Supreme Court Will Not consider O'Bannon case again.
 

So news came down this morning that the US Supreme Court will not consider the Ed O'Bannon case again. Here is a link to the story: http://usat.ly/2cNsFme

And here is what it means for the future college games.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court Will Not consider O'Bannon case again.
 

So, super unlikely to happen anytime soon. Darn.

Re: Supreme Court Will Not consider O'Bannon case again.
 

Re: Supreme Court Will Not consider O'Bannon case again.
 

Good thing NCAA 14 is a great game !

Re: Supreme Court Will Not consider O'Bannon case again.
 

My issue with courts in these cases is instead of providing clarity and working with the parties involved to find a way forward - in this case with a new game - they simply issue edicts from on high and leave everybody in limbo. Now nobody knows what is and isn't allowed in creating a new game. If the NCAA and EA reach an agreement with each other to license a new game with generic rosters will that be legal or will athletes and lawyers line up to sue?

Re: Supreme Court Will Not consider O'Bannon case again.
 

Doesn't this mean that this type of case can't be tried again? So essentially EA could make a game with completely random rosters (which is what they should have done previously) and not worry about the potential for a lawsuit. That's how I am taking it as but the courts now-a-days never make sense and there is always gray areas.

Also, couldn't schools individually license with EA instead of using the NCAA?

Re: Supreme Court Will Not consider O'Bannon case again.
 

This type of case be tried again and probably will be, meaning a likeness issue. This case itself can't be heard again, I think.

Also pastapadre wrote an article on why we won't be seeing a game from a AAA publisher anytime soon. http://www.sportingnews.com/other-sp...w1spwxi7moms4a


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court Will Not consider O'Bannon case again.
 

Courts aren't there to make everybody happy, or "find a way forward." Courts are given specific legal questions and are tasked with applying the facts and interpreting the law to come out with the "correct" legal decision based on that analysis. Courts do not (or at least should not) make rulings based on what makes the most people happy or what gets a new product to the market; that's not their role (doing what the population wants is, Constitutionally, the function of the legislature, not the judiciary).

Notably, the lower court's initial ruling seemed to offer a "way forward"--with any company using player likenesses (here, we'll use EA) paying a maximum of $5,000 to be put in a trust for the player, to be released upon the player's completion of eligibility. This would have effectively court-ordered a way around the NCAA's current "no-pay" rules, and compensated the players so they could no longer sue EA for using their likeness. But the 9th Circuit ruling overruled just THAT PART of the lower court's decision, still holding that the NCAA rules are wrong but not ordering any way around it.