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

[inkcil]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

What consumers want is not relevant to legal terms and possible issues such as the word monopoly. There are other things consumers no doubt want such as all football games to be priced $19.99 that don't have anything to do with the law and possible legal action against those who refuse to comply. So I don't think i'm defeating the spirit of the debate, because we are debating possible monopoly and illegal practices of EA in regards to the licenses, not what EA should be doing based on what consumers would desire. But you are right about one thing in regards to bringing up this arguement, this is simply wishful thinking of jilted consumers more than any real possible issues of illegality.

I guess I tried to come at the whole discussion from a different angle, which brought us off topic in the sense that the thread is about whether or not EA is doing something illegal (which they are not).

[ODogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by inkcil

I guess I tried to come at the whole discussion from a different angle, which brought us off topic in the sense that the thread is about whether or not EA is doing something illegal (which they are not).

Well if it means anything I don't like them having the exclusive licenses at all so I can sympathize with those of you who also hate it. I just don't think it's in any way, shape or form illegal for them to have the exclusive licenses.

[GTheorenHobbes]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

I dont practice antitrust law. I am a corporate trademark lawyer with a focus on litigation on licensing and litigation. With that said, Ive taken a number of courses on antitrust so I know a little about that. Here is the thing...you dont have to know about antitrust or even go to law school to know your interpretation of the case was incorrect. You just have to be able to read. The argument that you and a few others tried to make was that the fact that the AN case is still ongoing is proof that they have a valid or strong case. That is just wrong and the judge says as much in the motion to dismiss opinion. Read the judge's opinion before basing your argument on it.

I've never said it was a valid or strong case, only that it's not as clear cut as some around here continue to believe. The definition of a motion to dismiss is failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. By surviving the motion to dismiss stage, apparently it's a claim upon which relief can be granted, construing all of the factual allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff. In other words, at least at the motion to dismiss stage, it's a legitimate case.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by GTheorenHobbes

I've never said it was a valid or strong case, only that it's not as clear cut as some around here continue to believe. The definition of a motion to dismiss is failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. By surviving the motion to dismiss stage, apparently it's a claim upon which relief can be granted, construing all of the factual allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff. In other words, at least at the motion to dismiss stage, it's a legitimate case.

LOL....ok so in the first sentence you say its not a valid case but in the final sentence you say its legitimate? Its legitimate if you define a legitimate case as any case filed in court. You are basing an argument on a case that hasnt been decided and one that the judge stated in the opinion doesnt have a good chance at winning. I understand your point but this case doesnt support it.

[ODogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

LOL....ok so in the first sentence you say its not a valid case but in the final sentence you say its legitimate? Its legitimate if you define a legitimate case as any case filed in court. You are basing an argument on a case that hasnt been decided and one that the judge stated in the opinion doesnt have a good chance at winning. I understand your point but this case doesnt support it.

It's legitimate just like the lawyer suing the drycleaners for losing his pants for $64 million dollars, LOL. After all, that case has yet to be dismissed!

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

It's legitimate just like the lawyer suing the drycleaners for losing his pants for $64 million dollars, LOL. After all, that case has yet to be dismissed!

LOL...and that case will make it past a motion to dismiss also.

[Roy Williams]

2k NCAA sucked EA can keep the "monolopy" for the NCAA football game