Datablitz raided for selling "pirated" software

**shadow** · November 6th, 2012 06:37 PM

^which is just right since they are supposed to be the sole distributor locally

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**renzo_d10** · November 6th, 2012 06:44 PM

Ano at saan yun xplay ulit? never heard

Sent from my GT-P7310 using Tapatalk 2

**uls** · November 6th, 2012 06:45 PM

^which is just right since they are supposed to be the sole distributor locally

yup

like i said everyone's securing distributorships left and right

yan ang trend ngayon

**uls** · November 6th, 2012 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by renzo_d10

Ano at saan yun xplay ulit? never heard

Sent from my GT-P7310 using Tapatalk 2

ya neverheard pero malaki pala parent company nyan

**safeorigin** · November 6th, 2012 06:59 PM

Like what I've said before, monopolies almost always exist under govt. regulation. Otherwise, a free market will always find a way to make things more affordable.

**uls** · November 6th, 2012 07:12 PM

parallel importers steal profits from exclusive distributors

so exclusive distributors pay lawyers to harass parallel importers

**jave** · November 6th, 2012 07:43 PM

IP E-Games can't beat the price, so they resort to extra-legal means. Valid, but it really leaves a bad taste in the mouth. In the end, it's the consumers who lose.

I wish there would be some serious backlash against E-Games for this, like a massive boycott or something, but somehow I doubt it.

**safeorigin** · November 6th, 2012 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by uls

parallel importers steal profits from exclusive distributors

so exclusive distributors pay lawyers to harass parallel importers

Kinda like how RIAA made more money from lawsuits than actual sales...

**ghosthunter** · November 6th, 2012 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by jave

IP E-Games can't beat the price, so they resort to extra-legal means. Valid, but it really leaves a bad taste in the mouth. In the end, it's the consumers who lose.

I wish there would be some serious backlash against E-Games for this, like a massive boycott or something, but somehow I doubt it.

people will find a way to get cheaper stuff... like online retail stores.

**niky** · November 6th, 2012 08:54 PM

By the way, from RA 8293, section 168:

Section 168. Unfair Competition, Rights, Regulation and Remedies. - 168.1. A person who has identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufactures or deals in, his business or services from those of others, whether or not a registered mark is employed, has a property right in the goodwill of the said goods, business or services so identified, which will be protected in the same manner as other property rights.

168.2. Any person who shall employ deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which he shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services for those of the one having established such goodwill, or who shall commit any acts calculated to produce said result, shall be guilty of unfair competition, and shall be subject to an action therefor.

168.3. In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of protection against unfair competition, the following shall be deemed guilty of unfair competition:

(a) Any person, who is selling his goods and gives them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in any other feature of their appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer, other than the actual manufacturer or dealer, or who otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate trade, or any subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling such goods with a like purpose;

(b) Any person who by any artifice, or device, or who employs any other means calculated to induce the false belief that such person is offering the services of another who has identified such services in the mind of the public; or

(c) Any person who shall make any false statement in the course of trade or who shall commit any other act contrary to good faith of a nature calculated to discredit the goods, business or services of another.

168.4. The remedies provided by Sections 156, 157 and 161 shall apply mutatis mutandis. (Sec. 29, R.A. No. 166a)

X-Play is not the producer of the goods. If the goods were bought in good faith from the supplier in good faith, it's legitimate parallel importation.

Only the publisher can charge DataBlitz, if the publisher has a policy of non-reselling, but it should show that its products are clearly labelled that they are not for resale.

However, in other cases, judges have ruled against publishers who have a non-resale policy, though this is not universal, and sometimes the ruling goes the other way. However, in regards to video games, the judges usually side with the customer.