Insider upper deck/mlb update?

[THECARDFATHER]

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"

Baseball is saying precisely that.
That Upper Deck cannot make baseball cards with the jersey (even airbrushed!).
The claim is that they shoudl picture them in street clothes or at home with their families.
At that point, they are no longer baseball cards.

 

[trademhigh]

Topps has a monopoly on licensed baseball trading cards.

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.

Yes, but they do not have a monopoly on Baseball Trading Cards.
The gatorade comparison was a good one.
Gatorade does not have a monopoly on sports drinks even though they are the official sports drink of the NFL.

 

[THECARDFATHER]

Topps has a monopoly on licensed baseball trading cards.

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.

Yes, but they do not have a monopoly on Baseball Trading Cards.
The gatorade comparison was a good one.
Gatorade does not have a monopoly on sports drinks even though they are the official sports drink of the NFL.

Baseball is saying precisely that.
That Upper Deck cannot make baseball cards with the jersey (even airbrushed!).
The claim is that they should picture them in street clothes or at home with their families.
At that point, they are no longer baseball cards

 

[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.

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.

Not ridiculous if they made the same arguments Upper Deck is. Fact is, Ann planned to sell anyways and didn't want to create a fight that would make the company harder to sell. If she chose to fight and make the logical arguments, then she would have likely prevailed.

We should know something soon. Court date set for April on the issue according to PACER.

 

[pigskincardboard]

Topps has a monopoly on licensed baseball trading cards.

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.

Yes, but they do not have a monopoly on Baseball Trading Cards.
The gatorade comparison was a good one.
Gatorade does not have a monopoly on sports drinks even though they are the official sports drink of the NFL.

I guess I'll be listing all of my Aroldis Chapman autographs then. I can't believe I paid that much money for a piece of paper -- I'll be filing a significantly as not described complaint, too. I paid for baseball cards, darnit.

 

[sportscardtheory]

The gatorade comparison was a good one.
Gatorade does not have a monopoly on sports drinks even though they are the official sports drink of the NFL.

Gatorade does have a monopoly on NFL licensed sports drink containers and advertising. The definition of monopoly is fairly concise and doesn't leave a lot to opinion.

 

[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.

Not ridiculous if they made the same arguments Upper Deck is. Fact is, Ann planned to sell anyways and didn't want to create a fight that would make the company harder to sell. If she chose to fight and make the logical arguments, then she would have likely prevailed.

She would have prevailed based on...your expert legal opinion?

We don't know what argument UD is making, other than the fact that we can deduce the argument that they cannot take a picture of a baseball player without the cap logos for headshots, because we don't have their response to the complaint, and we do not have a public statement from UD.

 

[pigskincardboard]

The gatorade comparison was a good one.
Gatorade does not have a monopoly on sports drinks even though they are the official sports drink of the NFL.

Gatorade does have a monopoly on NFL licensed sports drink containers and advertising. The definition of monopoly is fairly concise and doesn't leave a lot to opinion.

You can say anyone has a monopoly on anything if you get specific enough. Does that make it a monopoly in anything other than the dictionary?

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue with this ...analysis? of a dictionary definition.

Dunkin Donuts has a monopoly on donuts on the corner of 34th and Reed for people willing to pay no more than 60 cents for a donut.

 

[sportscardtheory]

The gatorade comparison was a good one.
Gatorade does not have a monopoly on sports drinks even though they are the official sports drink of the NFL.

Gatorade does have a monopoly on NFL licensed sports drink containers and advertising. The definition of monopoly is fairly concise and doesn't leave a lot to opinion.

You can say anyone has a monopoly on anything if you get specific enough. Does that make it a monopoly in anything other than the dictionary?

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue with this ...analysis? of a dictionary definition.

Dunkin Donuts has a monopoly on donuts on the corner of 34th and Reed for people willing to pay no more than 60 cents for a donut.

