Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

[tlc12576]

Quote: Originally Posted by MMChrisS

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

What am I saying that is irrational? Are you saying because I see the case in the way I described that means I hate EA or have some emotional vendetta? LOL

I am just trying to discuss the topic of this thread in a constructive manner and don't see how the some of the stuff you are saying is relevant to that.

I will ask you, in this class-action suit, is or is not the burden of proof for what is more likely than not? If not, then I will have to disbar myself from practicing law in OS forums.

[RaychelSnr]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlc12576

What am I saying that is irrational? Are you saying because I see the case in the way I described that means I hate EA or have some emotional vendetta? LOL I am just trying to discuss the topic of this thread in a constructive manner and don't see how the some of the stuff you are saying is relevant to that. I will ask you, in this class-action suit, is or is not the burden of proof for what is more likely than not? If not, then I will have to disbar myself from practicing law in OS forums.

This stuff is relevant because it's THE CASE at hand. The case argues that EA violated anti-trust laws and that consumers are entitled to damages from those violations. So the Plantiffs have to establish that EA violated anti-trust laws with Madden, which will be next to impossible to do -- THEN they have to establish that consumers are entitled to damages -- which I haven't even discussed that aspect of the case because the first part will be so hard to prove it's difficult to see the case reaching that point to begin with.

If you can't see how everything I've said in this thread relates to this case, then you don't have a firm enough grasp on Anti-Trust law and this case to do more than speculate. That's fine, message boards are here for speculation -- and I appreciate your civility. I just assume (falsely) anyone arguing for this case is a Madden *****. For the most part that's true, but it's not completely true.

Anyways, just read my points again and then think about what I just said. You have to prove EA broke anti-trust laws...which since the NFL is NOT named, you have to have some smoking gun proof that the bid process for the NFL gaming license was fixed so EA would win it. Otherwise, from what we know, EA obtained the NFL license in a legal manner. The American Needle case doesn't change that (it might change how future license bids are handled however). The only way this gets prosecuted and EA has to pay up is if it is proven that they obtained the NFL license in a non-competitive manner. Otherwise, the NFL can market it's brand HOWEVER it likes in terms of the terms of its video game brand licensing and EA simply won the bid. Is that popular among gamers? No. But it's the law.

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

You're argument would make sense if EA made the deal themselves but they didn't, they made it with the NFL who owns the product to sell to whomever they desire. In this case they chose ONE company so that's their call, not EA's. Oh and neither is EA 32 separate companies.

EA approached the NFL for years for exclusivity. It wasn't until the price war that the NFL agreed go exclusive.

EA doesn't have to be 32 separate companies. They made a deal with 32 separate companies to freeze out the competition. The NFL did that with the American Needle, and now the NFL is currently being sued. The NFL can sell the use of their brand to whomever the want, but they can't exclude whomever they want.

[tlc12576]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

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??

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I'm not trying to rehash that old discussion about is the exclusive deal a monopoly or not, I am talking about this class-action suit having merit.

If they can show that the EA and the NFL conspired to eliminate the competition for whatever reason and this allowed EA to sell Madden at its' original higher price, then the case could win.

What is so hard to understand about that? You don't have to agree with it but I think what I am saying is pretty clear, even if it turns out to be complete BS. LOL

[RaychelSnr]

Quote: Originally Posted by LiquorLogic

EA approached the NFL for years for exclusivity. It wasn't until the price war that the NFL agreed go exclusive. EA doesn't have to be 32 separate companies. They made a deal with 32 separate companies to freeze out the competition. The NFL did that with the American Needle, and now the NFL is currently being sued. The NFL can sell the use of their brand to whomever the want, but they can't exclude whomever they want.

The NFL wasn't strong-armed into the deal like you are insinuating. They decided it was in their best business interest to award the exclusive license to a single company to develop NFL video games. That's perfectly legal so long as they gave everyone a chance -- which they did. They contacted companies and asked them to submit bids to get the license to themselves exclusively. EA's bid won and that was that. Unless you know something no one else does, that's where you'd have to start on any anti-trust case and unless the bidding process was fixed so that EA would win, there is no possible way the process was illegal if companies were given the option to submit a bid for the license.

Is that policy from the NFL good for sports gamers? No. But it's far from illegal. So unless something nefarious is uncovered, it's going to be awful hard to prove a monopoly and customer harm in this regard. It also fits within the American Needle ruling in the sense that the NFL gave companies the chance to get the license to develop NFL games -- they simply didn't take advantage of it. If the NFL isn't allowed to negotiate exclusive deals with companies, then TV rights would become a gigantic mess because no one network would be able to not broadcast NFL games, among other things.

[RaychelSnr]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlc12576

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I'm not trying to rehash that old discussion about is the exclusive deal a monopoly or not, I am talking about this class-action suit having merit. If they can show that the EA and the NFL conspired to eliminate the competition for whatever reason and this allowed EA to sell Madden at its' original higher price, then the case could win. What is so hard to understand about that? You don't have to agree with it but I think what I am saying is pretty clear, even if it turns out to be complete BS. LOL

What you just said is true. HOWEVER, to prove that requires you to have evidence which no one currently has or knows about. So you'd basically be uncovering massive fraud and collusion to the nth degree -- which would be a HUGE story all to itself.

And I'm not saying it's not possible EA and the NFL didn't collude, I'm just saying in the context of a court of law that unless the evidence is clear, you can't go forward with speculation and no facts and from what we know there is no evidence that took place. Always subject to revision of course

[tlc12576]

Quote: Originally Posted by MMChrisS

This stuff is relevant because it's THE CASE at hand. The case argues that EA violated anti-trust laws and that consumers are entitled to damages from those violations. So the Plantiffs have to establish that EA violated anti-trust laws with Madden, which will be next to impossible to do -- THEN they have to establish that consumers are entitled to damages -- which I haven't even discussed that aspect of the case because the first part will be so hard to prove it's difficult to see the case reaching that point to begin with. If you can't see how everything I've said in this thread relates to this case, then you don't have a firm enough grasp on Anti-Trust law and this case to do more than speculate. That's fine, message boards are here for speculation -- and I appreciate your civility. I just assume (falsely) anyone arguing for this case is a Madden *****. For the most part that's true, but it's not completely true. Anyways, just read my points again and then think about what I just said. You have to prove EA broke anti-trust laws...which since the NFL is NOT named, you have to have some smoking gun proof that the bid process for the NFL gaming license was fixed so EA would win it. Otherwise, from what we know, EA obtained the NFL license in a legal manner. The American Needle case doesn't change that (it might change how future license bids are handled however). The only way this gets prosecuted and EA has to pay up is if it is proven that they obtained the NFL license in a non-competitive manner. Otherwise, the NFL can market it's brand HOWEVER it likes in terms of the terms of its video game brand licensing and EA simply won the bid. Is that popular among gamers? No. But it's the law.

When I said "irrelevant", I was referring to your comments about I should be rational and all the stuff about emotions towards EA.

Like I have said before, i am NOT a lawyer but I play one in OS threads and I am just stating my viewpoint. I don't know if you on the other hand are some kind of Matlock prodigy or something but it really doesn't matter. I have read and comprehended what you wrote as well as I would hope you have my statements, but I just disagree with yours.

Maybe I am in disagreement due to my misunderstanding of antitrust laws but until this case is decided by others presumed far more antitrust law savvy than either of us, that is my view.

[youALREADYknow]

How is this even generating this much debate?

Until the date that a legitimate antitrust lawsuit is made, this is all nonsense. 2K Sports should have grown a sack and went for the gusto a long time ago. The suit would probably have gained some traction by now.