Supreme Court Rules Against MLB - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Supreme Court Rules Against MLB

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Consider Fantasy Sports Disubute

Postby fezzik » Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:10 pm

StlSluggers wrote:
Pogotheostrich wrote:
Grounded Polo wrote:Without fantasy sports, how many of us could really name more than 1 player from the Pirates? B-)


Heck, I have a hard time even with fantasy baseball. :-D

The Pirates?


Blackbeard
Long John Silver
Captain Hook
Dread Pirate Roberts

That's four...too easy... :-°
Image
fezzik
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 2415
Joined: 9 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Inside my head

Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Consider Fantasy Sports Disubute

Postby neoforce » Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:36 pm

Yoda wrote:
Matthias wrote:
Yoda wrote:I heard the judge was in a money league. That helps.

Yah? Which one? There's 9 of 'em.


At least 4 or 5.


The "fact" that the Supreme Court has their own fantasy baseball league was an april fools joke. Here is a link to the original:
http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorne ... ntasy.html

Besides the fact that the article is clearly listed as April 1st 2008, this quote makes it clear it was a joke:
... told me of a trip to Florida two weeks back for an annual spring training vacation with friends and to watch a cousin, Siddhartha Finch, at the New York Mets' spring camp in Port St. Lucie. Over twenty years ago Finch gave up a promising baseball opportunity to pursue a career with the French horn. He is trying to become the first rookie over the age of 50 to break into the big league as part of a book project....

Finch, I was told, was then picked up this past weekend by the Alito/Breyer team at their annual draft. He was added to their reserve roster in the event of an injury to a player on the main roster. (Finch will be starting the year at the Mets' Double-A affiliate in Binghamton.)
There are a few things with the New York Yankees that never change. That's pride, tradition, and most of all, we have the greatest fans in the world. -Derek Jeter, 9/21/08 -- last words from old Yankee Stadium
neoforce
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 1128
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Consider Fantasy Sports Disubute

Postby Matthias » Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:53 pm

neoforce wrote:The "fact" that the Supreme Court has their own fantasy baseball league was an april fools joke. Here is a link to the original:
http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorne ... ntasy.html

Besides the fact that the article is clearly listed as April 1st 2008, this quote makes it clear it was a joke:
... told me of a trip to Florida two weeks back for an annual spring training vacation with friends and to watch a cousin, Siddhartha Finch, at the New York Mets' spring camp in Port St. Lucie. Over twenty years ago Finch gave up a promising baseball opportunity to pursue a career with the French horn. He is trying to become the first rookie over the age of 50 to break into the big league as part of a book project....

Finch, I was told, was then picked up this past weekend by the Alito/Breyer team at their annual draft. He was added to their reserve roster in the event of an injury to a player on the main roster. (Finch will be starting the year at the Mets' Double-A affiliate in Binghamton.)

I think you were the only one who took Yoda seriously. I bet he couldn't even name 3 SC judges, much less what they do in their off-hours.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Consider Fantasy Sports Disubute

Postby neoforce » Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:06 pm

Matthias wrote: ...
I think you were the only one who took Yoda seriously. I bet he couldn't even name 3 SC judges, much less what they do in their off-hours.


I always take Yoda seriously. Doesn't the green jester mask icon by his name mean to always take him seriously? :-)

Truth is, I just love any opportunity to post about Siddhartha Finch. My all time favorite baseball "story." I will never forget when I read it, and how I was suckered in at first, and then my reaction about three quarters of the way through when I figured out it was just an April 1st joke. Always worth posting that story for anyone too young to have read it on 4/1/85. And for those one or two people here who may have never heard of Sidd Finch, here is the URL: http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ ... /index.htm
There are a few things with the New York Yankees that never change. That's pride, tradition, and most of all, we have the greatest fans in the world. -Derek Jeter, 9/21/08 -- last words from old Yankee Stadium
neoforce
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 1128
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Consider Fantasy Sports Disubute

Postby noseeum » Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:09 pm

Matthias wrote:I'm not dissing TBM, but that characterization is not correct. There's a number of reasons for the SC to refuse to hear a case: they might feel the issue is not important enough (their review is at their discretion) or they might believe that the issue is not yet ripe for review and want to see it percolate a little in the different circuits before weighing in... or a variety of other factors... but to say that you can deduce from it that they agree with the ruling is just incorrect.


Just a point of clarification here. Matthias is right that not hearing a case is not a reflection on the court's opinion on it.

As I understand it, for a portion of the country, not hearing a case acts as an "endorsement" of the lower court's ruling for all court's below the 8th circuit. So at least for a portion of the country, this ruling now stands that baseball players' names and stats are public domain. One would expect other circuit courts to at least use the 8th circuit's ruling as precedent as well in future cases, although they don't necessarily have to defer to a court at the same level.

