Pokemon Lawsuit
Randall Porter
(09-21) 14:56 PDT SAN DIEGO (AP) -- The
popular Pokemon card game in which players use
the characters' special powers to win other cards,
which are frequently traded among youth, is an
illegal gambling enterprise, according to a lawsuit
filed last week.
The lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court, asks that
Nintendo of America to return its profits from
Pokemon to customers or pay an unspecified
amount in monetary damages.
Pokemon, which stands for pocket monster, began
in Japan and has taken America by storm. Some
schools have banned Pokemon cards on campus
because of the distractions and fights that have
erupted over the cards.
The card game involves a host of imaginary
creatures, each with their own set of special
powers, with the goal of winning as many cards as
possible. But many children don't even play the
game and trade cards similar to sports trading
cards.
The law firm of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes
and Lerach claims Pokemon is a gambling
enterprise because children must ``pay to play,'' by
purchasing the cards; children can ``win'' rare prize
cards that are intrinsically more valuable than other
cards; and there is an element of chance because
rare Pokemon cards are randomly packaged into
the deck.
``If you have those three elements, from our point of
view, it's all illegal gambling,'' said Kevin Roddy, a
lawyer who filed the lawsuit. ``It's nothing more than
a lottery disguised as a kids' game.''
Similar lawsuits have been filed across the country
against sports trading cards makers, also alleging
illegal gambling.
Rick Flamm, a spokesman for Nintendo of America
defended Pokemon, noting that the sports trading
cards lawsuits have yet to be successful.
``To our knowledge, none of those cases has been
successful in asserting that collecting trading cards
is
a form of illegal gambling,'' Flamm said in a
statement issued Monday. ``We see no reason to
expect a different result in this case. As we do with
all baseless lawsuits, Nintendo intends to vigorously
defend itself.''
The suit was filed on behalf of three children --
Gabriel Laus, 7, of San Diego, and Kathleen Paige,
8, and Anthony Treviranus, 6, both of Temecula.
The suit seeks class action status.
Roddy said parents have told them they are
concerned about the Pokemon game and card
trading are getting out of hand.
``They don't realize it's a form of gambling, but it
troubles them that their kids are so obsessed with
these Pokemon cards,'' Roddy said.
Also named as defendents are Wizards of the Coast
Inc., which makes and markets the card game
under a license from Nintendo, and 4 Kids, which is
Nintendo's licensing agent.
Ross W. Maker
>
> From the 9/21 San Francisco Chronicle:
Prediction -- the plaintiffs will lose, but he law firm of Milberg,
Weiss, Bershad, Hynes and Lerach will make a bundle.
This is why lawyers who bring nonsense suits should be permanently
disbarred.
RWM
Frank T. Sronce
>
> From the 9/21 San Francisco Chronicle:
>
> popular Pokemon card game in which players use
> the characters' special powers to win other cards,
> which are frequently traded among youth, is an
> illegal gambling enterprise, according to a lawsuit
> filed last week.
>
> The lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court, asks that
> Nintendo of America to return its profits from
> Pokemon to customers or pay an unspecified
> amount in monetary damages.
> Gabriel Laus, 7, of San Diego, and Kathleen Paige,
> 8, and Anthony Treviranus, 6, both of Temecula.
> The suit seeks class action status.
Somehow I expect to eventually see a tiny little blurb to the extent of
"The case was settled out of court today, ending the Pokemon lawsuit.
The plaintiffs agreed to drop all parts of the suit in return for an
undisclosed number of Pokemon rares and 6 Black Lotuses." :-)
Kiz
Scott De Marchi
>Randall Porter wrote:
>>
>> From the 9/21 San Francisco Chronicle:
>> <gory deatils snipped>
>Prediction -- the plaintiffs will lose, but he law firm of Milberg,
>Weiss, Bershad, Hynes and Lerach will make a bundle.
>This is why lawyers who bring nonsense suits should be permanently
>disbarred.
You aren't thinking very hard about this one, are you? Basically, the
magic of MTG and Pokemon is that it combines a decent, though not
spectacular game, with sheer human greed. Given that the cards are
distributed as they are per deck (three levels of rarity), and that the
price is within reach of most allowances, this is clearly exploitation.
I wonder how much little kids are spending / stealing / and extorting
from their parents to fuel their habit? I KNOW how much my adult friends
are; I imagine it is much worse with kids.
And unlike more above-board games like INWO, where you could buy a box of
non-collectible cards that represented every card used in the game so you
could PLAY and not collect, WOTC will likely never provide such a service
to the gaming community.
Footnote: I have not read the regulations on gambling and minors. I
suspect you have not either.
sd
Bill Dowling
Marchi) wrote:
> Footnote: I have not read the regulations on gambling and minors. I
> suspect you have not either.
>
> sd
This lawsuit has nothing to do with the "regulations on gambling and
minors." The laws being invoked here apply to all people, from the age of
one day old to the age of 100 years old and beyond.
Jeremy Reaban
Scott De Marchi wrote in message <7sbb2r$2...@news.duke.edu>...
<snip>
>You aren't thinking very hard about this one, are you? Basically, the
>magic of MTG and Pokemon is that it combines a decent, though not
>spectacular game, with sheer human greed. Given that the cards are
>distributed as they are per deck (three levels of rarity), and that the
>price is within reach of most allowances, this is clearly exploitation.
Well, while I agree with your morally, I'm not sure it's gambling, legally.
Yes, the rarer cards have a lot of value on the free market, but they have
no intrinsic value. They're just bits of paper.
Plus, I suspect most people don't play the game out of greed, rather because
they like the game. The rarer cards are more valuable in the game.
Arbane the Terrible
<fsr...@myriad.net> wrote:
>Randall Porter wrote:
>>
>> From the 9/21 San Francisco Chronicle:
>>
>> (09-21) 14:56 PDT SAN DIEGO (AP) -- The
>> popular Pokemon card game in which players use
>> the characters' special powers to win other cards,
>> which are frequently traded among youth, is an
>> illegal gambling enterprise, according to a lawsuit
>> filed last week.
[Mo' snippage]
>> The suit was filed on behalf of three children --
>> Gabriel Laus, 7, of San Diego, and Kathleen Paige,
>> 8, and Anthony Treviranus, 6, both of Temecula.
>> The suit seeks class action status.
>>[snip]
>
>
> Somehow I expect to eventually see a tiny little blurb to the extent of
>"The case was settled out of court today, ending the Pokemon lawsuit.
>The plaintiffs agreed to drop all parts of the suit in return for an
>undisclosed number of Pokemon rares and 6 Black Lotuses." :-)
Oh, that's a good one!
As a former Magic-addict, I'm geniunely surprised that some variation
on the suit took _so_ long, when you consider that magic had 'playing
for ante' as part of the original rules.
Arbane the Terrible (Ex-Magic Player)
Who quit after some SOB he _thought_ was a friend stole his Black
Lotus....
---
"How different would Usenet be if, instead of a 'Send'
button, your news reader had a 'Do you think anyone
really cares?' button?"
Fitz
<j...@Xthebigdogs.net> wrote:
>Well, while I agree with your morally, I'm not sure it's gambling, legally.
>Yes, the rarer cards have a lot of value on the free market, but they have
>no intrinsic value. They're just bits of paper.
The same is true of dollar notes.
Brett Evill
> Yes, the rarer cards have a lot of value on the free market, but they have
> no intrinsic value. They're just bits of paper.
And the Mona Lisa is just a bit of canvas.
Really, the concept of 'intrinsic value' is meaningless. Value is not an
intrinsic attribute of an object, but an attribute of the relationship
between the object and people.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Brett Evill
>
> If Pokemon is an illegal lottery then everything ever produced in a
> limited run is an illegal lottery: stamps, cars, books, paintings,
> computers, etc. You never know when you might be able to sell something
> to a collector for more than you paid for it and the manufarturer is not
> conducting a lottery. What you bought is not legal tender and you can
> not return it to the manufacturer for more than you paid. Pokemon ain't
> a lottery any more than buying limited run RPGs is.
The element that (it is alleged) makes Pokemon a lottery is that each
pack is different, the differences being unknown at the time of purchase
and having a significant impact on the market value of the pack.
The case of a limited print run of games is different, because all
copies are the same (as near as the printers can make them): there is no
chance involved in what you get when you buy a copy, and all the copies
are of the same value. You don't go to buy a second or a fiftieth copy
of a limited-run item in the hope that *this one* will turn out to be
special.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Doug Dawson
: On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 09:02:29 -0500, in article
: <37E8E175...@iupui.edu>
: Randall Porter <wrpo...@iupui.edu> wrote:
: >From the 9/21 San Francisco Chronicle:
: >
: [Pokemon allegedly being an illegal lottery]
: If Pokemon is an illegal lottery then everything ever produced in a
: limited run is an illegal lottery: stamps, cars, books, paintings,
: computers, etc. You never know when you might be able to sell something
: to a collector for more than you paid for it and the manufarturer is not
: conducting a lottery. What you bought is not legal tender and you can
: not return it to the manufacturer for more than you paid. Pokemon ain't
: a lottery any more than buying limited run RPGs is.
Not _quite_...because in those cases, you can see what you're getting.
Not only is the value of a particular Pokemon card a gamble, but you
don't know which cards you're getting.
Personally, I'd say that if Pokemon is gambling, then so are baseball cards.
But not the others.
Aaron Pound
>
> As a former Magic-addict, I'm geniunely surprised that some variation
> on the suit took _so_ long, when you consider that magic had 'playing
> for ante' as part of the original rules.
So, when do we go after the marble manufacturers? After all, the
standard game of marbles is played with the marbles used by the players
at stake in the game, with the loot going to the victor. Does that make
playing marbles illegal gambling?
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Incanus
> manufarturer
Love the typo, man... ;)
--
Incanus email: inc...@bigfoot.com
Incanus homepage: http://incanus.mcs.hr
Incanus games: http://incanus.mcs.hr/games/
back...@my-deja.com
Aaron Pound <ajp...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> Arbane the Terrible wrote:
> >
> > As a former Magic-addict, I'm geniunely surprised that some variation
> > on the suit took _so_ long, when you consider that magic had 'playing
> > for ante' as part of the original rules.
I'm not surprised - MTG did not get down to the elementary school level very
much. Obsessive behavior by teenagers and college kids is expected but in
elementary school it is always looked at with alarm by teachers and parents.
>
> So, when do we go after the marble manufacturers? After all, the
> standard game of marbles is played with the marbles used by the players
> at stake in the game, with the loot going to the victor. Does that make
> playing marbles illegal gambling?
Some schools used to ban marbles as well for the same reasons as they are now
banning Pokemon - too much of an obsession in kids who are too young.
Clearly under some definitions of gambling - staking marbles would count but
this does not go back to make the manufacture liable any more than the US
Mint is responsible for people gambling with money.
There is obviously a factual difference between making gaming tokens, even
making tokens which are designed to be used by gamblers in illegal gambling
and marketing a product which has an unregulated gambling dimension as part
of its marketing plan and as a required part of ordinary play. WOTC also
encouraged the trade side of this coin with its 'rare' designation for some
cards. Its all in the Amercian Tradition of P.T. Barnum, I would say, he
would have loved that one.
The only other outfit that comes close to the MTG situation is Games Workshop
and their stuff.
There is nothing requiring you to buy more marbles. So too the fact that
ordinary playing cards are used in gambling does not impact on card
manufacturers.
WOTC has a marketing strategy which requires players to buy many times the
number of cards ordinarily required to make a complete set. This was true of
baseball cards as well but there is no game that I know of connected with
them or regular sports cards. The question really is at what point the WOTC
approach runs afoul of the definitions of gambling will depend on the
jurisdiction. This places WOTC in an awkward position as it has a global
market with its products available in many jurisdictions whose laws would
undoubtedly be different from the various US States.
--
Wilf K. Backhaus
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Randall Porter
Brett Evill wrote:
>
>
> The element that (it is alleged) makes Pokemon a lottery is that each
> pack is different, the differences being unknown at the time of purchase
> and having a significant impact on the market value of the pack.
>
Remember this is like the 5th of 6th Class Action Law suit filed by the same
Firm. They have accused the sport card trade using the same argument. The
interesting thing is that collecting sports cards has been around for many
many years. Shakespeare was right "shoot the lawyers first".
