Time to show EA and the NFL who is really in charge here

#1 DOJ ~ "The government therefore does not prosecute all agreements between companies, but only those that threaten to raise prices to consumers or to deprive them of new and better products."

EA was forced by ESPN's competition to lower their prices because their sales were being severely affected by ESPN's high quality game at a very reasonable price. The agreement(contract) between the EA and NFL allows EA to reset their price back to the 50 bucks a game it was before ESPN put the hurt on them. That in itself is considered raising prices. There is documentation all over the internet in every reputable site(Forbes, CNN, GameSpot, New York Times, you name it...) that proves that when EA had to compete with ESPN that they made a clear and undeniable choice to lower the price of their product because their sales had dropped off substantially. While it is not against the law to raise your prices back up, the overwhelming evidence will show without dispute that as soon as EA had eliminated the competition that they immediately took the initiative to bring pricing for the consumer back up to extend their profits. As if this was not enough, EA even had the balls to state to shareholders(documented fact) that they have every intention of raising prices on their games. And they were not going to sell many games by having ESPN(or anyone else) selling for less while they are asking for even more.


The second stipulation of "deprive them of new and better products" is so easy to prove it's pathetic. There are tons of sites with players who claimed they liked ESPN's game more because it was "better" in many respects and it had less bugs. The number of gaming sites that reviewed both games and scored them very close or gave ESPN the win will back up our claims as well. EA's habit of releasing buggy games is getting worse all the time, which is exactly the opposite of "better". And how many new football games do you expect to see in the future? EA has forced Sega, ESPN, Take-two, Microsoft, Sony, Me, You, and everyone else right out of the NFL licensed game market. A market that is worth a VERY substantial amount of money that cannot, should not, and ultimately will not be dominated by one company. The NFL is a world wide recognized brand name that not only already has their own monopoly, but they have granted exclusive rights to another world recognized brand name to CREATE another monopoly and they know for a fact exactly what they have done. Don't believe me, well check this out...


"Goldberg said he's not concerned that the monopoly on the business will cause EA to relax the year-to-year innovations that have been pushed by recent competition" ~ Gene Goldberg, NFL vice president of consumer products.


Well Gene may not be concerned with it, but everyone of us is concerned with it, and it's a substantial enough threat to make the DOJ put an end to it. Want more? There is plenty more.

#2 This line from the DOJ is very important...DOJ ~ "The worst antitrust offenses are price fixing and bid rigging" Now how does that apply? Well, there has been a ton of speculation that the NFL signed this deal because it was afraid that the value of it's product could be reduced by the competition in the gaming market. This is what would normally be called "normal evolution of business" or in the DOJ's eyes "To bad, so sad, go cry to your mother". So if the NFL, which IS a monopoly knowingly took steps to keep the price of it's product at a premium the DOJ would automatically view this as "Price Fixing". Unfortunately this type of speculation would normally be impossible to prove without some clear cut and undisputable evidence that someone intends to keep the price high. In most cases it's almost impossible without some kind of insider testimony and that's not gonna happen very often for obvious reasons. So what you need in this case is some major dumbass who is too cocky for his/her own good to shoot off his/her mouth and say something EXACTLY like this...


EA spokesperson Trudy Muller said that the deal is not a financial risk for the company. "We believe this is a good investment for us, as well as the league and the players," Muller said


Now that is enough for the DOJ to suspect that EA solicited the NFL with a way to keep their price at a premium and maybe, just maybe enough to actually file a price fixing charge against EA, but it takes two to price fix, and that's just not enough to do it. So you need at least another dumbass who is to cocky for his/her own good to really slip up and say something exactly like this....


"This exclusive relationship will maximize the value of NFL players through EA's continued commitment to bring fans closer to the game," said Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFLPA and chairman of Players Inc., the organization's licensing body.


