A Syracuse attorney is taking on the case of a four-year-old boy who had a seizure while watching his brother play a video game on his PS2.

The attorney, Michael P. Kenny, has taken Sony and Vivendi to court over the video game Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly because of certain "seizure triggers" in the game, which was released in 2002. The case was filed in 2007, but is just entering the discovery phase.

Kenny, who has set up a site with information about video game induced seizures, is also soliciting more people to come forward in the apparent hopes of setting up a class action suit.

According to the news release from Kenny:

"The video game companies know there is a problem, and they choose not to fix it. The video games seizures have a cause, and the manufacturers choose not to correct it." Kenny asserts that the video game manufacturers knowingly place their financial gain ahead of people's health. He added, "Without federal legislation to compel the video game companies to take action, we have no choice but to litigate on behalf of the victims."

The release also points out that using a Cambridge professor's device known as the Harding Flash and Pattern Analyzer could help prevent photosensitive epileptic seizures:

The Harding Flash and Pattern Analyzer has used by television broadcasters in the UK to identify seizure-inducing light movement, and Kenny uses the device to analyze video games. He noted that the federal government limits the number of flashes per second from the strobe warning lights in its facilities. "The government is willing to take basic steps to protect people in federal buildings," Kenny said, but "video game manufacturers have not taken the same steps to protect our children at play."

Legitimate concern or another lawyer captilizing on the ills of video games?

Joystiq’s latest Law of the Game column breaks down the theories of a research paper released last week by a Michigan State University College of Law Professor.

The paper’s author, Renee Newman Knake, argued that videogame legislation advocates could take cues from the environmental movement and employ “ecogenerism” in their bid to improve the chances of such legislation being passed in the future.

Mark Methenitis, the author of the Joystiq piece, begins by noting that Knake’s premise “starts from the basic flawed premise that we have ‘proven’ a ‘causal’ link between media violence, specifically video game violence, and real world violence.”

Methenitis then picks apart Knake’s focus on “ecogenerism,” or controlling “pollutants” (videogames in this case) in a child’s environment. He offers multiple responses to Knake, including the following analogy:

A multi-vitamin for children, in appropriate doses, has many positive and no negative side effects, except in rare cases. However, an overdoes of vitamins can be fatal. Parents who bring home vitamins don't put them out in a dish on the floor and let the kids go nuts with them; they keep them in a childproof container and give them one a day.

Methenitis concludes that the views of this research paper are “at best, a rose by any other name,” offering:

The courts have frequently said that the activity of the bedroom is beyond the scope of government control, and I, for one, think the activity of the living room should be as well.

A research article penned by a Michigan State University College of Law Professor examines video game related legislation and asks if prompts can be gleaned from the environmental law and ethics movement in order for such legislation to have a better chance of being passed in the future.

From Research Conclusions to Real Change: Understanding the First Amendment’s (Non)Response to Negative Effects of Mass Media on Children by Looking to the Example of Violent Video Game Regulations was written by Renee Newman Knake.

The heart of the matter, writes Knake, is “the disconnect between law and social science,” or the reluctance of U.S. courts to recognize (what she terms) the consequences mass media has on children.

Knake writes:

Environmentalists successfully established a regulatory framework for evaluating empirical science in the face of uncertainty and arguments questions about the validity of research. The movement to protect children from media harm can do so as well.

Knake’s paper relies heavily on the research of Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, who coined the term “ecogenerism,” or someone who thinks about child welfare as well as a wide range of other problems confronting children and society.

Thus, Woodhouse concludes that research “clearly establish[ing] but fall[ing] short of conclusively proving a causal connection between harm to children and exposure to media violence” could be relied upon by legislators in adopting regulations so long as it is rooted in science, not popular opinion.

She concludes:

The law’s continued refusal to recognize mass media and marketing harm to children has left researchers and regulators in a strange position, waiting until science might sufficiently advance to satisfy a court’s causality requirements and in the meantime engaging in a seemingly fruitless exercise of tweaking statutory language in an effort to survive First Amendment strict scrutiny.

The full paper can be downloaded here.

An article on Law of the Level takes a look at whether using real brands on virtual goods in online worlds—by someone other than the trademark owner—could be interpreted as trademark infringement.

A publication of the law firm Sheppard Mullin, the blog was written by Thayer Preece, a lawyer in the firm’s Video Game Industry Group. She begins to answer the question by noting that several real world brands have taken exception to counterfeit virtual goods sold online, especially when the money from these sales line someone else’s pocket.

