Insider upper deck/mlb update?

[Bob Loblaw]

Scuba, you still make a huge leap. Maybe they paid them and never challenged because that was the single biggest barrier of entry from Donruss, Press Pass and other upstarts getting into or staying in the business. Again, the fact that they were willing to pay before doesn't negate their claim that they didnt need to pay.

None of us laymen know what is going to happen. Hell, Im not sure the lawyers for MLB or Upper Deck are certain what will happen. The fact that it appears MLB lost their claim for a restraining order speaks volumes to the argument that this is not an open and shut case. If it were, the court would have shut Upper Deck down.

Where is there a link to MLB filing and losing a claim for a TRO?

 

[ru4scuba]

Not being smart enough to see a loophole (until now) doesnt change the fact that the loophole exists.

If you remember, Donurss was prepared to take on MLB the same way (and use dlogos in 2008). If the owner of Donruss hadn't sold to Panini, she was going to fight it all the way.

I personally do not think Upper Deck thought this up (let's not give them credit for being that smart). I think Donruss reintroduced this argument. Upper Deck seems to be taking over where Donruss left off.

If you don't think these companies didn't look into ways of getting around these expensive licensing agreements I think you're being naive. Also, Donruss attempted to obscure or alter the logos in an effort to get around the trademarks.

 

[THECARDFATHER]

Scuba, you still make a huge leap. Maybe they paid them and never challenged because that was the single biggest barrier of entry from Donruss, Press Pass and other upstarts getting into or staying in the business. Again, the fact that they were willing to pay before doesn't negate their claim that they didnt need to pay.

None of us laymen know what is going to happen. Hell, Im not sure the lawyers for MLB or Upper Deck are certain what will happen. The fact that it appears MLB lost their claim for a restraining order speaks volumes to the argument that this is not an open and shut case. If it were, the court would have shut Upper Deck down.

Where is there a link to MLB filing and losing a claim for a TRO?

Actually, no one has documents, yet no TRO currently exists against Upper Deck (according to one of their distributors).

 

[THECARDFATHER]

Not being smart enough to see a loophole (until now) doesnt change the fact that the loophole exists.

If you remember, Donurss was prepared to take on MLB the same way (and use dlogos in 2008). If the owner of Donruss hadn't sold to Panini, she was going to fight it all the way.

I personally do not think Upper Deck thought this up (let's not give them credit for being that smart). I think Donruss reintroduced this argument. Upper Deck seems to be taking over where Donruss left off.

If you don't think these companies didn't look into ways of getting around these expensive licensing agreements I think you're being naive. Also, Donruss also attempted to obscure or alter the logos in an effort to get around the trademarks.

I have said this 3 times now, If the big companies challenged these agreements, it would open the door for smaller competitors to their market. Is it better to pay and have a duopoly or not pay and have 20 companies making baseball cards. I personally believe the smaller companies could do an equally good or better job than the big guys.

Yes, Donruss did attempt and would have likely prevailed at trial had the case moved forward. Because Donruss' owner sold the company, we never got to see the main event. You may note that no TRO was issued in that case either.
This speaks volumes to the possibility that MLB does not prevail on their claims.

 

[THECARDFATHER]

Scuba, you still make a huge leap. Maybe they paid them and never challenged because that was the single biggest barrier of entry from Donruss, Press Pass and other upstarts getting into or staying in the business. Again, the fact that they were willing to pay before doesn't negate their claim that they didnt need to pay.

None of us laymen know what is going to happen. Hell, Im not sure the lawyers for MLB or Upper Deck are certain what will happen. The fact that it appears MLB lost their claim for a restraining order speaks volumes to the argument that this is not an open and shut case. If it were, the court would have shut Upper Deck down.

Where is there a link to MLB filing and losing a claim for a TRO?