Can you say SLAM DUNK boys and girls? Now we and the DOJ have two of the worlds largest companies knowingly, and willingly, admitting using their monopolies to keep pricing high for the consumer and maximize their own profits. This above all else is the most reprehensible and blatent violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act and is enough to virtually guarantee that some people are not only about to pay probably some of the highest antitrust fines in American history, but you can bet some people on both sides are about to be doing a few hard years in Club Fed.

#3 If you have read this far, and you have been paying attention, then I have shown you plenty enough proof positive that this deal is in no way legal no matter what the NFL and EA may think they can do with their business'. If you think "They own it, they can do whatever they want" then you are only screwing yourself because they in fact CANNOT do "whatever they want" and there are specific laws that I have shown will prove it to them just as I am proving it to you. Not only can the government nullify the exclusive agreement, but both EA and the NFL can be fined millions upon millions of dollars just for making the deal, and there is honestly sufficient enough evidence to POSSIBLY have the deal makers at EA(including the CEO Larry Probst) not only fined for the violations, but actually put into federal prison for making this deal and others like it in the past. So the bottom line all comes down to this...


If indeed you do not like this deal one bit, and if you are willing to run your mouth on this board or any other about how much you do not like this then all you have to do is get off your lazy ass and make a phone call or write a letter to the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commision or both and tell them exactly how upset you are, and tell them why you feel this action has harmed you based on the various things I have mentioned to you here(Do not copy paste this post please, tell them how YOU feel, even if you just say "I have never liked EA's games" or "EA always has buggy games that don't work right" or "I want to play ESPN's football game, not EA's") and watch the wheels of justice turn in your favor.


-------------------------------------------


By now there should be no doubt in anyones mind that this deal is about to come to a quick and nasty end for EA and the NFL but if you still have doubts that this will work or doubts that you can make a difference I want you to at least consider one other thing the DOJ has to say, and then some final thoughts of my own...


DOJ - Effective antitrust enforcement requires public support. Public ignorance and apathy can weaken antitrust enforcement more than anything else. Whether you are a business person or a consumer, if you encounter business behavior that seems to violate the antitrust laws, do not hesitate to inform the enforcement agencies of your suspicions. That is often the only way violations can be uncovered...

A very large percentage of all federal antitrust investigations results from complaints received from consumers or businessmen by phone, mail or in person.

#4 My final thoughts

This is OUR industry, not theirs. If we didn't purchase and play those games they would be out of business, they need us much more than we need them and always will. EA does NOT own us like they think they do, or like they want to. If EA disappeared right now there would be another company to take their place and that company might not be as ruthless as EA is. But if the players disappeared right now, what would they do? Who would they sell to? EA and the NFL are counting on each and every one of us to sit here and talk smack to each other and do nothing about this. And if we do nothing about it, then nothing will get done. It's time to show EA who is really in charge here, and it's YOU and ME, end of story. EA may MAKE the games, but we the consumers BUY the games, and many of us do not want our games coming from EA and that is sufficient enough leverage to mount our attack and send a message to the entire video game industry in one bold shot. The message is "We don't like what your doing, and we aren't going to take it any more!" If one of us files a complaint the DOJ and the FTC will listen, if 10 of us file a complaint they will investigate, if hundreds or even thousands of us file a complaint, you can bet your ass that stopping the deal will be a very high priority to them, but if we do nothing, then they will do nothing, it's really that simple. Don't sit here and let EA tell you what games you are going to play, it's time that WE tell them what we are going to play. And even though EA is the biggest game company in the world, I can promise you NOTHING will scare them as much as us actually fighting back. They know for a fact that we won't because they think we are to stupid to know we can. And if you don't think the NFL will have some serious second thoughts about what they have done when the complaints start coming in, you are crazy. The law is completely on our side, and all we have to do is ASK for the government to stop this deal, and they will. Now tell me again, who are you afraid of? I certianly hope it's not EA. Now if you want to see how to really shake up an industry and see how much power we really have, then get your ass in gear and lets go knock those sons of bitches out!


