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.)
y'know (Score:5, Funny)
Re:y'know (Score:5, Funny)
Re:y'know (Score:5, Funny)
Re:y'know (Score:3, Funny)
Yea, I clicked the link and all I got what a blank page with the word "Quijibo" on it.
The preferred spelling is "kwyjibo," though "quijibo" may be an acceptable ethnic variant.
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...
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."
Why there is no substitute for Scrabble (Score:4, Interesting)
There are many free online not-quite-Scrabble games. Just far enough off the copyright infringement to mostly avoid the lawyers. There are two problems.
There are quite a few official Scrabble dictionaries. US 2nd, US 3rd (expurgated), US 3rd tournament (no defs, unexpurgated), and goes on from there. There are words valid in UK play (Chambers and otherwise) but not US and vice versa. There are combined dictionaries. A poor dictionary **BREAKS** a word game. Most online word games have truly lousy free or licensed dictionaries. For a competent player it's infuriating playing "cete", "ai", or "qat" and having the word bounce. Some free games like the (Boggle-like) Tangleword(1) at www.playsite.com have solid dictionaries.
More subtle is the balance of the Scrabble board itself, which must be messed with to pass legal muster. Millions of human and computer hours have been spent analyzing ideal play on that board and with Scrabble's letter scores and distribution. It's akin to changing the movement of the rook or the spacing of bases on the diamond. Might get a good game as a result but it'll sure play differently.
(1) Tangleword's round timer requires Microsoft Java. The game is otherwise playable with proper Java. Maybe if a zillion
Re:Only 14 years? (Score:4, Interesting)
You cannot patent software in Europe either (at least not until the Parliament approves of the Krecké-directive in the second reading...). This howver didn't stop rogue companies such as Teles [teles.de] from registering such patents, and sadly enough, it didn't stop the courts from finding in their favor [teles.de] either...
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:y'know (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm surprised that your wife plays Scrabble only on-line. Has she ever tried it as a board game? It's actually pretty good. My wife and I play it from time to time and it's very social. More so than online gaming certainly.
I think Hasbro has done the typical thing here. I also think they've made the same mistake. But most people won't care.
Would this have been reasonable: require escrabble to provide a banner ad (top) on each page for hasbro products or hasbro scrabble.
There doesn't seem to be much symbiosis in corporations these days. At least not in American markets.
Why Work So Hard To Be Wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
Your silly notion that people ripping off Hasbro are doing it for love is also irrelevant. What they do counts, not why they do it.
Ditto your notion that seeking profit = greed.
Anyone who copies a product like Scrabble but expects not to be sued is naive beyond imagination. Get a clue. Copying someone else's business is just about the best way to be sued.
Sorry if you don't like all this, but most people who make your arguments just want free stuff. The others actually, and incorrectly, believe people operate out of love and altruism.
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.
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".
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...
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Fuck Jared and his Subway subs. He'll always be fat on the inside.
Re:Uhhh (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite so clearly. One common strategy often played by big companies when they want to purchase someone (especially when it's done in a hostile fashion), is to sue them beyond their means to defend themselves, and then promise to call off their lawyers if they sell out at the lowball offer price. I've worked for a company that has had this done to them. It should be called extortion, but is perfectly legal. Imagine being the guy getting a lawsuit agai
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?
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.
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".
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.
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: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.
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.
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.
Re:Uhhh (Score:4, Interesting)
Really, I agree that I don't find anything particularly suprising or outrageous about this. But you are totally allowed to just copy other people's things and sell 'em. Witness the history of the modern desktop computer [laborlawtalk.com]. In fact, the so-called American way is pretty much based on that fact. Otherwise every new product would be a monopoly and the system would break down pretty fast.
Re:Uhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
He collected money from hundreds of thousands of people. That's not small potatoes.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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: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.
Re:Uhhh (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uhhh (Score:3, Informative)
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:3, Interesting)
This guy was just asking for trouble by naming the game eScrabble, though.
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.
Re:Well, a better name would have helped (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand your point, but to nitpick...in this case, that is a bad example. The score of the letters is based upon their frequency in the English language, which is why using X is more points than E. Anyone making a game similar to Scrabble would
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.
You get sued by Marvel. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You get sued by Marvel. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Well, a better name would have helped (Score:4, Interesting)
This may seem off-topic, but bear with me.