Im done trying to figure this out. I guess I'll just wait for the trial like everyone else. Maybe a big group of us can caravan to the trial and sit in the gallery.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Even if UD wins this, companies besides UD still can't use images of players because UD is signed with the MLBPA, correct? What I'm saying is, it's not as if Score can make a come-back and make a set this season that pictures Tim LIncecum in a Major League uniform ala UD, because he is signed with the MLBPA and Score doesn't have a MLBPA license. Is this the correct assumption?

 

[ru4scuba]

Even if UD wins this, companies besides UD still can't use images of players because UD is signed with the MLBPA, correct? What I'm saying is, it's not as if Score can make a come-back and make a set this season that pictures Tim LIncecum in a Major League uniform ala UD, because he is signed with the MLBPA and Score doesn't have a MLBPA license. Is this the correct assumption?

Not necessarily. If UD is considered a publication and is able to use trademarks as editorial content then the same could be held true for a player's likeness. Once again, I'm not a lawyer but that is how I would interpret it.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Even if UD wins this, companies besides UD still can't use images of players because UD is signed with the MLBPA, correct? What I'm saying is, it's not as if Score can make a come-back and make a set this season that pictures Tim LIncecum in a Major League uniform ala UD, because he is signed with the MLBPA and Score doesn't have a MLBPA license. Is this the correct assumption?

Not necessarily. If UD is considered a publication and is able to use trademarks as editorial content then the same could be held true for a player's likeness. Once again, I'm not a lawyer but that is how I would interpret it.

That makes sense. It would seemingly make the MLBPA license meaningless as well.

 

[sportscardtheory]

If this is the route they are taking, why not just print the team logos and names on the cards as well? SI and other mags print the logos and team names in their mags, correct?

 

[pigskincardboard]

Guh. This has taken a turn for the worse.

Upper Deck isn't a publication, or a periodical.

If they attempt to claim that they are, their entire business model falls apart.

 

[ru4scuba]

Guh. This has taken a turn for the worse.

Upper Deck isn't a publication, or a periodical.

If they attempt to claim that they are, their entire business model falls apart.

Turn? This whole thread started on that stupid claim.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Guh. This has taken a turn for the worse.

Upper Deck isn't a publication, or a periodical.

If they attempt to claim that they are, their entire business model falls apart.

It would certainly render the Topps monopoly short-lived. That wouldn't be a bad thing in my eyes.

 

[Sly]

Guh. This has taken a turn for the worse.

Upper Deck isn't a publication, or a periodical.

If they attempt to claim that they are, their entire business model falls apart.

It would certainly render the Topps monopoly short-lived. That wouldn't be a bad thing in my eyes.

Topps does not have a "monopoly". Please do not use that term.

Topps is in the sports card industry. Baseball cards are a part of that industry. Within the industry, Topps, Upper Deck, Panini, etc. are competitors in the industry, thus there is more than one company. MLB has the right to do business with one or more of these companies. It's no different that a league/team having a specific maker of jerseys, or shoe company instead of using multiple.

Additional, Panini just put out a baseball product...as did UD...therefore, Topps is not even a monopoly based on your theory.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Guh. This has taken a turn for the worse.

Upper Deck isn't a publication, or a periodical.

If they attempt to claim that they are, their entire business model falls apart.

It would certainly render the Topps monopoly short-lived. That wouldn't be a bad thing in my eyes.

Topps does not have a "monopoly". Please do not use that term.

Topps is in the sports card industry. Baseball cards are a part of that industry. Within the industry, Topps, Upper Deck, Panini, etc. are competitors in the industry, thus there is more than one company. MLB has the right to do business with one or more of these companies. It's no different that a league/team having a specific maker of jerseys, or shoe company instead of using multiple.

Additional, Panini just put out a baseball product...as did UD...therefore, Topps is not even a monopoly based on your theory.

They have a monopoly on MLB licensed baseball cards. I've been over this before. The defintion of monopoly fits so perfectly with what Topps has with licensed baseball cards that I will not waste my time arguing it further.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Topps=monopoly; exclusive control of a commodity or service (ML BASEBALL CARDS) in a particular market (THE TRADING CARD MARKET), or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices (YES THEY CAN).