One way to deal with infringements is to sue. Taser International, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Second Life creator Linden Labs (along with others) earlier this year, which alleged that fake Taser-branded products were being sold in Second Life and infringing on the company’s sales. Taser sought $75,000 in damages but eventually dropped the suit.

Another way to fight the knock-offs is to join the virtual world and pump out your own branded goods. Law of the Level writes that this is the tact Herman Miller took. In response to a number of fake Herman Miller goods offered on Second Life, the designer launched its own official presence in the world and even replaced “fake” Herman Miller products with “real” ones.

What would happen if a virtual world trademark infringement lawsuit made it to court? Breece writes:

At present, there is no legal precedent on this subject. But as the popularity of virtual worlds continues to grow, it seems likely that it will only be a matter of time before the courts make a decision on the issue. In the meantime, it will be up to each brand holder individually to decide how to respond to the emergence of this growing marketplace and its potential opportunities and pitfalls.

Videogame legal watchdogs were anxiously refreshing the Supreme Court website this morning for the latest word on the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) v. Schwarzenegger appeal.

Unfortunately, however, the case was not listed at all in the 91-page issued Orders (link to PDF). As noted previously, SCOTUS could have denied the appeal without comment last week and then officially noted the result in today’s dispatch., but it appears that the petition for certiorari has neither been granted or denied as of yet.
 

Using his Edge-Online blog, Alex Walker has penned an open letter to South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson about the lack of an R18+ rating classification in that country.

Walker notes that “the Classification Board has refused classification to twice as many games as the British Board of Film Classification has in the 23 years since it first rated a video game.” He calls out Atkinson on some of his recent statements and uses comments from David Cook, Director of the British Board of Film Classification to aid his case.

Walker finishes with a challenge:

I’m not sure how, given the weight of evidence, you can stand by the inconsistencies in the Australian approach to classifying film and video games. I call on you to stand aside, and allow for a debate on the classification system, a debate which you have so far stifled.

Walker adds that he did email a copy of the letter to Atkinson, but he does not expect a response.

Electronic Arts continues to find itself a lighting rod for lawsuits, with at least three additional actions against the game maker documented by GameSpot.

Former University of North Carolina basketball player Byron Bishop has filed a suit, one seeking class-action status, against the NCAA, its licensing division and EA, charging that the defendants “conspired to violate the NCAA's own by-laws prohibiting the for-profit use of amateur athletes by including likenesses--but not names--of current athletes in its NCAA-branded games.” Similar lawsuits have been piling up against EA.

NFL superfan John Big Dawg Thompson, a member of the Cleveland Browns Dawg Pound, charges EA with the “unauthorized and unlicensed use of the images, likenesses, characters and persona of plaintiff’s Big Dawg character” in Madden NFL 2009. Thompson, who has appeared as Big Dawg “for nearly 25 years,” seeks a “reasonable sum” in excess of $25,000.

Fight Night Round 4 is at the center of the next lawsuit, with Fighters Incorporated, LLC suing EA for the “unlawful” use of three of Fighters Inc.’s boxers’ images in that title. Fighters Inc. further claims that EA induced several fighters to breach their contracts with Fighters Inc., then “dared Fighters Inc. to sue EA, suggesting EA was too big and powerful to challenge in court.” Fighters Inc. seeks damages of around $25.0 million, plus court costs.

Downloads:
Complaint for John Big Dawg Thompson vs Electronic Arts Inc. (PDF)
Complaint for Fighters Incorporated vs Electronic Arts Inc. (PDF)

Notorious bank robber John Dillinger was gunned down by FBI agents in 1934, but his fame lives on. And that is causing some problems for game publisher Electronic Arts.

EA has filed suit in federal court in San Francisco, requesting that a U.S. District Court judge grant them the okay to use the name "Dillinger" in association with a pair of virtual machine guns depicted in its Godfather games. The "Dillinger Tommy Gun" appears in the original Godfather game, while the "Modern Dillinger" is featured in The Godfather II.

The publisher has taken the unusual step because the owner of Indiana-based Dillinger LLC, reportedly the grandson of the famous gangster's half-sister, lays claim to all things Dillinger, including his name and likeness.

The lawsuit, filed by attorneys for the publisher last week, claims that Dillinger LLC tried to commit a bit of strongarm robbery on EA recently:

On July 22, 2009 Dillinger LLC, through its litigation counsel, contacted EA to accuse it of violating Dillinger's right of publicity and infringing upon its trademarks. Dillinger threatened EA with litigation unless it agreed to pay Dillinger millions of dollars for the game elements...