Randy
Vos MC,0876208
: On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:35:55 -0500, "Jeremy Reaban"
: <j...@Xthebigdogs.net> wrote:
: >Well, while I agree with your morally, I'm not sure it's gambling, legally.
: >Yes, the rarer cards have a lot of value on the free market, but they have
: >no intrinsic value. They're just bits of paper.
: The same is true of dollar notes.
You mean the US doesn't have a national bank that guarantees the value
of money? I'm surprised the dollar is still worth something.
There _is_ some difference, you know.
ttfn,
mcv. <><
Ty Beard
>: Randall Porter <wrpo...@iupui.edu> wrote:
>: >From the 9/21 San Francisco Chronicle:
>: >
>: [Pokemon allegedly being an illegal lottery]
>
>: If Pokemon is an illegal lottery then everything ever produced in a
>: limited run is an illegal lottery: stamps, cars, books, paintings,
>: a lottery any more than buying limited run RPGs is.
>
>Not _quite_...because in those cases, you can see what you're getting.
>Not only is the value of a particular Pokemon card a gamble, but you
>don't know which cards you're getting.
>
>Personally, I'd say that if Pokemon is gambling, then so are baseball
cards.
>But not the others.
Well, the legal question isn't so much "is Pokemon a form of gambling." I
think that it clearly is. For instance:
1. If I were selling sealed packages that contained a $1, $5, $100 or $1000
bill for $10 each, is that gambling?
2. If #1 is "yes", then what if the sealed packages contained gold nuggets
worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000? What about cards worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000?
I'm afraid, that conceptually you are gambling when you buy Pokemon and
Magic cards. And yes, you are when you buy sports cards. Heck, you even have
a "house" that gets a cut -- the retailer. I also did a quick search on
Westlaw and could not find any cases that decided this issue.
The salient question is "do you buy the booster pack (in part) because you
may get a rare card that's very valuable?" If so, then you're gambling.
Now the law does not prohibit *all* forms of gambling. In Texas, for
instance, there's an exemption for gambling in a private residence (if
certain other requirements are met). So you can play poker with your
buddies. But if a form of gambling does not fall under a clearly defined
exemption, it may have a hard time in the courts.
The problem that WOC may have is that the law will often come down hard on
questionable behaviors that target children. And this does rather neatly
explain the CCG explosion. I think it really is gambling. And personally, I
think it will be best thing for gaming if the court holds it to be gambling.
Of course, Hasbro won't like it much.
--Ty Beard, Esq.
Ty Beard
>Arbane the Terrible wrote:
>>
>> As a former Magic-addict, I'm geniunely surprised that some variation
>> on the suit took _so_ long, when you consider that magic had 'playing
>> for ante' as part of the original rules.
>
>standard game of marbles is played with the marbles used by the players
>at stake in the game, with the loot going to the victor. Does that make
>playing marbles illegal gambling?
No, this would fall under the "in a private residence" exception. And what
may be the winning issue for the plaintiffs is the motivation for buying the
card packs -- i.e. "because I may get a rare card". That will lilely make it
gambling, IMHO.
I think that the best thing Hasbro can do is try to get laws passed in all
states exempting trading card games from gambling laws.
--Ty Beard, Esq.
Rich Shipley
>
> No, this would fall under the "in a private residence" exception. And what
> may be the winning issue for the plaintiffs is the motivation for buying the
> card packs -- i.e. "because I may get a rare card". That will lilely make it
> gambling, IMHO.
But you get a rare card in every pack.
> I think that the best thing Hasbro can do is try to get laws passed in all
> states exempting trading card games from gambling laws.
I don't buy that its gambling. WotC/Hasbro is only selling the cards. If
someone else wants to you pay more for them that you paid, how is that
their fault?
Rich
Ross W. Maker
>
> Well, the legal question isn't so much "is Pokemon a form of gambling." I
> think that it clearly is. For instance:
>
> 1. If I were selling sealed packages that contained a $1, $5, $100 or $1000
> bill for $10 each, is that gambling?
No. Banks do this regularly as a promotion for ATMs. They'll stick a
few twenties shuffled in with the fives and a few fifties shuffled in
with the twenties. Customer makes a withdrawal of, say, $15 dollars.
Usually gets three fives. Occasionally gets two fives and a twenty
($30). Account is only debited for $15. This has been ruled legal in
every state where it has been contested. (Why anyone wants to contest
"free" money is beyond me).
> 2. If #1 is "yes", then what if the sealed packages contained gold nuggets
> worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000? What about cards worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000?
Nope. Stamp companies have been selling random mixed packs which "may
contain rare stamps" for years. And they've been doing it THROUGH THE
MAIL! This was contested back in the '50's, and was found legal, as
long as 1. they didn't promise you would get a rare stamp and 2. at
least a few packs DID contain a rare stamp. Coin dealers do the same
thing.
> I'm afraid, that conceptually you are gambling when you buy Pokemon and
> Magic cards. And yes, you are when you buy sports cards. Heck, you even have
> a "house" that gets a cut -- the retailer. I also did a quick search on
> Westlaw and could not find any cases that decided this issue.
Conceptually and legally are two distinct words.
> The salient question is "do you buy the booster pack (in part) because you
> may get a rare card that's very valuable?" If so, then you're gambling.
And so are the people who buy random stamp and coin packs, semanticly.
But not legally.
RWM
"Pete Rose didn't do anything every manager doesn't do. He was just
gambling this month's paycheck as well as next month's." - attributed
to Tom Kelly, Tommy Lasorda, and Earl Weaver, among others.
marajade
Ty Beard <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:9WrG3.502$Ir.44...@news.randori.com...
> Doug Dawson wrote in message <7sbrsp$osk$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>...
> >: Randall Porter <wrpo...@iupui.edu> wrote:
> >: >From the 9/21 San Francisco Chronicle:
> >: >
> >: [Pokemon allegedly being an illegal lottery]
> >
> >: If Pokemon is an illegal lottery then everything ever produced in a
> >: limited run is an illegal lottery: stamps, cars, books, paintings,
> >: computers, etc. ... Pokemon ain't
> >: a lottery any more than buying limited run RPGs is.
> >
> >Not _quite_...because in those cases, you can see what you're getting.
> >Not only is the value of a particular Pokemon card a gamble, but you
> >don't know which cards you're getting.
> >
> >Personally, I'd say that if Pokemon is gambling, then so are baseball
> cards.
> >But not the others.
>
> think that it clearly is. For instance:
>
> 1. If I were selling sealed packages that contained a $1, $5, $100 or
$1000
> bill for $10 each, is that gambling?
>
> worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000? What about cards worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000?
>
> Magic cards. And yes, you are when you buy sports cards. Heck, you even
have
> a "house" that gets a cut -- the retailer. I also did a quick search on
> Westlaw and could not find any cases that decided this issue.
>
> may get a rare card that's very valuable?" If so, then you're gambling.
>
> instance, there's an exemption for gambling in a private residence (if
> certain other requirements are met). So you can play poker with your
> buddies. But if a form of gambling does not fall under a clearly defined
> exemption, it may have a hard time in the courts.
>
> The problem that WOC may have is that the law will often come down hard on
> questionable behaviors that target children. And this does rather neatly
> explain the CCG explosion. I think it really is gambling. And personally,
I
> think it will be best thing for gaming if the court holds it to be
gambling.
> Of course, Hasbro won't like it much.
>
> --Ty Beard, Esq.
>
>
there is a company
selling candy bars with certain amounts of money value printed on the
wrapper. Now if
I buy the candy bar hoping to get the money am I gambling? If I am then just
about
every prize give away designed to promote sales would be gambling. Another
point is who
set the value of the cards? I believe WOtC sells all the packs at the same
price and don't
know what cards are in the packs. Now if a parent feels that this type of
thing is gambling
and bad for their children then they not allow their children to play the
game or buy the cards. I believe this is a values judgement and I don't like
others to tell me that a game is bad. Don't you remember the D & D is devil
worshiping bull? That was in the same vain as this. Many laws are necessary
to protect society from those that would do harm to others
and are based on the values of the whole society for the most part. I just
don't see Pokemon as something that the society need to be protected from.
In fact if this game gets more parents to still down and play with their
children I would say it is a benefit
and not a problem.
John Proctor
rcade
wrote:
>The problem that WOC may have is that the law will often come down hard on
>questionable behaviors that target children. And this does rather neatly
>explain the CCG explosion. I think it really is gambling. And personally, I
>think it will be best thing for gaming if the court holds it to be gambling.
How can it possibly be the best thing for gaming to take millions of
young players completely out of the hobby? The kids collecting Pokemon
cards are doing so with their parents' money; isn't it better to let
the parents decide whether it is an appropriate activity for their
children to engage in?
Baseball cards have been sold legally to children in this country for
generations. Considering the number of judges, politicians, and other
Americans who grew up collecting them, I think there's almost no
chance the courts would now declare this behavior to be illegal
gambling.
Ross W. Maker
Let's face it, if these dweebs had a decent case, they would have filed
a criminal complaint. They didn't. They're trying to set up a class
action lawsuit. The ONLY purpose of class actions is to make lawyers
rich. Any justice or injustice that results is a mere side effect.
RWM
Doug Berry
>Well, the legal question isn't so much "is Pokemon a form of gambling." I
>think that it clearly is. For instance:
>
>1. If I were selling sealed packages that contained a $1, $5, $100 or $1000
>bill for $10 each, is that gambling?
>
>2. If #1 is "yes", then what if the sealed packages contained gold nuggets
>worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000? What about cards worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000?
The difference is that while I would love to have that $1000, a
rare Pokemon card is worthless to me.
The value of an object is what people are willing to pay for it.
Witness eBay. To me Pokemon is a fun cartoon to watch when
Law&Order is a repeat I've seen five times already. But a mint
copy of the ISCV King Richard Deckplans from FASA? I'd be
willing to pay a lot of money for that.
Also, unlike gambling, you'll never open a pack of cards and find
nothing. There's always *something* in there.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"We are GURPS. You will be assimilated. We will add
your distinctive setting and background to our own. |
Resistance is futile."
Paul C Duggan
: Ty Beard wrote:
: >
: > No, this would fall under the "in a private residence" exception. And what
: > may be the winning issue for the plaintiffs is the motivation for buying the
: > gambling, IMHO.
: But you get a rare card in every pack.
Now, you also *might* get a foil, which can go for about five times the
price of a non-foil rare.
Paul
--
"I am an impure thinker. I am hurt, swayed, shaken, | paul + | +
elated, disillusioned, shocked, comforted, and I | --|--
have to transmit my mental experiences lest I die." | + | +
-- Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy | pdu...@world.std.com
Jim Cowling
>
>1. If I were selling sealed packages that contained a $1, $5, $100 or $1000
>bill for $10 each, is that gambling?
>
>2. If #1 is "yes", then what if the sealed packages contained gold nuggets
>worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000? What about cards worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000?
>
>Magic cards. And yes, you are when you buy sports cards. Heck, you even have
>a "house" that gets a cut -- the retailer. I also did a quick search on
>Westlaw and could not find any cases that decided this issue.
No, it's not the same. Dollar bills and gold nuggets have a state-mandated
value. Individual cards do not.
>The salient question is "do you buy the booster pack (in part) because you
>may get a rare card that's very valuable?" If so, then you're gambling.
Yup, but that doesn't mean that collectible cards are gambling in the
strictest sense of the term.
>The problem that WOC may have is that the law will often come down hard on
>questionable behaviors that target children.
Hasbro will cite the sports card rulings and it'll be over before it begins.
-------
Jim Cowling, Unaligned Merchant of Menace/Writer/Atheist/Geek
The Plains of Amaterasu: more original Clan War stuff than you could ever use at
http://members.home.com/scowling -- scow...@home.com
-------
Bryan J. Maloney
(Jim Cowling) wrote:
> No, it's not the same. Dollar bills and gold nuggets have a state-mandated
> value. Individual cards do not.
The value of gold is decided on the market, not by the government.
Bryan J. Maloney
<b.e...@tyndale.apana.snipthis.org.au> wrote:
> The element that (it is alleged) makes Pokemon a lottery is that each
> pack is different, the differences being unknown at the time of purchase
> and having a significant impact on the market value of the pack.
Isn't this like the "bag of Roman coins" thing, though? And that's quite legal.