 

[pigskincardboard]

Topps=monopoly; exclusive control of a commodity or service (ML BASEBALL CARDS) in a particular market (THE TRADING CARD MARKET), or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices (YES THEY CAN).

If it were just "Cards" or even "Baseball Cards," you'd have a point. If the claims that Upper Deck makes, that baseball cards are not feasible without a license, are true then maybe there's something to it. As it stands, it's no different than saying "Gatorade has a monpoly on sports drinks because you can't sell a sports drink without being the official sports-drink of the NFL"

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Not being smart enough to see a loophole (until now) doesnt change the fact that the loophole exists.

If you remember, Donurss was prepared to take on MLB the same way (and use dlogos in 2008). If the owner of Donruss hadn't sold to Panini, she was going to fight it all the way.

I personally do not think Upper Deck thought this up (let's not give them credit for being that smart). I think Donruss reintroduced this argument. Upper Deck seems to be taking over where Donruss left off.

If you don't think these companies didn't look into ways of getting around these expensive licensing agreements I think you're being naive. Also, Donruss also attempted to obscure or alter the logos in an effort to get around the trademarks.

I have said this 3 times now, If the big companies challenged these agreements, it would open the door for smaller competitors to their market. Is it better to pay and have a duopoly or not pay and have 20 companies making baseball cards. I personally believe the smaller companies could do an equally good or better job than the big guys.

Yes, Donruss did attempt and would have likely prevailed at trial had the case moved forward. Because Donruss' owner sold the company, we never got to see the main event. You may note that no TRO was issued in that case either.
This speaks volumes to the possibility that MLB does not prevail on their claims.

The small companies need the MLBPA license as well. How can you possibly say that Donruss would have likely prevailed at trial had the case moved forward? If my memory serves, because I can't find the bookmark, Donruss didn't file anything more than a boilerplate response to MLBP's complaint. There's a reason why Ann sold the ASSETS of the company and not the WHOLE company. . .

To say that Donruss would have likely prevailed is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Scuba, you still make a huge leap. Maybe they paid them and never challenged because that was the single biggest barrier of entry from Donruss, Press Pass and other upstarts getting into or staying in the business. Again, the fact that they were willing to pay before doesn't negate their claim that they didnt need to pay.

None of us laymen know what is going to happen. Hell, Im not sure the lawyers for MLB or Upper Deck are certain what will happen. The fact that it appears MLB lost their claim for a restraining order speaks volumes to the argument that this is not an open and shut case. If it were, the court would have shut Upper Deck down.

Where is there a link to MLB filing and losing a claim for a TRO?

Actually, no one has documents, yet no TRO currently exists against Upper Deck (according to one of their distributors).

Exactly. NO ONE has produced a copy of the complaint, the response, or a TRO as of yet.

 

[pigskincardboard]

[quote="Jeff N.":3f473reu]

Scuba, you still make a huge leap. Maybe they paid them and never challenged because that was the single biggest barrier of entry from Donruss, Press Pass and other upstarts getting into or staying in the business. Again, the fact that they were willing to pay before doesn't negate their claim that they didnt need to pay.

None of us laymen know what is going to happen. Hell, Im not sure the lawyers for MLB or Upper Deck are certain what will happen. The fact that it appears MLB lost their claim for a restraining order speaks volumes to the argument that this is not an open and shut case. If it were, the court would have shut Upper Deck down.

Where is there a link to MLB filing and losing a claim for a TRO?

Actually, no one has documents, yet no TRO currently exists against Upper Deck (according to one of their distributors).

Exactly. NO ONE has produced a copy of the complaint, the response, or a TRO as of yet.[/quote:3f473reu]

I believe the original complaint is online.

 

[THECARDFATHER]

The original complain can be found online at PACER.
Includes all background case law and arguments for both sides.
This doesnt seem to be a slam dunk either way. This could be a landmark case, like CBC vs. MLBP with respect to fantasy baseball.