A question for those with a legal background

[AgustusM]

I was thinking about this today as the only available MLB baseball game was crashing my 360.

How is it that these “exclusive” license deals we have been seeing (The NFL with EA, MLB with 2K) are legal.

This seems monopolistic to me and certainly anti-competitive which I thought was illegal?

Please help me understand.

[SackAttack]

In the case of MLB 2k6, it's not monopolistic, as Microsoft is permitted by the terms of the contract to create a baseball game of their own.

Thing is, they aren't going to. Not 2K Sports' fault that a potential competitor declines to compete.

[AgustusM]

I didn't know that about MS - I thought I read the MLB-2K thing was exclusive.

[SackAttack]

I didn't know that about MS - I thought I read the MLB-2K thing was exclusive.

It's "exclusive," but designed in such a way as to pretty much solely screw over EA Sports.

The contract as originally reported gave 2K Sports the "exclusive third-party rights" to the MLB and MLBPA. What that means is, 2K Sports is the only third party licensed to make a baseball game containing real team and player names, stadium names and so forth.

Now, it's apparently not quite that ironclad, because MLB SlugFest is due out later this year, and is licensed. So perhaps their license is for a baseball simulation, kind of like how the NBA decided to rotate their licenses to the different manufacturers based on different types of basketball games - "street" games à la NBA Jam/NBA Street, simulation games like NBA Live/NBA 2k6, and so forth.

That would allow Midway to create a non-simulation licensed baseball game, and 2K Sports to screw over EA. I'm not sure of the exact particulars, as I don't think that document is public record, but the long and short of it is that it was a contract set up specifically to bend EA Sports over after they went and snagged the exclusive rights to the NFL, CFL and Arena Football leagues and bought the ESPN license out from under them as well.

[mgadfly]

It has been awhile since I took Sports Law in law school, but if I remember correctly most sports leagues aren't considered monopolies because they are in the business of entertainment which has lots of other competition. If the league itself isn't a monopoly, then I'm pretty sure a license to use the league's name (etc...) can't legally be considered a monopoly.

EA can make a bullriding game.

[digamma]

This is definitely a confusing topic. Here are a couple of tidbits that may help explain why this wouldn't be a monopoly.

Exclusive contracts aren't illegal. If I'm a wheat farmer, I can enter into a contract with a single processing company whereby I will sell them all of the wheat I produce.

Continuing the wheat example, what I can't do, is agree with my fellow wheat farmers that we're only going to sell our wheat to one processor.

That sounds a bit like what the NFL players are doing here--they're all agreeing to sell the license to their likeness to one company. However, their doing it under the cover of a union and a collective bargaining agreement. So, it's a bit like the single farmer selling all of his wheat to one processor.

Same thing for the league (though, the explanation isn't as simple as having a collective bargaining agreement--as mgadfly pointed out, there's a lot of case law here that says that leagues can under certain circumstances be treated as a single entity).

[yabanci]

I was thinking about this today as the only available MLB baseball game was crashing my 360.

How is it that these “exclusive” license deals we have been seeing (The NFL with EA, MLB with 2K) are legal.

This seems monopolistic to me and certainly anti-competitive which I thought was illegal?

Please help me understand.

Antitrust isn't even an issue. The leagues/players associations are licensing intellectual property (trademarks, copyrights, names and likenesses). The law confers on owners of Intellectual property a certain bundle of rights. The most fundamental of these rights is the exclusive use of the intellectual property, including the right to license (exclusive or nonexclusive) others to use it. The deals don't stop other companies from making football or baseball games; they just prevent other companies from using certain intellectual property in those games.

[DanGarion]

Microsoft XBox is a closed system which means they can choose what software is allowed on their equiptment.

I think that basically covers it.

[SackAttack]

Microsoft XBox is a closed system which means they can choose what software is allowed on their equiptment.

I think that basically covers it.

Microsoft hasn't got anything to do with the debate in question.

They can certify (or not) software, but their approval or lack thereof doesn't mean a thing with regards to a 2K Sports NFL title or an EA MLB game.

[DanGarion]

Microsoft hasn't got anything to do with the debate in question.

They can certify (or not) software, but their approval or lack thereof doesn't mean a thing with regards to a 2K Sports NFL title or an EA MLB game.
Oh yeah duh, I was looking at it from the wrong view. Well MLB can selectively choose who can use their likeless and content, so I guess that would be what covers this. It's all a matter of licensing.