CASE STUDY ANALYSIS: VIVID SKY AND MAJOR LEAGUE TROUBLE
Lisa Borgese
School of Business, Liberty University
BUSI708: Small Business Management Spring
D
Dr. Jonathan Schultz
Facts of the Case
In the case, Vivid Sky and Major League Trouble, entrepreneur Tim Hayden faces a
lawsuit by Major League Baseball (MLB), for alleged copyright infringement. This is a serious
allegation for Tim’s start-up business, especially since the suit is brought against Tim by such a
well-funded and established organization like the MLB. MLB’s legal team has ordered a
ceaseand-desist order against Vivid Sky, claiming that the Skybox, the company’s video feed and
CASE STUDY: VIVID SKY AND MAJOR LEAGUE TROUBLE 1
statistics app for sports fans, used content that was copyrighted. However, Tim knew that Vivid
Sky had conformed to all copyright issues and was legally within its rights.
Tim’s Legal and Strategic Options
Essentially, Tim has three courses of action to consider in dealing with the lawsuit:
litigation, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), or cease-and-desist operations, with each option
carrying its own pros and cons.
Litigation option: Tim can hire a legal team to fight the MLB in court, which would be the
most aggressive and direct approach. If Tim thinks that Vivid Sky did not infringe upon the
MLB’s rights, then this option offers Tim the opportunity to clear his name and potentially gain
favorable media coverage, since it would be a high-profile case, while also gaining public
sympathy. However, litigation against a conglomerate like MLB, with its substantial legal and
financial resources, can prove to be expensive. According to Alexander & Arlen, “litigation often
imposes substantial burdens on small businesses, both financially and operationally, potentially
threatening their survival before a resolution is even reached.” (Alexander & Arlen, 2018)
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) option: Mediation and arbitration offers a
costeffective and private way to resolve disputes. Mediation is when a neutral third party
facilitates a mutually agreeable resolution, while arbitration is formal and binding, which often
resembles court proceedings minus the public exposure and for less fees. According to Galanter,
“ADR is especially beneficial for small businesses that are facing litigation against larger firms.”
(Galanter, 2024) In this case, it may be more beneficial for Tim to utilize a mediator or arbitrator
in this dispute with MLB, rather than going through litigation, that way Vivid Sky can preserve
their business relationships and reputation and avoid potentially long delays associated with
court proceedings.
CASE STUDY: VIVID SKY AND MAJOR LEAGUE TROUBLE 2
Business Closure or Strategic Rebranding (cease-and-desist): To avoid litigation with the
MLB altogether, Tim would have to decide to close his business or significantly rebrand his
mobile app. Although by going this route may seem like Tim is surrendering, this option would
be sensible if the lawsuit brought forth by the MLB threatens to bankrupt Vivid Sky. According
to Wennberg et al., “Entrepreneurs often face the difficult choice of letting go of a venture to
preserve long-term financial health and personal wellbeing.” (Wennberg et al., 2010)
The “Entrepreneurial Way” to Handle the Situation
Tim’s thought of “is there an entrepreneurial way to handle this,” seeks an innovative
and resourceful resolution to the MLB lawsuit that could avoid pitfalls and excessive costs that is
traditionally associated with potential litigation. Entrepreneurs are typically known for their
ability to navigate through uncertainty, utilizing creativity and resilience. Rather than
participating in litigation against the MLB, Tim could search for strategic options that could align
with his entrepreneurial approach.
One such option could be through negotiations. Negotiating a partnership or licensing
agreement with the MLB could turn this adversary into an ally. Entering into a licensing
agreement would consist of a legal contract where the licensor, MLB, would grant the licensee,
Vivid Sky, the rights to certain intellectual property, like team names, player likenesses, logos,
etc., and in return MLB would receive monetary royalties and fees. Another option would be to
enter into a partnership agreement where both parties, the MLB, and Vivid Sky, collaborate with
each other and share the benefits of shared resources, brand equity, and new revenue streams,
like joint product launches, technology integrations, and co-branding initiatives.
Another option would be for Vivid Sky to pivot its business model to differentiate it from
the MLB’s intellectual property (IP). Pivoting is a core entrepreneurial trait that demonstrates
adaptability and can restore confidence through innovation. By utilizing this option, Tim will
reduce Vivid Sky’s legal exposure while preserving market relevance and customer engagement.
CASE STUDY: VIVID SKY AND MAJOR LEAGUE TROUBLE 3
The pivot may begin with rebranding, removing any use of MBL logos, team names, imagery,
etc., to avoid copyright and trademark infringement. Instead, Tim could create original branding
or focus on amateur sports that are not protected by IP restrictions. Or Tim could shift the
platform’s focus from real-time MLB action and content to fan-generated media, fantasy-based
or generic sports analytics. This option would help Vivid Sky avoid direct competition with the
MLB, by positioning the company in an underserved market.
A third option would be leveraging public relations (PR). When facing legal pressure from
a conglomerate business like the MLB, Tim can utilize public relations and crowdsourcing to
draw public sympathy and financial support for Vivid Sky. Not only do these strategies generate
awareness, but they can also turn a legal challenge into an opportunity for growth and
resilience. Effective PR campaigns can help shape the narrative, portraying Tim, the small
entrepreneur being bullied and sued by a huge organization like the MLB, with their vast array
of resources. Drawing public sympathy is a brilliant way for small businesses to have the public
rally behind them. According to Shane, “Entrepreneurial ventures often thrive by engaging
communities that rally behind the underdog.” (Shane, 2003)
Impact of a Non-Infringement Injunction on Strategy
If the MLB’s injunction is primarily a strategic move to suppress Vivid Sky’s growth in the
market, and Tim did not commit copyright infringement, the situation takes on a more
complexity. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP suites) are sometimes used by
big companies to curb innovation and competition with the market, regardless of the merit of
their legal claim.
Given the facts of this case, Tim could assume that the lawsuit could be just a ploy to
stifle his business growth, and his most effective counter for the lawsuit would be to utilize ADR,
by publicizing the nature of the injunction and gain public and media attention and support.
CASE STUDY: VIVID SKY AND MAJOR LEAGUE TROUBLE 4
According to Wu et al., “small firms targeted by strategic legal actions often benefit from turning
legal challenges into public relations victories by drawing attention to anti-competitive behavior.
However, caution must be taken to avoid defamation or legal retaliation.” (Wu et al., 2020)
According to Elhauge, “courts may dismiss injunctions used as a predatory tactic if they
lack a substantive basis, particularly under antitrust laws.” (Elhauge, 2003) However, proving
that the MLB’s intent to file a non-infringement injunction could be difficult and require Vivid
Sky to use extensive financial resources, that the company may not have. Therefore, Tim’s best
course of action would be to demonstrate his legitimacy and negotiating with the MLB rather
than countersuing unless he has clear, documented evidence of unlawful intent by the MLB.
References
Alexander, C. R., & Arlen, J. (2018). Does Conviction Matter? The Reputational and Collateral
Effects of Corporate Crime. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=3037054
Elhauge, E. (2003). Defining better monopolization standards. Stanford Law Review, 56(2),
253–344. Retrieved from
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/einer_elhauge/files/monopolization_standards.pdf
Galanter, M. (2024). Why the “Haves” come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal
change. Law & Society Review, 9(1), 95–160. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.2307/3053023
Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus.
Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_General_Theory_of_Entrepreneurship/
0FxO_Wsh30kC?hl=en
CASE STUDY: VIVID SKY AND MAJOR LEAGUE TROUBLE 5
Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. (2010). Reconceptualizing
entrepreneurial exit: Divergent exit routes and their drivers. Journal of Business
Venturing, 25(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.01.001
Wu, W., Peng, F., Shan, Y. G., & Zhang, L. (2020). Litigation risk and firm performance: The
effect of internal and external corporate governance. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12319
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
