So how much longer does EA have a MONOPOLY on NFL, NCAA Franchise?

[ODogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by GTheorenHobbes

From the link: "Other practices demand closer scrutiny based on principles that the courts and antitrust agencies have developed. These cases are examined under a "rule of reason" analysis. A practice is illegal if it restricts competition in some significant way and has no overriding business justification. Practices that meet both characteristics are likely to harm consumers -- by increasing prices, reducing availability of goods or services, lowering quality or service, or significantly stifling innovation." I think a fair argument can be made that EA and the NFL's actions have increased prices (from $19 to $59 or $69, if you're counting collector's editions), reduced availability (3 or 4 titles down to 1), lowered quality (removed features) and significantly stifled innovation - no question. If the state gave the exclusive license, it would have been protected by something called the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. But to my knowledge, nothing similar would apply to the NFL/EA actions.

Going by your own link it is in line with what i'm saying. Read the above. The EA/NFL deal hasn't restricted competition, anyone can, and some do, still make football games. And I'm sure that the companies that make 2K and Blitz wouldn't appreciate you acting as if their games don't exist when you say the titles have gone from 3 or 4 to 1. The truth is once again, it's just like any product, no one is saying that any company can't make a football game, they just can't brand it using the NFL/NCAA properties because the NCAA/NFL chose to not allow them to use their license. That is their right. In fact, they could disallow anyone from creating a football game if they truly wanted to.

As for the price increase, TakeTwo also has increased their price of their football game when moving to the next-gen. Madden is $59 on next-gen and $49 on current gen just like most other games so their pricing is most definitely not out of line. Now if they were charging $150 for Madden then you might have a point but since they don't, you don't.

Oh and one last thing, this statement "and has no overriding business justification." also negates the monopoly theory here. The NFL/NCAA have the business justification of controlling and overseeing their trademarked properties, which is well within their rights as an entity that owns said property. Restricting that license to one particular company gives them greater ability to ensure their product is used as they see fit, instead of having to oversee multiple products. Protecting and breeding a brand that you own is 100% most certainly a reasonable business justification.

[GTheorenHobbes]

My only point is, it's not as clear as you think. Let me put it another way. If the State of New York appointed a single ambulance service to handle all 911 calls in New York city, a rival ambulance service provider could not sue the designated provider for conspiring to obtain monopoly power because the whole thing is protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine as a result of the State's involvement. I can get you the case citations if you want. Here, the NFL and EA would not be protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and the court would have to decide whether the elements of a Sherman Act claim, etc., are otherwise met. My guess is that Take 2 didn't try to fight this in court because the outcome would be uncertain and costly. But just because it doesn't seem like a monopoly or a violation of the antitrust laws to you, doesn't mean a Judge in California might not see it another way.

[Cebby]

Dude, just give it up. You were wrong, you got served, you deal with it.

[ODogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by GTheorenHobbes

My only point is, it's not as clear as you think. Let me put it another way. If the State of New York appointed a single ambulance service to handle all 911 calls in New York city, a rival ambulance service provider could not sue the designated provider for conspiring to obtain monopoly power because the whole thing is protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine as a result of the State's involvement. I can get you the case citations if you want. Here, the NFL and EA would not be protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and the court would have to decide whether the elements of a Sherman Act claim, etc., are otherwise met. My guess is that Take 2 didn't try to fight this in court because the outcome would be uncertain and costly. But just because it doesn't seem like a monopoly or a violation of the antitrust laws to you, doesn't mean a Judge in California might not see it another way.

You are right. Judges have been known to interpret things how they want to instead of following the law. But as I said, from all i've read with these other companies not one of them has mentioned the legal action aspect so that leads me to believe that even if they had the money and time to pursue it, that they felt it would not be something worth even thinking of pursuing because there was no reason to under the law. In fact, the only people I've heard saying anything about the possibility of legal action are fans of the 2K series and/or haters of EA who visit message forums. It's just wishful thinking more than anything grounded in fact IMO.

[GTheorenHobbes]

Quote: Originally Posted by The Soldier

Dude, just give it up. You were wrong, you got served, you deal with it.

You're not Sean Hannity by chance, are you? He uses the same style of debate.

[ODogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by GTheorenHobbes

You're not Sean Hannity by chance, are you? He uses the same style of debate.

Don't be dissin' on my boy Hannity now!!

[GTheorenHobbes]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, O'Dogg...nothing wrong with that.

[TheGamingChef]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

Don't be dissin' on my boy Hannity now!!

He doesn't need us to make him look bad