Judge Rules Against EA in NFL Monopoly Defense

[BigBucs]

May have already been posted but I dont see it on he front page. May be something good coming from this.

Electronic Arts' Madden NFL and NCAA Football franchises dominate the competition in their respective fields, mostly because the perennial best-sellers don't have any competitors to speak of. Soon, however, that may change, as a Northern California judge has ruled against EA's motion to dismiss a class-action that takes exception with the publisher's exclusivity licenses with the National Football League, the Arena Football League, and NCAA Football.

The suit, which was initially filed in June 2008 by a pair of gamers from Washington, DC, and California, alleges that EA has and continues to engage in "blatantly anticompetitive conduct" since 2004. At that time, EA and Take-Two Interactive released competing NFL Football products, resulting in a pricing war that saw Take-Two drop the price of its NFL 2K5 to $19.99 and EA cut Madden 2005's sticker tag to $29.95 in response.

However, the suit alleges that rather than continue the pricing war with Take-Two, EA secured the aforementioned exclusivity deals. With no Take-Two competitor the following year, the suit noted that Electronic Arts raised the price of Madden 2006 back to $49.95, an increase of nearly 70 percent. Madden NFL's current going rate retails for as much as $59.95.

As per the most recent ruling, which was first spotted by GamePolitics, a judge said that the plaintiffs' suit will be allowed to proceed, though he narrowed the applicable class to residents of the original filers' home regions of Washington, DC, and California.

"As the court understands these allegations, interactive football software will not sell if it does not use the names, logos and other markers of teams that actually compete in the NFL," the judge said in his ruling. "There is, in effect, no market for interactive football software in a virtual or fictitious setting. If true--as the court must at this point accept--this adequately alleges that there are no substitutes for interactive football software without the markers of actual teams and players."

Though the judge's decision is significant for the class, it is by no means an indication of the final outcome of the case. "The present complaint alleges that the names and logos of actual teams and players are essential to market interactive football software," the judge noted. "Whether plaintiffs will be able to back this allegation up with evidence is a matter left for another day."

That plaintiffs' motion for class certification is currently scheduled for September 24, with the full hearing expected to commence January 14, 2010.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6211734.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;1

 

[steeljake]

nice. i hope EA gets found guilty and we can have competing nfl games again. nothing makes you do your best like some other guy doing what you do better.

 

[killgod]

in for NFL2k11.... yeah buddy!

2k has already had rumors floating around that they were developing APF 2k11

 

[Esjay]

2k has already had rumors floating around that they were developing APF 2k11

that would be fucking sweet. I love APF.

 

[FedEx227]

Honestly, this won't hurt EA Sports all that much. You need to have competition to excell in my mind. Without it you get stale products that people eventually begin turning away from, competition will bring new gamers into the fold with innovative ideas and be great for us the consumer.

 

[killgod]

Their proof isn't hard to find


1) Compare ratings between 2K and Madden. 2K almost always won until it became APF.


2) Compare the sales between Blitz/APF and Madden. We're talking what...100K sales vs multiple millions? But wait, how come Madden is now pulverising a franchise that it was formerly losing to in the ratings year after year? Maybe cause it no longer has NFL attached to it?

 

[ThunderHorse]

This isn't that big of a deal. As the article correctly notes, this was in an EA motion to dismiss.

In law a judge MUST ACCEPT EVERYTHING A PLAINTIFF SAYS AS TRUE.

The key is even noted by the judge when he/she correctly noted:



This begs the question of whether it is actually necessary to have official logs, players, etc... to be in the business of interactive football software (note not necessarily an NFL/NCAA game) . EA will of course argue at trial that it is not necessary (See All Pro Football, Blitz The League, etc...)

However, this ruling likely means one of two things (1) EA settles out of court $ (2) case goes to trial/appeal and drags on for years.

EA could also file a Motion For Summary Judgment (MSJ) at the close of discovery (exchanging of facts/information). EA would likely cite to the sales numbers of non-licensed sports video games of the past. Plaintiffs would counter that those numbers are miniscule when compared to EA's. Depending on the judge's left/right leaning view that MSJ could go either way. My guess is EA would lose on a MSJ as well.

