Originally Posted by KC Coldbrook
Has it occurred to you that the fee these CE manufacturers are paying for exclusivity may well be the financial backing for the mastering of the films themselves in stereoscopic 3D Blu-ray format?
In other words, this content may not exist if it weren't for these deals.
That could be part of a legitimate defense -- if it were true
The actual unit sales of the titles are miniscule.
I think you are confusing cause with effect.
Compensation may not be entirely financial, either... for example, what if Sony provided their $50,000 3D Blu-ray mastering software package for free in exchange for short-term exclusivity of a title?
All unlawful combinations in restraint of trade involve considerations of one type or another -- that does not make them lawful.
Furthermore (ignoring for the moment the overly litigious nature of this entire theme), there is no legal basis to oppose this because title exclusivity is a standard business practice across the video distribution industry. Or do you plan to initiate legal action to have exactly the same titles available across Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, Microsoft Zune, Sony PS3 Video Marketplace, Comcast, DishNetwork, DirecTV, etc? There are movies that you'd have to buy a particular set top box in order to see, at least for some period of itme.
At least with exclusive 3D Blu-rays, you can usually find them on eBay or borrow them from someone, whereas with direct video streaming you have to buy the appropriate set top box.
Apparently you believe that all consumer protection enforcement is over litigious; your beliefs notwithstanding, the FTC is charged with both consumer protection and antitrust enforcement. None of these other examples you give are comparable or unlawful because they do not involve a restraint of trade-- Netflix, Amazon, et al.
do not conspire with the blu-ray producers to deal exclusively with them.