I saw an article in today's Boston Globe about someone who runs a website exposing informants. Anyone can go there and post information about who they feel narc'ed on them.
FBI gang infiltraitors are posted there. They are being exposed to the criminals because of this. Innocent people are being posted there, and are subject to harrassment and even violence.
The site founder's position is "I'm not doing the posting, and we strongly discourage retaliation against anyone (wink, wink), and we can do this because we have free speech". He created the site because someone turned him in for dealing drugs (which he was doing).
That said, such a site is HORRIBLE, because it puts a lot of power into the hands of criminals. Imagine being afraid to testify against a criminal because the criminals will post your information somewhere and the odds are you're going to die.
Well, a game that is configurable is similar -- although the threat of death is certainly not there. Sure, it might be legal to set up a game so that the user could turn it into Scrabble, but that game would greatly facilitate people to break the law. In fact, you and I both know that such an attempt would merely be an end-run around valid trademark laws.
It's essentially the "Napster" defense -- "my tool doesn't break any laws, and I can't help it if the people use it to break the law".
So why do it and ruin things like that. Next thing you know the true hero, the little guy that creates a wildly popular online game called "Babble" is going to have the same crap pulled on him by UltraMultiNationalCorp, Inc. Goliath will use the same weapons against David.
So why open that door?
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
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.
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.s html.
Thi
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.
Happened to me too (Score:5, Funny)
I was posting good news from independent sources. Heck, they should have paid me!
Re:Happened to me too (Score:3, Funny)
Transfer URL to me (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Transfer URL to me (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
That's not the point (WAS:Copyrightable?) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Copyrightable? (Score:3, Interesting)
What about the board? It seems scrabble could have a copyright on the layout of the board, for instance the locations of the triple word squares.
Other than that, I'm not sure what non-trivial stuff they could copyright. Maybe the number of tiles of a particular letter, but that's pretty borderline. Of course they can trademark and possible copyright the color schemes and stuff like that, but that's all trivially changed without changing the game itself.
Oh yeah, and the most definitely copyrightable par
Re:Copyrightable? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Copyrightable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents are only good for what? 17 years? Scrabble has been around a lot longer than that.
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.
Re:Well, actually I would think Hasbro is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Abandonware is just a term us Infringers use to make our piracy seem less nasty. ^_^
Re:THEIR product? (Score:3, Insightful)
And the "Scrabble" in "e-scrabble" ain't for nothing, it's there to fraudulently associate his product with the board game Hasbro owns. If he named it e-tiles, or e-words, Hasbro wouldn't care, Yahoo has Literati a Scrabble knock-off.
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and obligatory
1. Let fan make game
2 Sue fan and steal game
3. ??? ( can be omitted)
4. Profit
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
Another great site / client (Score:5, Informative)
It's definitely reduced my sleeping hours!
Easy fix... (Score:3, Funny)
Then you're free to go, just remember to yell Elb Barcs when you win and not Scrabble.
Name change? (Score:3)
It's ridiculous that Hasbro is trying to take down this little guy running this little site. After all, have they not heard of "Yahoo" and "Yahoo Games"? Literati [yahoo.com] is a game that you can play on Yahoo! Games, and everyone knows and thinks of it as Scrabble. What a bunch of hooey.
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.
Jared should pay Hasbro (Score:3, Insightful)
How long until this guy has a bunch of people addicted, asks for a few dollars, then starts making money off of Hasbro's game? Why can't I start e-monopoly, e-settler's of catan, or e-crack addicted whore quest and then the company should "pay me" because I did such a job without getting their approval?
Jared should pay Hasbro.
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:Obvious they didn't really look at the site (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because with the park, you pay Hasbro for the Scrabble sets you use. The creator of this site doesn't.
Is ISC next? (Score:3, Interesting)
Trademarks (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
Could Be Worse (Score:5, Funny)
So where's the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not like they just patented the game, and now are on a manhunt to raise revenue by suing people who have created anything similar to their game.
If another game company created a game that is pretty much the same thing, and used "scrabble" in the name, would they not be fair game also? If so, then why is the internet and software any different?
And to top it all off, I'm sure with 100,000+ users, he has to be making a few dollars off of it, which gives hasboro even more reason to go after him.
But like it says in the summary, Hasboro should have offered him some sort of a deal, I'm sure there's more to gain from it.
You Give Us The Rope... (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation: You give Us the rope to hang you with.
Advice: I'd immediately refuse that "offer" on the basis of my Constitutional rights against self-incrimination.
Thought: Does Hasbro have the same lawyers as SCO?
Jered should pay Hasbro... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually Jared should lease the name Scrable from Hasbro then charge his users to cover that fee...at least that's how the real world works.
Having the domain name e-scrabble.com was just asking for trouble...
Why this is absurd! (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, right. Maybe in a reasonable world.
German Boardgames (Score:3, Insightful)
Compare Hasbro's behavior on this matter to what german boardgame companies do about online boardgames. Websites likeBSW [brettspielwelt.de]let you play dozens of boardgames, using the original rules and art, at no cost and without any ads. Why? playing boardgames online is a poor subsitute to playing face to face. Many people, me included, like to visit websites like this to try the games out. If the game is any good, I buy the game to play at social gatherings with my friends. Who is not going to buy a scrabble board because you can play online?
Some companies, like Days of Wonder [daysofwonder.com], let you play their games for free in their own website!. Hasbro should learn from this, and enter into a license agreement with eScrabble. For example, let the site use the trademark in exchange of having eScrabble link promintently to the Hasbro online store, where users could by a RL version of Scrabble. This kind of agreements are not unheard of, and only help both parties.
Only now? That's laughable. (Score:3, Insightful)
Only now? A year?
Give me a break. A year is not a long time for a site to be running and gain enough of a following to prompt the attention of the corporation to the point where they realize "This is signficantly infringing on the rights we have to the game we invested in, and thus have a continued interest in protecting the value of," consider their options, and then organize a lawful approach to the situation.
Authors of the "e-Microsoft" and "e-Slashdot" comments above hit the nail right on the head, and as much as they deserve their "+5 Insightful", it makes me wish there was a "+5 Commonsense".
Happened to me... (Score:3, Interesting)
1000 games played per day in 1995/1996 was pretty good web traffic. The site got its URL published in a kids magazine, complete with a sticker. Great fun.
#Jeopardy on IRC was hit too (Score:3, Interesting)
The real Jeopardy folks came along, and sooner than you can say "I'll take `Frivolous Lawsuits` for $100, Alex" they ordered #jeopardy to stop.
The #jeopardy folks changed a few names, called it #Risky Business (or #riskybus ?) and kept going for a while longer. You can see it here [eingang.org]. The screen on the page looks rather Jeopardy-like. So far, I think they have avoided frivolous lawsuits from Tom Cruise.
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.
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".
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.
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.
It's the timing that's bad. (Score:3)
HOWEVER, the fact that Hasbro left it so long without doing anything about it is pretty dubious.
There is no reason why a company who actually cares about protecting their copyrights, trademarks and patents shouldn't have one of their employees type each of their trademarked names into Google once a week and send cease & desist notices out promptly as soon as infringing sites appear.
What sucks here is that the site has been running for so long - so many people have invested time and effort into it (and others come to love it) - presumably on the basis of "Hasbro clearly approve of this or they'd have shut it down already".
There can be no morally sound reason not to protect your IP immediately. The reasons NOT to do so are purely sneaky business tactics like letting some guy build up a huge following for a web site - then taking it away and using it to advertise.
However, the law allows this kind of thing - so we get this kind of deliberately delayed reaction appearing all over the IP world. The law should not allow it - but then IP law is so unbelievably screwed up, this is one of the lesser evils.
poor guy (Score:3, Insightful)
And only a year ago did e-Scrabble steal the property of Hasbro. Some guy stole my car a year ago and only now have the police broken up the theft ring -- that poor thief is being stomped on by the police.
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
ya, i know ... every little guy should be able to steal stuff from any big guy. I don't know why ... it just seems like it should be a rule ... because it warms my heart.
's also the best online Scrabble game I've seen; Hasbro should pay Jared, not sue him
If Jared's so smart, then he should apply a little wisdom towards an effort that is all his own. It's easy to make money off somebody else's ideas, but to come up with your own is another story.
Torrent? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pay him? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Showing Milton Bradley how Monopoly is played (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Go To Romania To Play Scrabble (Score:3, Funny)
Someone else willing to vouch for this guy?
Re:Go To Romania To Play Scrabble (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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.
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.