Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

[tlc12576]

Quote: Originally Posted by LiquorLogic

Again, publishers aren't entitled to a certain price point. The courts couldn't care less about "standard" pricing. Whether 2k6 would've have sold for $20, $30, $40, or $50 dollars the following year are all assumptions. This case is about facts. The fact remains that EA lowered the price of Madden to compete, got rid of the competition, and then returned Madden to it's original price.

I don't see why people are acting as is Liquor's point has no logic to it.(haha) Unless I am mistaken, part of the antitrust law is to prevent collusion between entities to create a monopoly also. With all the facts together, a pretty clear picture is painted that makes for a compelling argument that collusion took place, between the NFL and EA, to eliminate competition and allow EA to sell Madden at its' original, higher price.

[RaychelSnr]

Quote: Originally Posted by LiquorLogic

You put competition out of business, legally, by offering a better product, or a cheaper product of the same quality. You don't make a deal that prevents you competitor competing altogether. Also, in case you haven't heard, the SCOTUS doesn't consider the NFL a single-entity. Single entities can decide to partner up with one company exclusively, but multiple entities, which the NFL is, can't conspire to exclude a competitor from the market. DirectTV is one company;DirectTV, to my knowledge, is not comprised of 32 separate companies.

That's a very loose and very wrong interpretation of how the American Needle case decision was worded. Each NFL club can still decide to collectively enter into agreements together -- just the NFL cannot negotiate on their behalf without an agreement between each team. This is what the Plantiffs are going to have to prove, hattip to Law Professor Marc Edelman, who I hope to have an interview with on OS soon:

Quote:

A plaintiff is going to have to show three things: (1) that the NFL clubs collectively exercise market power in a some relevant market related to video games, (2) that the NFL’s exclusive licensing practices overall are anti-competitive in this market, and (3) that as a result of the NFL’s exclusive licensing practices consumers have been harmed through either higher prices or a reduction of output within that relevant market.

So basically, this case has to prove that EA and the NFL's practices are a part of a singular football market (which is easily disproved by showing how other games affect the sales of Madden which aren't football games). Then if they somehow proved a market exists, they'd have to show that how the NFL divvies out their license was anti-competitive -- which means they'd have to purposefully shut out companies other than Take Two from negotiations. So long as a bid is done for the license, the process is competitive. Then, if they somehow proved that, they'd have to prove material harm to the consumer either by price gouging or by purposeful manipulation of game quantities. Which we already know that case is NOT valid because to gouge prices you have to price your game at a level well above what the market demands and there be no other option to turn to. You say the other games don't matter BUT THEY DO because that's the market Madden is operating in. This is a simple set of facts to dissect. Now what you do with them is up to you

[Critical Kills]

tlc - you cannot have a monopoly on a privately held copyright. No one is stopping football video games from being made here (APF2K8 anyone??). Why is that so hard for people to understand??

[RaychelSnr]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlc12576

I don't see why people are acting as is Liquor's point has no logic to it.(haha) Unless I am mistaken, part of the antitrust law is to prevent collusion between entities to create a monopoly also. With all the facts together, a pretty clear picture is painted that makes for a compelling argument that collusion took place, between the NFL and EA, to eliminate competition and allow EA to sell Madden at its' original, higher price.

I could make a compelling argument that there is a group of pink lizards which live in my basement and play Jazz music as well, but it doesn't mean it can be proven in a court of law.

People are assuming collusion of some sort took place between EA and the NFL, and currently there is only wild speculation from people who hate EA about it, but there is zero proof that collusion took place. From all accounts, the manner in which EA got the NFL license was done via a fair bidding process which everyone, including Take Two, had the opportunity to bid. The only way you can prove the action was wrong is to prove that bidding process was fixed in EA's favor. And as I said in my blog, short of having Roger Goddell's hard drive with e-mails between him and EA Execs, that case is going to have some issues.

[tlc12576]

Quote: Originally Posted by MMChrisS

That's a very loose and very wrong interpretation of how the American Needle case decision was worded. Each NFL club can still decide to collectively enter into agreements together -- just the NFL cannot negotiate on their behalf without an agreement between each team. This is what the Plantiffs are going to have to prove, hattip to Law Professor Marc Edelman, who I hope to have an interview with on OS soon: So basically, this case has to prove that EA and the NFL's practices are a part of a singular football market (which is easily disproved by showing how other games affect the sales of Madden which aren't football games). Then if they somehow proved a market exists, they'd have to show that how the NFL divvies out their license was anti-competitive -- which means they'd have to purposefully shut out companies other than Take Two from negotiations. So long as a bid is done for the license, the process is competitive. Then, if they somehow proved that, they'd have to prove material harm to the consumer either by price gouging or by purposeful manipulation of game quantities. Which we already know that case is NOT valid because to gouge prices you have to price your game at a level well above what the market demands and there be no other option to turn to. You say the other games don't matter BUT THEY DO because that's the market Madden is operating in. This is a simple set of facts to dissect. Now what you do with them is up to you

Ok MMChris, was the American Needle case a civil suit though? I am NOT a lawyer but I have watched enough Judge Judy, Mathis, etc, to know that the burden of proof for a civil suit is only that it what your are accusing is more likely than not. Like with OJ Simpson's murder trial case vs the civil suit that was brought against him.

With the burden of proof being more likely than not for this civil case, the facts present a good argument for this suit to win.

[tlc12576]

Quote: Originally Posted by MMChrisS

I could make a compelling argument that there is a group of pink lizards which live in my basement and play Jazz music as well, but it doesn't mean it can be proven in a court of law. People are assuming collusion of some sort took place between EA and the NFL, and currently there is only wild speculation from people who hate EA about it, but there is zero proof that collusion took place. From all accounts, the manner in which EA got the NFL license was done via a fair bidding process which everyone, including Take Two, had the opportunity to bid. The only way you can prove the action was wrong is to prove that bidding process was fixed in EA's favor. And as I said in my blog, short of having Roger Goddell's hard drive with e-mails between him and EA Execs, that case is going to have some issues.

No, if they can show that EA approached the NFL in the past for an exclusive license, was rebuffed until immediately following the competitions price drop and maybe even directly link the price dropping to a loss of revenue to the NFL from this, that makes collusion seem "more likely than not".

[RaychelSnr]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlc12576

No, if they can show that EA approached the NFL in the past for an exclusive license, was rebuffed until immediately following the competitions price drop and maybe even directly link the price dropping to a loss of revenue to the NFL from this, that makes collusion seem "more likely than not".

Seem and proof are two different things. It may seem like one thing, but without proof it's just unsubstantiated speculation. Like I told LL, don't think your emotions in this and just dissect the facts and the law with your head. Then start to form opinions on what you should do. In this case I think it's simple, you don't like Madden? Don't buy it. If the number of people who don't like the game actually didn't buy it, then at that point sales would suffer enough for EA to take notice. You might not buy the game, and that's good....you are acting like a consumer should. Otherwise, think about this with some rationality for a bit

[RaychelSnr]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlc12576

Ok MMChris, was the American Needle case a civil suit though? I am NOT a lawyer but I have watched enough Judge Judy, Mathis, etc, to know that the burden of proof for a civil suit is only that it what your are accusing is more likely than not. Like with OJ Simpson's murder trial case vs the civil suit that was brought against him. With the burden of proof being more likely than not for this civil case, the facts present a good argument for this suit to win.

This is an anti-trust case, as with the American Needle case. The crux of the argument is that Anti-Trust laws were broken and the consumer is entitled to damages. That's tough to prove in ANY setting.

PS, I'd think referencing watching Judge Judy as a basis for why a legal anti-trust case might pass or fail is grounds for disqualification to have your point heard