Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

[JEM]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

I don't know were you got your info, but the NFL is the one who made it he issue. As for EA they had the namesake(Madden),and the funds to pull the deal done from the NFL. Nobody twisted the NFL's arm, and besides it's what the NFL has been doing for the last 6-7 yrs now. They have been making exclusive deals on everything, just look at the Directv Sunday ticket deal, or the Pepsi deal the made. Exclusive deals are a pain (I know), but the point I make is if you go after someone or write a million angry letters, write to the root of the problem.

P.S. I wish to see the day 2k returns. I have played the 2k games since 1999, when it was on the Dreamcast. I want so desperately to hear Dan Stevens & Peter o'Keefe once more(the kings of commentary).

He got his info from the same article I am thinking of probably.. It was in one of the Gamespot article shortly after the deal took place. It stated " EA contacted the NFL in 2002 about going exclusive "..

If it wasnt EA who initiated it then ask yourself this.. WHY did EA then get the NCCAF and AFL Licenses right after the NFL deal? Surely all 3 didnt so happen want to go exclusive at the same time?.. Highly doubtful.

Then ask yourself WHY EA then contacted the NBA about going exclusive.. Coincidence? I dont think so.

[roadman]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

The bottom line is, does it really matter who contacted who 5 years ago? In the business world, it takes two to make or strike a deal.

It's done, can't change history. We have to wait till 2012.

[HealyMonster]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

The bottom line is, does it really matter who contacted who 5 years ago? In the business world, it takes two to make or strike a deal.

It's done, can't change history. We have to wait till 2012.

tought they just did a new deal to 2014 right?

[roadman]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

tought they just did a new deal to 2014 right?

Now, I'm not so sure.

[JerseySuave4]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

i never was a 2k football guy but i'm done with Madden, it sucks, so i wish someone else would be allowed to make an NFL game. Ive finally jumped ship on that mindset.

[JerseySuave4]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

tought they just did a new deal to 2014 right?

i sure as hell hope not

[Radioactiveman]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G8b2FRQ1KM

heres a link to the updated version of tecmo bowl video on Youtube. Can someone posted on here, i do know how. If u truly need a nfl football game to play besides madden play this

Man, Tecmo was way ahead of its time...they had "pro-tak" back then...you see those gang tackles?

[ODogg]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

I don't understand why people want EA to win...Ok you like madden....So what?

Liking Madden has nothing to do with it. Personally I wish there was an open competition and there was no exclusive license. Exclusive licenses are bad for the consumer. With that being said, the reason that EA needs to win is the reason the NFL needs to win - entities should be able to sell their product to whomever and however they desire.

[LionsFanNJ]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

Liking Madden has nothing to do with it. Personally I wish there was an open competition and there was no exclusive license. Exclusive licenses are bad for the consumer. With that being said, the reason that EA needs to win is the reason the NFL needs to win - entities should be able to sell their product to whomever and however they desire.

This fact seems to be overlooked. People want EA to lose the license so bad that they can't see sight of the bigger picture and what it means to all companies. Add to that the other ongoing case ruling whether each team is its separate company in itself, and you have a bad precedent.

[jhawkmike]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

This is getting beyond stupid. I can't believe the idiocy of some people. Learn a thing or two about economy before you start tossing words like "monopoly" around, and stop bringing stupid lawsuits that are costing perfectly good people jobs.

And for the record, this is hardly the "start", people have tried this Lord knows how many times.

Exclusive access to a privately owned intellectual property is NOT a monopoly, as the owner of the I.P. may do with its private property whatever it damn well pleases. Beyond that, the industry in question is not "NFL Based Football Games", it's Video Games.

Actually, intellectual property is a monopoly. Its a legal, government granted monopoly, but it is still a monopoly. But more importantly, intellectual property is also an affront to free speech and free expression. The notion that words and ideas can be "owned" by someone is dubious to many, including the authors (Jefferson and Madison) of our constitution's copyright clause. Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"It would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors... It would be curious... if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it
to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

Madison wrote:

"But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good."

Jefferson and Madison didn't view intellectual property as being a natural right, or as deserving the same level of protection as ordinary property. They saw the granting of copyrights and patents as a necessary evil (Jefferson calls them an "embarassment") that ultimately benefitted society by providing financial incentive for invention. Jefferson also anticipated how difficult it would be to craft laws that properly balanced the virtues of freedom with the utility of encouraging innovation.

"Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured."

So when analyzing our country's current IP laws and how they are intepreted by the courts, I think it is important to remember the intentions of our founding fathers. They did not conceive the purpose of intellectual property laws to be the absolute protection of an inherent, self-evident right. Instead, they viewed IP laws to be the creation of a limited right, to be given to an individual, but for the benefit of society as a whole. But our current laws have truly perverted these values, and are just as likely to stifle creativity as they are to encourage it. Instead of serving the public as a whole, they are skewed toward protecting corporate interests at the expense of the public.

And the NFL's deal with EA is clear example of this. The purpose of trademarks should be to protect consumers from fraud and confusion. No one except the real Nike should be be able to sell shoes branded as "Nike" or with the Nike swoosh. And no one else should be able to start a professional football league and call it the NFL. These kinds of restrictions clearly serve the public interest. But allowing the NFL to decide which video game companies can and cannot use their trademarks in their games is clearly not in the public interest. It stifles creativity instead of encouraging it.

Now none of what I've said really has much to do with this lawsuit. I'm not arguing that the EA/NFL exclusivity deal is illegal; just that it should be. I haven't examined the suit too closely, but it seems like it's based on shaky ground, and has very little chance of success.

[teambayern]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

Wow there are a lot of lawyers on this site...or at least a lot of people who think they are.

EDIT: jhawkmike, just wanted to make sure you didn't think that was directed at you. Very nice analysis.

[ODogg]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

I think, and this is just my opinion, that Jefferson and Madison would agree with most here - that the NFL has created their own product and should determine the control of that product. I understand the post put forward here by jhawkmike but I think that would apply more if EA and the NFL was trying to say no one else could create just a football game, not specifically an NFL game. There are general applications of ideas that are not "owned" per se, such as in this case football.

So I guess what i'm saying is that the inventor of football, as Americans know it, would not necessarily be entitled to trademark and license the entire game but that the NFL could their particular version of it. There has to be some general application and distinction of specifity to the entire right to own intellectual property. And I believe that is exactly how the founding fathers would interpret this specific case.

[GTheorenHobbes]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

I think, and this is just my opinion, that Jefferson and Madison would agree with most here - that the NFL has created their own product and should determine the control of that product.

I'm not so sure that "most" here feel that way, especially when considering the context of this case (i.e., it's not just about the NFL but also NCAA, AFL and everyone else who has whored their exclusive license to EA). But I do know both sides have been very vocal in voicing their opinion, and the popularity of this thread shows (to me) that it's not as cut and dry as either camp believes.

[Only1LT]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

Thought provoking post jhawkmike.

Thank you

[budsticky]

Re: Maddens legal battle starts today 09/14/2009!

Wow. This argument has taken us all the way back to the Founding Fathers. Just remember, Washington grew hemp.