Topps Sues Leaf Over "Best Of" Product!

[Leaf]

Re: Topps Sues Leaf Over

You guys can ignore precedence all you want. Im not gonna.


Oh yeah and goldenbuckeyes is an idiot.

+1

 

[nyc3]

[youtube:243mb263]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-qN6TCY85c[/youtube:243mb263]

 

[cgilmo]

If you think that Topps doesn't and shouldn't see leaf as a serious competitor then you don't know the industry.

Topps basically has two major revenue pies.

#1 big box retail, all hail the mighty walmart

2# distributor dollars, this is where leaf can seriously dig into profits. Orders by distributors are finite, and if they order more Leaf they will order less topps.

Real competition for Topps when someone has to use their cards to be a competitor

Best of baseball was a small release compared to their football releases this year. Did you forget about those?

 

[Leaf]

If you think that Topps doesn't and shouldn't see leaf as a serious competitor then you don't know the industry.

Topps basically has two major revenue pies.

#1 big box retail, all hail the mighty walmart

2# distributor dollars, this is where leaf can seriously dig into profits. Orders by distributors are finite, and if they order more Leaf they will order less topps.

Real competition for Topps when someone has to use their cards to be a competitor

I would recommend taking off the blinders.
Buyback products constitute less than 10% of our revenue.
ALI, Family Guy, FB Draft, Baseball Draft,MMA, Pete Rose Legacy, Vince Lombardi Collection, 2011 LEAF GOLF, 2011 Legends of Sport, Poker, POP CENTURY, US ARMY FB.... we have plenty of non-buyback products.

Bias makes even the moderately educated look stupid.
BG

 

[James52411]

I've seen a lot of people ask how Topps' lawsuit could have merit when other products have used similar images. The question is irrelevant because the holder of copyright rights is the party that chooses to enforce them through the courts. Topps can choose to enforce its rights against whomever it chooses.

 

[matfanofold]

Am I correct in assuming that other than the lawyers at Topps and LEAF, no one here truely understands the details of the case fully? If this is an accurate statment then how can precedence be an arguable issue? Do we not have to fully know and understand the filing to do so?

 

[csmtampa]

Re: Topps Sues Leaf Over

You guys can ignore precedence all you want. Im not gonna.


Oh yeah and goldenbuckeyes is an idiot.

+1

A 15 year old idiot :lol:

 

[Joshua.Roundtree]

All I'll say on this matter is that what Brian has done with these buyback products is no different than anyone else who uses a picture in an eBay listing. If Topps thinks they maintain intellectual property rights AFTER the cards are busted than they should be sueing EVERYONE who resells one of their cards. Shame on Topps, this is really just a big waste of time. I hope a circuit judge somewhere lays into them.

 

[matchpenalty]

If you think that Topps doesn't and shouldn't see leaf as a serious competitor then you don't know the industry.

Topps basically has two major revenue pies.

#1 big box retail, all hail the mighty walmart

2# distributor dollars, this is where leaf can seriously dig into profits. Orders by distributors are finite, and if they order more Leaf they will order less topps.

Real competition for Topps when someone has to use their cards to be a competitor

I would recommend taking off the blinders.
Buyback products constitute less than 10% of our revenue.
ALI, Family Guy, FB Draft, Baseball Draft,MMA, Pete Rose Legacy, Vince Lombardi Collection, 2011 LEAF GOLF, 2011 Legends of Sport, Poker, POP CENTURY, US ARMY FB.... we have plenty of non-buyback products.

Bias makes even the moderately educated look stupid.
BG

Dam I didn't even know about Lombardi Collection coming out. That sounds cool.

 

[matfanofold]

All I'll say on this matter is that what Brian has done with these buyback products is no different than anyone else who uses a picture in an eBay listing. If Topps thinks they maintain intellectual property rights AFTER the cards are busted than they should be sueing EVERYONE who resells one of their cards. Shame on Topps, this is really just a big waste of time. I hope a circuit judge somewhere lays into them.

I do not think its even debatable at this point that topps motive is to try and stifle a growing competetor. I think we can all agree on this. So to rehash the 'everyone who resells' retort is somewhat fruitless. I am just curious to the exact details of the case, but judging by many responses(not necessairly yours) have I missed them being posted already?

 

[James52411]

Am I correct in assuming that other than the lawyers at Topps and LEAF, no one here truely understands the details of the case fully? If this is an accurate statment then how can precedence be an arguable issue? Do we not have to fully know and understand the filing to do so?

Unless someone is qualified to practice law in the copyright arena or is well versed in it, their opinion is going to be based on conjecture. It may not be entirely necessary to read the complaint to form an intelligent opinion, but it would certainly help. I've been a lawyer for 10 years, and while I'd guess that the lawsuit is not frivolous, I'm not well versed enough in copyright law to have confidence in my opinion as to whether Topps will be successful if the court renders a verdict. I browsed federal copyright law last night and think Topps has some avenues for their lawsuit, but I didn't research court precedent and how the statutes are interpreted so my knowledge base is admittedly incomplete.

