Madden NFL 10 Superbowl Video: Cowboys vs. Titans

[PBJTime]

You'll be saving this thread for a long time then. So, while you may be licking your chops, the only thing that you'll be eating is crow.

Thanks for your contribution. I guess that remains to be seen.

 

[masomenos]

Thanks for your contribution.

:gent:

 

[TellerMorrow34]

You continue to argue the semantics, I'll continue to argue the issues that people really care about.

There are people who really care about who makes their football games and consider this a real issue?

 

[PBJTime]

There are people who really care about who makes their football games and consider this a real issue?

Not necessarily, but they may care about the fact that they could buy an NFL licensed football game a few years ago for $19.99 or Madden for $29.99 when there was competition. I really don't see how that's a bad thing or how anybody could dispute that.

 

[SharutoX]

wow every play for the titans was chris johnson lol

 

[peplaw06]

So, you're saying you disagree with the dictionary? Now that's priceless!

I don't disagree with the definition of monopoly as defined by a non-legal dictionary.

But there's a difference between what this is and a monopoly. You know sometimes two words can have the same meaning in a generic sense but not be the same thing in the legal sense right? A divorce is the dissolution of a marriage, and so is an annulment. But they're not the same thing.

You are purposely avoiding the question by posting this response, full of it's own questions:

"Helpful to whom? To the NFL? Apparently not, at least they don't think so. To EA, probably not. They signed the deal too. To the consumer? Who knows? Consumers are fickle. Apparently the consumer isn't pissed off about it enough to tell the NFL/EA that it would be."

That response was proper considering the question you asked. You asked if competition is helpful.

You passed it off by saying the consumer is fickle. I'd love to poll people and see just how many think that EA should be the only entity involved with selling an NFL licensed football game.

I didn't pass it off. It's the truth. There were complaints about Madden before, just as there were with NFL 2k whatever. There are complaints about Madden now.

Also there are consumers who don't give a flying flip about what football video games are out there. If you want to limit it only to consumers who play football video games, then it really wouldn't be an accurate poll.

Here's my point. You know full well that competition would be good for the consumer in this case. In fact, I can't think of a case where competition between products isn't good. You choose to argue against what you know to be right (if you don't believe competition is good for the consumer, you are ignorant, imo) for the sake of arguing.

Congratulations, your point has never been refuted in the least in this thread. I've never put forth an absolute opinion as to whether competition would be good to the consumer or not, and it's tangential to the debate at hand... whether this is or is not a monopoly.

Would it be good for the consumer to be able to name their price and have the absolute best quality with all products? If I were only looking at it as a consumer, then I would say sure, but it's not realistic.

The fact that the consumer hasn't stopped purchasing the only licensed football game available doesn't prove a point that they don't want more options or competition. Remember the price drop a few years ago because of competition? Tell me that was a bad thing, please.

No, it only means the consumers don't care enough. Why would I say a cheaper video game is a bad thing for consumers? The problem is you have a severe case of myopia. You only see things from your point of view, and not from the point of view of the other two entities in this equation.... the NFL and EA. And by the way, if they didn't exist you wouldn't have the privilege of playing a football video game.

I'm sure you will continue to deflect and debate your semantics, all the while denying what the rest of the logical world realizes as a reference, the dictionary. I'm sure you will argue 'till you're blue in the face that this is not a monopoly...and ignore the actual stated definition of the word. Whether you want to admit it or not, EA has a monopoly on NFL licensed football games. They are the only seller. There are no others. That is a stated definition of monopoly. Twist that how you want, but you wont change the fact.

The fact that you continue to call this a semantic debate is a hoot. I've explained to you over and over again how you are misconstruing the words, but you won't have it. Point to the definition from a non-legal dictionary all you want. It won't get you very far. I'd love for you to go into a court of law... one that would look to years and years of case precedent on this issue... and point to a definition from Merriam-Webster's 5th Abridged Dictionary or whatever, and try to argue definition number 6 of monopoly states ________ and therefore, EA is in violation of anti-trust statutes. You would be thrown out of the courthouse so fast, your face would hit the pavement before the ink dried on your petition.

I will save this thread for the day that the case is decided against EA. Don't be surprised if you hear about this again next year. Untill then, I'll be licking my wounds.

FIFY.

 

[peplaw06]

Not necessarily, but they may care about the fact that they could buy an NFL licensed football game a few years ago for $19.99 or Madden for $29.99 when there was competition. I really don't see how that's a bad thing or how anybody could dispute that.

