An exclusivity agreement with a brand is not creating a monopoly. 2K can make as many football games as they like without the branding. Brands don't necessarily sell games. Gameplay does. If you *need* a license to compete then you just aren't good enough.

Do Criterion cry to the courts because they don't have licensed cars? No. They just make a great game and watch it sell.

 Reply

Or, rather that part where the trial "bogs down into legalese that will appeal only to attorneys," to quote GamePolitics, is the important part. It's a lawsuit. That's like writing "I don't understand what it was that Kotaku was talking about in its review about 'gameplay' or 'story,' but it used two colors in its review text, and I think that's pretty interesting."

My point is that we can't attack their lack of knowledge without questioning our own.

But I take your point. I mean, I can cite off the top of my head at least four cases where a court totally mishandled games because it didn't understand, and at least six more where the law got mangled in the process.

But, first off, we're not talking about lawmakers, we're talking about the courts. Three branches of government, remember? The men in black only interpret law.

And, most of the time, that law isn't video game specific...and thankfully so. Targeted legislation comes into play when the special interests have taken over. The point of law as an idea is to give rules general applications.

Most of this is an anti-trust question. That's doesn't have a thing to do with games as games, even if the result affects games.

[Sparing comments on actual tactics & judicial humor].

 Reply

Extreme couchpotatoing

 Reply