Here's where it all begins...

www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/div_stats/1638.htm
(Laws at the top of page, and people to complain to at the bottom)

If you want to increase the exposure and really seal the deal with a knockout punch, then after you notify the DOJ and/or FTC of your complaint, contact the Attorney General in your state and tell them the exact same things you tell the DOJ and/or the FTC. Under interstate commerce laws nearly every state in the US has it's own set of antitrust laws that will parallel the Federal Antitrust laws and in addition to the AG's responsibility to demand your protection from the government(which you would get anyway without his help) he will then be responsible for investigating which laws apply for his state and the state will bring an antitrust suit of it's own against the offending parties(EA and the NFL). They did it to Microsoft, and they can do it to the NFL and EA.


I also encourage everyone to copy/paste this post to any site that you frequent where players are upset and get this ball rolling quickly. The media have been pretty negative on the deal just like the players have and this type of story is bound to spread like wildfire when they get a hold of it. And if the media makes a huge deal of it and starts sticking it into the faces of people that are watching TV or Radio or even spread it across sites like the Fool.com and or InvestorsHub and Yahoo where shareholders hang out then EA could suddenly find it's stock dropping like a rock very quickly. Every buck it drops is 300 million dollars in lost market cap and industry leverage to them. A 10 dollar drop due to paniced investors hearing our wrath would cost EA 3 billion dollars in MarketCap and would be more heartache than they ever dreamed of.

#5 Is this thread working?

#6 Sure you can do all of the things you stated to try and get back at EA or nullify the deal. But the federal courts and FTC have more important things to do than chase after businesses that dont provide any products or services that are vital to either the government's or general public's interests. Hence the antitrust suit against MS. Im sure that if the DOJ/FTC have some time after sorting through other complaints of higher precedence, they could take up the EA/NFL issue. My thoughts about the best thing you can do are what you stated in your last paragraph about getting stock prices to fall. But, you must start while people are still pissed at EA/NFL, or something like this will turn into the "boycott france" movement that started when the war kicked off and has now seemed to disappear.



On another note that is similar to this thread:

"The Department also has recently been investigating and prosecuting bid rigging in connection with Defense Department and other government procurement. "

"the same company repeatedly has been the low bidder who has been awarded contracts for a certain service or in a particular area; "

Can anyone say Boeing?

#7

Quote:But the federal courts and FTC have more important things to do than chase after businesses that dont provide any products or services that are vital to either the government's or general public's interests.

I take it you don't remember the price fixing case that Nintendo lost back in the 8bit NES days, then?

#8 Thanks for your hard work Gonzo. I sent my cousin this link and he has already written and mailed his letter. I am writing mine right now. It's worth a shot. If we don't try then nothing will happen anyway.
-Ajari-

Edit: I just removed the double post, to keep things clean. Carry on. -Pat

Edit: Double post? I had no idea. Thanks. -Ajari-

#9 Nate, it's really easy to try. Why argue with it? If it takes them longer to get to it then so be it, we are pretty well screwed for a t least a year anyway.. But this statement from you is puzzling....


"But the federal courts and FTC have more important things to do than chase after businesses that dont provide any products or services that are vital to either the government's or general public's interests."


HUH!?!? Nate, videogames did 10 billion worth of business last year. Sports are 20% of it. FootBall is 50% of the sports. This deal iis worth 1 BILLION dollars to EA. When they raise prices, assuming exact same sales, it will be worth 1.2 BILLION dollars. Those are OUR dollars.

The government does not stipulate in the acts what is and what is not a priority. And despite the fact that this is a game we are talking about, it is none the less a very LARGE segement of the gaming business and it's a large enough target to go for fast. EA is the largest game maker in the world Nate. The government is going to take the view of "There is no reason the largest company in the world can't compete fairly SMACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


Just so you know, games make more money every year than Hollywood does. Thats large enough, trust me.