Bryan J. Maloney
<b.e...@tyndale.apana.snipthis.org.au> wrote:
> No, it doesn't. And almost no country has had since the collapse of the
> Bretton Woods system in 1976.
The Federal Reserve still exists, and it still functions as a "bank for banks".
Bryan J. Maloney
I wanna get the very most
Money I can grab.
I'll get a lawyer who has got
A major gift of gab!
He'll file a suit and tell the world
About my sorry plight,
Of evil games from Washington
That took my cash one night...
Pokemon!
Gonna get all their dough.
You know it's to court we go.
Pokemon!
We've got them by the 'nads
My barrister's so bad!
Pokemon!
We'll make up a brand new class
To ream WoTC up the ass.
I'll sue them and they'll sue me,
Pokemon!
Fitz
wrote:
>Fitz (pjf...@ihug.co.nz) wrote:
>: On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:35:55 -0500, "Jeremy Reaban"
>: <j...@Xthebigdogs.net> wrote:
>
>: >Well, while I agree with your morally, I'm not sure it's gambling, legally.
>: >Yes, the rarer cards have a lot of value on the free market, but they have
>: >no intrinsic value. They're just bits of paper.
>
>: The same is true of dollar notes.
>
>You mean the US doesn't have a national bank that guarantees the value
>of money? I'm surprised the dollar is still worth something.
>There _is_ some difference, you know.
No there isn't. A dollar bill has no intrinsic value. It's bit of
paper with lines printed on it. It's a proxy representation of value,
supported by the Treasury, but that value is arbitrary and dependent
on geographical location.
Matt Blackwell
Duggan) wrote:
>Rich Shipley (ri...@rtgames.com) wrote:
>: Ty Beard wrote:
>: >
>: > No, this would fall under the "in a private residence" exception. And what
>: > may be the winning issue for the plaintiffs is the motivation for buying the
>: > card packs -- i.e. "because I may get a rare card". That will lilely make it
>: > gambling, IMHO.
>
>: But you get a rare card in every pack.
>
>Now, you also *might* get a foil, which can go for about five times the
>price of a non-foil rare.
>
Well then, my buying a case of Pepsi is also gambling because I might
get one of those rare Yoda cans.
Wizard of VOBs
> Doug Dawson wrote in message <7sbrsp$osk$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>...
> >: Randall Porter <wrpo...@iupui.edu> wrote:
> >: >From the 9/21 San Francisco Chronicle:
> >: >
> >: [Pokemon allegedly being an illegal lottery]
> >
> >: If Pokemon is an illegal lottery then everything ever produced in a
> >: limited run is an illegal lottery: stamps, cars, books, paintings,
> >: computers, etc. ... Pokemon ain't
> >: a lottery any more than buying limited run RPGs is.
> >
> >Not _quite_...because in those cases, you can see what you're getting.
> >Not only is the value of a particular Pokemon card a gamble, but you
> >don't know which cards you're getting.
> >
> >Personally, I'd say that if Pokemon is gambling, then so are baseball
> cards.
> >But not the others.
>
> Well, the legal question isn't so much "is Pokemon a form of gambling." I
> think that it clearly is. For instance:
>
> 1. If I were selling sealed packages that contained a $1, $5, $100 or $1000
> bill for $10 each, is that gambling?
>
> 2. If #1 is "yes", then what if the sealed packages contained gold nuggets
> worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000? What about cards worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000?
>
> I'm afraid, that conceptually you are gambling when you buy Pokemon and
> Magic cards. And yes, you are when you buy sports cards. Heck, you even have
> a "house" that gets a cut -- the retailer. I also did a quick search on
> Westlaw and could not find any cases that decided this issue.
>
But the "house" (i.e. the one who gets the cut) then would be the ones liable,
NOT the manufacturer of the game. I.E. WotC is NOT the house in this case, the
retaliers are.
Otherwise, why hasn't anyone tried suing playing card companies for money they
lost playing poker?
--
"Never put of 'til tomorrow what you can delegate today"
Ty Beard
$1000
> >bill for $10 each, is that gambling?
> >
> >2. If #1 is "yes", then what if the sealed packages contained gold
nuggets
> >worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000? What about cards worth $1, $5, $100 or
$1000?
> >
> >I'm afraid, that conceptually you are gambling when you buy Pokemon and
> >Magic cards. And yes, you are when you buy sports cards. Heck, you even
have
> >a "house" that gets a cut -- the retailer. I also did a quick search on
> >Westlaw and could not find any cases that decided this issue.
>
state-mandated
> value. Individual cards do not.
Gold nuggets are commodities whose value is set in the marketplace, not by
the state. Just like cards.
> >The salient question is "do you buy the booster pack (in part) because
you
> >may get a rare card that's very valuable?" If so, then you're gambling.
>
> Yup, but that doesn't mean that collectible cards are gambling in the
> strictest sense of the term.
The few cases I've been able to find that are on point disagree with you.
The motivation of the purchaser holds considerable weight in the analysis.
> >The problem that WOC may have is that the law will often come down hard
on
> >questionable behaviors that target children.
>
> Hasbro will cite the sports card rulings and it'll be over before it
begins.
I can't seem to find any such rulings on Westlaw. And even if a court in
say, Nebraska, holds that selling sports cards isn't gambling *in Nebraska*,
the holding will have no effect on a California court.
I'm afraid that Hasbro may have a problem with this.
--Ty Beard, Esq.
Ty Beard
> Ty Beard wrote:
> > I'm afraid, that conceptually you are gambling when you buy Pokemon and
> > Magic cards. And yes, you are when you buy sports cards. Heck, you even
have
> > a "house" that gets a cut -- the retailer. I also did a quick search on
> > Westlaw and could not find any cases that decided this issue.
> >
>
liable,
> NOT the manufacturer of the game. I.E. WotC is NOT the house in this
case, the
> retaliers are.
Except that WotC is part of "the house" -- i.e., they get a share of the bet
along with the retailer. Kind of like multi-level bookies :)
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> >think that it clearly is. For instance:
> >
$1000
> >bill for $10 each, is that gambling?
> >
> >2. If #1 is "yes", then what if the sealed packages contained gold
nuggets
> >worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000? What about cards worth $1, $5, $100 or
$1000?
>
> rare Pokemon card is worthless to me.
>
> The value of an object is what people are willing to pay for it.
Yes. So see, the card actually does have value -- you can sell it. I don't
find much intrinsic use for those little green pieces of paper that have
presidential portraits engraved on them. But they are valuable because I can
exchange them for valuable stuff that I can use. Like maybe that mint
condition set of deckplans.
> Also, unlike gambling, you'll never open a pack of cards and find
> nothing. There's always *something* in there.
Yes, but that isn't relevant to the definition of gambling. If it were,
illegal gambling operators would simply return say, 10% of each bet to the
gambler. In fact, I read a case that addressed this point and said, in
effect, "it doesn't matter if you get something every time."
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> Ty Beard wrote:
> > Well, the legal question isn't so much "is Pokemon a form of gambling."
I
> > think that it clearly is. For instance:
> >
> > 1. If I were selling sealed packages that contained a $1, $5, $100 or
$1000
> > bill for $10 each, is that gambling?
>
Really? This is normally called a "lottery" -- and is illegal in most states
(except for the state run lotteries).
> Banks do this regularly as a promotion for ATMs.
<sigh> I need to change banks. Mine never does that.
> They'll stick a few twenties shuffled in with the fives and a few fifties
shuffled in
> with the twenties. Customer makes a withdrawal of, say, $15 dollars.
> Usually gets three fives. Occasionally gets two fives and a twenty
> ($30). Account is only debited for $15.
I note that in your example, the Customer pays nothing for the chance of
winning. Consideration is a critical part of the legal definition of
gambling.
> > 2. If #1 is "yes", then what if the sealed packages contained gold
nuggets
> > worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000? What about cards worth $1, $5, $100 or
$1000?
>
> Nope. Stamp companies have been selling random mixed packs which "may
> contain rare stamps" for years.
So what? Maybe they're breaking the law as well.
> And they've been doing it THROUGH THE MAIL! This was contested back
> in the '50's, and was found legal, as long as 1. they didn't promise
> you would get a rare stamp and 2. at least a few packs DID contain a rare
stamp.
Again, the motivation of the buyer is weighed heavily by courts in
determining if an activity is gambling. It could easily be that in these
cases the courts concluded that there was very little motivation on the
buyer's part to buy because he might get a rare stamp. And the target market
may be significant as well. I believe that the courts will carefully
scrutinize something that is clearly aimed at young children.
> > I'm afraid, that conceptually you are gambling when you buy Pokemon and
> > Magic cards. And yes, you are when you buy sports cards. Heck, you even
have
> > a "house" that gets a cut -- the retailer. I also did a quick search on
> > Westlaw and could not find any cases that decided this issue.
>
> Conceptually and legally are two distinct words.
Really? Hasbro may well find that they are engaged in illegal gambling --
both conceptually and legally.
> > The salient question is "do you buy the booster pack (in part) because
you
> > may get a rare card that's very valuable?" If so, then you're gambling.
>
> And so are the people who buy random stamp and coin packs, semanticly.
> But not legally.
Uh, sez who? Has the US Supreme Court ruled that selling random stamp and
coin packs is not gambling and cannot be under the US Constitution? Has the
US Congress passed a law that states that such activities are *not*
gambling?
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> Ty Beard wrote:
> >
> > No, this would fall under the "in a private residence" exception. And
what
> > may be the winning issue for the plaintiffs is the motivation for buying
the
> > card packs -- i.e. "because I may get a rare card". That will lilely
make it
> > gambling, IMHO.
>
> But you get a rare card in every pack.
Courts consider the motivation of the buyer in determining if an activity is
"gambling".
> > I think that the best thing Hasbro can do is try to get laws passed in
all
> > states exempting trading card games from gambling laws.
>
> I don't buy that its gambling. WotC/Hasbro is only selling the cards.
And all a casino is doing is selling you the right to throw dice.
>If someone else wants to you pay more for them that you paid, how is that
> their fault?
If WoTC is in violation of state laws prohibiting gambling, then it is
"their fault."
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
news:37ec5d77...@news.bestnetpc.com...
> >The problem that WOC may have is that the law will often come down hard
on
> >explain the CCG explosion. I think it really is gambling. And personally,
I
> >think it will be best thing for gaming if the court holds it to be
gambling.
>
> How can it possibly be the best thing for gaming to take millions of
> young players completely out of the hobby?
1. The money being spent on CCGs (or at least some of it) will likely be
spent on RPGs. A Good Thing in my book, as CCGs darned near killed RPGs a
few years ago.
2. Philsophically, I find it cowardly and contemptible to play a game in
which one's chances of winning are determined by how much money you spend on
the game. So if they lose their precious game, I couldn't care less.
> The kids collecting Pokemon
> cards are doing so with their parents' money; isn't it better to let
> the parents decide whether it is an appropriate activity for their
> children to engage in?
Not necessarily. We don't let children buy alcohol or go to XXX movies, for
instance, no matter what their parents say.
> Baseball cards have been sold legally to children in this country for
> generations. Considering the number of judges, politicians, and other
> Americans who grew up collecting them, I think there's almost no
> chance the courts would now declare this behavior to be illegal
> gambling.
Of course, baseball cards and Pokemon cards aren't exactly the same thing,
are they?
And in a supreme bit of irony, I'd probably bet on the plaitiffs -- if I
could get 2 to 1 odds.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> Ty Beard <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote in message
> > Well, the legal question isn't so much "is Pokemon a form of gambling."
I
> > think that it clearly is. ...
> Hi, I don't think this is gambling as the term is used today. Right now
> there is a company selling candy bars with certain amounts of money value
> printed on the wrapper. Now if I buy the candy bar hoping to get the
> money am I gambling?
I think that a court is going to consider what your *primary* motivation
is -- to buy a candy bar or to win the prize. I'm afraid what may hurt WoTC
is the number of kids who buy booster packs strictly to get a particular
rare card (or small group of rares).
> If I am then just about every prize give away designed to promote sales
> would be gambling. Another point is who set the value of the cards?
Well, that's actually irrelevant from a legal standpoint. The value of a
card is what it is -- i.e. what you can sell it for. No one "sets" the value
of gold -- it fluctuates daily according to the whim of the market.
> Now if a parent feels that this type of thing is gambling
> and bad for their children then they not allow their children to play the
> game or buy the cards. I believe this is a values judgement and I don't
like
> others to tell me that a game is bad.
Well, I don't think (for instance) that a parent should be allowed to buy
alcoholic beverages (or porn movies) for his 5 year old. And I'm willing to
impose that belief on others. So the philosophy has its limits.
> Don't you remember the D & D is devil
> worshiping bull? That was in the same vain as this.
No it isn't. This is a legal question -- "does the sale of Pokemon cards
constitute a prohibited form of gambling under California law?" It will be
settled in a court of law -- unless Hasbro buys the plaintiffs off.
> I just
> don't see Pokemon as something that the society need to be protected from.
Me neither. I just happen to think that the plaintiffs have a case here.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> Let's face it, if these dweebs had a decent case, they would have filed
> a criminal complaint. They didn't. They're trying to set up a class
> action lawsuit. The ONLY purpose of class actions is to make lawyers
> rich. Any justice or injustice that results is a mere side effect.
In criminal cases, the perpetrator is punished -- but the victim usually
gets nothing. In civil cases, the victim is compensated for his loss. So I
think these "dweebs" did exactly what was in their best interest. And since
there is no evidence that WoTC knew that this was gambling, I think that it
would be unfair to prosecute their officers and directors in criminal court.
But if WoTC broke the law and caused people damages, then our legal system
will force WoTC to compensate those people. Of course, what are the
"losses"? Let's say that they are only $20 per person. Or even $2000.
Without class action suits, no one could be brought to justice so long as he
limited the amount of damage he causes to under $2000 or so.
Of course, the next step is for a local prosecutor to go after a game store
owner...
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> "Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> > No, this would fall under the "in a private residence" exception. And
what
> > may be the winning issue for the plaintiffs is the motivation for buying
the
> > card packs -- i.e. "because I may get a rare card". That will lilely
make it
> > gambling, IMHO.
>
> I agree with Ty on this one.
My goodness, two in the same month! :)
> > I think that the best thing Hasbro can do is try to get laws passed in
all
> > states exempting trading card games from gambling laws.
>
> I wonder if they have that kind of clout.
Maybe. They paid $325 million for WoTC...
--Ty Beard
back...@my-deja.com
"Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> Aaron Pound wrote in message <37E9B3...@bellatlantic.net>...
> >Arbane the Terrible wrote:
> >>
> >> As a former Magic-addict, I'm geniunely surprised that some variation
> >> on the suit took _so_ long, when you consider that magic had 'playing
> >> for ante' as part of the original rules.
> >
> >So, when do we go after the marble manufacturers? After all, the
> >standard game of marbles is played with the marbles used by the players
> >at stake in the game, with the loot going to the victor. Does that make
> >playing marbles illegal gambling?
>
> may be the winning issue for the plaintiffs is the motivation for buying the
> card packs -- i.e. "because I may get a rare card". That will lilely make it
> gambling, IMHO.
I agree with Ty on this one.
>
> I think that the best thing Hasbro can do is try to get laws passed in all
> states exempting trading card games from gambling laws.
I wonder if they have that kind of clout.
--
Wilf K. Backhaus, Esq.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Brett Evill
>
> Arbane the Terrible wrote:
> >
> > As a former Magic-addict, I'm geniunely surprised that some variation
> > on the suit took _so_ long, when you consider that magic had 'playing
> > for ante' as part of the original rules.
>
> So, when do we go after the marble manufacturers? After all, the
> standard game of marbles is played with the marbles used by the players
> at stake in the game, with the loot going to the victor. Does that make
> playing marbles illegal gambling?
Well, I don't know the law in the relevant jurisdiction. But in some
places the law only forbids betting on games of chance. It might
therefore be argued that marbles, like stud poker, is a game of skill
and therefore legal.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Brett Evill
>
> Shakespeare was right "shoot the lawyers first".
"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". The sentiment goes back
at least to 1381, when one of the rallying cries of Wat Tyler's
Rebellion was "Kill all the lawyers and false advisors of our king."
Those of my friends who are lawyers assure me that all economists are
included as 'false advisors of our king'.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Brett Evill
>
> Fitz (pjf...@ihug.co.nz) wrote:
> : On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:35:55 -0500, "Jeremy Reaban"
> : <j...@Xthebigdogs.net> wrote:
>
> : >Yes, the rarer cards have a lot of value on the free market, but they have
> : >no intrinsic value. They're just bits of paper.
>
> : The same is true of dollar notes.
>
> You mean the US doesn't have a national bank that guarantees the value
> of money? I'm surprised the dollar is still worth something.
No, it doesn't. And almost no country has had since the collapse of the
Bretton Woods system in 1976.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Doug Berry
Maloney) channeled Elvis who passed this on:
>I wanna get the very most
>Money I can grab.
<snip>
SPLURT!
Bryan, you bastard!! You owe me a new keyboard, or a Pikachu
Foil!!!
Brett Evill
>
> In article <37EA5B...@tyndale.apana.snipthis.org.au>, Brett Evill
> <b.e...@tyndale.apana.snipthis.org.au> wrote:
>
> > Vos, MC, 0876208 wrote:
> > >
> > > You mean the US doesn't have a national bank that guarantees the value
> > > of money? I'm surprised the dollar is still worth something.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. And almost no country has had since the collapse of the
> > Bretton Woods system in 1976.
>
> The Federal Reserve still exists, and it still functions as a "bank for banks".
But go into any Fed and ask them to convert your paper and they'll look
at you funny.
Following an episode of inflation, ask the Fed to make good their
guarrantee of the value of your paper and they'll have you escorted off
the premises.
The Fed exists, but the money is not 'backed' by anything even in
international exchange. And the Fed does not provide a guarantee of the
value of money.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Paul C Duggan
: >: But you get a rare card in every pack.
: >
: >Now, you also *might* get a foil, which can go for about five times the
: >price of a non-foil rare.
: >
: Well then, my buying a case of Pepsi is also gambling because I might
: get one of those rare Yoda cans.
Here is an important difference, I think. The yoda can is a form of
sweepstakes, based on a purchace. The only reason that it is *not*
considered gambling is that you can send away to Pepsi for a free game
token which has much chance of winning (theoreticly) as a random can in a
case. If Pepsi didn't do this, I assume their promotion would be
considered a form of gambling and thus illegal (at least in some states).
Matthew
>gambling.
>>
>> How can it possibly be the best thing for gaming to take millions of
>> young players completely out of the hobby?
>
>1. The money being spent on CCGs (or at least some of it) will likely
>be spent on RPGs. A Good Thing in my book, as CCGs darned near killed
>RPGs a few years ago.
Sure, parents are going to let their children have money to buy more
things in a store that let them gamble?
>2. Philsophically, I find it cowardly and contemptible to play a game
>in which one's chances of winning are determined by how much money you
>spend on the game. So if they lose their precious game, I couldn't
>care less.
*cough*cough*Players Option Books*cough*cough*
*cough*cough*WoD Splatbook: Funky Blue Monkey Spankers*cough*cough*
And really, I've seen common decks kill those Jewelery-set decks, those
Every-Rare-Foil-and-Its-Laser-Printed-Clone-Brother decks, and those
"buy every frikkin Wizard to get the kiewlest killa'" decks.
More money != always wins.
In some cases it doesn't even give you a better edge.
>> Baseball cards have been sold legally to children in this country
>> for generations. Considering the number of judges, politicians, and
>> other Americans who grew up collecting them, I think there's almost
>> no chance the courts would now declare this behavior to be illegal
>> gambling.
>
>Of course, baseball cards and Pokemon cards aren't exactly the same
>thing, are they?
But they say buy $ and have the random chance of picking up a Foil
-Velvet-Signed card already worth $$$$$ on E*Bay as we froth and
speak!!!!
Really, here's the firm footing - every pack has a minimum dollar trade
value (commons+minimum priced uncommons+rare price). As long as this
is within, say 85% of the retail price (after tax and mark up), I don't
see where they have a case. Since everyone gets their money's worth,
if some get more than bully for them. The problem would lie in the one
chance I buy a pack and all I get are commons or even blank sheets of
of cardstock (and therefore lose out on tha minimum value for my money
basement).
--
Matthew Hickey aka Tiama'at ][ WS/Soc (H) III - Carleton U
matthe...@hotmail.com ][ "Hold On To Nothing
ICQ: 12954569 (Tiama'at) ][ As Fast As You Can" - T.A.
Matthew
>> the strictest sense of the term.
>
>The few cases I've been able to find that are on point disagree with
>you. The motivation of the purchaser holds considerable weight in the
>analysis.
The following is the primary motivation of 99% of children who purchase
Pokemon (as dictated by a friend of mine who works all day selling the
things) - for those of you without children (or the common sense to
raise them correctly) the following is presented in 7y/o-sound....
MomMOMOMOMOMOMOMOM!!!!!!
PoketheyvegotPokemonMomcanwegetsome?????PleasePleasePleasePleaseMomMomMo
mJimmygotsomeanditssocoolMomMomPleasePleasePleaseIpromisetobegoodhonestI
doIgotthemoneyathomeIllpayyoubackplease!!!!!!!!!!*insert plaintative
whine at approx 30 000
dB*ThanthanyouthankyouthankMomTheyaresooooocooollookitlookittheyhavePika
chuhessocoolhedoesallsortsofthingsJimmyisgonnabesomadIgotPokemonIgotPoke
monGottaCatchThemAllGottaCatchThemALL!!!!!!!!!
Thank You.
Other (adult) motivations fall into the category of that idiot who
actually collected all the Pepsi points and sued Pepsi for the damn
Harrier Jet (the case got thrown out).
rcade
wrote:
>1. The money being spent on CCGs (or at least some of it) will likely be
>spent on RPGs. A Good Thing in my book, as CCGs darned near killed RPGs a
>few years ago.
The Pokemon crowd looks to be almost entirely 14 and under, with a big
emphasis on "under." Very few of those folks will be lining up at the
game stores to buy RPGs every week if Pokemon is busted by some
modern-day bunko squad. The best RPG publishers can hope for is that
out of the millions of kids buying these games, a healthy percentage
now know where the area comic and game stores are and will continue
frequenting them when they outgrow Pokemon.
>2. Philsophically, I find it cowardly and contemptible to play a game in
>which one's chances of winning are determined by how much money you spend on
>the game. So if they lose their precious game, I couldn't care less.
Philosophically, I think it's repugnant that someone who enjoys the
blessings of a free society would support the illegalization of a
harmless children's game because he doesn't like the game.
>Not necessarily. We don't let children buy alcohol or go to XXX movies, for
>instance, no matter what their parents say.
No reasonable person would compare either of those things to a
children's trading card game.
>Of course, baseball cards and Pokemon cards aren't exactly the same thing,
>are they?
Describe a system in which buying one is gambling but buying the other
isn't. Both can be purchased in the hope of acquiring a card with
large value to other collectors. Both are essentially worthless
outside of this speculative interest.
Paul Sauberer
> marajade <mara...@uswest.net> wrote in message news:ZitG3.375
> > Ty Beard <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote in message
>
> > > Well, the legal question isn't so much "is Pokemon a form of
gambling."
> I
> > > think that it clearly is. ...
>
> > Hi, I don't think this is gambling as the term is used today. Right now
> > there is a company selling candy bars with certain amounts of money
value
> > printed on the wrapper. Now if I buy the candy bar hoping to get the
> > money am I gambling?
>
> I think that a court is going to consider what your *primary* motivation
> is -- to buy a candy bar or to win the prize. I'm afraid what may hurt
WoTC
> is the number of kids who buy booster packs strictly to get a particular
> rare card (or small group of rares).
So by your definition every product that is sold in a random assortment
where some of that assortment is of greater value to the purchaser than
others is illegal gambling. (Just picture the tragic chocoholics ripping
open a brown wrapper thinking, "C'mon GREEN M&Ms! Damn, not enough! I've got
to buy another pack!")
I think that the plaintiffs have no chance in hell because they would have
to prove that the purchasers would have no interest in the other cards in
the booster pack. They would have to show that the purchasers are bying the
packs _solely_ to get a chance at the Charizards. With the number of kids
running around with binders of almost complete sets, that will be difficult
to show. Plus, it is not necessary to buy booster packs to play the game as
published by WotC. You can play the game by purchasing non-random starter
decks and theme decks or by buying any desired rare cards on the secondary
market. Not even you could come up with a defintion of gambling that could
cover those scenarios.
