The case hinged around the system that the PGA has developed to monitor real-time tournament scores while play is in progress.
The system
According to the judgment, the Real-Time Scoring System (RTSS) uses volunteers walking with each group of players to pass scores on to volunteers situated at each hole. These 'hole reporters' then pass the information on to a remote production truck. PGA staff in this truck process the scores and transmit them onto the PGA web site.
The scores are also transmitted to a media centre and leaderboards at the tournament, and form the only real-time compiled golf score available to fans and the media alike.
Approved members of the media are allowed into the media centre, once they have agreed to follow a set or rules, which include the PGA's On-Line Service Regulations. These, according to the judgment, stipulate that the media must wait 30 minutes before publishing the information on-line, or until it is in the public domain – once it is on the PGA's web site.
The media is also prohibited from selling this information to unapproved web site publishers without first buying a licence from the PGA.
The alleged abuse
According to Morris Communications, the PGA has a monopoly on the publication and sale of real-time golf scores and its use of that monopoly is unlawful. The District Court for the Middle District of Florida disagreed and Morris appealed.
The Appeal Court ruling
In a unanimous verdict the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals found that there had been no anti-competitive behaviour by the PGA.
Judge Joel Dubina was careful to state that the case only concerned antitrust issues, and did not relate to copyright or constitutional matters such as freedom of the press.
The PGA argued that Morris had not been prohibited from accessing the media centre, or the scores – indeed it was happy, for publicity reasons, for the scores to be relayed as widely as possible.
But the PGA was within its rights to prevent Morris from selling the real-time results, without a licence, because of the financial costs and effort involved in the RTSS.
Judge Dubina agreed, ruling that even if the PGA had a monopoly, it did not matter, because the PGA had a legitimate business reason for imposing the restriction.
He wrote:
"PGA has accommodated Morris at every step along the way, has agreed to sell its product to Morris, and has acted appropriately to protect its economic interests and investments. Yet Morris demands that it be given access to the product of PGA's proprietary RTSS, without compensating PGA, so that Morris can then sell that product to others for a fee."
Dubina concluded, "That is the classic example of 'freeriding,' the prevention of which, under antitrust law, constitutes a legitimate pro-competitive reason for imposing a restriction."
According to the Associated Press, Morris Communications is planning to ask the Appeals Court to rehear the case, as it believes that the decision conflicts with Supreme Court rulings.