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

[bkfount]

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.

again..

No high court in America will rule that a company does not have the right to license their own product to who they choose. You and people like you are just stretching things to your hatred of EA's agreement. The NFL has said numerous times that THEY were the ones that initiated the exclusive license that EA eventually won. The NFL isn't a service for the betterment of individuals, it strives to market its unique product for profit. Everything from the unique history, logos, and names of the franchises are all marketable property that belongs to the NFL. This is absolutely no different than similar deals that countless other companies do every day. I find it laughable that there's internet lawyers who think that they suddenly see some monopoly, when no other major company or individuals have done anything about it for years. But good luck with it.

This deal in no way prevents anyone from producing football games, which is evident by Blitz:The League, APF2k8, and the recently announced Tecmo Bowl. It doesn't punish consumers by raising prices, since last time I checked, Madden is the same price as other games regardless of whatever consoles it's released on. I don't agree with the deal either, but to argue it's somehow against the law for a company to do what it wants with it's own license is laughable, and potentially dangerous if it ever does get ruled like you want in even a single court.

[GTheorenHobbes]

Some more food for thought:

Professional baseball's unique exemption from the antitrust laws was created when the Supreme Court held in Federal Base Ball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), that baseball is not interstate commerce. No other professional sport has ever been granted this court-made exemption, and Congress has not extended the blanket exemption to other sports.

[bkfount]

Quote: Originally Posted by GTheorenHobbes

Some more food for thought: Professional baseball's unique exemption from the antitrust laws was created when the Supreme Court held in Federal Base Ball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), that baseball is not interstate commerce. No other professional sport has been granted this court-made exemption, and Congress has not extended the blanket exemption to other sports.

wow, everything you have posted was covered in my freshman level sports law class I took for my sports management degree. Some of them have nothing to do with this issue at all, but hey...whatever makes you feel informed.

Stop looking into monopolies and go read into trademark or brand licensing.

[GTheorenHobbes]

"No high court in America will rule that a company does not have the right to license their own product to who they choose."

Tell that to Microsoft...I'm sure it would make them feel a lot better.

[bkfount]

Quote: Originally Posted by GTheorenHobbes

"No high court in America will rule that a company does not have the right to license their own product to who they choose." Tell that to Microsoft...I'm sure it would make them feel a lot better.

lol, go read more into that case. It's called United States v. Microsoft if you're interested.

MS settled out of court with the Bush Administration, and the case is seen as a case of the government overly interfering with the free market.

[Resin]

Quote: Originally Posted by GTheorenHobbes

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)

Maybe if they didn't sell a crap load of games at $19.99 thus reducing the NFL's royalties they wouldn't have found themselves in this mess to begin with!

The license is up in 3 years. That's how long it takes to make a video game usually, but with sports games they release it year after year building on the previous one. So maybe Take 2 is gearing up so by 2010 All Pro or whatever they call it will be just as good as Madden and they have something to sell to the NFL.

Just a guess though! I'm speculating like everyone else does.

[bkfount]

Quote: Originally Posted by Resin

Maybe if they didn't sell a crap load of games at $19.99 thus reducing the NFL's royalties they wouldn't have found themselves in this mess to begin with!

also, the EA NFL deal didn't increase games one cent. 2k was using a lower price point to entice gamers to buy their game. EA then in turn lowered the price of their game that year as well. That's how it works. However, 2k even said they would have returned it to full price in later years, but they never had a chance. This is evident by how their exclusive MLB game is now the regular video game retail price, $59.99 on the 360, but somehow EA is the evil one who hiked up prices.

Now, Madden costs the same as every other game on the 360. It's virtually impossible that 2k's "noble stand" against the then normal $49.99 price would have made other games drop to $19.99 as well. Thus, the argument against price is pointless.

[J.R. Locke]

The problem I have with these exclusive license on an ethical business end is that it absolutely restricts competition but also acts as a trust/monopoly with the company it has sold its license too.

The biggest example is with the NFL and Directv. This exclusive license has limited the NFL's market base, thus going in complete contradiction to any logical business practice (considering TimeWarner/Comcast would offer the same programming for the same price). But the NFL made an amount of money up front that will indirectly be put upon the consumer 2 to 3 fold.

The problem with this is that now Directv can charge whatever price it wants for this package, it costs almost $100 more than the MLB or NBA packages! This was not the case until this exclusive package existed. Also the cost of new equipment and change of service provider etc...

Now how this ties into video games is what if Madden starts to sell at a different price point than the rest of video games? This is when the line starts to blur and it increases the similarities to a trust or monopoly. Anti-trust legislation would be needed because the exclusive license is creating an unfair market advantage, not to the NFL licensed game but for the hardware/software of a new different market.

This is the same if the number one motor company would sell exclusive rights to Shell as the exclusive oil for its brand of cars. The car company would then be effecting a different market (oil) and thus anti-trust legislation would likely be invoked because if this happened with every company the consumer of oil would be screwed over because each company had to pay for something that was normally free or at a rate of open access to the market.

Another analogy would be is if the NFL decided to say NFL games can only be watched on Samsung TV's. Thus reshuffling the whole television industry.

ODogg you may be confusing patents and exclusive licenseship. Exclusive license often are as sponsorship or superfluous to the market the license is bidded upon and thus they rarely ever restrict the competition of the different market. I think rightly that the video game industry is less likely to bring enough political/judicial pressure to warrant repercussions but this issue is very much questionable in legal terms.