:box:

The above represents the people who were excited before you posted that, and a artistic way of showing what that post did to their hopes and happiness.

although your completely right.

 

[St. Francisco]

Honestly, this won't hurt EA Sports all that much. You need to have competition to excell in my mind. Without it you get stale products that people eventually begin turning away from, competition will bring new gamers into the fold with innovative ideas and be great for us the consumer.

Oh, it will hurt EA Sports. Right now, they have absolutely no competition...let's face it, games like APF, Blitz, Backbreaker, Black College Football, etc. do little to damage the sales of Madden and NCAA. But if other companies were allowed to produce games using the NFL and NCAA licenses, it would inevitably reduce the sales of EA's Madden and NCAA series. Even if EA's product is better, their sales will still suffer.

 

[DSpydr84]

^^^ here's a guy who knows his shit!

 

[RosettaStoned]

^^^ here's a guy who knows his shit!

99.9% of his posts are copy and pasted. He's never had an original thought to my knowledge.

 

[St. Francisco]

Not necessarily. The situation that comes to mind is the WWF/E v. WCW. During the "boom" of the "Attitutde Era" WWF/E had huge ratings when it was competing against WCW every week on Monday nights. WWF/E wins the fight and eventually buys out WCW. WWF/E's product goes to [censored] and their ratings/tickets/merchandise are lower (less $) than what they were when they were competing with WCW.

You could be right. If EA didn't turn it up and start producing better games their sales numbers would indeed suffer.

However, lets say 2K (or any other company) comes into the picture and both 2K and EA really push each other to put forth the best NFL/NCAA products we have ever seen. I for one (and many others) wouldn't hesitate to buy both games (i remember buying 2 NFL/NCAA games when I was younger and playing both regularly) if they were both great products. Additionally, stepping up the games would probably bring back old customers who have been sitting on the sidelines. Some would go to 2K some would go to EA.

I don't think its a foregone conclusion either way. The question isn't about exclusive licenses as a win or lose situation. The question is how does EA (and a competitor if/when its no longer exclusive) react to the situation.

Well, what I'm really trying to say is that EA is at the top of the football game...there's really not a whole lot they can do to attract new gamers, because everyone interested in buying a football game is already under the EA umbrella. So, with a new company introduced in the NFL/NCAA arena, the only place EA's sales have to go is down.

 

[Poundtherock]

Motion to dismiss, no biggie. Both sides present briefs. If all the Is have been dotted and Ts crossed, and is not just out and out frivilous, the judge usually passes it along.

Motion of Summary Judgement, both sides present case law in their interest, and any interested parties file "friend of the court" briefs. Judge then has to weigh all submitted documents and rule whether the case goes any further. This is where a lot of cases you never hear about end. The Judge has already narrowed the scope, limiting it to just that area, as I read it.

I have sympathy for the plaintiffs. However, if Obamanomics don't get involved, exclusivity contracts are an every-day-way-of-life and this case may just end before it really gets started.

Unless these plaintiff dudes have the best lawyers, a lot money and a LOT OF TIME, and I'm talking years and millions, they might as well take a few thousand bucks from EA and get a new line of work, which since the Judge has limited the class of plaintiffs, could be a signal which way he is thinking.

EA has too much money to lose and the NFL has too much money to lose. Neither will go away quietly, and I don't think the plaintiffs have the time, much less the money. I just never thought of this as anything more than some pissed-off 2k peeps. Wait, don't say it. :smh: I owned 2k and loved it and was pissed as well. But I moved on.

 

[FedEx227]

Not necessarily. The situation that comes to mind is the WWF/E v. WCW. During the "boom" of the "Attitutde Era" WWF/E had huge ratings when it was competing against WCW every week on Monday nights. WWF/E wins the fight and eventually buys out WCW. WWF/E's product goes to [censored] and their ratings/tickets/merchandise are lower (less $) than what they were when they were competing with WCW.

