New lawsuit against EA!!!

[mastershake88]

Hey if The early patriots of this country thought as negative as some people do concerning this topic we all would be drinking taxed tea right now from England.

[Sef0r]

Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy

Good luck boys. (girls)

Girls? I want pictures....girl gamers are suppose to be hot...

...and countryboy :hugs:

[Jon22]

Like I said in the same thread in the OS Espn forum. I don't see anything good could come from this. It doesn't seem like a strong enough lawsuit. But, If some chance they do when... God, everyone around here would freak..

Well, except Countryboy, atleast you cup the balls (EA). j/k

[gamecox3]

Maybe this they will make EA drop the AFL license since there isn't an AFL game in production.

[wildthing2022000]

lol, they have no chance to win this lawsuit. It would be like suing McDonald's for selling only Coke & not Pepsi. Can McDonald's sell both yea, but they have a deal with Coke.

[HealyMonster]

heck if they need more signatures or pople to join in, im in.

[coogrfan]

I have some bad news for these guys-a federal court ruled last year that exclusive licenses granted by the NFL do not constitute an antitrust violation.

Quote:

Background "American Needle, Inc. v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, No. 04 C 7806, 2005 WL 1126537 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2005)" For many years, the NFLP licensed American Needle and other clothing manufacturers to use NFL teams’ trademarks on hardware and apparel. In December 2000, however, the NFL, NFLP and NFL team owners decided to change their licensing practice of granting multiple trademark licenses. Under the new arrangement, the NFLP would enter into an exclusive licensing agreement with one company for the manufacture, sale, and distribution of headwear and apparel carrying the trademarks of the NFL and its member teams. Subsequently, the NFLP entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with Reebok. American Needle’s trademark license with NFLP expired in March 2001 and was not renewed. American Needle brought an antitrust action against the NFL, the individual owners of NFL teams, the NFLP, and Reebok alleging that defendants’ agreement to grant an exclusive license for the use of NFL teams’ trademarks on headwear and apparel constitutes an unlawful restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Act.

http://www.chicagoiplitigation.com/t...erican-needle/

Quote:

Posted on July 24, 2007 by R. David Donoghue Am. Needle, Inc. v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, __ F. Supp.2d __, 2007 WL 2042764 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 11, 2007) (Moran, J.). Judge Moran granted defendants, the NFL, NFL Properties and each of the thirty two teams (collectively the “NFL”) as well as Reebok International, Ltd. (“Reebok”), summary judgment on plaintiff’s Sherman Act antitrust claims, finding that the NFL acts through NFL Properties as a single entity for IP licensing purposes. For more than twenty years, NFL Properties licensed plaintiff to use various trademarks on its headwear. Plaintiff filed this suit after NFL Properties entered an exclusive license with Reebok, ending plaintiff’s license rights. Plaintiff argued that the NFL teams collectively, as well as in concert with Reebok, violated the antitrust laws by acting together through NFL Properties to license their collective intellectual property rights exclusively to Reebok (plaintiff argued that the NFL did not violate antitrust laws when it licensed to numerous parties, including plaintiff, through NFL Properties). But the Court held that licensing coordination between the NFL and its teams was equivalent to coordination between a corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary. Because the Supreme Court treats corporations and their wholly-owned subsidiaries as single entities, there could be no conspiracy and no antitrust violation.

Quote:

Am. Needle, Inc. v. New Orleans, Louisiana Saints, No. 04 C 7806, 2007 WL 4766815 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.). Judge Moran dismissed plaintiff’s remaining antitrust monopolization claim against various NFL entities and the 32 NFL teams.* Despite the fact that the NFL teams were a single entity for licensing purposes,** the NFL team could still be liable for monopolization outside of coordinated licensing efforts . But the alleged monopolization – licensing of defendants’ trademarks – can be done at defendants’ whim without violating antitrust laws based on the NFL’s status as a single entity.

[DC]

Good I hope the devil is finally brought down