So looks like Leaf is on to something....

[petMonster]

What I see happening is Leaf going ahead and stealing the logo on the uniform that another company has built up in order to personally profit from it. He'll attempt to delay judgment in the lawsuits for as long as he can, all the while pulling out "income" from the company from revenue generated from this theft. Once he is ultimately ruled against, the judgment will be against the corporation, not the owner and Leaf will be bankrupt but the principals will be able to leave with their money intact utilizing the corporate shield.

It also would surprise me if when the Leaf brand is sold in bankruptcy court in order to pay off Leaf's creditors, that the purchaser of the brand would be associated with the current company in some way. Good way to buy a brand back for pennies on the dollar.

Conspiracy theory is so awesome. I'm wondering if you believe we landed on the moon or if it really was terrorists who brought down the towers?

 

[TwinGnats]

Making predictions, what else is this thread for as the topic is; "something could happen with something at some point...discuss"

Conspiracy theory is so awesome. I'm wondering if you believe we landed on the moon or if it really was terrorists who brought down the towers?

 

[TwinGnats]

...and let's be clear, Leaf is attempting to steal another company's product without permission. I don't see him making all the necessary legal challenges and getting them squared away before he attempts to do this. If so then I'm wrong, if he goes ahead an produces a set and waits for a legal challenge, most likely, I'm right.

 

[Sean_C]

You are talking about major companies who have existing relationships with those leagues. I'm sure they have some sort of an agreement in place in order to do so. Check some of the smaller fantasy sites, or better yet, set one up yourself and see how long it takes before you have lawyers at your door.

Check this out for more info:

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/i-created-a-new-fantasy-football-game--is-it-legal-1496119.html

And he's just talking about player names, even he knows not to try to go for team names or logos (the first lawyer's response references the case I mentioned above regarding MLB player names).

I know you said you don't have the specifics on how it works with newspapers and stuff, but as for the fantasy side of it, both my ESPN and Yahoo fantasy leagues have player pics that say "Washington Capitals" or "Boston Celtics" or Chicago White Sox" right nest to the player's picture...NOT "The Chicago Professional Baseball Club" next to their pic as we see on some unlicensed cards. And in the pictures you can often see the MLB/NHL/NBA logo on the player's uniform. I get that you can't own stats, but these teams and leagues DO own the logos and team names. And since ESPN and Yahoo do make money (indirectly if not directly) from their fantasy sports, why then does MLB not go after these guys, too? I'm thinking it's a buddy-buddy thing. Topps probably has a few important people who are super buddy-buddy with some important MLB people and they use those friendships to take care of each other. That means keeping it in the "family." Even if Leaf or Panini were to make significant and even better offers than Topps to obtain rights, I doubt it would happen without court intervention.

 

[Sean_C]

You have been thanked, sir! While I hope the remainder of your statement isn't true, your first sentence is spot on.

What I see happening is Leaf going ahead and stealing the logo on the uniform that another company has built up in order to personally profit from it. He'll attempt to delay judgment in the lawsuits for as long as he can, all the while pulling out "income" from the company from revenue generated from this theft. Once he is ultimately ruled against, the judgment will be against the corporation, not the owner and Leaf will be bankrupt but the principals will be able to leave with their money intact utilizing the corporate shield.

It also would surprise me if when the Leaf brand is sold in bankruptcy court in order to pay off Leaf's creditors, that the purchaser of the brand would be associated with the current company in some way. Good way to buy a brand back for pennies on the dollar.

 

[Leaf]

The idea that you would use the first amendment as a loophole to be able to use uniforms on a product you are making money off of is one of the most obscene things that I can think of. Have you no shame at all, Brian?

I can't wait for someone at Deadspin or some other news organization to get a hold of this story and eviscerate you and your company for it.

You mean like magazines and newspapers make money?

C'mon.. Don't wear blinders.. BG

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

I know that every single post office employee that I've asked has told me that trading cards are definitively NOT media when I have asked whether they could be sent via media mail. There was no hesitation, as if they had been asked this question before and told which answer to give. It seems the government has decided that these products are not in the same class as Sports Illustrated and other journalistic enterprises, a definition that would play an important role in the litigation being discussed here.

 

[cgilmo]

Blurry lines

 

[Leaf]

Don't worry about me .. I have more money than I need in my lifetime..not bragging, just addressing the troll who alludes to idea it could bankrupt us..
I can afford the fight...

Hopefully, it doesn't come to me pushing the red button.. BUT, I will not be deterred by a handful of message board trolls who do not KNOW the law..

I will do what is right for Leaf and the industry..

IF you actually want this business to survive, you should pray that I test the law..

It could save the industry..the current direction is a one way ticket to the end..

Bg

Ps- there are many solid legal arguments for my position (1st amendment is only one)

 

[Leaf]

I know that every single post office employee that I've asked has told me that trading cards are definitively NOT media when I have asked whether they could be sent via media mail. There was no hesitation, as if they had been asked this question before and told which answer to give. It seems the government has decided that these products are not in the same class as Sports Illustrated and other journalistic enterprises, a definition that would play an important role in the litigation being discussed here.

