Slashdot Log In
e-Scrabble gets Cease and Desist Order from Hasbro
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Mar 21, 2005 08:51 PM
from the one-of-my-favorite-sites dept.
from the one-of-my-favorite-sites dept.
Matthew Dull writes "Home-brewed e-Scrabble.com recently received a cease-and-desist order from Hasbro Inc., owners of the famous board game Scrabble. E-scrabble, home to over 100,000 active players, has been hosting up online versions of the game to happily addicted players for over a year now (maybe more), and only now does Hasbro come forth with a lawsuit. The creator of the site, known only as Jared, has posted the letter he received from Hasbro's lawyers. However common it may be, it always seems a tragedy when a big corporation stomps its heavy foot on a fledgling but very successful piece of web software that is close to many people's heart." (It's also the best online Scrabble game I've seen; Hasbro should pay Jared, not sue him.)
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
y'know (Score:5, Funny)
Re:y'know (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:y'know (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:y'know (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife loves scrabble and we have played every version hasbro has released on CD. ABSOLUTELY ABYSMAL. Hasbro has managed to get an ok game but the network play is FUCKING ABSOLUTELY HORRENDUS. And thats putting it midly.
So eventually we found MS games website has scrabble for about a year. Then it went away. Then some other knock off site had it for another year. Then it went away. I think Hasbro released another crap CD. Then after about 2-3 years without online play, we found this one site which I will not mention for obvious reasons. She plays there happily, and I dont have to hear all her complaints about lag, and people disconnecting but not knowing for 15 minutes...
I guess if you can only make shit computer products, just sue anyone that manages to make a quality one.
I bet you each of these free scrabble sites Hasbro will shut down, will have created a game of 10x the quality of the Hasbro version, and will have done it for the the same cheap ass price Hasbro is probably paying, + love.
And the White House will continue to push its idea that Greed is what makes America innovative and strong...
Parent
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Scrabble" does belong to Hasbro. That's just the way it is. However, although Hasbro has the copyright and trademark, I think it would have been a more informed choice to make a similar type of game with a different name, and perhaps a slightly different style of gameplay (slightly). However, the truly sad part is the distinct possiblity that someone may actually have a patent on "a style of gameplay whereby users take turns forming words with game pieces, each piece having a single letter."
Parent
Re:Why Work So Hard To Be Wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone who copies a product like Scrabble but expects not to be sued is naive beyond imagination. Get a clue.
No, no, no. Hasbro owns Clue [hasbro.com] as well.
Parent
Kurnik (Score:5, Interesting)
This site started from exactly the same thing this article is about. Marek Futrega (my roommate at the time) made an implementation of Scrabble in Java.
Soon, he received a cease-and-desist letter from Cronix (basically Hasbro Poland). What he did, was renaming the game from "Szkrable" to "Literaxx" and changing the copyrighted board to a similar version. This made him compliant with both trademark and copyright laws.
Now, his site is the biggest Central European (or perhaps even European) gaming site with a crapload of other games in 11 languages.
The cease-and-desist in Polish can be found close to the bottom of "Old news".
Parent
Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
You know there's a lot of reasons I'm not crazy about Hasbro but I really just can't see anything unreasonable about this. If there's anything copyright laws were meant to prevent it's exactly this.
That said Hasbro is really foolish to not just buy these people outright, illegal or no. Literati just isn't as good as real scrabble and I don't like hanging around yahoo.com. I bet I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm.... I think maybe the following:
Because the e-Scrabble URL is of no use to you, it should be transferred to Hasbro. We also demand that you provide us with information concerning the extent of your uses of any elements of the SCRABBLE game, as well as information regarding the distribution of your electronic Scrabble game to enable us to assess more precisely the extent of the damage done.
Isn't this just Hasbro saying "we'll take the game and the site from you and run it ourselves... then possibly take any money you made from it in the last year"? Hasbro clearly isn't interested in a purchase...
Parent
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Fuck Jared and his Subway subs. He'll always be fat on the inside.