You could be right. If EA didn't turn it up and start producing better games their sales numbers would indeed suffer.

However, lets say 2K (or any other company) comes into the picture and both 2K and EA really push each other to put forth the best NFL/NCAA products we have ever seen. I for one (and many others) wouldn't hesitate to buy both games (i remember buying 2 NFL/NCAA games when I was younger and playing both regularly) if they were both great products. Additionally, stepping up the games would probably bring back old customers who have been sitting on the sidelines. Some would go to 2K some would go to EA.

I don't think its a foregone conclusion either way. The question isn't about exclusive licenses as a win or lose situation. The question is how does EA (and a competitor if/when its no longer exclusive) react to the situation.

Exactly! And unfortunately I'm a huge sports gamer and wrestling fan, so to say these past 6-7 years have sucked ass is an understatement.

The WWF analogy is great because with WCW as their competition both wrestling factions did more and more to increase overall sales and get the casual fan interested in their product as well as keep the hardcore fan happy and they double, even tripled their overall business.

Since the WWF/E buyout, they've not only lost all the WCW fans, but lost more fans in general as most will say their product got tremendously stale as they have no strive to really take their product to the next level.

You can't say we haven't seen that with Madden, what use to be a yearly occurance of completely retooled game modes and overall gameplay has been replaced by a year highlighted by the addition of a Vision Cone and a year where "Player Icons" to tell you what type of player a particlar player is. That's not progress.

While I know in the short-term obviously competition would cut into the sales of EA Sports games, but I think over time and if they stay consistent with putting out great products they'll attract a bigger audience overall and may surpass previous sales numbers.

It's all about big picture for me. Yes, in the short term Madden '11 may sell less than Madden '10 but in the long run competition will be better for all parties, in my mind.

 

[BigBucs]

If EA didnt see their sales being effected in the long run they wouldnt have purchased the license to begin with. Dont know where this case will go but if they are willing to put their money and resources into fighting the case they know what can happen if they were to lose the license.

 

[July 4 1776]

Their proof isn't hard to find


1) Compare ratings between 2K and Madden. 2K almost always won until it became APF.


2) Compare the sales between Blitz/APF and Madden. We're talking what...100K sales vs multiple millions? But wait, how come Madden is now pulverising a franchise that it was formerly losing to in the ratings year after year? Maybe cause it no longer has NFL attached to it?

In my rating scale madden 05 won...........

 

[dave]

Competition is a good thing.
I'd love to see another NFL game by 2k.

 

[adembroski]

Courts do not have the right to tell private entities how they can use their trademarks. The NFL owns those trade marks and can license however they see fit.

But, this is a Northern California court, so there hope for you socialists yet

 

[Sven Draconian]

Courts do not have the right to tell private entities how they can use their trademarks. The NFL owns those trade marks and can license however they see fit.

But, this is a Northern California court, so there hope for you socialists yet

Tis true.
However, there are a few things that I could see happening.

Limit the amount of liscenses EA can own exclusively to one. Thus, they have the NFL license but lose the NCAA.

Force EA breakup their production studios. Tiburon can only make one game, Canada (or something) must make the other.

 

[Saluki]

nice. i hope EA gets found guilty and we can have competing nfl games again. nothing makes you do your best like some other guy doing what you do better.

Ea is going to use blitz the lg, and backbreak if it sells well to bolster their defense that it doesn't take an NFL license to sell a succesful football game. So really EA's exclusivity may very well depend on how well back breaker does when it drops.

 

[nesper]

Courts do not have the right to tell private entities how they can use their trademarks. The NFL owns those trade marks and can license however they see fit.

But, this is a Northern California court, so there hope for you socialists yet

it's not a lawsuit against the NFL. its a lawsuit against the contract signed by EA and the NFL and if it has a negative effect on competition. I don't know where the NFL and NFLPA stands on it but no sane businessman could be upset with the possibility to sell to multiple companies its brand at a pre-established price that was at one point over priced as a means of exclusivity.