What this suit does show is the desparate need for tort reform in this
country. You want to talk about gambling. How about filing a law suit
against a large company in the hopes that you will find a sympathetic jury
to hear your baseless claims or that the company will find it in their
financial interest to settle instead of go to trial and pay legal costs?
Maybe if the "plaintiffs" who were convinced to put their names on this
class action litigators employment program were confronted with having to
pay the defendants' legal costs if they lost, they would think harder before
clogging the courts and wasting taxpayers' money with this tripe.
Paul Sauberer
Aaron Pound
I think one major legal hurdle that will have to be crossed involves the
tangibility of the cards. In all of the gambling examples that have
been cited as precedent here, the casion/bookie/state lottery simply
sold a "chance". There was no product being sold. The casio sold you
the right to roll the dice, and that was the primary product that was
sold. The bookie sold you a right to collect if the Celtics won the
game by 15 points, and that was the primary product being sold. Pokemon
and other CCGs sell you cards, specifically they sell you a selection of
cards that have a certain distribution. You are guaranteed to get cards
of a defined type. You may not get the specific "Fireizard" that you
wanted, but you *will* get a rare card. That would be my primary
defense if I were WOTC. Its not that you are going to get *something*,
but that you will get exactly the same thing that everyone else who
purchases a booster pack will get (i.e. 6 commons, 2 uncommons and 1
rare or whatever). I would push that consumers don't get a "chance"
they get a specific product and emphasize that.
I find the fact that you might get a foil to be interesting, but have a
hard time believeing that a cmopany that provides "extras" is really
doing something wrong. In any event, the only effect that would have if
it were to be found impropoer is that game companies would just stop
offering benes in general, which seems like a bad thing to me.
> 1. The money being spent on CCGs (or at least some of it) will likely be
> spent on RPGs. A Good Thing in my book, as CCGs darned near killed RPGs a
> few years ago.
Except a lot of that money won't go to RPGs. You are engaging in a
logical fallacy. Pokemon and Magic are pretty mainstream. Kids who
wouldn't be caught dead playing an RPG buy those cards. Kids who would
buy an RPG will eventually get around to buying one regardless of
whether CCGs stay or go away.
> 2. Philsophically, I find it cowardly and contemptible to play a game in
> which one's chances of winning are determined by how much money you spend on
> the game. So if they lose their precious game, I couldn't care less.
Well, the actual fact of the matter is that every in CCG I have played
anyone with a reasonable amount of cards (and getting a reasonable
amount fo cards did not erequire the expenditure of hundreds of
dollars), had a reasonable chance of winning. Having lots of cards only
makes you more likely to win if you are a better player to begin with in
my experience. Your mileage may vary.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Aaron Pound
> Well, I don't know the law in the relevant jurisdiction. But in some
> places the law only forbids betting on games of chance. It might
> therefore be argued that marbles, like stud poker, is a game of skill
> and therefore legal.
So I can bet on football and basketball games in those places too? The
players seem to be pretty skilled to me.
Aaron J. Pound, esquire
Ranma Al'Thor
: rcade <laund...@email.com> wrote in message
: news:37ec5d77...@news.bestnetpc.com...
: > On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 10:27:11 -0500, "Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net>
: > wrote:
: > >The problem that WOC may have is that the law will often come down hard
: on
: > >questionable behaviors that target children. And this does rather neatly
: > >explain the CCG explosion. I think it really is gambling. And personally,
: I
: gambling.
: >
: > How can it possibly be the best thing for gaming to take millions of
: > young players completely out of the hobby?
: 1. The money being spent on CCGs (or at least some of it) will likely be
: spent on RPGs. A Good Thing in my book, as CCGs darned near killed RPGs a
: few years ago.
Not the money being spent by small children on Pokemon. Which is the case
in hand.
--
John Walter Biles : MA-History, Ph.D Wannabe at U. Kansas
ra...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
rh...@tass.org http://www.tass.org/~rhea/falcon.html
rh...@maison-otaku.net http://www.maison-otaku.net/~rhea/
KODT, Tales from the Vault II, page 35: (As Bob the guest DM becomes
obsessed...) "Okay, you hear a faint scraping sound coming from behind
you. When you turn to see what it is, you discover a small SHOE BOX is
inching its way towards you."
adept...@my-deja.com
"Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> rcade <laund...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:37ec5d77...@news.bestnetpc.com...
> > On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 10:27:11 -0500, "Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net>
> > wrote:
> > >The problem that WOC may have is that the law will often come down hard
> on
> > >questionable behaviors that target children. And this does rather neatly
> > >explain the CCG explosion. I think it really is gambling. And personally,
> I
> > >think it will be best thing for gaming if the court holds it to be
> gambling.
> >
> > How can it possibly be the best thing for gaming to take millions of
> > young players completely out of the hobby?
>
> 1. The money being spent on CCGs (or at least some of it) will likely be
> spent on RPGs. A Good Thing in my book, as CCGs darned near killed RPGs a
> few years ago.
>
Nope, completely wrong on the first count, somewhat wrong on the second.
Pokemon is by far the biggest CCG, and few if any of the kids playing it
would have any interest in D&D. Most of them buy it because they like
Pokemon, not because they like CCGs. I really don't see little Timmy
suddenly asking his parents to buy him an AD&D Players Handbook because
Pokemon is no longer available.
Second, it is rather naive to pin the blame for the mid-90s RPG slump
solely on RPGs. The internet, the boom in console and computer gaming,
and the rise of Warhammer have all helped damage RPG sales. Mix in some
questionable business leadership (see Williams, Lorraine) and you have a
perfect recipe for financial disaster.
> 2. Philsophically, I find it cowardly and contemptible to play a game in
> which one's chances of winning are determined by how much money you spend on
> the game. So if they lose their precious game, I couldn't care less.
>
This really is why I don't play CCGs, but I find it a bit ogrish that an
adult would take joy in wrecking a children's game. If you find a
children's game "cowardly and contemptible" I don't want to hear what
you consider to be "brave and inspiring." Chutes and Ladders?
Candyland?
> > The kids collecting Pokemon
> > cards are doing so with their parents' money; isn't it better to let
> > the parents decide whether it is an appropriate activity for their
> > children to engage in?
>
> Not necessarily. We don't let children buy alcohol or go to XXX movies, for
> instance, no matter what their parents say.
>
> > Baseball cards have been sold legally to children in this country for
> > generations. Considering the number of judges, politicians, and other
> > Americans who grew up collecting them, I think there's almost no
> > chance the courts would now declare this behavior to be illegal
> > gambling.
>
> Of course, baseball cards and Pokemon cards aren't exactly the same thing,
> are they?
>
Yeah they are. Baseball cards have had similar rarity skews and foil
promotion cards since before Magic. I'd be shocked if a similar suit
hasn't been filed againts Topps yet.
> And in a supreme bit of irony, I'd probably bet on the plaitiffs -- if I
> could get 2 to 1 odds.
>
Of course they'll win. This is America, where the stupid and whiny
always get their way. My ancestors' greatest dream was to come to
America and sue someone.
- Mearls
aetherson
"Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> marajade <mara...@uswest.net> wrote in message news:ZitG3.375
> > Ty Beard <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote in message
>
> > > Well, the legal question isn't so much "is Pokemon a form of
gambling."
> I
> > > think that it clearly is. ...
>
> > Hi, I don't think this is gambling as the term is used today. Right
now
> > there is a company selling candy bars with certain amounts of money
value
> > printed on the wrapper. Now if I buy the candy bar hoping to get the
> > money am I gambling?
>
> I think that a court is going to consider what your *primary*
motivation
> is -- to buy a candy bar or to win the prize. I'm afraid what may
hurt WoTC
> is the number of kids who buy booster packs strictly to get a
particular
> rare card (or small group of rares).
Further, isn't that why all the candy bar, or McDonald's, or every
other contest has that "No purchase necessary" clause? So that they
aren't legally running a lottery? (Or, more accurately, so they aren't
illegally running a lottery?)
Mike (aetherson)
aetherson
Wizard of VOBs <haz...@eznet.net> wrote:
>
> But the "house" (i.e. the one who gets the cut) then would be the
ones liable,
> NOT the manufacturer of the game. I.E. WotC is NOT the house in this
case, the
> retaliers are.
money they
> lost playing poker?
The analogy was slightly flawed. The retailers, the distributors, and
the manufacturor all take on the role of the "house," as each of them
take profits from the allegedly gambling-like activity.
Playing cards are a standard commodity. You purchase a product. The
manufacturors and distributors and retailers of playing cards get no
money from the game of poker that you play with those cards.
Scott Delahunt
Paul C Duggan (pdu...@world.std.com) writes:
> Rich Shipley (ri...@rtgames.com) wrote:
> : But you get a rare card in every pack.
> Now, you also *might* get a foil, which can go for about five times the
> price of a non-foil rare.
And this is different from Upper Deck's sports cards how?
--
Scott Delahunt | "You must be like the wolf pack, and not
cn...@freenet.carleton.ca | like the six-pack"
http://www.ncf.ca/~cn236 | - The Sphinx, _Mystery Men_
back...@my-deja.com
"Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> <back...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7sem6c$60b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > "Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
>
> what
> > > may be the winning issue for the plaintiffs is the motivation for buying
> the
> > > card packs -- i.e. "because I may get a rare card". That will lilely
> make it
> > > gambling, IMHO.
> >
> > I agree with Ty on this one.
>
We must be doing something wrong!
--
Wilf K. Backhaus
Night Flyer
bet
> along with the retailer. Kind of like multi-level bookies :)
huh? what cut do they get? If I pull a Black Lotus out of a pack Im $350.00
richer but WoC gets the same $1.50 that they would have gotten if I pulled
12 basic lands out
we need to quit blaming manufacturers for people vices or when things dont
go their way....
I was just shot me Im going to sue ruger
I was just in an auto accident Im going to sue ford
I was just run over by a drunk driver Im going to sue coors
Ive gained to much weight Im going to sue McDonalds
My finger hurt from to much typing Im going to sue Acer Computers
I didnt get the card I wanted Im going to sue WoC
I didnt win the bid I wanted Im sueing Ebay
I lost 50% of my stock value Im going to sue Wall Street
My ears ring from that last concert, Im sueing Peavy Amps
That Bycicle I want doesnt come in Blue, Im sueing Raleigh
I thought smoking was cool, now it isnt, Im sueing RJRenolds
I didnt get the prize I wanted in my Lucky Charms Im sueing General Mills
I didnt win a prize from a football player Im sueing Snickers
Night Flyer
>
> <sigh> I need to change banks. Mine never does that.
>
> > They'll stick a few twenties shuffled in with the fives and a few
fifties
> shuffled in
> > with the twenties. Customer makes a withdrawal of, say, $15 dollars.
> > Usually gets three fives. Occasionally gets two fives and a twenty
> > ($30). Account is only debited for $15.
>
> I note that in your example, the Customer pays nothing for the chance of
> winning. Consideration is a critical part of the legal definition of
> gambling.
>
yes the customer does pay, he payes to be part of the bank, look at your
staement above
"<sigh> I need to change banks. Mine never does that."
by your definition is very well *is* gambling because you must switch banks
in order to recieve
the chance to recieve this free money.
Rich Shipley
>
> > But you get a rare card in every pack.
>
> "gambling".
and?
> > I don't buy that its gambling. WotC/Hasbro is only selling the cards.
>
> And all a casino is doing is selling you the right to throw dice.
No, they also pay you when you win.
> >If someone else wants to you pay more for them that you paid, how is that
> > their fault?
>
> If WoTC is in violation of state laws prohibiting gambling, then it is
> "their fault."
This is just circular.
Your original post was somewhat thought provoking, this one made no
sense. You want to try again?
Rich
Rich Shipley
>
> 1. The money being spent on CCGs (or at least some of it) will likely be
> spent on RPGs. A Good Thing in my book, as CCGs darned near killed RPGs a
> few years ago.
Not at the ages these kids are (I've seen the lines for singles at my
FLGS). What would be good for RPGs is a Pokemon RPG aimed at them.
Rich
Timothy J. Miller
> So I can bet on football and basketball games in those places too? The
> players seem to be pretty skilled to me.