 

Following Dillinger's recent conduct, EA is faced with the choice of either abandoning its rights to develop, publish and sell the works at issue or risk liability for damages.

The EA case is not the first time Dillinger LLC has gotten legalistic over the use of the Dillinger monicker. The Arizona Star reports that in 2007 Dillinger LLC claimed its permission was needed for local hotel to run a "Dillinger Days" event. As the newspaper explains, an Indiana law has apparently emboldened Dillinger LLC:

The hotel is being sued under an Indiana law that protects a person's personality for 100 years after his or her death. It works like a trademark, because a person who wants to profit from the use of the personality must obtain written permission. Arizona has no such law, and it's not clear whether the Indiana law applies here.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab a copy of EA's lawsuit here...

Gamers who purchased a copy of Madden from August, 2005 onward may be eligible to join a class action suit against publisher Electronic Arts.

Pecover vs. EA (all GP coverage here) is currently proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit alleges that EA's exclusive licensing deal with the NFL and NFL Players Association created a monopoly situation which EA exploited by substantially raising the retail price for a copy of Madden.

In a story broken recently by GamePolitics, an expert witness hired by the plaintiffs theorized that EA's exclusive NFL/NFLPA license may have cost consumers nearly a billion dollars. Lawyers for EA have disputed that claim in court documents.

In a press release issued on Friday, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, the law firm representing consumers in the case, provides a link where Madden buyers can learn more about the suit and potentially join as additional plaintiffs.

Lead attorney Steve Berman, quoted in the press release, pulled no punches in his assessment of EA's position regarding Madden:

There is nothing wrong with good, strong competition in a free market, but we believe EA rigged the game to take advantage of consumers.

EA knows that the demand for these games is based on how realistically the players and teams are portrayed. When EA signed into exclusive agreements it knowingly killed the only competing game of comparable quality, [Take-Two's] NFL 2K5.

Recently, GamePolitics reported on the availability of Barack and Michelle Obama avatars for use in Second Life.

But it seems that those virtual depictions of the President and the First Lady are destined to have short careers.

New World Notes reports that, beginning next month, SL publisher Linden Lab will implement strict new rules on the sale of real-world products and brands - including depictions of actual celebrities. Barack Obama and Angelina Jolie avatars are specifically referenced as examples of prohibited content in the new Linden Lab guidelines.

Readers may recall that stun gun manufacturer TASER, Inc. brought a trademark lawsuit against Linden earlier this year over virtual copies of its weapon which were being sold by third-party content creators for use in Second Life. The suit was later dropped, but the new SL guidelines are almost certainly a response to such legal concerns.

As New World Notes mentions, enforcing the new policy may be problematic for Linden Lab:

While I'm not a lawyer, I would think avatar imitations of celebrities, especially political figures, would fall under the parody safe harbor of fair use. In the real world, you can still buy an unauthorized Barack Obama mask for Halloween. Not so in Second Life very soon...

 

The biggest challenge to this policy, in any case, is likely to be the SL content creation community itself, who often do reference the real world in their works, but are still proprietary about their products.

As GamePolitics has reported, former college athletes have filed a trio of lawsuits this year alleging that the NCAA and video game publisher Electronic Arts profited from the unlicensed use of their images in video games based on college football and basketball.

If successful, the suits have the potential to change the way the sports licensing game is played. What are the chances that will happen?

IGN has posted an interview with litigation support/public relations expert Jason Maloni, whose firm represents Roger Clemens, among others. Maloni comments on the implications of the lawsuits for the NCAA and EA:

Technology is a huge part of it. When I was growing up playing Space Invaders, you couldn't be one of the characters in the game. But with sports games, it's become such a huge phenomenon to assume the identity of your favorite athlete, and it only increases the bond people have with both the game and the team. That's why the pro and collegiate ranks love this type of branding...

 

I expect the impact for EA Sports will be minimal. The company is still going to produce games and derive a profit. The NCAA and large institutions stand to lose a small part of their current revenue... however, they are making [money] hand over fist. I don't think compensating these athletes in some way at the end of the day going to put a crimp in their budgets. College sports are a big business and it will remain a big business...

Like a lot of laws, it takes someone to stand up and say this isn't right. You might also be seeing a growing sympathy for former athletes. Not everyone goes on to the pros or gets mega contracts. I think student athletes are seeing what former pro athletes have done recently seeking restitution against the NFL for the use of their images.

By "pro athletes," Maloni is referring to the recent $26.25 million settlement that a group of retired NFL players reached with the former union over the unlicensed use of their images in EA's best-selling Madden franchise.

TASER International has - at least for now - dropped a trademark infringement suit against Linden Lab, which operates Second Life.

As GamePolitics reported in April, the maker of the controversial stun guns, filed suit after it discovered virtual TASER replica items being sold in Second Life as gear for SL avatars (see pic at left).TASER also alleged that its brand would be damaged via association with virtual sex and virtual drug use occuring within Second Life.

Virtual World News reports:

Taser filed a Notice of Voluntary Case Dismissal... and adds that because Linden never filed an answer to the original complaint, the dismissal is "without prejudice" -- meaning Taser could choose to refile at a later date.

Sometime this fall, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to review California's appeal of lower court rulings striking down its 2005 violent video game law as unconstitutional. Yesterday, the video game industry submitted its position to the Court.

In a 41-page brief compiled by attorney Paul Smith of Jenner & Block, the game industry relies heavily on precedents set by a history of failed attempts by state and local governments to impose age-based restrictions on video games. Indeed, the game biz has never lost such a case and Smith has been their successful point man for many years. From the brief:

Despite [California's] efforts to conjure up some argument for review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, in reality the decision is a routine application of established First Amendment principles to a content-based ban on protected expression.

Petitioners offer no persuasive reason for the Court to review this ruling. There is no split of
[past decisions] on the questions presented. To the contrary, the lower courts are unanimous as to the constitutionality of bans on distribution of violent video games. That is unsurprising...

California was not the first state to try to restrict distribution of video games it considered too violent for minors. Such laws have proved politically popular, but every one has been struck down under the First Amendment...

Smith and his fellow attorney also dig into California's assertion that children should be legally shielded from violent video games as they are from obscenity. California's causation arguments, which attempt to link violent video games to violent behavior, are also taken to task.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab a copy of the game industry brief here (41-page PDF)...

As GamePolitics reported yesterday, the Entertainment Software Association has filed suit against the Chicago Transit Authority. The video game publishers' lobbying group hopes to overturn the CTA's ban on ads for M and AO-rated games on its vehicles and facilities.

The Media Coalition, an association that defends the First Amendment rights of producers and consumers of First Amendment protected material, has issued a press release announcing its support for the ESA in the case. Executive Director David Horowitz commented on the situation:

Ex-[Illinois] Governor Blagojevich spent hundreds of thousands of dollars unsuccessfully to defend a law that barred minors from buy or renting similar video games before it was struck down as unconstitutional. The Chicago Transit Authority should repeal this ill-conceived ordinance rather than using scarce resources to fight this in court and get the same result.

The ESA, which represents U.S. video game publishers, is a Media Coalition member as is the Entertainment Merchants Association, which represents video game retailers.

The Entertainment Consumers Association, which represents the interests of gamers, is also a Media Coalition member.

FULL DISCLOSURE DEPT: The ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics.

The Entertainment Software Association has filed a federal lawsuit against the Chicago Transit Authority, challenging a 2009 CTA ordinance which prohibits ads for games rated M (17+) or AO (18+) from appearing on its vehicles and facilities. 

GamePolitics readers may recall that in April, 2008 the CTA ordered ads for Grand Theft Auto IV removed from buses even before the game was released. The CTA action followed local news coverage of a rash of shootings in Chicago.

Shortly thereafter, GTA IV publisher Take-Two Interactive sued the CTA, charging that the agency had broken a $300,000 contract for the campaign. The parties settled the case later in 2008, with the CTA granting T2 a six-week GTA IV ad run. However, CTA officials moved to block future ads for M-rated games by passing the new ordinance, which took effect on January 1st and prompted today's legal action by the ESA.

ESA boss Mike Gallagher commented on the lawsuit in a press release: 

The CTA’s ordinance constitutes a clear violation of the constitutional rights of the entertainment software industry. Courts across the United States, including those in the CTA’s own backyard, have ruled consistently that video games are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of entertainment. The CTA appears unwilling to recognize this established fact, and has shown a remarkable ignorance of the dynamism, creativity and expressive nature of computer and video games. The ESA will not sit idly by when the creative freedoms of our industry are threatened.

The press release also explains some of the legal rationale behind the suit:

The ESA’s suit contends this new ordinance unconstitutionally “restricts speech in a public forum that is otherwise open to all speakers without a compelling interest for doing so.” In addition, the Complaint argues that the ordinance impermissibly discriminates on the basis of viewpoint and ignores less restrictive means of achieving the supposed ends of the ordinance.  

The ESA also stated that the CTA’s ordinance is unnecessary because game-related marketing is already subject to the Entertainment Software Rating Board’s Advertising Review Council (ARC), which strictly regulates computer and video game advertisements that are seen by the general public.  The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) assigns content ratings to computer and video games, which, in turn, are displayed on the advertisements for those games.

As GamePolitics has reported, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority has a similar ban on M-rated game ads, likening them to X-rated movies. It is unclear at this time whether the ESA will pursue a similar action against the MBTA.

While the lawsuit also encompasses AO-rated games, as a practical matter, such titles are virtually non-existent in the U.S. market.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab a copy of the lawsuit here (70-page PDF)...

The sports video game business is clearly in a period of legal upheaval as yet another class-action suit involving the licensing of athletes' images has emerged.

In the latest development, former UCLA power forward Ed O'Bannon is the lead plaintiff in a federal class action suit charging that the NCAA unlawfully deprived former student athletes of compensation for the use of their likenesses in, among other things, video games, DVDs, jerseys and stock video footage.

O'Bannon led UCLA to the 1995 NCAA Championship and played for three seasons in the NBA.

Michael Hausfield, whose firm, Hausfield LLP is representing O'Bannon and other members of the plaintiff class, offers this comment in a press release issued this morning:

No one has a right to own or control another person’s image or likeness for eternity without providing fair compensation. Former student athletes should have a voice in how their own images or likenesses – once they are no longer students – are used throughout their lifetime.

In his Sports Law column for Sports Illustrated/CNN, Vermont Law School professor Michael McCann terms the stakes in the case "enormous." McCann's full column is worth a read. Here's a taste:

There are two core areas of law implicated by O'Bannon v. NCAA.

First, by requiring student-athletes to forgo their identity rights in perpetuity, the NCAA has allegedly restrained trade in violation of the Sherman Act... Student-athletes, but for their authorization of the NCAA to license their images and likenesses, would be able to negotiate their own licensing deals after leaving college...  For example, if former student-athletes could negotiate their own licensing deals, multiple video game publishers could publish games featuring ex-players. More games could enhance technological innovation and lower prices for video game consumers.

Second... the [former players argue that] NCAA has deprived them of their "right of publicity." The right of publicity refers to the property interest of a person's name or likeness, i.e. one's image, voice or even signature...

It's important to note that the O'Bannon lawsuit is directed at the NCAA, not video game publishers. In addition, it deals only with licensing issues relating to former, not current NCAA athletes. On that score, however, O'Bannon requests that a trust be established with any funds won in the case; such proceeds would benefit today's players when they are finished with their collegiate careers.

In addition to the O'Bannon case, a pair of recent class-action suits by former college football players Sam Keller and Ryan Hart target the NCAA and Electronic Arts over similar licensing issues. And, as GamePolitics reported last month, retired NFL players won a $26.5 settlement with the National Football League Players Association over their unlicensed use in EA's popular Madden series. EA was not a defendant in that case, but some militant voices among the retired players advocate pursuing the Madden publisher at some future point.

Turbulent times, indeed...

Via press release, GamePolitics has learned that California State Sen. Leland Yee (D) will be joined by a pair of mental health organizations in filing an amicus curiae (friend of the Court) brief with the United States Supreme Court tomorrow in support of the state's petition to overturn a 9th Circuit Court ruling that California's 2005 violent video game law - drafted by Yee - is unconstitutional.

The official announcement will be made at 10:00 A.M. Pacific Time by Yee and representatives of the California Psychiatric and California Psychological Associations. Sen. Yee is a child psychologist by trade.

GamePolitics will have more - including a copy of the brief - in our Wednesday coverage.

A PlayStation 3 gamer has filed suit in U.S. District Court in California, alleging that SCEA suppressed his free speech rights and caused him pain and suffering by banning his account on the PlayStation Network.

In a complaint filed on July 6th, Erik Estavillo of San Jose writes that he his disabled by a variety of disorders; among these are agoraphobia, a fear of crowds:

The pain and suffering was caused by the defendant, Sony, banning the plaintiff's account on the PlayStation 3 Network, in which the plaintiff relies on to socialize with other people, since it's the only way the plaintiff can truly socialize since he also suffers from Agoraphobia...

Estavillo's issues with SCEA apparently stem from his play of the PS3 hit Resistance: Fall of Man:

The ban is supposedly due to the behavior of the plaintiff when he plays the video game "Resistance: Fall of Man," which Sony owns and employs moderators for its online play. These moderators kick and ban players that they feel are deserving; though their biases to a player seem to be what determines the kick or ban...

 

The plaintiff was exercising his First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech in the game's public forum when he was banned from, not only [Resistance], but also banned from playing all other games online via the PlayStation Network...

Estavillo also claims that the PSN ban amounts to a theft of his pre-paid points:

The plaintiff...cannot access [his] money when a moderator from Resistance and Sony gives a player a arbitrary wide-range ban... which in essence, is stealing money from the player...

Estavillo also argues that the EULA for online play of Resistance is ineffective in blocking players under the game's recommended age of 17, although it's unclear how this fits into his claim.

In his request to the court, Estavillo, who appears to be unrepresented, asks that SCEA be enjoined from banning players. He also seeks $55,000 in punitive damages.

To date, SCEA has not filed a response with the Court. GamePolitics has requested comment on the lawsuit from SCEA.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab a copy of Estavillo vs. SCEA here...

Yesterday's GamePolitics report detailing a University of Michigan economist's estimate that EA's exclusive NFL deal cost Madden buyers as much as $926 million raised a number of eyebrows, including those attached to the forehead of Michael Pachter (left).

In an e-mail exchange with GamePolitics, the Wedbush-Morgan analyst scoffed at the monopoly theory offered by Dr. Jeffrey MacKie-Mason in a filing last week with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. MacKie-Mason was hired as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in a class-action suit filed in 2008 by a pair of gamers who allege that EA exploited its exclusive NFL deal to jack up the price of its popular Madden series.

Here's what Pachter had to say:

What kind of fool is this U of Michigan economics professor? ...Madden (according to NPD) sold 23 million units in 2006 - 2009, not the 30 million that Dr. MacKie-Mason claims... The total retail sales were $1.034 billion, meaning that EA's cut was around $800 million (retail margin is 20%).  How in the world does [MacKie-Mason] conclude that EA overcharged by more than they generated?

For the four year period, EA's average retail price was $44. For the period 1995 - 2005 (when either Sega or Take-Two provided [NFL 2K series] competition), EA generated $1.548 billion of sales on 36 million units, for an average price of $43. In other words, WITH competition, the price was $43, and WITHOUT competition, the price was $44.18...

I rarely read anything that gets me so incensed... They may have some odd estimates I'm not aware of, but based on what you printed, they should be embarrassed. You can quote me.

Here's more: Take-Two discounted [NFL 2K5] to $19.99 to gain market share, and lost their butts in the process. It's the same as a dollar menu at McDonald's that is a loss leader in order to gain share, and McDonald's hopes people buy the high-margin soft drink. There is no "right" among consumers to receive a perpetual discount just because one retailer decides to discount below cost... 

It strikes me as irresponsible that the professor would focus on the NFL exclusive as if there is some god-given right for consumers to have all intellectual property available for exploitation by any business that chooses to do so in the name of competition... 

The ONLY I/P that has ever been licensed to multiple video game parties is team sports.  The NFL, Major League Baseball, FIFA, and NCAA Basketball have all chosen to go the exclusive route for games, similar to the contracts for all movie-based games.

GP: As GamePolitics reported yesterday, MacKie-Mason acknowledges that his analysis is based on incomplete data. In a response filing, attorneys for EA (who were similarly contemptuous of MacKie-Mason's theory) agreed to furnish available documentation dating back to 2001.

NCAA Football 10 launches at midnight with a pair of lawsuits filed by one-time college football stars hanging over its head.

The former players allege that they weren't compensated for the use of their likenesses. On CNBC this morning, Sports Business Reporter Darren Rovell covers the controversy and concludes that the players will win their lawsuit:

If the copies of Electronic Arts' NCAA Football '10 that we received are the same that hit stores at midnight, the damages against the video game company and the NCAA could grow in the suit against them...

I reviewed the top 10 players in college football... Every single one... was within two inches of their real height and 10 pounds of their real weight in the game. Four athletes... were listed at their exact heights and weights. Every single one of them had the correct eligibility status and 9... had the correct birthplace listed on the in-game bio page.

All jersey numbers were accurate, including [Jeremiah] Masoli, who switched his number from 2 to 8 in the offseason... [Tim] Tebow is wearing a big wristband on his right arm in the game, as he does in real life...

Should [plaintiff Sam] Keller eventually prevail in this lawsuit, as I believe he will, all the athletes who were infringed on this year will be entitled to get cut in on a piece of the damages.

Via: Fanster