ChasHawk
New member
Michael Barrett, Kevin Gregg, Alphonso Soriano, Adam Dunn, Eric Chavez...A_Pharis said:
It's about MLBP, not the individual players.
UD has contracts with players. They tried to make MLB cards. Recall what happened?
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Topps screw it up again - Bowman Platinum
- Thread starter SeattleSports
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
It's about MLBP, not the individual players.
UD has contracts with players. They tried to make MLB cards. Recall what happened?
A_Pharis
Active member
Crash Davis said:
It's hopeless. Some people don't understand the concept of it being a choice to only buy licensed products.
A_Pharis
Active member
chashawk said:
Are these people that fall under contracts with the MLBPA or other such organization that limits their images' inclusion in manufactured products?
Really, it's not a hard concept, Chas. If these people have terms with the MLB and players association, then it's their decision on who to license their images to.
JoshHamilton
Well-known member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 12,205
- 320
A_Pharis said:
Care to back that or just be your normal drug-thrashed responsive self?[/quote:x4479ej4]
You are too stupid to grasp the concept that Topps has a monopoly to produce MLBP licensed baseball cards. And that's what 95% of people who collect cards buy...Major League cards. They have no other option to buy MLB cards other than Topps.
Again, were you dropped on your head as a child, or is there another explanation?
ChasHawk
New member
Adam - It is not always a choice.
If I wanted to buy 2010 Andre Dawson MLB cards, I have 1 choice. Topps.
I don't want to hear about that Tristar Obak ******** either.
If I wanted to buy 2010 Andre Dawson MLB cards, I have 1 choice. Topps.
I don't want to hear about that Tristar Obak ******** either.
A_Pharis
Active member
chashawk said:
Depends on the terms included one each contract. What applies to one person may not apply to another.
Lack of rights to use a player's images does not mean monopoly. True story.
Bob Loblaw
Active member
A_Pharis said:
That's BK's ingenuity at work. Theoretically, what you're talking about - a patented process - is what every manufacturer does. Want a cola? Great, you have plenty of choices. If you want one that tastes like Coke, you gotta buy Coke.
This is different. This isn't Topps manufacturing a certain type of card -- i.e. refractors, which they (used to) own the rights to produce. This is about a license. The only place to get MLB cards is Topps.
Imagine you wanted to get the next Justin Beiber album... and it was ONLY available on iTunes. Now, there are plenty of pre-teen pre-pubecent suckasses out there who have albums in the record stores (are there still record stores? are there still albums?), but if you want Beiber, you gotta go to iTunes.
That's where we are. There are plenty of manufacturers making "off brand" cards, but if you want MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL CARDS of MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS, you gotta go Topps.[/quote:36p2vvr7]
Thanks for the informed response, Jeff.
But would would it be more like the clothing example? It's not monopolizing for the owner of a certain property to choose their distributor or user of that license, right? It'd have to apply to the creation of the item, itself, wouldn't it?
At what point does it be cloudy? Like with contracting players to sign with only one company?[/quote:36p2vvr7]
I haven't done monopoly type constitutional law since 1L (12 years ago) but I don't think that it's a monopoly if a company licenses a single vendor to produce product. For example, I believe there's only one company producing OFFICIAL baseballs. There's one company providing OFFICIAL NFL footballs. If you want a "house brand" product, there's only one place to buy it (that particular vendor)...
What I don't get, however, is why MLBP isn't allowing other vendors to obtain the MLBP license, unless Topps is providing sufficient revenue to where MLBP doesn't need Panini or other vendors. BG, want to interject?
ChasHawk
New member
Adam - please show me where I used the word monopoly
A_Pharis
Active member
Andre Dawson as a person <-- not intellectual property
Andre Dawson's image as a player <-- intellectual property
And Josh. You can buy cards with pictures of MANY players. The images owned by the MLB are at their discretion of use. I can't make software and put Sony logos on it, can I? So if people want to buy a Sony product, and mine is JUST LIKE SONY'S.. then Sony doesn't have a monopoly on that product... they just the Sony NAME, and people are going to want that name over some no-name of the identical product.
Andre Dawson's image as a player <-- intellectual property
And Josh. You can buy cards with pictures of MANY players. The images owned by the MLB are at their discretion of use. I can't make software and put Sony logos on it, can I? So if people want to buy a Sony product, and mine is JUST LIKE SONY'S.. then Sony doesn't have a monopoly on that product... they just the Sony NAME, and people are going to want that name over some no-name of the identical product.
A_Pharis
Active member
Chas: You didn't have to use that word. You asked why only certain players are produced by Topps int he middle of a discussion about Topps "running a monopoly". Was your response not meant for the discussion at hand, bro?
sportscardtheory
Active member
cgilmo said:
Okay, lead me to all the 2010 unlicensed sets of current MLB players besides Upper Deck who was shut-down for it.
sportscardtheory said:
No one took the leap and bought a MLBPA licence. I assure you that such a licence is for sale, and it isn't terribly expensive.
A_Pharis
Active member
Jeff N. said:
That's BK's ingenuity at work. Theoretically, what you're talking about - a patented process - is what every manufacturer does. Want a cola? Great, you have plenty of choices. If you want one that tastes like Coke, you gotta buy Coke.
This is different. This isn't Topps manufacturing a certain type of card -- i.e. refractors, which they (used to) own the rights to produce. This is about a license. The only place to get MLB cards is Topps.
Imagine you wanted to get the next Justin Beiber album... and it was ONLY available on iTunes. Now, there are plenty of pre-teen pre-pubecent suckasses out there who have albums in the record stores (are there still record stores? are there still albums?), but if you want Beiber, you gotta go to iTunes.
That's where we are. There are plenty of manufacturers making "off brand" cards, but if you want MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL CARDS of MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS, you gotta go Topps.[/quote:2t1nikp7]
Thanks for the informed response, Jeff.
But would would it be more like the clothing example? It's not monopolizing for the owner of a certain property to choose their distributor or user of that license, right? It'd have to apply to the creation of the item, itself, wouldn't it?
At what point does it be cloudy? Like with contracting players to sign with only one company?[/quote:2t1nikp7]
I haven't done monopoly type constitutional law since 1L (12 years ago) but I don't think that it's a monopoly if a company licenses a single vendor to produce product. For example, I believe there's only one company producing OFFICIAL baseballs. There's one company providing OFFICIAL NFL footballs. If you want a "house brand" product, there's only one place to buy it (that particular vendor)...
What I don't get, however, is why MLBP isn't allowing other vendors to obtain the MLBP license, unless Topps is providing sufficient revenue to where MLBP doesn't need Panini or other vendors. BG, want to interject?[/quote:2t1nikp7]
Thanks for shedding some light.
A_Pharis
Active member
cgilmo said:
No one took the leap and bought a MLBPA licence. I assure you that such a licence is for sale, and it isn't terribly expensive.[/quote:3lgrp80j]
"But I collect and sell sportscards and I don't see anything beyond what is sent out in press release so obviously I have a valid grasp ont he concept of the law behind it, right?"
(Not saying I do, but there is more than just saying "OMG MONOPOLY" everytime you see the use of the word "only")
A_Pharis
Active member
And Jeff, I believe Chris just answered your question in response to someone else --> they want too much for the use.
sportscardtheory
Active member
cgilmo said:
No one took the leap and bought a MLBPA licence. I assure you that such a licence is for sale, and it isn't terribly expensive.[/quote:5eugak0m]
So now companies aren't making MLB sets because they don't want to pay for the license? News to me. Brian Gray, in this very thread, was saying that he would love to have a license to make MLB cards. Are you saying he's just too cheap to pay for the not "terribly expensive" license?
Bob Loblaw
Active member
A_Pharis said:
Chris said that the MLBPA (player association) license is cheap. With an MLBPA license, you can produce cards of the players with logos either obscured or completely airbrushed. Donruss started doing this -- then gave up, although I'm not sure if they even had the MLBPA logo.
I don't think Chris commented on the MLB Properties cost.
JoshHamilton
Well-known member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 12,205
- 320
cgilmo said:
No one took the leap and bought a MLBPA licence. I assure you that such a licence is for sale, and it isn't terribly expensive.[/quote:1xyadqlg]
If you could back this up with solid evidence, it would shut a lot of people up, myself included. I'm not saying you're lying. You're more "in the know" than the average collector, obviously.
CoughPressPassshouldapplyforalicensecough
A_Pharis
Active member
Jeff N. said:
Chris said that the MLBPA (player association) license is cheap. With an MLBPA license, you can produce cards of the players with logos either obscured or completely airbrushed. Donruss started doing this -- then gave up, although I'm not sure if they even had the MLBPA logo.
I don't think Chris commented on the MLB Properties cost.[/quote:25u46ees]
Oh, ok. My bad.
Thanks for being the level-headed voice of reason.
It may not be a monopoly, but it may violate antitrust laws (although baseball is exempt...for now). Exclusive agreements eliminate competition.
Here's the major decision this year. Apparel mfr American Needle went after the NFL and NFL Properties for their exclusive agreement with Reebok.