Except that your knowledge of their relevant skills and how it
relates to the outcome of the game is nothing more than chance.
Doug Berry
channeled Elvis who passed this on:
>In criminal cases, the perpetrator is punished -- but the victim usually
>gets nothing. In civil cases, the victim is compensated for his loss.
and what exactly are the losses being claimed in this case?
Doug Berry
channeled Elvis who passed this on:
>> Also, unlike gambling, you'll never open a pack of cards and find
>> nothing. There's always *something* in there.
>
>Yes, but that isn't relevant to the definition of gambling. If it were,
>illegal gambling operators would simply return say, 10% of each bet to the
>gambler. In fact, I read a case that addressed this point and said, in
>effect, "it doesn't matter if you get something every time."
Except that when I buy a booster pack of Pokemon, I'm getting
what I paid for: A set of x-number of cards that were randomly
packed. I'm paying for those cards, nothing else.I'm not running
any risk on my investment, since, one way or another, I'm going
to end up with those fifteen (or whatever the pack has in it)
cards. The presence of a rare foil card is a special bonus, like
the Magic boosters I bought way back when where I got three Black
Lotuses out of five packs. (Black border, sold 'em for $500
each.)
Paul C Duggan
: Paul C Duggan (pdu...@world.std.com) writes:
: > Rich Shipley (ri...@rtgames.com) wrote:
: > : But you get a rare card in every pack.
: > Now, you also *might* get a foil, which can go for about five times the
: > price of a non-foil rare.
: And this is different from Upper Deck's sports cards how?
It's not. But I tend to think that it really should qualify as gambling,
irrespective of what some court has decided.
At this point in the game, the rarity levels of trading cards have
outlived their entertainment value for the serious gamer. Anything that
undercuts that is fine by me.
marajade
> marajade <mara...@uswest.net> wrote in message news:ZitG3.375
> > Ty Beard <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote in message
>
> > > Well, the legal question isn't so much "is Pokemon a form of
gambling."
> I
> > > think that it clearly is. ...
>
> > Hi, I don't think this is gambling as the term is used today. Right now
> > there is a company selling candy bars with certain amounts of money
value
> > printed on the wrapper. Now if I buy the candy bar hoping to get the
> > money am I gambling?
>
> I think that a court is going to consider what your *primary* motivation
> is -- to buy a candy bar or to win the prize. I'm afraid what may hurt
WoTC
> is the number of kids who buy booster packs strictly to get a particular
> rare card (or small group of rares).
>
If you want to collect the cards and have everyone, you are going to spend
a lot of money. I don't know how much I spent on OuterLimit cards when
I was a kid but I did get a full set and most of two others:)
Believe me there was some cards that were rare in that set.
> > If I am then just about every prize give away designed to promote sales
> > would be gambling. Another point is who set the value of the cards?
>
> Well, that's actually irrelevant from a legal standpoint.
Maybe at lower level courts, high courts will look at lot more.
> The value of a
> card is what it is -- i.e. what you can sell it for. No one "sets" the
value
> of gold -- it fluctuates daily according to the whim of the market.
>
> > Now if a parent feels that this type of thing is gambling
> > and bad for their children then they not allow their children to play
the
> > game or buy the cards. I believe this is a values judgement and I don't
> like
> > others to tell me that a game is bad.
>
> Well, I don't think (for instance) that a parent should be allowed to buy
> alcoholic beverages (or porn movies) for his 5 year old. And I'm willing
to
> impose that belief on others. So the philosophy has its limits.
>
And there are laws against that. I made it clear that laws to protect
society
are needed.
> > Don't you remember the D & D is devil
> > worshiping bull? That was in the same vain as this.
>
> No it isn't. This is a legal question -- "does the sale of Pokemon cards
> constitute a prohibited form of gambling under California law?" It will be
> settled in a court of law -- unless Hasbro buys the plaintiffs off.
>
It has been made a legal question by the filing of a lawsuit.
However, it would be interesting to see why the lawsuit was
really filed. Did their children steal to buy the cards? Do they
feel mistreated because "the rich" can afford to buy lots of
packs and they can't. Or is it the seeming endless way of someone
to make some money by claiming something is illegal or wrong
but is more than happy to go away if you throw a few dollars
their way.
> > I just
> > don't see Pokemon as something that the society need to be protected
from.
>
> Me neither. I just happen to think that the plaintiffs have a case here.
>
I hope it goes to the U.S. Supreme court so questions like this be settled.
John Proctor
aetherson
"Night Flyer" <night_flyer@junoDOTcom> wrote:
> > Except that WotC is part of "the house" -- i.e., they get a share
of the
> bet
> > along with the retailer. Kind of like multi-level bookies :)
>
> huh? what cut do they get? If I pull a Black Lotus out of a pack Im
$350.00
> richer but WoC gets the same $1.50 that they would have gotten if I
pulled
> 12 basic lands out
You have an incentive to buy the game (or, if you don't, lots of other
people do) because you might get the ultra-valuable rares/foils. This
increases the price at which they can sell the game, and/or the number
of people who play the game. Thus, their profit margins are greater
than if they did not have a "gambling" game like this.
Compare this to slot machines, which are well recognized as a form of
gambling. In a slot machine, you put in money, and sometimes more
money comes out. In Magic, you put in money, and sometimes more money
comes out. Now, as it happens, in a slot machine, if a lot of money
comes out, the owner of the slot machines loses that money. WotC
doesn't lose a damn thing if you pull a foil rare out of their card
packs -- so they're running even more of a racket than slot machine
owners.
> we need to quit blaming manufacturers for people vices or when things
dont
> go their way....
The people who are saying in this thread that CCG's or sports
cards "aren't gambling" need to step back and figure out the difference
between saying something's illegal and saying something's wrong. Many
forms of gambling are illegal. It may well be illegal for me to sit
down and play a game of poker, for money, with my friends. Is it wrong
(read: immoral)? Of course not.
The courts don't try to decide morality, for better or for worse. They
decide if something's illegal. They're expected to do this on as
rational a basis as conceivably possible. Now, it's possible that the
courts will find that, under the current definition of illegal
gambling, CCG's and sport cards are illegal gambling. If they do so,
there are two recourses. First, one might contest the ruling that they
are so, on its merits. Secondly, one might agree that the ruling was
correct, but disagree that there is any reason to prohibit CCG's. In
that second case, the appropriate recourse is to go to the legislative
branch of whatever government is involved, and get the laws changed.
Mike (aetherson)
Dale Friesen
> > I note that in your example, the Customer pays nothing for the chance of
> > winning. Consideration is a critical part of the legal definition of
> > gambling.
"Night Flyer" <night_flyer@junoDOTcom> wrote:
> yes the customer does pay, he payes to be part of the bank, look at your
> staement above "<sigh> I need to change banks. Mine never does that." by
> your definition is very well *is* gambling because you must switch banks
> in order to recieve the chance to recieve this free money.
Only if bank machines work very differently in the United States than
they do in Canada. If you have an Interac card here you can get cash
from any Interac bank machine. Theoretically, if I knew which banks were
slipping twenties in with the fives, I could wander over to one of their
machines and use my Interac card from the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce and have the same chance of getting a twenty as any of the
bank's customers. Unless I've misunderstood the example?
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Bolen Books.
Dale Friesen Sysadmin
ro...@bolen.bc.ca http://www.bolen.bc.ca
Free books: http://www.bolen.bc.ca/reviews/bookweek.html
Carl Perkins
}Rich Shipley (ri...@rtgames.com) wrote:
}: Ty Beard wrote:
}: >
}: > No, this would fall under the "in a private residence" exception. And what
}: > may be the winning issue for the plaintiffs is the motivation for buying the
}: > card packs -- i.e. "because I may get a rare card". That will lilely make it
}: > gambling, IMHO.
}
}
}Now, you also *might* get a foil, which can go for about five times the
}price of a non-foil rare.
}
I'd love to know how they can fit a 3 foot long sword in a pack of cards.
They shouldn't be sued to make lawyers rich, should be arrested by the
Physics Police for violating the laws of physics.
--- Carl
Scott Taylor
<bjm10-23099...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>...
>
> I wanna get the very most
> Money I can grab.
> I'll get a lawyer who has got
> A major gift of gab!
<snip>
ROFL!
Well done, Bryan.
--
Scott Taylor
Freelancer for Hire
Have Powerbook, Will Travel
aetherson
Rich Shipley <ri...@rtgames.com> wrote:
> Ty Beard wrote:
> >
> > No, this would fall under the "in a private residence" exception.
And what
> > may be the winning issue for the plaintiffs is the motivation for
buying the
> > card packs -- i.e. "because I may get a rare card". That will
lilely make it
> > gambling, IMHO.
>
> But you get a rare card in every pack.
I think that Ty was using "rare" as a shorthand for "valuable card."
In that (in Magic, at least), rares have a range of value where the max
is easily ten times the min, the value of a pack is highly variable.
> > I think that the best thing Hasbro can do is try to get laws passed
in all
> > states exempting trading card games from gambling laws.
>
> I don't buy that its gambling. WotC/Hasbro is only selling the cards.
If
> someone else wants to you pay more for them that you paid, how is that
> their fault?
Whoah! When did words like "fault" creep into a discussion of what's
gambling?
This is, say it with me now, people, a /legal/ definition. It's not a
discussion of whether or not the folks at WotC are horrible people, or
whether or not kids /should/ have the right to buy Pokemon. It's about
whether or not it's illegal to sell cards with the characteristics of
Pokemon.
As a libertarian kinda guy, I happen to feel that most if not all
gambling should be legalized. But that's not relevent to the question
of whether or not there's a case against WotC.
Legality and morality are very distinct. It's illegal to speed,
illegal to jaywalk, illegal (in this state, at least) to drive a
motorcycle without a helmet. Is it immoral to do any of these? Well,
a great many people would argue that if you want to die in a motorcycle
crash, that's your decision. And the evidence suggests that a great
majority of the population has no trouble justifying speeding and
jaywalking to themselves. All of which is irrelevent to the law.
Jens Hage
> Jim Cowling <scow...@home.com> wrote in message news:AjwG3.33
> you
>> >may get a rare card that's very valuable?" If so, then you're gambling.
>>
>> Yup, but that doesn't mean that collectible cards are gambling in the
>> strictest sense of the term.
> The few cases I've been able to find that are on point disagree with you.
> The motivation of the purchaser holds considerable weight in the analysis.
Except that the stated, and perhaps majority, perhaps minority, purpose of
making some cards rare is to keep powerful cards rare. The stated reason
for this isn't "to jack up the aftermarket card price" but "game balance".
To reiterate:
Smply because it can be used in a gambling sense does not mean that it is.
What the lawyers are suing about is, effectively, speculating in
commodities.
You can of course argue about the stock market as a whole being a gambling
thing, but I'm not going there myself.
> I'm afraid that Hasbro may have a problem with this.
Hasbro will blow it out of the water in ten seconds. This law firm already
has an excrable history, and has, to a large degree, sown the seeds of
it's own defeat with previous lawsuits, which set up a series of
precedents. Nine of them according to
www.next-generation.com/jsmid/news/7742.html
which has a blurb detailing who else this same law firm has targeted,
including Topps, MLB, the NFL and Disney. They've never won a case.
Nintendo. Hasbro. Beaucoup bucks involved. Pissant law firm with a history
of losing. My money's on Pokemon.
Adam H. Morse
<tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> > Banks do this regularly as a promotion for ATMs.
>
> <sigh> I need to change banks. Mine never does that.
>
> > They'll stick a few twenties shuffled in with the fives and a few fifties
> shuffled in
> > with the twenties. Customer makes a withdrawal of, say, $15 dollars.
> > Usually gets three fives. Occasionally gets two fives and a twenty
> > ($30). Account is only debited for $15.
>
> I note that in your example, the Customer pays nothing for the chance of
> winning. Consideration is a critical part of the legal definition of
> gambling.
>
There is consideration there. You pay your bank for your account,
either overtly (through fees and such) or slightly more covertly
(through allowing them to use your money). That's absolutely
consideration from a basic contract law standpoint; that's why a
contract where I give a bank my money for 6 months and they give me
back my money plus a little more (a C.D. in other words) is
enforceable.
However, if gambling is defined as "spending money to get a chance to
get more money" or something similar, than although there is
consideration there, the argument that people don't bank with a
specific bank and use it's ATMs as an attempt to get a chance at those
$20s seems pretty good.