 

[matchpenalty]

Doesn't take a law degree to figure it out. Like said before, Topps in now taking Leaf serious and wants to try and tie them up in some legal crap. Just a poor way to handle it. I like both companies and hope this case gets dropped asap. No one wins, just the lawyers. Who I'm sure are blowing smoke up Topps ass to do this. Just get over it and move on and get Marquee out. It's about the cards. Wouldn't surprise me one bit in the end that this all is worked out soon and case is dropped.

 

[James52411]

Doesn't take a law degree to figure it out. Like said before, Topps in now taking Leaf serious and wants to try and tie them up in some legal crap. Just a poor way to handle it. I like both companies and hope this case gets dropped asap. No one wins, just the lawyers. Who I'm sure are blowing smoke up Topps ass to do this. Just get over it and move on and get Marquee out. It's about the cards. Wouldn't surprise me one bit in the end that this all is worked out soon and case is dropped.

Whether the lawsuit is good for Topps or good for the hobby, and the reasons why Topps filed the suit, are different issues than whether Topps' suit has merit. Almost every time a lawsuit alleging copyright is brought, it is done in order to prevent "competition."

 

[SeattleSports]

Am I correct in assuming that other than the lawyers at Topps and LEAF, no one here truely understands the details of the case fully? If this is an accurate statment then how can precedence be an arguable issue? Do we not have to fully know and understand the filing to do so?

Unless someone is qualified to practice law in the copyright arena or is well versed in it, their opinion is going to be based on conjecture. It may not be entirely necessary to read the complaint to form an intelligent opinion, but it would certainly help. I've been a lawyer for 10 years, and while I'd guess that the lawsuit is not frivolous, I'm not well versed enough in copyright law to have confidence in my opinion as to whether Topps will be successful if the court renders a verdict. I browsed federal copyright law last night and think Topps has some avenues for their lawsuit, but I didn't research court precedent and how the statutes are interpreted so my knowledge base is admittedly incomplete.

I stayed at a holiday inn last night, Topps doesn't have a case.

 

[Boylen33]

Why don't we band together and file a class action suit against Topps? I'm sure we can find something to sue them for-- maybe hyping up a product with big names on the checklist and then releasing the product without the big-names and replacing with no-namers (Platinum). Or maybe there is something in the redemption department we can sue for, like not sending redemptions, or waiting a year to send redemptions, or sending crap cards in place of what was supposed to be sent...

Bottom line-- competition, in any industry, is a good and necessary thing.

 

[notjomommasclint]

its stories like this that put the joy back into the hobby! there are issues on both sides... if topps produced a more creative product and fostered an environment of customer first then leaf customers wouldnt clamor for a unique source. for leaf most of the heat comes from non licensed and reissued product. so why not drop the stuff that draws attention? because it draws attention... if its less than 10% of the total income then the releases that draw heat are equal to trolling... for dollars... either way am sure some 6 year old busting packs from his local grocery store gives a **** what either of these companies do. in the long run this is bad for the hobby, bad for the people, and bad for the customer.

my unwanted advice...

topps put your customer first and make products they want to buy.

leaf reestablish your name via licensed creative products then attack the hobby with passion and your current customer service.

 

[schmidtfan20]

so where is topps going to pull this money for paying the lawyers from? less customer service? less product
content? less on card autographs?

The only one getting screwed here is us.

Kevin

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I've seen a lot of people ask how Topps' lawsuit could have merit when other products have used similar images. The question is irrelevant because the holder of copyright rights is the party that chooses to enforce them through the courts. Topps can choose to enforce its rights against whomever it chooses.

Those rights must be enforced otherwise the item becomes "generic". See Kleenex and Xerox.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Am I correct in assuming that other than the lawyers at Topps and LEAF, no one here truely understands the details of the case fully? If this is an accurate statment then how can precedence be an arguable issue? Do we not have to fully know and understand the filing to do so?

Unless someone is qualified to practice law in the copyright arena or is well versed in it, their opinion is going to be based on conjecture. It may not be entirely necessary to read the complaint to form an intelligent opinion, but it would certainly help. I've been a lawyer for 10 years, and while I'd guess that the lawsuit is not frivolous, I'm not well versed enough in copyright law to have confidence in my opinion as to whether Topps will be successful if the court renders a verdict. I browsed federal copyright law last night and think Topps has some avenues for their lawsuit, but I didn't research court precedent and how the statutes are interpreted so my knowledge base is admittedly incomplete.

Right now, you and I are the legal team that this board has. I know there are a few other attorneys -- Casey, for one -- but I'm pretty sure he doesn't practice copyright law either. Until we actually see something more than a baseball card newsboard noting the story, and although Brian didn't exactly deny it, he didn't post the complaint either.

I have had some conversations with Brian through PM, and I don't expect to get any information, if I do, I will most likely need to keep it confidential and not post in this thread any longer.

We don't know what the issues truly are; just speculating.

 

[tikitomoka]

Why don't we band together and file a class action suit against Topps? I'm sure we can find something to sue them for-- maybe hyping up a product with big names on the checklist and then releasing the product without the big-names and replacing with no-namers (Platinum). Or maybe there is something in the redemption department we can sue for, like not sending redemptions, or waiting a year to send redemptions, or sending crap cards in place of what was supposed to be sent...

Bottom line-- competition, in any industry, is a good and necessary thing.

It's called checklist is subject to change, and that's how they cover their ass legally.