Parent
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and what exactly is unreasonable about this? Hasbro owns the game this site is trying to replicate and profit from. Why should this site be able to make money off of Hasbro's game? Would you think it is OK for a site to replicate Half-Life 2 in Java and make money off it?
Parent
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Interesting)
I can understand how you can own a specific implementation of a game (that is, its code, binaries, and data files), but should you be able to own game concept and rules? I don't think so.
Parent
The unreasonable part... (Score:5, Insightful)
Granting copyright protection to the game does no longer help to "advance the progress of science and the useful arts to benefit the public".
Parent
Re:The unreasonable part... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, just like "IBM" is a trademark of International Business Machines, or "Pepsi" is the trademark of Pepsico. You can't just name your new company or your new product "IBM", even though they first used it more than 100 years ago. And you can't just name your own drinks "Pepsi".
So, sorry if I don't feel much sympathy for that site. They just took someone else's property and tried to make a buck out of it. It's no different than trying to make a buck off the Coca-Cola trademark by writing that on your own soft drinks cans.
I see no little guy unfairly oppressed by a big corporation. The little guy is the thief here, and the big corporation is just defending its lawful property.
And how does copying someone else's game help advance the progress of science and useful arts? I've said it before, but advance and progress comes from researching and creating _new_ stuff, not from a million monkeys copying someone else's work.
They have a problem with big bad Hasbro not letting them make a buck off the game Hasbro invented, and the trademark Hasbro owns? How about sitting down and inventing their _own_ game, then? Progress and advance are that-a-way.
Parent
Re:Uhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
They knew they were gonna get sued from the beginning. You cannot just take someone's idea and drop it verbatum onto the internet and expect to survive.
If they were making money off it, they will face punative damages.
All they needed to do was to name their project something else and tweak the board and the rules slightly. Word of mouth would have still given them a good customer base.
K-Atlantik, FreeCiv, and BZFlag are excellent examples of this.
No, they copied verbatum and then used a well-known name to drive their site. They'll be lucky if all they have to do is declare bankruptcy and turn over all assets to Hasbro.
Parent
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Interesting)
They knew they were gonna get sued from the beginning. You cannot just take someone's idea and drop it verbatum onto the internet and expect to survive.
Actually, they can. Why? Ideas are an issue of patent law, not copyrights. Hasbro has a copyright on the "game board" and trademark of the name "Scrabble", but they don't own the idea. All the examples you provide are examples of an identical idea.
Should he stop selling/providing the game "as is"; yes, because he has not paid Hasbro to license it. Should he turn over profits; yes, though I think grabbing all revenue ignores the fact that he made a superior product irrespective to Hasbro's trademarks. Should he re-write the game to avoid Hasbro's copyright and trademark; yes, most people would still play the game and Hasbro might take the clue to produce a better product.
I wonder how much "confusion" existed over who was offering the game. Unless he was being deliberately deceptive (his site is down so I can't see it), I would presume a "normal person" would recognize this wasn't being presented by Hasbro.
And forget transfering the domain name; I think he should keep it if only to publicize the problems he's encountered here. That would be legitimate use.
Parent
Re:Uhhh (Score:4, Informative)
No, it isn't. They're not interested in taking any of his work. What they're doing is saying "Scrabble is ours. Cut it out and quit selling our things. And by the way, since there's no way for you to sell scrabble, and since you've been breaking the law taking our trademarks, give up the name to us."
Trademark law supports this. Copyright law supports this. Patent law supports this.
then possibly take any money you made from it in the last year
1) they're not taking the money.
2) Scrabble belongs to them. Anyone selling scrabble is taking their money. If I get the coke formula and sell coke, the money belongs to Coca Cola. What part this is hard to understand? You're not allowed to just copy other people's things and sell them. Period. Even when it's a big company. It's that simple.
Parent
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Informative)
Not so. The formula for Coke is a trade secret, not a patent or a copyright. If the formula ever leaked out, it would obviously be a secret no longer. There would be nothing (legally) that Coca Cola could do to you unless you were dumb enough to sell your drink under one of their trademarked names.
Parent
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the C&D letter, you'll see that Hasbro is also alleging copyright violations, namely the board layout and the use of their rules.
So, unless he can completely reinvent the game, I think he's TSOL. He should still consult a lawyer, if for no other reason that to reach an agreement with Hasbro not to sue him if he complies with their demand.
If you could find someone really forward thinking at Hasbro in a position to make decisions, a creative alternate arrangement could be reached, where fatty Jared could either license the material from Hasbro, or they could take over the site and put him on the payroll. Given the nature of most suits and bean counters, this is a highly improbable outcome.
Parent
Re:Uhhh (Score:4, Informative)
kay, so... they took the trademarked name and one would assume copyrighted game design [...]
Games are not copyrightable. The artwork is, yes, as is the text of the rules and the design of the pieces, and the name is trademark but the game itself has no IP protection.
You know there's a lot of reasons I'm not crazy about Hasbro but I really just can't see anything unreasonable about this.
I can see Hasbro requesting that he stop using their trademark and stop distributing copies of their artwork (as the letter alleges they were doing) but they're demanding he dismantle the site. That may just be lawyering, but my paranoid little brain interprets this as an attempt to shut down a potential competitor.
That, or generic corporate bullying.
Parent
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Luckily, nobody made that stipulation but you. Yes, the game materials are copyrightable. Yes, they are copywritten. Yes, Jared stole them. Outright. Don't try to make some case for the game mechanics; you're pretending Jared didn't do something he did.
Besides, this bit that games aren't copyrightable is a popular misunderstanding; it's because game mechanics are patented. When you're busdy referring me to all these posts where people say that they can't be patented either, please realize that these are the same people which think warezing is legal if you stick a text file into an archive claiming to be a library and making some admonition about erasing things after a day. It's relatively easy to turn up the court case in which Tetris was taken away from Atari neé Tengen by Nintendo because Tengen bought the patent rights to the game mechanics from Robert Stein neé Mirrorsoft, who didn't actually own them, whereas Nintendo bought them from Elorg, who hadd purchased them legally from Bulletproof Software neé Spectrum Holobyte, and then had to go to court with Tengen and Elorg.
Now, let's be clear. They went to court on exactly the same laws you're currently claiming don't exist. Against a company in another country. In the middle of a media circus established by the owner of the companies trying to steal Tetris. A circus so big, in fact, that the Communist Party became involved.
And they still lost.
You know why? Because, despite your beliefs, games can be patented, and because game patents are regularly enforced. Almost every major board game has been extensively defended in this fashion, especially Monopoly, Battleship and The Game of Life, but more recently in the electronic world Tetris, Archon, Bandit Kings of Ancient China and so forth.
I can see Hasbro requesting that he stop using their trademark and stop distributing copies of their artwork (as the letter alleges they were doing) but they're demanding he dismantle the site.
Oh, so what you'd rather is that he take down all their current stolen stuff, but continue to steal their trademark?
but my paranoid little brain interprets this as an attempt to shut down a potential competitor.
Yes, they're trying to shut down an illegal competitor, the same way that Levi's does with knockoffs in china, the same way we all bitch that record companies should be doing with pirate CDs instead of MP3s.
This is ridiculous. A competitor would be if he made a different game and they were trying to shut that down. He's a thief, pure and simple. He copied their design wholesale.
Yes, they're trying to shut a thief down, and there's just nothing wrong with that.
That, or generic corporate bullying.
Blinded by dogma much?
Parent
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an action strictly regarding copyright and trademark, and as long as any copyrighted text/artwork, the name "Scrabble", and any other Hasbro trademarks are removed from the site, I don't see a whole lot that Hasbro can do about it.
Parent
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
You *have* to take action to enforce trademarks, or lose them. The "Scrabble" name is worth something to Hasbro. The game could have been nothing like real Scrabble, and they'd still probably have to send out a notice, just in case.
This is like the much-publicized case where Disney sent a C&D to some Florida pre-school for painting Mickey, Donald et al, on their walls. It was a big PR stinkfest, and Hanna Barbera stepped in and gave them permission to use their characters. It made Disney look like a bunch of heartless bastards, and HB look like saviors.
Now, we all know Disney does some evil shit, but in this case, they really didn't have a choice in the matter. Disney can't afford to lose the trademarks they have on Mickey and company.
Parent
Well, a better name would have helped (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be a good piece of software and i doubt they could sue for the game idea. Rename it possibly?
Re:Well, a better name would have helped (Score:5, Informative)
What's wrong is that you think "newfangled 'words in the dictionary'...arent suppose to be trademark-able".
Go to the store. Do you see:
- Tide
- Scope
- Crest
Good. Now open your dictionary.
Any word makes a fine trademark as long as its not generic in its market. The "dictionary test" is a myth.
Parent
Re:Well, a better name would have helped (Score:5, Insightful)
The "idea" of a board/2D game based on making words out of individual letters is not copyrightable. The "idea" of the rules is not copyrightable -- but only to the extent that the rules involve the steps of drawing a tile or tiles, playing a word, and adding up a score (common elements in many games).
That being said:
The expressive aspects of the game are certainly copyrightable. For instance:
The values of the individual letters - you don't get to copy these, they are to a certain extent arbitrary and altough you can discern a general rule, you cannot say that it inevitably leads you to chose those particular values for any variation of the game.
The ways in which the values of a play are increased - I don't pretend to know all of the details of Scrabble, but the bonus for using all your tiles is certainly an expressive aspect of the rules [note: I'm not saying that you could copyright the rule, but the rule is an arbitrary aspect of the whole game].
The layout of the board - the size of the board, the geometric layout of the bonus squares, any blocking squares, etc., are all arbitrary components that are part of the Scrabble(C)(TM) expression of a word-building type game.
This guy was not just asking for trouble by ripping off the Scrabble trademark. This guy was asking for trouble by cloning the Scrabble game so that he could attract Scrabble players. He could have built any board/2D word building game EXCEPT one derived from Scrabble (different letter values, different board layout, different set of multipliers/bonuses) EXCEPT THAT HE COULDN'T because this particular game is the one that Scrabble players are familiar with, have practiced for, and want to compete within.
The sad part is, if he had writtin the program and offered it to Hasbro, at least he would have a strong business case. But because he has already "distributed" the program, he has essentially written a very good Scrabble game for Hasbro for free (derivative works become the property of the copyright holder in most suits - a particularly nasty consequence).
Hopefully business-like heads will prevail and some type of beneficial settlement can take place.
Parent
Re:Well, a better name would have helped (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of having a set number for the value of a letter, make it a configurable parameter.
Instead of having a set score added for using all your pieces, make this configurable too.
Same goes for the board. You can use different graphic sets to draw the squares based on configurable parameters. You can use parameters to specify how large the board is, which squares are word and letter score multipliers, and how many multiples.
Then only with a particular configuration file would the game be identical to Scrabble.
You could change the name based on a parameter too for that matter.
Where would this leave the copyright situation? Would the software still be forfit? Or only the configuration file that makes it identical to scrabble? What if you let users upload their own configuration files, and left it up to the community to set up games based on their own configurations. Would Hasbro then have to sue the individuals for using this man's software to copy their game?
If you ask me copyright law is an absolute mess in the digital age. Hard as it is, we need to move away from a society where the first person who has an idea can block someone else from using it. Certainly they the people responsible for thinking of it should expect to benefit financially, but they should not be able to take all the benefit from the fruits of an implementor's labour nor block someone else from implementing the idea.
Copyright, trademark and patent law came about at a time when the ability to make copies was limited, as was education. We now copy things electronically in the blink of an eye, and hopefully overall we're more educated, meaning that several people may think of similiar ideas at the same time.
Parent
You get sued by Marvel. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Well, a better name would have helped (Score:5, Informative)
Capcom wrote an apologetic letter and gave out free money just to make people feel better, but they didn't actually have to do that. They were just being good people, which shocks the hell out of me in this day and age.
There are two ways to protect a game. You protect the mechanics and the branding seperately. I'll show how this works.
Consider the case of Monopoly, a well protected Parker Brothers property which has been through huge amounts of battle in US legal history and established most of the law which led to the very protections being discussed. (You might read up on Monopoly's legal background; it's quite convoluted and interesting, and the amount of wrestling for control which happened over a fifty year period is just astonishing.)
Monopoly is a good example because it has a lot of variants, both in theme and in game mechanic. We're all pretty familiar with the recent bevy of "star wars monopoly," "simpsons monopoly," "lord of the rings monopoly," et cetera. That's branding. If I were to release, say, "Stoner monopoly," I would be liable against Parker Brothers' game design patents. They couldn't take me to task on copyright law, because instead of Park Avenue I'd have "The Park Street Dealer;" instead of community chest, "the weird hippie gather in the park," et cetera. No copyright infringement; Marvin Gardens doesn't appear anywhere on the board.
Now, consider that there's another kind of monopoly variant, with many fewer examples, most of which aren't well known. Monopoly Junior is probably my best chance: it was a short-lived early 90s monopoly-style game, but the rules were simplified and the board made a little smaller with fewer statistical quirks. Now, if I were to release "monopoly senior," which was the same sort of thing - I make the game more complex, add more statistical anomalies, make some more detailed rent rules, whatever - then I'm not liable under patent law, because the game design isn't the same. However, at that point I am liable under copyright law - I'm using the monopoly title, my board names all of the cells on the original board (plus some new ones,) community chest contains all the old community chest cards, etc etc etc.
Yes, game designs are legally defensible; the annals of gaming history are littered with bitter fights over who invented what, especially post-depression and in the strategy gaming community. Whole game companies have disappeared because of these lawsuits, and control of some of the most lucrative properties in history has been exchanged by the courts on these rights. Consider that there's an estimate that ownership of the Tetris property by all parties cumulative over time has been worth almost 600 million dollars; when you get into those sorts of numbers, lawyers will make damn sure that the law is clear one way or the other. In this case, of game mechanics being defensible, the court has ruled only one way since the early 1950s: if the game mechanics satisfy a certain closeness to the claimant, then they are considered a duplication of a protected process, and regulation is undertaken.
I mean, look, there's a ton of case law about this. Probably the best thing to look up is the tengen-elorg thing over tetris; the feud was huge, the losing side owned a media empire and tried t
Parent
Re:Well, a better name would have helped (Score:4, Informative)
However, patents expire after 17 (?) years -- much too long for software to be useful, but Scrabble was invented in 1931, so any patents on the game concept are long dead. Copyright on the rules is easy, just paraphrase. The dumb thing was the name, which is trademarked, they can last forever.
Parent
Happened to me too (Score:5, Funny)
I was posting good news from independent sources. Heck, they should have paid me!
Pay him? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyrightable? (Score:5, Informative)
I am not a lawyer, but I have followed the similar Tetris [wikipedia.org] issue.
Change the name from e-scrabble to something else, and the trademark claim is pretty much out the window. True, the rule sheet packaged with the game is copyrighted, but given Copyright Office publication FL108 [copyright.gov], I'm not so positive that copyright applies to the elements of a game itself.
Re:Copyrightable? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Copyrightable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents are only good for what? 17 years? Scrabble has been around a lot longer than that.
Parent
Well, actually I would think Hasbro is right (Score:5, Insightful)
It is clear that Hasbro has every right to ask him to cease and desist - and should not have to pay him a thing, it is THEIR product unequivocally.
Another great site / client (Score:5, Informative)
It's definitely reduced my sleeping hours!
Guess what (Score:5, Insightful)
They could have called it anything else, and still had the same game with the same rules, and not had a problem.
By calling the site Scrabble.com they were asking for it.
They could have called it WordFun.com, or something else. But then, without the scrabble name, they'd have a hard time getting hits and membership, (and ad revenue) without piggybacking on Hasbro's success, wouldn't they?
My heart is not bleeding.
Hasbro's C&D letter somewhat inaccurate (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright only protects expression. And functional elements of expression are not protected by copyright. This is why things like ingredients are not copyrightable, because they only serve to tell you how to do something.
The Copyright Office (See http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html) makes it clear that "Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game." Accordingly, game rules generally are not copyrightable.
Granted, Hasbro may own copyright in the rules as written. But this copyright is thin, essentially only precluding exact reproduction. Even then, the descriptions of the steps to play the game are functional, and not protected. There is nothing they can do to prevent another from redescribing the steps in their own words and publishing that.
Too bad this guy is out of luck on the trademark stuff....
Oh please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, if you even try using that similar a *name*, they get you. Look at Lindows. From what I can gather they made a clone which was deliberately using their trademark. How much more clear cut can it get? Sorry, find your own name and image. This one is fully justified.
Kjella
Very bad example (Score:4, Informative)
But, how many countries does Microsoft have offices in? How much would it cost to win the same lawsuit again, and again, and again? So, they settled with Microsoft paying them around $20M to change their name.
Trademarks on generic words are extremely weak.
Parent
Could Be Worse (Score:5, Funny)
igorance of the law: no excuse for it (Score:5, Insightful)
It amazes me how otherwise-intelligent people can be so incapable of grokking a few basic legal principles. "Scrabble" is a trademark; only the holder of that trademark gets to use it. Sure there are some nuances to deal with, but at its heart it's a pretty simple and obvious rule. This Jared fella's an idiot to violate it, apparently not even trying to find an imaginative way around it. And the submitter of this article's an idiot for not understanding that.
I know it's cool to complain about how the law always sticks it to the little guy, but trademark law isn't just there to benefit corporations. It may not mean much in this case, but usually it benefits consumers too: it's how you know that "iPod" you bought is really going to live up to Apple's rep for good engineering. Be careful what you whine.
And that editorial comment about how Hasbro should pay this guy - for writing software and operating a site that's obviously designed to cut into the sales of their board sets! - is simply no-brain-engaged stupid. Yeah, maybe they should offer him a job. But maybe he should have had the sense to suggest that to them in the first place, and to take "no" for an answer and work around their legal rights, rather than instead painting a big "sue me" bulls-eye on his forehead.
Grow up. (Score:5, Insightful)
The game scrabble has a long history of legal defense. Hasbro's FAQ is very clear about the point. The guy just turned around and created a raw duplicate of a copywritten and patented game, and put it on the web in direct competition with Hasbro. I guarantee he never asked Hasbro permission. This isn't the first time Hasbro has said "cut it out." They haven't asked for any damages, they haven't asked for any of the money that this guy collected on their game, and they haven't asked for the registration data of any of the people which paid for a game that they own, all of which Hasbro has the rights to.
At what point does something become Jared's fault? What does he have to do to be in the wrong? Stealing a defended design and making money on it for a solid year doesn't make him a thief? I mean, so what if it took Hasbro some time to notice? That means they're supposed to just give things away? You think it's Hasbro's responsibility to scour the web every day looking for someone flaunting their right to retain their own materials?
So okay. I'm gonna put a monopoly game up. Doesn't matter that Hasbro says they won't allow that. Doesn't matter that I'm not going to ask them. I'm just going to copy their copyright without any pretense at all, and collect money and users on it, doing significant damage to Hasbro's trademarks and causing a minor blip (horseshit - hundreds of thousands of users) in their finances.
When it takes them six months to notice, and then they turn around and tell me no in the kindest and most forgiving possible legally enforcable way, I'm going to go crying to slashdot, and get an editor to tell the world that Hasbro should be paying me to steal their copyrights, their users, and their money.
It's like you guys aren't even trying to be honest anymore. Big corporation? THEIR FAULT. It doesn't matter that this guy didn't even bother to change any text on the board, that he's not even trying to hide the theft on which he's making assloads of money. No, Hasbro is daring to defend their trademark, which they have to do or else kenner and parker brothers can start making Scrabble too, and so when Hasbro says "hey cut it out" and doesn't ask for any of their money, somehow they're being bastards.
And when I bust into your house and take all your things while you're on vacation and it takes you a week to notice, and you go to the cops and ask me to stop stealing, but don't ask for your things back or for me to go to jail, I'll be sure to go to slashdot and tell them what a bastard you are that I was allowed to take the things in your home for an entire week and now they want me to start not being a thief.
Grow up.
Torrent? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pay him? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Showing Milton Bradley how Monopoly is played (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hasbro is totally in the right here. It's their game, their trademarks, their ballgame, yet you and others here are painting Hasbro out to be the bad guys? Why? For protecting what's its own property?
Let's play a game of word substitution for a minute. Let's pretend that "Hasbro" = "F/OSS developer", "Scrabble" = "GPLed code" and that "e-Scrabble" = "commercial/CSS developer". Now, imagine a commercial/CSS developer took someone else's GPLed code and ignored all relevant copyrights, trademarks and legal protections. Now whose side are you on?
The guys at e-Scrabble broke the law. They know they did and you know they did. So don't make Hasbro out to be the bad guy because they've asked e-Scrabble to stop.
Heck, Hasbro hasn't even taken legal action, it's politely (as politely as can be done in such cases where the law is concerned) asked e-Scrabble to just quit what it's been doing. If they really were evil then they would be litigating right now, and demanding the shirts of these guys backs to compensate for lost sales (however fictional those lost sales may be).
Hasbro has done everything right here. So far, it's done things by the book and it's done things in as politely and as amicably as it can, given the circumstances. If you want to see an example of "if you can't innovate, litigate" then I suggest you check out RIAA and its friends.
Parent
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm surprised that no one is claiming that Hasbro is attacking free speech or that Jared should be protected by journalist shield laws. Or that because Jared and those that visit his site obviously like scrabble, Hasbro is attacking its own fan base.
On the other hand, I think Jared's strongest defense would be to claim his site is a parody of Scrabble, and thus protected by fair use. To overcome the plaintiff's claim that they don't get the joke, the defense, at closing arguments, could merely pass their hand above their head, and say, "Whoosh!." That would be almost as good as the Chewbacca defense.
Parent
Re:WTF? Scrabble is not copyrighted. (Score:5, Informative)
Selchow & Righter, listed as the US owner on many of your boards, was bought -- in good health -- in 1986 by Coleco, which shortly went into bankruptcy due to the collapse of the market for their Cabbage Patch dolls. Coleco also led itself to bankruptcy in 1987 by losing a fortune on the Adam home computer flop, and the unexpected (to them) slowdown in Trivial Pursuit sales. (Trivial Pursuit was marketed in the US by Selchow & Righter). Scrabble was sold off to Milton Bradley, which was in turn gobbled up by Hasbro. Hasbro since has transferred Scrabble to its Parker Brothers division, itself a fierce Milton Bradley competitor before its absorption.
In North America, Hasbro needs it to appear that the public thinks that the term Scrabble refers to any game or related product Hasbro cares to label that way, while the popular board game is "Scrabble Crossword Game." Most people -- including Hasbro's own publication before their lawyers clamped down -- use the term Scrabble to refer to the game itself. To most, it is "the crossword game Scrabble" (although the "crossword game" part is far from almost everyone's mind), rather than "the Scrabble Crossword Game."
The magazine Financial World (July 8, 1996, p. 65) estimated the value of the Scrabble brand to Hasbro as $76 million, and 1995 sales under that brand at $39 million.
Parent