The National Football League (NFL) is an unincorporated association of 32 separately owned professional football teams. Through National Football League Properties (NFLP) the NFL develops, licenses and markets certain intellectual property owned by the NFL teams. Until December 2000, the NFLP licensed its intellectual property to many different apparel manufacturers (including American Needle). In December 2000, NFLP agreed to provide an exclusive license for the production of its apparel to a single company Reebok, International Ltd. American Needle challenged the NFLP’s use of an exclusive license as a Section 1 Sherman Act violation. In response, the NFL and NFLP asserted that NFLP is a single entity, so a claim of anticompetitive activity can only be brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
The Supreme Court, ruling unanimously in American Needle v. NFL (08-661), put at least a temporary end to the speculation — at least to this extent: a claim that joint action is the only way to promote the “brand” of “NFL football” was simply but firmly rejected. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that “defining the product as ‘NFL football’ puts the cart before the horse. Of course, the NFL produces NFL football, but that does not mean that cooperation amongst NFL teams is immune from [Sherman Act] scrutiny. Members of any cartel could insist that their cooperation is necessary to produce the ‘cartel product’ and compete with other products.”
If promoting pro football with the consuming public is the economic goal, “there would be nothing to prevent each of the teams from making its own market decisions relating to purchases of apparel and headwear, to the sale of such items, and to the granting of licenses to use its trademarks,” Stevens said. “Competitors,” he added, quoting colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor when she was a judge on the Second Circuit Court, ” ‘cannot simply get around’ antitrust liability by acting ‘through a third-party intermediary or ‘joint venture.’ ”
The concluding part of the opinion represented an attempt to narrow the scope of the ruling, suggesting that the NFL and other pro leagues may well be entitled to quite broad antitrust immunity for such joint efforts as producing and scheduling games, taking steps to maintain “a competitive balance” between teams, and acting to ensure that the sport makes money. The actual legality of any joint practice, the Court made clear, was not being decided in this case — including the specific tactic of joint marketing of the right to use team trademarks. Each “collective decision” a league chooses to make, the opinion concluded, is to be judged by an antitrust “rule of reason” — a flexible standard that is keyed to particular facts and circumstances.
The trademark licensing case now returns to the Seventh Circuit, and very likely back to District Court, for a trial on whether that scheme is, in fact, an “unreasonable restraint of trade” in the way that it actually operates. The outcome was not foreordained by Monday’s ruling.
Here's the major decision this year. Apparel mfr American Needle went after the NFL and NFL Properties for their exclusive agreement with Reebok.
The National Football League (NFL) is an unincorporated association of 32 separately owned professional football teams. Through National Football League Properties (NFLP) the NFL develops, licenses and markets certain intellectual property owned by the NFL teams. Until December 2000, the NFLP licensed its intellectual property to many different apparel manufacturers (including American Needle). In December 2000, NFLP agreed to provide an exclusive license for the production of its apparel to a single company Reebok, International Ltd. American Needle challenged the NFLP’s use of an exclusive license as a Section 1 Sherman Act violation. In response, the NFL and NFLP asserted that NFLP is a single entity, so a claim of anticompetitive activity can only be brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
The Supreme Court, ruling unanimously in American Needle v. NFL (08-661), put at least a temporary end to the speculation — at least to this extent: a claim that joint action is the only way to promote the “brand” of “NFL football” was simply but firmly rejected. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that “defining the product as ‘NFL football’ puts the cart before the horse. Of course, the NFL produces NFL football, but that does not mean that cooperation amongst NFL teams is immune from [Sherman Act] scrutiny. Members of any cartel could insist that their cooperation is necessary to produce the ‘cartel product’ and compete with other products.”
If promoting pro football with the consuming public is the economic goal, “there would be nothing to prevent each of the teams from making its own market decisions relating to purchases of apparel and headwear, to the sale of such items, and to the granting of licenses to use its trademarks,” Stevens said. “Competitors,” he added, quoting colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor when she was a judge on the Second Circuit Court, ” ‘cannot simply get around’ antitrust liability by acting ‘through a third-party intermediary or ‘joint venture.’ ”
The concluding part of the opinion represented an attempt to narrow the scope of the ruling, suggesting that the NFL and other pro leagues may well be entitled to quite broad antitrust immunity for such joint efforts as producing and scheduling games, taking steps to maintain “a competitive balance” between teams, and acting to ensure that the sport makes money. The actual legality of any joint practice, the Court made clear, was not being decided in this case — including the specific tactic of joint marketing of the right to use team trademarks. Each “collective decision” a league chooses to make, the opinion concluded, is to be judged by an antitrust “rule of reason” — a flexible standard that is keyed to particular facts and circumstances.
The trademark licensing case now returns to the Seventh Circuit, and very likely back to District Court, for a trial on whether that scheme is, in fact, an “unreasonable restraint of trade” in the way that it actually operates. The outcome was not foreordained by Monday’s ruling.