At least I'm pretty sure that's how it works.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1697
Joined: 1 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Consider Fantasy Sports Disubute

Postby Matthias » Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:33 am

noseeum wrote:
Matthias wrote:I'm not dissing TBM, but that characterization is not correct. There's a number of reasons for the SC to refuse to hear a case: they might feel the issue is not important enough (their review is at their discretion) or they might believe that the issue is not yet ripe for review and want to see it percolate a little in the different circuits before weighing in... or a variety of other factors... but to say that you can deduce from it that they agree with the ruling is just incorrect.

Just a point of clarification here. Matthias is right that not hearing a case is not a reflection on the court's opinion on it.

As I understand it, for a portion of the country, not hearing a case acts as an "endorsement" of the lower court's ruling for all court's below the 8th circuit. So at least for a portion of the country, this ruling now stands that baseball players' names and stats are public domain. One would expect other circuit courts to at least use the 8th circuit's ruling as precedent as well in future cases, although they don't necessarily have to defer to a court at the same level.

At least I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Very close.

For the circuit in which the case was decided, the decision acts as binding precedent, but only because no higher court (the SC) has made a decision.

In high school terms, think of it as: you ask your dad if you can stay out until 2am and he says yes. That's good enough for you, but only because your mother hasn't given an opinion one way or another. And your friend can use your dad's decision to let you stay out till 2am as friendly advice to let them stay out until 2am, but ultimately, his parents are free to make their own decision. So if his dad says 11pm, that's the rule for him... what you do between 11 and 2 is between you and your parents.

There is a very rare event in which appeals court decisions serve as SC precedent, but it's only in very rare case where a majority of the SC have to recuse themselves because of conflicts (if they own stock in one of the companies involved, for instance).
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Consider Fantasy Sports Disubute

Postby Giambis » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:44 am

Matthias wrote:
noseeum wrote:
Matthias wrote:I'm not dissing TBM, but that characterization is not correct. There's a number of reasons for the SC to refuse to hear a case: they might feel the issue is not important enough (their review is at their discretion) or they might believe that the issue is not yet ripe for review and want to see it percolate a little in the different circuits before weighing in... or a variety of other factors... but to say that you can deduce from it that they agree with the ruling is just incorrect.

Just a point of clarification here. Matthias is right that not hearing a case is not a reflection on the court's opinion on it.

As I understand it, for a portion of the country, not hearing a case acts as an "endorsement" of the lower court's ruling for all court's below the 8th circuit. So at least for a portion of the country, this ruling now stands that baseball players' names and stats are public domain. One would expect other circuit courts to at least use the 8th circuit's ruling as precedent as well in future cases, although they don't necessarily have to defer to a court at the same level.

At least I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Very close.

For the circuit in which the case was decided, the decision acts as binding precedent, but only because no higher court (the SC) has made a decision.

In high school terms, think of it as: you ask your dad if you can stay out until 2am and he says yes. That's good enough for you, but only because your mother hasn't given an opinion one way or another. And your friend can use your dad's decision to let you stay out till 2am as friendly advice to let them stay out until 2am, but ultimately, his parents are free to make their own decision. So if his dad says 11pm, that's the rule for him... what you do between 11 and 2 is between you and your parents.

There is a very rare event in which appeals court decisions serve as SC precedent, but it's only in very rare case where a majority of the SC have to recuse themselves because of conflicts (if they own stock in one of the companies involved, for instance).


Nice analogy Matthias.
Giambis
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 483
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Supreme Court Rules Against MLB

Postby Matthias » Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:18 pm

Looks like the MLBPA is striking back.

Recently, player photos disappeared off of Sportsline. So I got around to asking CBS what was up. Their response?
The players association will no longer allow us to use those pictures for the fantasy games.

It could be a little aggressive protection of their Intellectual Property (by asserting the right to remove the likenesses they are showing their control of it) or it could just be them saying, "fooey on you then".

In any case, big suckage.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Supreme Court Rules Against MLB

Postby MashinSpuds » Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:53 pm

Matthias wrote:Looks like the MLBPA is striking back.

Recently, player photos disappeared off of Sportsline. So I got around to asking CBS what was up. Their response?
The players association will no longer allow us to use those pictures for the fantasy games.

It could be a little aggressive protection of their Intellectual Property (by asserting the right to remove the likenesses they are showing their control of it) or it could just be them saying, "fooey on you then".

In any case, big suckage.


Yeah, that is too bad and overall just a trivial wah-wah move on the MLB's part. That said, think of how embarrassed a young manager will feel when he/she creates a team called The Handsome Hitters and drafts Jorge Cantu. Oops, no picture!
MashinSpuds
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerEagle EyeCafecaster
Posts: 2563
(Past Year: 109)
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Boston

Re: Supreme Court Rules Against MLB

Postby great gretzky » Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:03 pm

that's just dumb. I mean one of the things that helps players is that they are recognizable, as oppossed to the NHL or NFL. Oh well, I almost never look at it anyway.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3769
Joined: 3 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 9:51 hours
(and 97 days)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact