Any implication that they can is absolutely false.
This is the brilliance of this PR tactic - it seems just like that, doesn't it? I mean, when you sign a cell phone contract the contract you can't negotiate it, it's offered to you take-it-or-leave-it, right?
But MCX is retailer owned - and even if it wasn't, there is nothing stopping MCX from varying the contract at a retailer's request. If Wal-Mart came along and said they would sign a contract, but only if the exclusivity language was removed, do you think MCX would turn them down? Of course they wouldn't, they can and they would change the contract.
The exclusivity clause is there because the retailers want it there.
> The exclusivity clause is there because the retailers want it there.
More accurately, I'd contend the exclusivity clause is there because every other retailer wants it there. You don't want it applied to yourself, but the only way it would work is if it bound everyone.
But MCX is retailer owned - and even if it wasn't, there is nothing stopping MCX from varying the contract at a retailer's request. If Wal-Mart came along and said they would sign a contract, but only if the exclusivity language was removed, do you think MCX would turn them down? Of course they wouldn't, they can and they would change the contract.
The exclusivity clause is there because the retailers want it there.