nevermind how well they could execute such a operation. As well found out from the WSOP, it can be a whole lotta work and it requires pin=point dilligence. DN would probably know better than most when it comes to this.)The PGA is the cream of the crop when it comes to golf, but they also have other professional golf tours, like the NIKE Tour, the NGA Hooters Tour, etc....allowing golf professionals opportunities to make some money and sponsorships while working their way up to their Q-card for the PGA Tour. I think poker, when it becomes bigger down the line, should be afforded to allow more professional-type tours at smaller levels at the bigger casinos as growth would spur progress and attention to our great game.I do agree with DN that the "7" could have handled this better and not gone to a lawsuit, and that they should have gotten more organized and try to rally more player support rather than just saying, "Hey, we don't like this, LET'S SUE!". Lawyers are lawyers because of their vigorish of their agruments....and sometimes that can get smarmy. As DN predicted, you just know that they were eventually going to bring Full Tilt online poker room into the issue (where it has a marginal effect on the main issue, a use of a player's likeness without consent or compensation). Plus their whole, "They are taking away are ability to make a living" argument is somewhat bogus to me, because they could always go play cash games or tournaments online for the time being while the issue is getting hammered out.I honestly think a well put, well thought out media-driven boycott by the "7" could have gotten more steam behind their cause, as well as more players and media outlets highlighting the issue and spurring on a debate that would bring forth a less turbulent resolution. Now it's just you are on either one side or the other, the type of divide that goes on in politics that I can't stand. And just like in Congress, and that's not going to get anything done because when it comes down to the legality of the matter, this is just a very complicated issue that needs to be handled through thought-out reason, not biased slander.

[revg 0]

Do Mike Sexton, Chip Reese, and Barry Greenstein think it is reasonable for the WPT to demand rights to "use Player's name, photograph, likeness, signature, biographical information, appearance, . . . and exploitation thereof and of other audio-visual works (including, without limitation, “behind the scenes” productions and public service announcements) and any and all derivative, allied, subsidiary and/or ancillary uses related thereto (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," just for the right to play in a tournament with no money added?Why don't you blame the WPT, who is the party trying to destroy online poker and refusing to modify the stoopid release?EDITTED (to comment on DN's blog entry):Andy Bloch has been trying to fight the release for months. He has a blog post dated December 12 2005 on the topic. You have undermined his efforts to get the release changed and wanted everyone to blindly trust that the release does not mean what the plain language says. I also don't see how you can distinguish this lawsuit from the lawsuit that you filed against Harrah's and Activision, other than Harrah's and Activision did not pull some irrelevant smear campaign against you.Didn't Chris Ferguson win one million from winning the 2001 (or 2000) WSOP? I also think that Howard Lederer easily had a million before Moneymaker won the WSOP.I would like to see someone find the ratings from the WPT from March 2003 (it's start according to answer) and the ratings from the 2002 and 2003 WSOP broadcasts. I bet it would show that ratings for both shows rose after Moneymaker won it, making the boom more attributable to the WSOP than to the WPT.

Of course the WPT has to be able to use the players image to promote its television show?!?!? Are you kidding me? Let me also tell you that it is these advertisements that help bring these players images to the forefront in the first place!!! Signing this release doesn't mean that these players can't have endorsements and other side deals, and if the WPT ever decided to contest that THEN YOU CAN TAKE THEM TO COURT...I can't believe you are still trying to argue that the WPT is not responsible for the poker boom. It just shows how little research you actually do before posting.The WPT is responsible for the poker boom, period. The WSOP is what it is today because of the WPT. I don't know HOW MANY TIMES THIS HAS TO BE STATED?!?!?!?Frankly I am getting sick of typing the same thing over and over. Hell, I am willing to bet that even if a judge decided to throw this case out on its ear you would still be in here defending the 7 players for launching the suit.I think the response from the WPT tells you everything you need to know about whether this lawsuit was a good idea or not. If after reading the response from the WPT you still don't get it then you NEVER WILL.Later,Greg