BTW, has anyone actually looked at California's gambling statute?
That's the first step I'd check.
Adam Morse
(only a law student, take
all opinions on law with a big grain of salt)
Ross W. Maker
>
> Ross W. Maker <rma...@4dintsys.com> wrote in message
> > Ty Beard wrote:
> > > Well, the legal question isn't so much "is Pokemon a form of gambling."
> I
> > >
> > > 1. If I were selling sealed packages that contained a $1, $5, $100 or
> $1000
> > > bill for $10 each, is that gambling?
> >
> > No.
>
> Really? This is normally called a "lottery" -- and is illegal in most states
> (except for the state run lotteries).
>
> > Banks do this regularly as a promotion for ATMs.
>
> <sigh> I need to change banks. Mine never does that.
>
> > They'll stick a few twenties shuffled in with the fives and a few fifties
> shuffled in
> > with the twenties. Customer makes a withdrawal of, say, $15 dollars.
> > Usually gets three fives. Occasionally gets two fives and a twenty
> > ($30). Account is only debited for $15.
>
> I note that in your example, the Customer pays nothing for the chance of
> winning. Consideration is a critical part of the legal definition of
> gambling.
Except that many banks have an ATM transaction charge, so people DO "pay
to play"
> > > 2. If #1 is "yes", then what if the sealed packages contained gold
> nuggets
> > > worth $1, $5, $100 or $1000? What about cards worth $1, $5, $100 or
> $1000?
> >
> > Nope. Stamp companies have been selling random mixed packs which "may
> > contain rare stamps" for years.
>
> So what? Maybe they're breaking the law as well.
>
> > And they've been doing it THROUGH THE MAIL! This was contested back
> > in the '50's, and was found legal, as long as 1. they didn't promise
> > you would get a rare stamp and 2. at least a few packs DID contain a rare
> stamp.
>
> Again, the motivation of the buyer is weighed heavily by courts in
> determining if an activity is gambling. It could easily be that in these
> cases the courts concluded that there was very little motivation on the
> buyer's part to buy because he might get a rare stamp. And the target market
> may be significant as well. I believe that the courts will carefully
> scrutinize something that is clearly aimed at young children.
The stamp companies at least USED to advertise in comic books.
> > > I'm afraid, that conceptually you are gambling when you buy Pokemon and
> > > Magic cards. And yes, you are when you buy sports cards. Heck, you even
> have
> > > a "house" that gets a cut -- the retailer. I also did a quick search on
> > > Westlaw and could not find any cases that decided this issue.
> >
> > Conceptually and legally are two distinct words.
>
> Really? Hasbro may well find that they are engaged in illegal gambling --
> both conceptually and legally.
>
> > > The salient question is "do you buy the booster pack (in part) because
> you
> > > may get a rare card that's very valuable?" If so, then you're gambling.
> >
> > And so are the people who buy random stamp and coin packs, semanticly.
> > But not legally.
>
> Uh, sez who? Has the US Supreme Court ruled that selling random stamp and
> coin packs is not gambling and cannot be under the US Constitution? Has the
> US Congress passed a law that states that such activities are *not*
> gambling?
No, but it hasn't passed a law saying that they ARE. And in the US,
that's an important point. Whether the current gambling laws fit the
case is a matter of interpretation, but previous case law seems to
indicate they do not.
RWM
Ross W. Maker
>
> If WoTC is in violation of state laws prohibiting gambling, then it is
> "their fault."
If WotC were in violation of state laws, the shysters SHOULD have filed
a criminal complaint with STATE law enforcement officials. Successful
criminal prosecution would make their civil case a lot easier to win.
There is no evidence they did this. They filed a civil suit in Federal
court. On behalf of minors (which is, in and of itself, questionable).
RWM
night_fly...@juno.com
> United States than
> they do in Canada.
ok, sorry I got a head of myself a little, in order to use
the ATMs with out an additional *fee* you need to be a
customer at it's bank, here I get charged $1.00-2.00 per
transaction by the ATMs bank, and another $1.50 by *my*
bank for using a competitors ATM, so in effect *if* the
banks in this area were playing that game I would have to
pay upwards of $3.50 to try and *win* extra cash at a
competitors ATM *or* become a customer of the bank that has
the promotion going on and waive those fees...
In article <1dymjwn.mpxi5d1nbvy2oN@[192.168.100.22]>,
dfri...@amtsgi.bc.ca (Dale Friesen) wrote:
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Ross W. Maker
>
> And even if a court in
> say, Nebraska, holds that selling sports cards isn't gambling *in Nebraska*,
> the holding will have no effect on a California court.
>
> I'm afraid that Hasbro may have a problem with this.
One more time, Ty. This is NOT about CALIFORNIA law. This was filed in
a FEDERAL Court. It thereby claims that either Federal Law or the laws
of ALL the States, ALL the Territories, and the District of Columbia
have been violated. And since they can't claim a single successful
prosecution on criminal charges in ANY US jurisdiction, they're going to
have a tough time of it.
RWM
Gary J. Weiner
>
> > > Banks do this regularly as a promotion for ATMs.
> >
> > <sigh> I need to change banks. Mine never does that.
> >
> > > They'll stick a few twenties shuffled in with the fives and a few
> fifties
> > shuffled in
> > > with the twenties. Customer makes a withdrawal of, say, $15 dollars.
> > > Usually gets three fives. Occasionally gets two fives and a twenty
> > > ($30). Account is only debited for $15.
> >
> > I note that in your example, the Customer pays nothing for the chance of
> > winning. Consideration is a critical part of the legal definition of
> > gambling.
> >
> staement above
> in order to recieve
> the chance to recieve this free money.
You don't have to switch banks, you just have to use the "Gamblin' Bank"
ATM. Although if "Gamblin' Bank" charges an ATM fee, and does not offer
an alternative "no purchase required" method of winning, that is most
likely not legal.
--
Gary J. Weiner \ "We've got a blind date with Destiny...and
webm...@hatrack.net \ it looks like she's ordered the lobster."
http://www.hatrack.net \ -The Shoveler, "Mystery Men"
"Hang Your Web With Us!"\
pblock
Fitz wrote ...
Vos MC,0876208 wrote:
>
> >Fitz wrote:
"Jeremy Reaban" wrote:
> >
> >: >Well, while I agree with your morally, I'm not sure it's gambling,
legally.
> >: >Yes, the rarer cards have a lot of value on the free market, but they
have
> >: >no intrinsic value. They're just bits of paper.
> >
> >: The same is true of dollar notes.
> >
> >You mean the US doesn't have a national bank that guarantees the value
> >of money? I'm surprised the dollar is still worth something.
> >There _is_ some difference, you know.
>
> No there isn't. A dollar bill has no intrinsic value. It's bit of
> paper with lines printed on it. It's a proxy representation of value,
> supported by the Treasury, but that value is arbitrary and dependent
> on geographical location.
It's not completely the same. The dollar has a value because it is supported
by a government agency. It *should* have value as long as that government
is in place.
Pokemon card only have their value because the collectors/players make them
that valuable. If Pokemon was a bomb, then the fact that some cards a rarer
or anything of that sort would be moot. No one would care. Any card would
be worth maybe 5 cents, if that.
For example, I have several "wheat pennies" some of which are rather old &
possibly worth a couple bucks. Because of collectors & what people are
willing to pay, one of my pennies could be worth a dollar (maybe five) but
the legal value of that penny, as per the U.S. gov't is still only one cent.
So it is w/ Pokemon. the cards aren't worth more than their original
purchase price, but the collectors raise the value of certain cards because
they are willing to pay $20 for one card. The system of value isn't the
same as U.S. currency, which will continue to have value so long as the
government is in place. If tomorrow all the Pokemon player decide "hey,
this *is* a stupid game" and stop playing/buying/caring. then all that
value they had will suddenly disappear.
The whims of the masses are much more flexable than a system of government
and are less stable & not as likely to stand the test of time.
Adam H. Morse
<rma...@4dintsys.com> wrote:
One more time, Ross. Under the Erie Doctrine, cases brought in Federal
court under state or common law causes of action (like because a state
law prohibits individuals from running a lottery), are decided
according to state law. See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58
S.Ct. 817 (1938). The nuances of the Erie Doctrine are rather
complicated, and I'd rather not explain them at length. Suffice to
say, a state law claim will be decided based on the state law
applicable, REGARDLESS OF WHAT COURT IT IS BROUGHT IN.
This is in Federal court; that DOES NOT MEAN that it is a federal law
claim. Your statements about what is required to bring a case in
federal court are simply wrong. If this is a state law claim (i.e.
alleges a tort based on a violation of California law), the federal
court will address the issue as if it were a state court sitting in
California. That means that a Nebraska state court precedent (or a
Federal court precedent from a court sitting in Nebraska) is not
controlling; it is, however, persuasive (most courts don't like to
stake out minority views on broad issues).
Sorry for the nasty tone, I just get a little annoyed when people who
don't understand the subject matter they are discussing make blatantly
incorrect statements and adopt a nasty tone. But I apologize for being
unkind about this.
Adam Morse
Glenmore F. Wong
> 2. Philsophically, I find it cowardly and contemptible to play a game in
> which one's chances of winning are determined by how much money you spend on
> the game. So if they lose their precious game, I couldn't care less.
>
> --Ty Beard
Oh? You mean like when O.J. Simpson has the money to hire all those
esquire's to get him off a double murder rap?
Your comment shows you know absolutely NOTHING about the game.
glenmore
Ross W. Maker
>
> <snip>
> Sorry for the nasty tone, I just get a little annoyed when people who
> don't understand the subject matter they are discussing make blatantly
> incorrect statements and adopt a nasty tone. But I apologize for being
> unkind about this.
Fair enough. I was wrong. But that does not alter the fact that the
law firm in question has struck out on this issue before (evidently
several times). Taking this one into Federal court looks like
judge-shopping. And the only reason that I can see for them to file
this suit is to make money. Which strikes me as utterly unethical.
By the way, does California allow minors to file suit, or must it be
done by parents/guardians?
RWM
The Space-Crime Continuum
[about the people pursuing the Pokemon suit -- speculations on the
relative merits of civil and criminal cases snipped]
>I
>think these "dweebs" did exactly what was in their best interest.
Are you seriously suggesting that these are not a couple of
bottom-feeding lawyers looking for a quick jolt of publicity and the
outside chance of finding a company that's wussy enough to want to
settle? Or are you just chewing the legal fat?
(The latter is fine by me, but I'm not going to have much respect for
your opinions if you're seriously claiming the former. Not that my
respect's worth much, but with it and four bucks you oughta be able to
get something at Starbucks.)
yours,
Chris
To reply via email, remove the spamblocking from our address.
------------------------------------------------------------
THE SPACE-CRIME CONTINUUM
science fiction, mysteries and games
serving Northampton, MA and everywhere else
VISIT US IN OUR NEW DOMAIN!
www.spacecrime.com
The Space-Crime Continuum
>1. The money being spent on CCGs (or at least some of it) will likely be
>spent on RPGs.
Um, sorry, no. One of the things that has been clearly observed over
the last few years is that very few ex-CCG players go on to RPGs. Most
simply drop the CCG hobby as soon as it is no longer cool with their
immediate circle. The small percentage that do go on to RPGs can
generate some real dollars, but it's not like the hordes will suddenly
switch direction if they can't get their Pokemon.
Of course, all bets are off once Ryan D. and his crew get that Pokemon
RPG out the door. While I wouldn't expect it to scoop up all or even
most of the P. CCG crowd, it might well get a significantly bigger
percentage interested. A lot depends on how much more legs the fad has
-- if the RPG's out before the fad dies, some interesting things might
happen.
>And in a supreme bit of irony, I'd probably bet on the plaitiffs -- if I
>could get 2 to 1 odds.
I might take that action. 2:1 if it goes to court and the plaintiffs
win, bet's off if they settle -- I'm tempted to offer 3:2 on that, but
given the usual non-disclosure agreements it would be almost
impossible to evaluate who actually "won".
So, care to put your money where your mouth is?
Bryan J. Maloney
(Doug Berry) wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 18:46:33 -0400, bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J.
> Maloney) channeled Elvis who passed this on:
>
> >I wanna get the very most
> >Money I can grab.
> <snip>
>
> SPLURT!