On the opposite end of my argument you are basically saying there is no such thing as a monopoly. It's like saying an electric company can never have a monopoly because I can make electricity in my basement. Of course you can talk your way out of any monopoly, but that doesn't make it any less of one. A monopoly that matters is one that people care about, no one gives a crap about your Dunkin Donuts "monopoly", but I guess it technically could be one. People care about baseball cards, thus making the Topps monopoly meaningful.

 

[pigskincardboard]

The gatorade comparison was a good one.
Gatorade does not have a monopoly on sports drinks even though they are the official sports drink of the NFL.

Gatorade does have a monopoly on NFL licensed sports drink containers and advertising. The definition of monopoly is fairly concise and doesn't leave a lot to opinion.

You can say anyone has a monopoly on anything if you get specific enough. Does that make it a monopoly in anything other than the dictionary?

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue with this ...analysis? of a dictionary definition.

Dunkin Donuts has a monopoly on donuts on the corner of 34th and Reed for people willing to pay no more than 60 cents for a donut.

On the opposite end of my argument you are basically saying there is no such thing as a monopoly. It's like saying an electric company can never have a monopoly because I can make electricity in my basement. Of course you can talk your way out of any monopoly, but that doesn't make it any less of one. A monopoly that matters is one that people care about, no one gives a crap about your Dunkin Donuts "monopoly", but I guess it technically could be one. People care about baseball cards, thus making the Topps monopoly meaningful.

Are you older than 15? I can't tell if you're a moron, or just trying to be a pain in the butt.

 

[sportscardtheory]

The gatorade comparison was a good one.
Gatorade does not have a monopoly on sports drinks even though they are the official sports drink of the NFL.

Gatorade does have a monopoly on NFL licensed sports drink containers and advertising. The definition of monopoly is fairly concise and doesn't leave a lot to opinion.

You can say anyone has a monopoly on anything if you get specific enough. Does that make it a monopoly in anything other than the dictionary?

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue with this ...analysis? of a dictionary definition.

Dunkin Donuts has a monopoly on donuts on the corner of 34th and Reed for people willing to pay no more than 60 cents for a donut.

On the opposite end of my argument you are basically saying there is no such thing as a monopoly. It's like saying an electric company can never have a monopoly because I can make electricity in my basement. Of course you can talk your way out of any monopoly, but that doesn't make it any less of one. A monopoly that matters is one that people care about, no one gives a crap about your Dunkin Donuts "monopoly", but I guess it technically could be one. People care about baseball cards, thus making the Topps monopoly meaningful.

Are you older than 15? I can't tell if you're a moron, or just trying to be a pain in the butt.

I was just having a discussion, but apparently you aren't man enough to do that and had to resort to childish name calling and insults. Have a great evening, *******.

 

[pigskincardboard]

[quote="trademhigh":frwpipne]
The gatorade comparison was a good one.
Gatorade does not have a monopoly on sports drinks even though they are the official sports drink of the NFL.

Gatorade does have a monopoly on NFL licensed sports drink containers and advertising. The definition of monopoly is fairly concise and doesn't leave a lot to opinion.

You can say anyone has a monopoly on anything if you get specific enough. Does that make it a monopoly in anything other than the dictionary?

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue with this ...analysis? of a dictionary definition.

Dunkin Donuts has a monopoly on donuts on the corner of 34th and Reed for people willing to pay no more than 60 cents for a donut.

On the opposite end of my argument you are basically saying there is no such thing as a monopoly. It's like saying an electric company can never have a monopoly because I can make electricity in my basement. Of course you can talk your way out of any monopoly, but that doesn't make it any less of one. A monopoly that matters is one that people care about, no one gives a crap about your Dunkin Donuts "monopoly", but I guess it technically could be one. People care about baseball cards, thus making the Topps monopoly meaningful.

Are you older than 15? I can't tell if you're a moron, or just trying to be a pain in the butt.

I was just having a discussion, but apparently you aren't man enough to do that and had to resort to childish name calling and insults. Have a great evening, *******.[/quote:frwpipne]

Sorry. Your posts were so nonsensical that I thought you were screwing with me.

 

[ChasHawk]

[quote="sportscardtheory":1132t42y][quote="trademhigh":1132t42y]
The gatorade comparison was a good one.
Gatorade does not have a monopoly on sports drinks even though they are the official sports drink of the NFL.

