e-Scrabble gets Cease and Desist Order from Hasbro 774
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.)
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.
Another great site / client (Score:5, Informative)
It's definitely reduced my sleeping hours!
Obvious they didn't really look at the site (Score:3, Informative)
Ummm. He doesn't charge people anything and the "distribution" is limited to people coming to his website. Heck, the site even has a disclaimer at the bottom. Really, is this any different than hosting a big 24/7 get together in some public park where people can come play Scrabble all they want?
Re:Wow (Score:1, Informative)
Salvage (Score:3, Informative)
They're also probably right with regards to the game board and the description of the rules.
However, game rules -- i.e. the system by which a game is played -- are not copyrightable. They're patentable, but any patent on scrabble probably expired long ago. Only a particular written expression of game rules are. And even the expressions aren't particularly strong, given the merger doctrine.
It might be a good idea to come up with a completely new board graphic that still functionally was the same, and to rewrite the rules from scratch, making sure that they didn't match the language in the official rules, and to come up with a completely unrelated name. Just as scrabble is a made up word, just make up a totally new word.
Of course, past infringements may still be litigable, but there's nothing to be done about them other than to a) wait out the statute of limitations, or b) get Hasbro to agree not to sue.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
Um, I hate to side with the machine here, but Hasbro made the game.
If a third-party made a web-based Warhammer clone called e-Warhammer, Games Workshop would sue.
If a third-party made a web-based Axis and Allies clone called e-Axis and Allies, Avalon Hill would sue.
Frankly, so would I.
M
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.
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.
scrabble and IP rights ... how is it protected (Score:3, Informative)
The infringement of the trademark would be a problem though so a domain name change (howabout the letters of scrabble, scrabbled??) would appear to be in order.
Some info on the history of scrabble is at http://www.seniorcenterinc.org/programs/scrabble.
This site is quite thorough on the history http://www.scrammble.com/historyscrabble.html.
It seems that Scrabble was actually invented in 1933 which could be a way around the patent and copyright issues
If you look at sites like http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_
I'd ask for details of how it is protected. No patent numbers are given for the applications. I think you should be allowed to use any details in the 1948 patent (? various sites say it was copyrighted and/or patented 1st December 1948) in accordance with whatever copyright notice it carries. But IANAL nor a US IP Judge.
Peace.
PS: The TRADEMARK details are here http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&
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.
Re:Go To Romania To Play Scrabble (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uhhh (Score:3, Informative)
Have we forgotten our Eldred v. Ashcroft already? (Score:3, Informative)
It is these retroactive copyright laws that Eldred was arguing to the Supreme Court created perpetual copyrights, in variance with the U.S. Constitution that called for a "limited time".
Re:Copyrightable? (Score:1, Informative)
No, the layout of the board is a design - it is not copyrightable. Now they can copyright the artwork involved in making the board, but only their artwork. Draw up your own board using their design and it's yours.
Dictionaries & word lists are definitely NOT copyrightable. Just like phone books are not copyrightable. They can only copyright their printing/expression of the word list. Check out a couple of dictionaries - they are all copyrighted by their individual publishers. They are not copyrighting the word list in them, but the specific formatting & layout.
rho
Don't y'all understand the point of IP law? (Score:3, Informative)
The founders sure had a lot of clever ideas that have been completely forgotten along the way, and usually for the sake of making a buck. Actually, pretty pointless to worry about it, but I think if he were writing the Constitution now, Jefferson would have explicitly specified that "limited time" did not mean "forever or as long as we can milk two more cents out of the original creativity, whichever comes first." After careful reflection, he probably would have said that software patents should last about 6 months. Remember that the goal was to *ENCOURAGE* creativity, not to create an ironclad system to stifle it.
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.
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.
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.