Again... bad thing for whom??

 

[PBJTime]

I don't disagree with the definition of monopoly as defined by a non-legal dictionary.

But there's a difference between what this is and a monopoly. You know sometimes two words can have the same meaning in a generic sense but not be the same thing in the legal sense right? A divorce is the dissolution of a marriage, and so is an annulment. But they're not the same thing.

I'm not in a courtroom, I am simply telling you this is a monopoly, by definition. I don't have to follow the legalistic interpretation of the word. Somebody is working on that apparently, though.

That response was proper considering the question you asked. You asked if competition is helpful.

You deliberately chose to answer the way you did as it didn't fit your scheme.

I didn't pass it off. It's the truth. There were complaints about Madden before, just as there were with NFL 2k whatever. There are complaints about Madden now.

Also there are consumers who don't give a flying flip about what football video games are out there. If you want to limit it only to consumers who play football video games, then it really wouldn't be an accurate poll.

I'm talking about this case, this specific instance, so that would only include people who purchase this game as they would be the only ones affected. Please, quit trying to muddy the waters. That's all you are doing here.

Congratulations, your point has never been refuted in the least in this thread. I've never put forth an absolute opinion as to whether competition would be good to the consumer or not, and it's tangential to the debate at hand... whether this is or is not a monopoly.

You've purposely dodged this until now. And spare me about what is up for debate here, dude. You are just as guilty taking this thread on a rollercoaster ride as anybody else. My initial response in this thread was simply that it is bad that we only have one choice of game to purchase. Go read for yourself. You're the one who took the first twist by telling me who my issue was with and it went from there.

Would it be good for the consumer to be able to name their price and have the absolute best quality with all products? If I were only looking at it as a consumer, then I would say sure, but it's not realistic.

Strawman. Set 'em up and knock 'em down, dude.

No, it only means the consumers don't care enough. Why would I say a cheaper video game is a bad thing for consumers? The problem is you have a severe case of myopia. You only see things from your point of view, and not from the point of view of the other two entities in this equation.... the NFL and EA. And by the way, if they didn't exist you wouldn't have the privilege of playing a football video game.

This is not myopia, it's called being an actual consumer. When did I, as a consumer, have to start having a concern for the companies I am purchasing a video game from. If they weren't there, something else would fill the void. I don't need to worry about their affairs. Seriously, do you have some stock in EA?

The fact that you continue to call this a semantic debate is a hoot. I've explained to you over and over again how you are misconstruing the words, but you won't have it. Point to the definition from a non-legal dictionary all you want. It won't get you very far. I'd love for you to go into a court of law... one that would look to years and years of case precedent on this issue... and point to a definition from Merriam-Webster's 5th Abridged Dictionary or whatever, and try to argue definition number 6 of monopoly states ________ and therefore, EA is in violation of anti-trust statutes. You would be thrown out of the courthouse so fast, your face would hit the pavement before the ink dried on your petition.

It is a semantic debate! You've said it yourself, bud. Semantics are your holy grail. It's your profession. Please stop, you're talking yourself in circles. Again, I'm not in a court of law, so calm down there buddy. I'm sure that gave you a warm fuzzy to type that last line, but you're not in the movies...relax. And again, somebody is working on the anti-trust issue. My guess is (scratch that, I know) that you are not any more of an expert in anti-trust issues than I am, so please stop acting like a turd.

FIFY.

I don't know if you think you've "pwned" me or something, but I can assure you it's anything but. Funny you speak of myopia. You can seem to see the whole picture of anything beyond the verbiage of what is presented. You fail to grasp at the real world issue here, and instead attack the diction. Doesn't sound like a fun profession at all.

Seriously, this is exhausting. I'm sure you'll entice me to post again though, you little temptress, you.:laugh2:

 

[PBJTime]

Again... bad thing for whom??

Dude, this is what I'm talking about. You know exactly for whom. How many times must I repeat it. I'm sure you're getting a chuckle out of this. This is what I would presume to be intellectual dishonesty. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you really believe this crap.

 

[PBJTime]

Just as a side note, the exclusive Reebok deal may also come to an end at some point in the future as the Supreme Court has recently decided to grant cert in American Needle vs the NFL. If this comes to pass, it will definitely shake things up. The NFL wants to be recognized as a single entity so that it can be exempt from the Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Before this case ever went to court, the NFL was considered a partnership of individual clubs (which seems to still ring true, being that they are all franchises). However, they were given single entity status on a limited basis. Of course, if they are to be considered a partnership, they are subject to the anti-trust issues.