>
> Bryan, you bastard!! You owe me a new keyboard, or a Pikachu
> Foil!!!
I don't think that Santelli or Triplette carry the latter. Is it made by
France Lames or one of the Russian forges?
Incanus
--
Incanus email: inc...@bigfoot.com
Incanus homepage: http://incanus.mcs.hr
Incanus games: http://incanus.mcs.hr/games/
Adam H. Morse
<rma...@4dintsys.com> wrote:
> Fair enough. I was wrong. But that does not alter the fact that the
> law firm in question has struck out on this issue before (evidently
> several times). Taking this one into Federal court looks like
> judge-shopping. And the only reason that I can see for them to file
> this suit is to make money. Which strikes me as utterly unethical.
<nod> First thing you learn about venue/jurisdiction issues is that
you want to find the venue that's most likely to side with you. Trying
to get a favorable judge (or a better jury; federal juries tend to be
drawn from wider areas than state juries) is the probable reason.
Although there may also be other procedural rules (the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure allow for very broad discovery; this is both useful
and a good way to make the other side spend lots and lots defending,
which makes it useful for bludgeoning out a settlement).
There is nothing unethical, in the narrow sense of the term, about a
lawyer filing a suit because they expect to make money; that's what
motivates 90%+ of the trial attorneys in the world. It is unethical
(and theoretically punishable, but good luck) to file a suit that has
no chance of winning. And I think there is an excellent chance that
either the people involved are hoping for notoriety or taking a legal
gamble; the firm only needs one big win for all the leg work to be
worth it. Note that that's not saying that they SHOULD do this, and
that that's not saying that I would do this. Me, I'm heading towards
public interest work because I feel a sense of duty. But that's
neither here nor there.
Plus, if the parents involved are motivated enough and have the money,
the lawyers will do most anything. Plenty of lawyers will be happy to
lose suit after suit if they're still getting their $150/hr. fee.
So...
>
> By the way, does California allow minors to file suit, or must it be
> done by parents/guardians?
>
Couldn't help you on that one...my understanding is that generally
suits for minors are filed by parents/guardians in the name of the
minor. Generally, it will be the child's name listed as the plaintiff,
the parent making the actual decisions (do we accept a settlement? for
ex.), and the lawyer who does the actual work. But we tend to talk
about the plaintiff doing things (the plaintiff argued to the trial
court...technically, it's the lawyer doing the arguing, but the lawyer
is just the agent of the plaintiff). But I don't vouch for this being
true, and I certainly don't know the details of CA law on such matters.
Adam Morse
David R. Henry
>> And even if a court in
>> say, Nebraska, holds that selling sports cards isn't gambling *in Nebraska*,
>> the holding will have no effect on a California court.
>>
>> I'm afraid that Hasbro may have a problem with this.
>
>One more time, Ty. This is NOT about CALIFORNIA law. This was filed in
>a FEDERAL Court.
Amazing how a lawyer like Ty needs to be reminded of these facts. :)
--
dhe...@plains.nodak.edu * Lion Clan Nezumi * Rogue Fan Club * Fallen Writer
*** Now in scientifically perfected, eye-resting, full sepia Monocolor! ***
What was the question? --Kate Bush /// All you of Earth are IDIOTS! --P9fOS
Ty Beard
>Ty Beard <tbe...@tyler.net>, traitor and Fallen.
>>2. Philsophically, I find it cowardly and contemptible to play a game
>>in which one's chances of winning are determined by how much money you
>>spend on the game. So if they lose their precious game, I couldn't
>>care less.
>
>*cough*cough*Players Option Books*cough*cough*
>*cough*cough*WoD Splatbook: Funky Blue Monkey Spankers*cough*cough*
Since RPGs are not competitive, your retorts lack persuasiveness.
>And really, I've seen common decks kill those Jewelery-set decks, those
>Every-Rare-Foil-and-Its-Laser-Printed-Clone-Brother decks, and those
>"buy every frikkin Wizard to get the kiewlest killa'" decks.
>
>More money != always wins.
>In some cases it doesn't even give you a better edge.
But in most, it does give you some edge, yes? If so then it's cowardly and
contemptible, IMHO.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
>So by your definition every product that is sold in a random assortment
>where some of that assortment is of greater value to the purchaser than
>others is illegal gambling. (Just picture the tragic chocoholics ripping
>open a brown wrapper thinking, "C'mon GREEN M&Ms! Damn, not enough! I've
got
>to buy another pack!")
First of all, it isn't my definition. Stop shooting the messenger and read
my posts. The case will be decided by a court of law, not by me.
>I think that the plaintiffs have no chance in hell because they would have
>to prove that the purchasers would have no interest in the other cards in
>the booster pack.
No they wouldn't. Case law is clear that it's irrelevant if the gambler
always gets some value back.
>They would have to show that the purchasers are bying the
>packs _solely_ to get a chance at the Charizards.
No they wouldn't. Merely a significant motivation would be enough. And
imagine little Johnny on the stand testifying about how he spent his
allowance for six months buying packs and even stole money from Mommy's
purse to buy more -- all in the hope of getting a Charizard.
>What this suit does show is the desparate need for tort reform in this
>country. You want to talk about gambling. How about filing a law suit
>against a large company in the hopes that you will find a sympathetic jury
>to hear your baseless claims or that the company will find it in their
>financial interest to settle instead of go to trial and pay legal costs?
Uh, who decides what's "baseless"? You? I always thought that that was what
courts were for. Besides, as a licensed attorney who has read the statutes,
it is my professional opinion that the plaintiffs have a case here. I'd
estimate their chances at about 30% myself.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
>On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 21:21:46 -0500, "Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net>
>wrote:
>>1. The money being spent on CCGs (or at least some of it) will likely be
>>few years ago.
>
>The Pokemon crowd looks to be almost entirely 14 and under, with a big
>emphasis on "under." Very few of those folks will be lining up at the
>game stores to buy RPGs every week if Pokemon is busted by some
>modern-day bunko squad.
If Pokemon goes down, so will Magic. And that was specifically what I was
thinking of. If Magic dies, then the money spent on Magic will return to
RPGs (or at least some of it will).
>>2. Philsophically, I find it cowardly and contemptible to play a game in
>>which one's chances of winning are determined by how much money you spend
on
>>the game. So if they lose their precious game, I couldn't care less.
>
>Philosophically, I think it's repugnant that someone who enjoys the
>blessings of a free society would support the illegalization of a
>harmless children's game because he doesn't like the game.
Uh, my opinion is irrelevant here. I don't like CCGs -- so what? I don't
like broccolli either. And regardless of my personal feelings, it is my
opinion as a licensed attorney that this lawsuit has a reasonable chance of
success. I've read the statutes and cases and Pokemon does seem to fit the
legal definition of gambling. I'm sorry if you don't like that.
>>Not necessarily. We don't let children buy alcohol or go to XXX movies,
for
>>instance, no matter what their parents say.
>
>No reasonable person would compare either of those things to a
>children's trading card game.
But a reasonable person mighyt compare the game to gambling. And isn't it
fascinating that CCGs were *wildly* successful? I wonder why? I mean, there
have been card games before. But CCG's were several orders of magnitude more
successful. I thought that they were successful because they let players buy
a competitive edge. But now, I'm beginning to think that maybe the gambling
angle is the real reason for their success.
>Describe a system in which buying one is gambling but buying the other
>isn't. Both can be purchased in the hope of acquiring a card with
>large value to other collectors.
Actually, I think that the sale of baseball cards may also fit the legal
definition of gambling. But CCGs have two additional motivators that
baseball cards lack. The first is that in addition to collecting and
trading, you can engage in competitive games with them -- and many rare
cards give you some advantages. This increases the "desirability" of the
rare cards -- and the value. The second is that the card games themselves
are played for ante -- gambling in its own right. Add to that the fact they
are targetted at young children and I think that the plaintiffs have a case
here.
>both are essentially worthless
>outside of this speculative interest.
Neither is "worthless" if there exists a market of people who will buy it.
After all, gold has very little *intrinsic* value -- its value is set by the
marketplace and fluctuates from minute to minute.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
>I think one major legal hurdle that will have to be crossed involves the
>tangibility of the cards. In all of the gambling examples that have
>been cited as precedent here, the casion/bookie/state lottery simply
>sold a "chance". There was no product being sold.
Yes, but cases have held that the mere fact that the gambler receives
*something* of value will not prevent the activity from being gambling.
>Pokemon
>and other CCGs sell you cards, specifically they sell you a selection of
>cards that have a certain distribution. You are guaranteed to get cards
>of a defined type. You may not get the specific "Fireizard" that you
>wanted, but you *will* get a rare card. That would be my primary
>defense if I were WOTC.
And it would work if everyone recieved a card that had about the same value.
If I sell a box of cracker jacks that contains either a $20 bill, a gold
nugget worth $20 or a widget worth $20, then it is not gambling. But the
problem is that some "rare" cards may have much greater value than others.
But you're right -- I think that this is their best argument.
>> 1. The money being spent on CCGs (or at least some of it) will likely be
>> spent on RPGs. A Good Thing in my book, as CCGs darned near killed RPGs a
>> few years ago.
>
>Except a lot of that money won't go to RPGs. You are engaging in a
>logical fallacy. Pokemon and Magic are pretty mainstream.
I was thinking of Magic, not Pokemon. Magic did severely impact sales of
RPGs. And I think that some of that money would come back -- if not most.
>> 2. Philsophically, I find it cowardly and contemptible to play a game in
>> which one's chances of winning are determined by how much money you spend
on
>> the game. So if they lose their precious game, I couldn't care less.
>
>Well, the actual fact of the matter is that every in CCG I have played
>anyone with a reasonable amount of cards (and getting a reasonable
>amount fo cards did not erequire the expenditure of hundreds of
>dollars), had a reasonable chance of winning.
Yes, but some competitive edge can be gained merely by spending money --
despicable, IMHO. Of course, this is the way it is in the real world, as we
both know.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
>Ty Beard wrote:
>
>> 2. Philsophically, I find it cowardly and contemptible to play a game in
>> which one's chances of winning are determined by how much money you spend
on
>> the game. So if they lose their precious game, I couldn't care less.
>Oh? You mean like when O.J. Simpson has the money to hire all those
>esquire's to get him off a double murder rap?
Yes, exactly. I'd like some venue where skill, not money, matters.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
>> Except that WotC is part of "the house" -- i.e., they get a share of the
>bet
>> along with the retailer. Kind of like multi-level bookies :)
>
>huh? what cut do they get?
WOTC gets about 20% of the "wager"; the distributor gets about 10%, the
retailer gets about 20%. All together, the "house" pockets half of the
wager -- better than the Mafia, I'd bet.
--Ty Beard
night_fly...@juno.com.invalid
Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
> Night Flyer wrote in message
> <93817453...@linux2.intcon.net>...
> >> Except that WotC is part of "the house" -- i.e.,
> they get a share of the
> >bet
> >> along with the retailer. Kind of like multi-level
> bookies :)
> >
> >huh? what cut do they get?
> WOTC gets about 20% of the "wager"; the distributor
> gets about 10%, the
> retailer gets about 20%. All together, the "house"
> pockets half of the
> wager
this is pure BS, a wager is directly corespondant to the
return If I bet $100 in a 5:1 game and I loose, I loose the
$100 and recieve NOTHING, If I spend $3.99 on a pack of
cards, I get a pack of cards, I am not promised anything
more. WoC makes no requirements or guidelins as to which
card becomes "valuable" anymore than Ty does with their
Beanie Babies or the US postal service does with their
collectable stamps, you pay what the MSRP is and if it goes
up in value, great! if not, well, they didnt make any
promises. they delivered exactly what they promised woiuld
be inthe package, 12 randomly assorted cards.
Ross W. Maker
>
> imagine little Johnny on the stand testifying about how he spent his
> allowance for six months buying packs and even stole money from Mommy's
> purse to buy more -- all in the hope of getting a Charizard.
And imagine seven or eight of little Johnny's classmates on the stand
testifying that Johnny is a filthy liar and the only Pokemon cards he's
ever owned were the one pack his Mom bought him so she could get in on
this phony lawsuit <G>. From the stuff that's coming out about MWBH&L,
this would not surprise me in the least. Not noticing that you are
suing one of your own clients (nonpayment of fees excepted) looks to me
like gross incompetence.
RWM