@ Ajari. Thanks, and you got it. Don't try, don't succeed. And there is nothing for anyone to lose here but a stamp and some time writing a letter. And look at everything there is to gain back. We can make history right here and right now. We could be telling our kids and grandkids one day how we were part of a movement that shut down the plans of world dominator EA with nothing more than some pen on paper, LOL.



The Pen is mightier than the EA corrp

#10 Wow gonzo :) you sure like to talk heh, and converse with yourself too :). Still... an interesting read, havent had time to read past the first post but thanks for posting.

#11 Good work!

#12 Regardless of what happens, I intend to use the power I have to it's fullest potential. I won't buy their games. It's not much, but hey, you do what you can and what everyone else does...eh whatever.

#13 Every little bit helps. Some would swear their actions are fully legal, but the law would seem to say otherwise. Regardless, even if it was legal, the FTC and DOJ have many times in the past reviewed and adjusted their policies and their interpretations based on the specifics of the buisness. For instance when evaluating a food producers monopoly potential they actually went into hundreds of supermarkets all over the USA and examined the distribution of shelf space and how one company buying another company could be profitable and anticompetitive via buying up massive amounts of store shelf space to push out other products. They may not have had a monopoly on "FOOD" which was their product, but they were found to have monopolies on shelf space and fines were levied as well as laws adjusted.

The overall stigma here is that this is "just a game", but that is a very flawed observation. What it really is when all the facts are boiled down is nothing less than "Billion dollar a year" buisness which EA and the NFL have put a 5 year lock on. It's called "Anti-competitive" and it is illegal by nearly every definition of the Sherman and Clayton Acts.


Stand up for yourself and send the letter or make the call. It is not a waste of time. You can't stop what you hate if you do not try.

#14 Gonzo,

Your research into monopoly has been rather extensive, but I don't know if it is applicable in this case. According to your reasoning, basic trademark and copyright laws are trumped once the market for a particular brand name reaches a certain size. If we are to assume you are correct, the NFL does not have full control over its copyrights and trademarks. For instance, any game publisher, by your reasoning, has the right to produce a football game with NFL players and logos whether the NFL likes it or not because to do otherwise would reduce competition. The NFL would also be unable to say no to all publishers and strike out on their own and make their version of an NFL game exclusively.

Until you can prove that there is a reason that the NFL shouldn't retain full control of their trademarks and copyrights, the deal they struck is legit. When you consider the markets that NFL football games compete in (the video-game market, the sports video-game market, the football video-game market) it is undeniable that there are substitute goods in all of them that provide the necessary competition to turn your slam dunk monopoly case into a rim shot that bounces out of bounds.

The NFL signing an exclusive license is no different, from a legal standpoint, than ESPN signing an exclusive deal with SEGA last year. No one was worried that EA was getting the raw deal there, and there was no illegality on SEGA's part, just as there is none on EA's.

#15 I have to tend to agree with Ben here (above)--monopoly protections are designed to keep people from taking an entire market segment unfairly--and in this case, anyone else can still make football games, baseball games, and any other game for that matter. Nothing in the licensing deal keeps people from making these types of games, it simply keeps them from using someone else's IP for a certain period of time--namely, the "official" names and trademarks.

#16 Hm. This has been a monopoly all along. The very fact that the NFL has the government-created privelege to have exclusive usage of the name National Football League, NFL, and other "trademarks" constitutes a monopoly in themselves. This merger is nothing more than an extension of that original monopoly to create a new one. It's the same deal as IP or anything else - it's all government created privelege and therefore a monopoly. One cannot logically be for trademark rights while at the same time against this merger - the merger is possible and legally legitimate because the former is possible and legally legitimate.

Let's not have a double standard here.

#17

Quote:government created privelege and therefore a monopoly

Your politics are showing again Bryan, as is your completely rediculous logic. Even if it was "government created privelege (sic)", that doesn't make it a monopoly.

#18

Quote:Your politics are showing again Bryan,

Red herring -
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Um, government create privelege IS the definition of a monopoly... Dust off the ol dictionary, eh?