Make no mistake, EA has a monopoly in the NFL video games market. It is just a legal one that they paid for. Even looking at the legal definition (from a legal dictionary), this is considered a monopoly, albeit a legal one:

monopoly
n. a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade. However, limited monopolies granted by a manufacturer to a wholesaler in a particular area are usually legal, since they are like "licenses." Public utilities such as electric, gas and water companies may also hold a monopoly in a particular geographic area since it is the only practical way to provide the public service, and they are regulated by state public utility commissions.

If you want to use the word "license", that's fine, because you'd be technically correct. But, make no mistake, this was all about eliminating the competition for the success of the company, which is basically what a monopoly encompasses. (Not a bad idea for the company, but not good for the NFL video game consumer either.)

Again, we shall see what actually holds up in court. I think it's telling that the Supreme Court has decided to grant cert after a lower court already ruled on the case.

 

[peplaw06]

I'm not in a courtroom, I am simply telling you this is a monopoly, by definition. I don't have to follow the legalistic interpretation of the word. Somebody is working on that apparently, though.

Funny thing about that though, is that the legal definition determines whether this is wrong or not. Isn't that the whole point??

You deliberately chose to answer the way you did as it didn't fit your scheme.

What scheme is that? I answered it the way I did because you can't be clear enough in your thoughts. Sorry, dude.

You've purposely dodged this until now. And spare me about what is up for debate here, dude. You are just as guilty taking this thread on a rollercoaster ride as anybody else. My initial response in this thread was simply that it is bad that we only have one choice of game to purchase. Go read for yourself. You're the one who took the first twist by telling me who my issue was with and it went from there.

Do you disagree with who granted the exclusive license, dude?

Strawman. Set 'em up and knock 'em down, dude.

I thought you liked strawmen, dude. Are you disappointed that I answered your strawman question with a strawman?? Sorry, dude.

This is not myopia, it's called being an actual consumer. When did I, as a consumer, have to start having a concern for the companies I am purchasing a video game from. If they weren't there, something else would fill the void. I don't need to worry about their affairs. Seriously, do you have some stock in EA?

lol. You state it's not myopia, and then say that you don't have to look at it from EA's point of view. It's not easy to contradict yourself in the span of two sentences, but you've pulled it off.

It is a semantic debate! You've said it yourself, bud. Semantics are your holy grail. It's your profession. Please stop, you're talking yourself in circles. Again, I'm not in a court of law, so calm down there buddy. I'm sure that gave you a warm fuzzy to type that last line, but you're not in the movies...relax. And again, somebody is working on the anti-trust issue. My guess is (scratch that, I know) that you are not any more of an expert in anti-trust issues than I am, so please stop acting like a turd.

I haven't said it's a semantic debate, bud. I've stated that the verbiage you use is important. And you may not be in a court of law, but the case that you're "licking your chops" over is, isn't it?

And how in the world could you think that you know more about anti-trust than me, when you cite merriam-webster for your definition and state (in this very post!) that you don't have to follow the legalistic interpretation of the word because you're not in the courtroom? You can't even distinguish between a monopoly and an exclusive license, and you expect anyone to believe that??

I don't know if you think you've "pwned" me or something, but I can assure you it's anything but. Funny you speak of myopia. You can seem to see the whole picture of anything beyond the verbiage of what is presented. You fail to grasp at the real world issue here, and instead attack the diction. Doesn't sound like a fun profession at all.

Yeah, the real world issue is not whether what the NFL and EA contracted to do was legal, it's whether a bunch of 12-35 year olds get to play one or more football games on their XBox.

 

[peplaw06]

Dude, this is what I'm talking about. You know exactly for whom. How many times must I repeat it. I'm sure you're getting a chuckle out of this. This is what I would presume to be intellectual dishonesty. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you really believe this crap.

Believe what? That an entity that has an anti-trust exemption can legally grant exclusive licenses? It's the state of the law now, how is it crap?

 

[peplaw06]

Just as a side note, the exclusive Reebok deal may also come to an end at some point in the future as the Supreme Court has recently decided to grant cert in American Needle vs the NFL. If this comes to pass, it will definitely shake things up. The NFL wants to be recognized as a single entity so that it can be exempt from the Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Before this case ever went to court, the NFL was considered a partnership of individual clubs (which seems to still ring true, being that they are all franchises). However, they were given single entity status on a limited basis. Of course, if they are to be considered a partnership, they are subject to the anti-trust issues.