Gatorade does have a monopoly on NFL licensed sports drink containers and advertising. The definition of monopoly is fairly concise and doesn't leave a lot to opinion.

You can say anyone has a monopoly on anything if you get specific enough. Does that make it a monopoly in anything other than the dictionary?

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue with this ...analysis? of a dictionary definition.

Dunkin Donuts has a monopoly on donuts on the corner of 34th and Reed for people willing to pay no more than 60 cents for a donut.

On the opposite end of my argument you are basically saying there is no such thing as a monopoly. It's like saying an electric company can never have a monopoly because I can make electricity in my basement. Of course you can talk your way out of any monopoly, but that doesn't make it any less of one. A monopoly that matters is one that people care about, no one gives a crap about your Dunkin Donuts "monopoly", but I guess it technically could be one. People care about baseball cards, thus making the Topps monopoly meaningful.

Are you older than 15? I can't tell if you're a moron, or just trying to be a pain in the butt.

I was just having a discussion, but apparently you aren't man enough to do that and had to resort to childish name calling and insults. Have a great evening, *******.[/quote:1132t42y]

Sorry. Your posts were so nonsensical that I thought you were screwing with me.[/quote:1132t42y]
Exactly how many posts have you made on this board where you aren't being a dick?

If you want to be part of the discussion, good for you, but don't troll just because you are bored with life.

 

[sportscardtheory]

[quote="pigskincardboard":2rd34yfz][quote="sportscardtheory":2rd34yfz][quote="trademhigh":2rd34yfz]
The gatorade comparison was a good one.
Gatorade does not have a monopoly on sports drinks even though they are the official sports drink of the NFL.

Gatorade does have a monopoly on NFL licensed sports drink containers and advertising. The definition of monopoly is fairly concise and doesn't leave a lot to opinion.

You can say anyone has a monopoly on anything if you get specific enough. Does that make it a monopoly in anything other than the dictionary?

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue with this ...analysis? of a dictionary definition.

Dunkin Donuts has a monopoly on donuts on the corner of 34th and Reed for people willing to pay no more than 60 cents for a donut.

On the opposite end of my argument you are basically saying there is no such thing as a monopoly. It's like saying an electric company can never have a monopoly because I can make electricity in my basement. Of course you can talk your way out of any monopoly, but that doesn't make it any less of one. A monopoly that matters is one that people care about, no one gives a crap about your Dunkin Donuts "monopoly", but I guess it technically could be one. People care about baseball cards, thus making the Topps monopoly meaningful.

Are you older than 15? I can't tell if you're a moron, or just trying to be a pain in the butt.

I was just having a discussion, but apparently you aren't man enough to do that and had to resort to childish name calling and insults. Have a great evening, *******.[/quote:2rd34yfz]

Sorry. Your posts were so nonsensical that I thought you were screwing with me.[/quote:2rd34yfz]
Exactly how many posts have you made on this board where you aren't being a dick?[/quote:2rd34yfz]

Don't bother. He probably can't understand what it is you are saying because it differs from his opinion.

 

[George_Calfas]

 

[pigskincardboard]

Someone is proclaiming that every niche market is a monopoly.

 

[ChasHawk]

Someone is proclaiming that every niche market is a monopoly.

Actually he is claiming that 1 very profitable market is a monopoly.

You are carrying on your status quo.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Someone is proclaiming that every niche market is a monopoly.

It makes more sense than saying there is no such thing as a monopoly. Tell us a situation you believe to be a monopoly and I can do exactly what you did and "disprove" it. Go ahead, try it

 

[vwnut13]

Who doesn't like good old fashioned Monopoly?

 

[Bob Loblaw]

http://www.bristolpress.com/articles/20 ... 397000.txt

Apparently, the motion for TRO was lost by MLBP.

As many threads are useless without pictures, this thread is somewhat useless without actually reading the motions/orders. I have no desire to pay PACER to retrieve the records; anyone have 'em, other than the complaint?