Quote:as is your completely rediculous logic.

Are you aware that "appeal to ridicule" is also a fallacy? See here -
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

#19 You've done this before man--used twisted or out of context statements to try to make a political point in the guise of a discussion on the forums, I've called you on it then, and I'm calling you on it now. A monopoly in the context of this discussion in no way is related to a trademark (except for the obvious fact that we are talking about a specific trademark), no matter how you try to twist the definition.

Hint: you may want to check out your nizkor resource for the definition of circular logic.

Leave the politics out of it. Just because you don't agree with the governmental structure or actions of the nation-state you live in doesn't mean we should have to listen to it.

#20

Quote:If we are to assume you are correct, the NFL does not have full control over its copyrights and trademarks.

That is essentially correct, the government GRANTED those trademarks and copyrights and therefor they ALWAYS have the right to revoke or change their granted permissions. Now they obviously do not do this often but when neccesary it is done. While it would appear that the NFL has "full control" of their property, they indeed do not.

Quote:it is undeniable that there are substitute goods in all of them that provide the necessary competition to turn your slam dunk monopoly case into a rim shot that bounces out of bounds.

Take Microsoft as a perfect example. To me, adding a browser to an OS seems as natural as adding a roof and windows to a car. A hundred years ago cars had no tops and no windows, and somewhere along the lines someone decided to add them.

Did that make them anti-competitive? No.
Did they have a car monopoly after that? No.
Did they get a patent, copyright, or trademark on them? No.
Did anyone think to sue them for their new idea? No.

Seems silly doesn't it? But yet Microsoft adds a browser to an OS and they are charged with monopolistic behavior and fined massive amounts of money and at one time were even in jeapordy of having the company split up and being told to remove the browser from the OS. By your own argument, were there not other operating systems on the market? Were there not other browsers available which could be purchased or just downloaded for free? You DO NOT have to be devoid of competitors to be deemed a monopoloy or convicted of anticompetitive behaviors. So what questions do we now ask?

Did that make them anti-competitive? No.
Did they have a OS monopoly after adding the browser? No.
Did they get a patent, copyright, or trademark on the OS & browser combination? No.
Did anyone think to sue them for their new idea? Yes.

Obviously Microsoft's copyrights, patents, and trademarks did little to stop the government from stepping in and telling them how to do their business. Even the European Union is dictating to Microsoft that they have to take WMP out of the OS AND telling them they don't like the new name of the OS either. So we see that any time a government gets ready to flex some muscle, heads will roll. And the only difference between the guy who added a roof and windows to his car and Microsoft adding a browser was SOMEONE decided to raise hell about it in Microsofts case(AOL, SUNW, Apple, IBM) and the government was forced to act upon the complaints. The end result was Microsoft had to refund money, make future concessions, report future plans for approval, and even had to load someone else's products into their own product and/or advertise competitors within their own OS. Can you imagine Dell being forced to advertise Gateway computers on their site? It would be about the same as what Microsoft was forced to do IMO.

The NFL has a monopoly on professional football, They don't even have a single competitor. Microsoft was deemed to be a monopoly DESPITE the fact that Apple, SUNN, IBM, Linux, Unix, Solaris, and a vast range of competition existed at the time they added their browser and despite the fact that ANYONE who wants to can make their own OS if they so choose and they can put anything they want into it. Does it sound fair that Microsoft can be treated this way while no one else is?

The NFL has signed an exclusive deal with EA that violates nearly every stipulation of the "Anticompetitive" acts, while Microsoft signed no exclusive deals with anyone. Yes, they put some pressure on people here and there, but for Microsoft to commit the crime that I alledge that EA and the NFL have commited they would have had to sign an exclusive deal with Dell to distribute Windows which would have put IBM, Compaq, HP, Toshiba, etc... out of the PC business for damn sure. Now ask yourself, had Microsoft and Dell made such a deal, do you think the government would have done nothing?