Make no mistake, EA has a monopoly in the NFL video games market. It is just a legal one that they paid for. Even looking at the legal definition (from a legal dictionary), this is considered a monopoly, albeit a legal one:

monopoly
n. a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade. However, limited monopolies granted by a manufacturer to a wholesaler in a particular area are usually legal, since they are like "licenses." Public utilities such as electric, gas and water companies may also hold a monopoly in a particular geographic area since it is the only practical way to provide the public service, and they are regulated by state public utility commissions.

If you want to use the word "license", that's fine, because you'd be technically correct. But, make no mistake, this was all about eliminating the competition for the success of the company, which is basically what a monopoly encompasses. (Not a bad idea for the company, but not good for the NFL video game consumer either.)

Again, we shall see what actually holds up in court. I think it's telling that the Supreme Court has decided to grant cert after a lower court already ruled on the case.

Ummm, they sued the NFL, not Reebok. You stated a couple posts ago that I said your issue was with the NFL. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[PBJTime]

Funny thing about that though, is that the legal definition determines whether this is wrong or not. Isn't that the whole point??

It's a monopoly, period. You cannot argue it.

What scheme is that? I answered it the way I did because you can't be clear enough in your thoughts. Sorry, dude.

No, you've deliberately been obtuse to try to deflect and misdirect.

Do you disagree with who granted the exclusive license, dude?

Again, go back and read my original post in this thread. I don't care who granted the "monopoly," I just know one exists, under the guise of "exclusive license."

I thought you liked strawmen, dude. Are you disappointed that I answered your strawman question with a strawman?? Sorry, dude.

You'll never make a good lawyer doing this, pal.

lol. You state it's not myopia, and then say that you don't have to look at it from EA's point of view. It's not easy to contradict yourself in the span of two sentences, but you've pulled it off.

There is a difference in being able to distinguish that other parties have different agendas, and actually worrying about them. You really have outdone yourself here.

​

I haven't said it's a semantic debate, bud. I've stated that the verbiage you use is important. And you may not be in a court of law, but the case that you're "licking your chops" over is, isn't it?

You have made it a semantic debate. You, yourself, stated how important the terminology is (in a layman, general public forum, no less) while deliberately missing the point that is being made. It can easily be implied that this is all about semantics for you. I have news for you. You will never be right as I have several references to back my interpretation of the definition, including a legal dictionary.

And how in the world could you think that you know more about anti-trust than me, when you cite merriam-webster for your definition and state (in this very post!) that you don't have to follow the legalistic interpretation of the word because you're not in the courtroom? You can't even distinguish between a monopoly and an exclusive license, and you expect anyone to believe that??

I didn't say that I know more than you, but, by your own admission, you are no anti-trust expert. Answer this, are you a Bar certified attorney? Do you even have a degree? Are you an anti-trust lawyer? Don't mislead people to think you're an expert if you aren't.

I also find it humorous that a dictionary is now considered to be an invalid reference when interpreting a word. How convenient for you.

Yeah, the real world issue is not whether what the NFL and EA contracted to do was legal, it's whether a bunch of 12-35 year olds get to play one or more football games on their XBox.

Yeah, lets just oversimplify it to just that, buddy. You're getting petty now. I thought you to be above this, at the very least.

Edit: And I'm not debating the legality of what they are currently doing, so you can just put that strawman back in his box. I know that EA is currently allowed to have an exclusive license, which is, itself, a limited monopoly. Like you said, not all monopolies are illegal.

Again, my issue is that what these "12-35 year olds get to play" is a huge and serious business. They are allowing only one company to produce licensed NFL video games. In the interest of not being labeled myopic, I wonder how fair this is to Take Two Interactive. I'm really worried about their well being. This is not in their best interest. Also, in the end, the consumers suffer. An "exclusive license" doesn't exactly foster creativity. And you try to say that EA did so well to get that exclusive license. No, they flat out bought it. They don't have to worry about progressing the game for fear of losing their exclusivity. They'd have to fail really hard and lack in sales in a major way. No, they can just continue tweaking what they have without any consequences. And people will buy the games because the only other choice they have is to not buy an NFL video game. EA knows this. They aren't stupid.

 

[PBJTime]

Ummm, they sued the NFL, not Reebok. You stated a couple posts ago that I said your issue was with the NFL. Thanks for proving my point.

Clearly, you missed the point that many others tend to believe along the lines of what I believe. Even the Supreme Court feels compelled to review it after a lower court already ruled. That is telling, no?

Keep building strawmen though. My issue does not revolve around the who is at fault for the "monopoly," only that one exists (in the purest sense of the word) and that it is negative for the NFL video game consumers. Again, I am not the only one who believes this is something that should be looked into.

Keep fighting the good fight, bra.

 

[PBJTime]

Not necessarily, but they may care about the fact that they could buy an NFL licensed football game a few years ago for $19.99 or Madden for $29.99 when there was competition. I really don't see how that's a bad thing or how anybody could dispute that.

Again... bad thing for whom??

Dude, this is what I'm talking about. You know exactly for whom. How many times must I repeat it. I'm sure you're getting a chuckle out of this. This is what I would presume to be intellectual dishonesty. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you really believe this crap.

Believe what? That an entity that has an anti-trust exemption can legally grant exclusive licenses? It's the state of the law now, how is it crap?

Can you tell me how your last post fits into that line of dialogue. Where in this specific side conversation did I say anything about anti-trust exemption?

This was strictly about how cheaper video game prices were a good thing for consumers.

By crap, I was strictly referring to the fact that you like to act like you don't know that I'm talking about the consumer when asking who these prices cuts were good for. And let me clarify that again so you don't get all ********. By consumer, I mean licensed NFL video game consumer. In all further instances of the word consumer, I am referring to NFL video game consumer. Now I know why there are pages of fine print in everything.

This is why it's impossible to have a debate with you. You can't even follow a line of thought. You randomly branch out and intertwine other things that are being discussed.

Edit: Maybe it's not that you can't follow a line of thought. It may be another one of your strawmen. You are one of the worst offenders I've seen, and your background is law? Do they teach you guys to use logical fallacies as weapons? I'm actually serious and curious about that last question.

 

[peplaw06]

It's a monopoly, period. You cannot argue it.

No, you've deliberately been obtuse to try to deflect and misdirect.

Even here, you cannot be specific. WHAT is a monopoly? I've said all along the NFL is a monopoly. If you'd stop with the "its" and the "this"es and the "that"s then maybe you could straighten this all out in your mind. It's not my fault if you can't form a coherent statement.

Again, go back and read my original post in this thread. I don't care who granted the "monopoly," I just know one exists, under the guise of "exclusive license."

I know one exists too. But not the one you're thinking.

You'll never make a good lawyer doing this, pal.

Do they teach logic in the marines? Did you sleep through that class?

There is a difference in being able to distinguish that other parties have different agendas, and actually worrying about them. You really have outdone yourself here.

lol. I've outdone myself by pointing out your contradictions. OK.

​

You have made it a semantic debate. You, yourself, stated how important the terminology is (in a layman, general public forum, no less) while deliberately missing the point that is being made. It can easily be implied that this is all about semantics for you. I have news for you. You will never be right as I have several references to back my interpretation of the definition, including a legal dictionary.

You're hopeless.

I didn't say that I know more than you, but, by your own admission, you are no anti-trust expert. Answer this, are you a Bar certified attorney? Do you even have a degree? Are you an anti-trust lawyer? Don't mislead people to think you're an expert if you aren't.

I didn't say I was an expert. But I'm closer to an expert than you are. Geebus, you went to merriam webster for the definition of monopoly.

You're right, I said I WASN'T an expert. So how can I be misleading people into thinking I'm an expert when I said I wasn't one? Here's another contradiction in your post. This is my last reply to you. It's like you're schizophrenic. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

I also find it humorous that a dictionary is now considered to be an invalid reference when interpreting a word. How convenient for you.

When did I say it was invalid? That's right, I didn't. But to ignore the state of the law because the dictionary defines a monopoly as one thing is ludicrous.

Yeah, lets just oversimplify it to just that, buddy. You're getting petty now. I thought you to be above this, at the very least.

Petty?? You stated I'm not dealing with the real world issue here. The issue is the legality. That's what I've been screaming for 2 days now. Your issue is whether you get a cheap video game. Which one is petty?

Edit: And I'm not debating the legality of what they are currently doing, so you can just put that strawman back in his box. I know that EA is currently allowed to have an exclusive license, which is, itself, a limited monopoly. Like you said, not all monopolies are illegal.

Come on. You're not debating the legality?? So you admit it's legal? Then what in the world are you *****ing about?

Again, my issue is that what these "12-35 year olds get to play" is a huge and serious business. They are allowing only one company to produce licensed NFL video games. In the interest of not being labeled myopic, I wonder how fair this is to Take Two Interactive. I'm really worried about their well being. This is not in their best interest. Also, in the end, the consumers suffer. An "exclusive license" doesn't exactly foster creativity. And you try to say that EA did so well to get that exclusive license. No, they flat out bought it. They don't have to worry about progressing the game for fear of losing their exclusivity. They'd have to fail really hard and lack in sales in a major way. No, they can just continue tweaking what they have without any consequences. And people will buy the games because the only other choice they have is to not buy an NFL video game. EA knows this. They aren't stupid.

You admit it's legal?? So you're just whining then?

Clearly, you missed the point that many others tend to believe along the lines of what I believe. Even the Supreme Court feels compelled to review it after a lower court already ruled. That is telling, no?

You don't know what you believe. Quit pretending.

Keep building strawmen though.

Says the king of strawmen.

Can you tell me how your last post fits into that line of dialogue. Where in this specific side conversation did I say anything about anti-trust exemption?

This was strictly about how cheaper video game prices were a good thing for consumers.

Obviously I didn't understand you. Which is why I asked the question, "believe what?" I believe a lot of things, and I've stated as much in this thread. Your post doesn't specify what belief of mine you think is crap. Again, you can't form a coherent thought.

By crap, I was strictly referring to the fact that you like to act like you don't know that I'm talking about the consumer when asking who these prices cuts were good for. And let me clarify that again so you don't get all ********. By consumer, I mean licensed NFL video game consumer. In all further instances of the word consumer, I am referring to NFL video game consumer. Now I know why there are pages of fine print in everything.

You can't even remember your own question. You said, "how can slashing prices be a bad thing?" Well they can be a bad thing for the NFL and for video game companies. Of course price slashing doesn't hurt the consumer when you look at it just as a price slash. When you look at the possible effects of a price slash, then yes it can be bad for consumers.

And all I did was ask a question, "bad thing for whom?" How is that any sort of belief? It's a QUESTION!!!! Hence the confusion on your ridiculous retort, and yet again, another question from me... "believe what?"

This is why it's impossible to have a debate with you. You can't even follow a line of thought. You randomly branch out and intertwine other things that are being discussed.

It's impossible to have a debate when you can't be clear in your thoughts. Learn to do that, then get back to me. Until then, I'm done.

Edit: Maybe it's not that you can't follow a line of thought. It may be another one of your strawmen. You are one of the worst offenders I've seen, and your background is law? Do they teach you guys to use logical fallacies as weapons? I'm actually serious and curious about that last question.

You set up the first strawman in this little discussion. If you start down that road, don't complain when I return the favor.

You haven't pointed out a single logical fallacy. The only thing you've proven is you can't be clear enough to avoid confusion. And yet you complain. Learn to form thoughts and arguments and maybe you can solve that little problem.

 

[RainMan]

Peplaw, you're missing the point here.

The Cowboys just WON THE SUPER BOWL, and you're dissecting the merits/meaning of a monopoly.

Celebrate a little, will ya?!

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Merriam Webster is wonderful. However, for purposes of this discussion, the only important definition is the legal one.

 

[PBJTime]

Even here, you cannot be specific. WHAT is a monopoly? I've said all along the NFL is a monopoly. If you'd stop with the "its" and the "this"es and the "that"s then maybe you could straighten this all out in your mind. It's not my fault if you can't form a coherent statement.

I've formed plenty of coherent statements. You are the law student(?) who feels that he has to do what lawyers do, and muddy the waters on EVERY single issue. It's a tactic, I'm sure.

I know one exists too. But not the one you're thinking.

There is evidently at least some merit to my thought process as actual lawyers have brought it to court and a judge has decided to let it continue.

Do they teach logic in the marines? Did you sleep through that class?

I can assure you that I learned quite a bit more about the real world and logic in the Marines than you imply. Also, I've been out of the Marines and have a degree in physical therapy. We use plenty of logic in that field, believe that. So, if this is some sort of veiled insult to Marines, then please take it somewhere else.

lol. I've outdone myself by pointing out your contradictions. OK.

No, you've outdone yourself by not completely understanding the meaning of myopic in this discussion. Again, I understand that other parties have other agendas when it comes to this dispute. The fact that I don't sympathize with them does not make me myopic. Clear enough for ya?

​

You're hopeless.

Insert some clever cliche about a pot and a kettle here.

I didn't say I was an expert. But I'm closer to an expert than you are. Geebus, you went to merriam webster for the definition of monopoly.

I know, the GALL of me to look up a definition for an English word in an English dictionary! There is no competition to Madden. That is a monopoly which is enabled by an exclusive license. It's not a hard concept, and it's one that is being looked into further.

You're right, I said I WASN'T an expert. So how can I be misleading people into thinking I'm an expert when I said I wasn't one? Here's another contradiction in your post. This is my last reply to you. It's like you're schizophrenic. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

You question the thought of me actually knowing more about this than you? You don't know me or my background, yet I have the audacity to think I know as much or more than you, according to you. You are purposely vague about your profession, but act as if you are the end all, be all to law. You're simply, utterly mistaken.

When did I say it was invalid? That's right, I didn't. But to ignore the state of the law because the dictionary defines a monopoly as one thing is ludicrous.

Again, there is a lawsuit out that deals with our issue. You act as if I'm being preposterous. Other law professionals believe what I believe. I'd love to see you debate them.

Petty?? You stated I'm not dealing with the real world issue here. The issue is the legality. That's what I've been screaming for 2 days now. Your issue is whether you get a cheap video game. Which one is petty?

That's your issue, not mine. I'm guilty of letting myself get sidetracked by you and your trail of red herrings. My issue is the lack of choice between video games. Go ahead and talk to Sony's, Nintendo's, or Microsoft's lawyers about how petty video games are. I'll tell you what's petty...ambulance chasers.

Come on. You're not debating the legality?? So you admit it's legal? Then what in the world are you *****ing about?

I'm saying that it's not good for the consumer. It's also weak to say that simply because something is currently legal, it shouldn't be changed. I can think of many things throughout history that were once legal, but now aren't, for the greater good.

You admit it's legal?? So you're just whining then?

Again, petty. You're hopeless as a lawyer. Remind me never to call you when I need one. You want to call it whining, then go right ahead, but there are quite a few (including your own kind) who agree with me.

You don't know what you believe. Quit pretending.

Again, sounds like a movie quote you heard somewhere. Please, lay off of the dramatic lines. I know perfectly what I believe and have expressed it here many times. You are simply dense.

Says the king of strawmen.

The ever popular, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Obviously I didn't understand you. Which is why I asked the question, "believe what?" I believe a lot of things, and I've stated as much in this thread. Your post doesn't specify what belief of mine you think is crap. Again, you can't form a coherent thought.

You just couldn't follow the line of thought that I even outlined for you. Here's a hint, when you reply to a specific post, try to stay on that line of thought.

You can't even remember your own question. You said, "how can slashing prices be a bad thing?" Well they can be a bad thing for the NFL and for video game companies. Of course price slashing doesn't hurt the consumer when you look at it just as a price slash. When you look at the possible effects of a price slash, then yes it can be bad for consumers.

Competition is not bad for the consumer, period. Quit acting like I'm taking some sort of extreme stance. You really appear ********.

And all I did was ask a question, "bad thing for whom?" How is that any sort of belief? It's a QUESTION!!!! Hence the confusion on your ridiculous retort, and yet again, another question from me... "believe what?"

You intentionally ask questions in response to questions in order to redirect, and you know it.

It's impossible to have a debate when you can't be clear in your thoughts. Learn to do that, then get back to me. Until then, I'm done.

You are about as clear as mud yourself pal...and to think, your background is law???

You set up the first strawman in this little discussion. If you start down that road, don't complain when I return the favor.

Untrue.

You haven't pointed out a single logical fallacy. The only thing you've proven is you can't be clear enough to avoid confusion. And yet you complain. Learn to form thoughts and arguments and maybe you can solve that little problem.

A strawman and red herring, to name a couple, are logical fallacies. You are a real bright one.

Here is the bottom line with your argument. The exclusive license is the device which creates the legal monopoly that EA holds on this market. That is really a simple concept. If you want to debate the merits of the "monopoly" label based on the defined market, then that is a whole 'nother idea altogether. However, based on the idea that the market is NFL video games (instead of video games, in general, etc), this is most certainly a legal monopoly.

Go ask one of your law professors, don't take my word for it.