You get sued by Marvel. (Score:5, Informative)
I call bullshit (Score:1, Informative)
Bullshit. I lived in Gainesville (FL) when that happened. The preschool was on the bacon strip out NE 16th Ave. And yes, it was massively bogus of the Mouse people. I prefer the HB characters anyway.
This was just a local nursery, and folks, there was no threat to Disney's trademarks. It was free advertising for the Mouse, something that Hanna Barbera apparently had the smarts to understand---and take advantage of.
The nursery did not use the Disney name, did not use the characters as advertising, etc. They simply had them painted on the outside walls to amuse the kiddies (and nauseate people like me).
Back to the main topic: Sounds as if Hasbro should do something about that case of recto-cranial inversion, make Jared a good offer for both the site, the software, and hire him at a good salary to keep running it. Then everyone can be happy!
Happy Hump Day,
Mal the Elder
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
WTF? Scrabble is not copyrighted. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Uhhh (Score:4, Informative)
The reason I discussed patent law was to try to clear up what I see as misapprehensions about whether a game is protectable at all. The reason I contrasted it to copyright law, especially in the case of Monopoly where the distinction can be made so clear, was to display multiple routes of protection and how the different ones applied in different situations, because I believe that a lot of the misapprehensions about what may and may not be done come from an incomplete understanding of the phrase "game mechanics may not be copywritten" as in contrast to patent rather than protected in any way.
You are quite correct: Hasbro is only protecting their content material, not the fundamental nature of the game. Nonetheless, I stand by my evaluation: they're being very kind, and the original poster and the editor which accepted the story see things in a very different light than I do.
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.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)
Similar incident (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You get sued by Marvel. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Copyrightable? (Score:3, Informative)
No, the layout of the board is a design - it is not copyrightable.
Design is not copyrightable? Where do you get this idea?
Dictionaries & word lists are definitely NOT copyrightable.
They are if they pick a creative selection.
Just like phone books are not copyrightable.
Read the Feist decision again. Phone books are not copyrightable per se, but if they employ a creative selection then they are copyrightable.
Check out a couple of dictionaries - they are all copyrighted by their individual publishers. They are not copyrighting the word list in them, but the specific formatting & layout.
They're copyrighting the selection, the formatting, the layout, the definitions themselves, many things.
Let's put it this way. Try putting the official scrabble dictionary list of word on your website and see when you get sued.
Also worth wondering about chess (Score:4, Informative)
Thing is, chess was supposed to be a modern (for that age) wargame. Same as, say, Warhammer 40k or Battletech nowadays.
(Purely for the sake of an unneeded tangent: originally a 4 player game. That's why you have even numbers of every piece, except the king and queen, which originally were two kings. Each of the 4 players started off one edge of the board, with half the pieces. Then eventually they figured out that, in that age before the Internet and online multiplayer, it was a pain to get 4 players together. So each side took two armies, and one king became a "grand vizier". Naming it Queen was a much later medieval invention: back there and then the queen had zero power or rights, but a grand vizier was a very powerful character.)
Look at it this way: if you go out to play Warhammer 40k, you're a "nerd". If you go out to play chess, you're some kind of social or cultural elite.
What's the fundamental difference? That chess wasn't invented in the 20th century, that's all. Chess was already accepted as a socially-acceptable conformist passtime.
So would it really be a problem if chess was invented in 1948 and trademarked? Probably not, because it would fall under the same heading as Warhammer 40k or Battletech: something only nerds do instead of going out and meeting people.
Re:Uhhh (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
That said, you can't copyright the mechanics of a game. You can copyright the visual elements and possibly the layout of the board, and even everything combined as a "collection". However, there's nothing you can do about a game that plays the same. Trademark, of course, can be renewed indefinately. Hasbro is well within their rights to demand that they use a different URL and refrain from any use of the Scrabble trademark, except as it refers to the actual Scrabble board game.
Re:Can't TRADEMARK NAME USED IN Expired Patent (Score:1, Informative)
What is the copyright term on the game? (Score:2, Informative)