Thankfully, the above has nothing to do with this issue.. BG

 

[TwinGnats]

you don't need/want money? Just stealing because you're compelled to. Strange way for kleptomania to manifest itself in a person.

Don't worry about me .. I have more money than I need in my lifetime..not bragging, just addressing the troll who alludes to idea it could bankrupt us..
I can afford the fight...

Hopefully, it doesn't come to me pushing the red button.. BUT, I will not be deterred by a handful of message board trolls who do not KNOW the law..

I will do what is right for Leaf and the industry..

IF you actually want this business to survive, you should pray that I test the law..

It could save the industry..
Bg

Ps- there are many solid legal arguments for my position (1st amendment is only one)

 

[Sean_C]

Not a question of blinders, Brian. A question of reality. They are making money off of the advertising, underwriting, and "nominal" per issue / subscription costs for stories and information they are producing. You are directly making money based on the images attached to the cardboard you create (seemingly on demand), and with no substantive editorial, educational, or informative material.

Even if your argument has merit, is this really the road (and whomever else is interested in pursing the first amendment issue) you want to go do, and can you honestly say you feel good about it? To trivialize the first amendment to make a buck? As I said earlier, if you want to pursue it on unfair competition grounds, monopoly grounds, or anything else, be my guest (personally, I think it sucks monkey balls that any league would negotiate/extort companies for "exclusive rights" to a license), but to battle this on a "freedom of speech" basis is just too low of a path.

You mean like magazines and newspapers make money?

C'mon.. Don't wear blinders.. BG

 

[Leaf]

you don't need/want money? Just stealing because you're compelled to. Strange way for kleptomania to manifest itself in a person.

Do magazines steal?

Can't argue with someone clueless on issues..

 

[Leaf]

Sean, you have no clue how deep the anti-competitive and potentially antitrust related issues run..

If ya ever wanna know what's ReALLY up, I'll call ya...

Bg

 

[Sean_C]

You aren't a magazine, periodical, or news entity, Brian. You are the producer of little pieces of cardboard/foilboard that feature autographs of the people directly pictured on the front of the cards. Being a magazine is how those scumbags at Rookie Review and other such "magazines" were able to function; They produced actual magazines (jokes really) that "featured" a sheet of cards you had to remove. Are you going to go into that market now as well?

Do magazines steal?

Can't argue with someone clueless on issues..

 

[Leaf]

You aren't a magazine, periodical, or news entity, Brian. You are the producer of little pieces of cardboard/foilboard that feature autographs of the people directly pictured on the front of the cards. Being a magazine is how those scumbags at Rookie Review and other such "magazines" were able to function; They produced actual magazines (jokes really) that "featured" a sheet of cards you had to remove. Are you going to go into that market now as well?

You are wrong, sorry..
Look at card toons case..
The law comes in handy.. Bg

 

[gmarutiak]

The idea that you would use the first amendment as a loophole to be able to use uniforms on a product you are making money off of is one of the most obscene things that I can think of. Have you no shame at all, Brian?

I can't wait for someone at Deadspin or some other news organization to get a hold of this story and eviscerate you and your company for it.

Serious question: why do you have a problem with using the first amendment here?

It seems to me that the first amendment was written to protect individuals in this country. Businesses and companies, like Leaf (and even Topps) are run by individuals.

What's the problem?

 

[gmarutiak]

Don't worry about me .. I have more money than I need in my lifetime..not bragging, just addressing the troll who alludes to idea it could bankrupt us..
I can afford the fight...

Hopefully, it doesn't come to me pushing the red button.. BUT, I will not be deterred by a handful of message board trolls who do not KNOW the law..

I will do what is right for Leaf and the industry..

IF you actually want this business to survive, you should pray that I test the law..

It could save the industry..the current direction is a one way ticket to the end..

Bg

Ps- there are many solid legal arguments for my position (1st amendment is only one)

While I won't go so far as to pray (that wouldn't seem quite right), I wish you luck, BG. Don't let "The Man" hold you down!

 

[Sean_C]

Again with the calls, Brian? I've already told you a hundred times that I have no desire to talk to you on the phone about an issue that we're discussing fine, great, and dandy in public. If you can only say it in private, then it either;

can't be that important.
is something that you want to be able to have deny later on ("I never said that." "You misunderstood me." etc).

I do know how deep the anti-competitive / antitrust issues are, and think that you and all of the rest of the card manufacturers should go after them full force on that basis. The first amendment issue is the area that I take exception to.

Sean, you have no clue how deep the anti-competitive and potentially antitrust related issues run..

If ya ever wanna know what's ReALLY up, I'll call ya...

Bg

 

[Hendersonfan]

You aren't a magazine, periodical, or news entity, Brian. You are the producer of little pieces of cardboard/foilboard that feature autographs of the people directly pictured on the front of the cards. Being a magazine is how those scumbags at Rookie Review and other such "magazines" were able to function; They produced actual magazines (jokes really) that "featured" a sheet of cards you had to remove. Are you going to go into that market now as well?

So don't you collect these? Wouldn't you like more to collect? Why are you all over BG's ass over trying to make the hobby better? You should be pissed at Topps for their monopoly. Pour out your Cheerios that someone pissed in this morning and relax.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Freedom Card Board mobile app