- Thread starter
- #1
DaClyde
Well-known member
Here's a decent summary of the issue:
http://www.cardboardconnection.com/news/law-cards-beckett-comc-break-ends-lawsuit
Here is a copy of the actual lawsuit document:
http://cconnect.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Beckett-Complaint-3-2014.pdf
Beckett must really see COMC as a major threat to its future to make some of the absurd claims (listed as "FACTS") it has presented in this suit. For example:
Ok, that's just plain BS. They're saying they assign values to ALL cards, and even if they don't they could. Well, no s**t Sherlock! Anyone COULD assign values. So they're already introducing both non-factual elements and pure fantasy into their complaint.
I think F+W Media (Krause Publications) might take issue with that. So might Baseball Magazine in Japan. So might a good number of any sports card discussion forum members from the last 5 years who put more stock in eBay results.
Points 12-14 go on at length about Beckett's pricing process (which is completely irrelevant as COMC will be using its own pricing data).
As to the rest of the complaints, I think a simple invocation of Feist vs Rural will squash the "proprietary" nature of Beckett's checklist data. You can't copyright facts. Checklists are just facts, no different than names and phone numbers. All COMC really has to do is fill in the massive gaps and correct all the bad information from Beckett's data and the effectively no longer are using Beckett's data.
http://www.cardboardconnection.com/news/law-cards-beckett-comc-break-ends-lawsuit
Here is a copy of the actual lawsuit document:
http://cconnect.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Beckett-Complaint-3-2014.pdf
Beckett must really see COMC as a major threat to its future to make some of the absurd claims (listed as "FACTS") it has presented in this suit. For example:
Except that the great majority of cards I've had in my inventory at COMC (minor league cards, Japanese cards, oddballs, etc.) were NOT in fact listed in the Beckett database, nor did Beckett offer any "Beckett Value" thereof. That leads to:9. COMC offers a consignment platform to sell sports memorabilia online. A seller sends COMC an item like a baseball card; COMC identifies the card with Beckett data and content media, soans the card, and then adds it to COMC's online inventory. After the card is in the seller's inventory, the seller then sees "Beckett Value" ("BV') and uses that to price the card. COMC holds the card until there is a sale and keeps the proceeds of any sale on account, COMC lists the card on its own website or on its Amazon.com storefront, Historically, and to this day, Beckett is in the middle of this transaction.
10. Beckett assigns a market value to every item in COMC's inventory. COMC does not have an item that Beckett does not (or could not) value.
Ok, that's just plain BS. They're saying they assign values to ALL cards, and even if they don't they could. Well, no s**t Sherlock! Anyone COULD assign values. So they're already introducing both non-factual elements and pure fantasy into their complaint.
11. Beckett is the only recognized publisher in the world that values sports memorabilia, It is both a service and content media publisher. It is as trusted and equivalent to the Kelley Blue Book ("KBB").
I think F+W Media (Krause Publications) might take issue with that. So might Baseball Magazine in Japan. So might a good number of any sports card discussion forum members from the last 5 years who put more stock in eBay results.
Points 12-14 go on at length about Beckett's pricing process (which is completely irrelevant as COMC will be using its own pricing data).
As to the rest of the complaints, I think a simple invocation of Feist vs Rural will squash the "proprietary" nature of Beckett's checklist data. You can't copyright facts. Checklists are just facts, no different than names and phone numbers. All COMC really has to do is fill in the massive gaps and correct all the bad information from Beckett's data and the effectively no longer are using Beckett's data.
Last edited: