Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Scrabble v. Scrabulous
Hasbro, the creator of my
grandmother's favorite board game, filed
suit yesterday against Jayant and Rajat Agarwalla, the makers
of the Facebook application Scrabulous. With over half a million
users, Scrabulous is likely the most popular online version of
Scrabble (Hasbro's own Facebook version of Scrabble, which was
released last week, has a little over 9,000 users).
The Agarwalla brothers argue that "[Scrabble] has been copied so many times in so many different ways, by other websites and board games, that the copyright no longer applies," but they should be citing Fair Use doctrine, which says the use ain't fair if "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" is measurably negative. The overwhelming popularity of Scrabulous compared to Hasbro's online product is indisputable, but neither Hasbro's version nor the Agarwalla version cost anything. And because the Agarwallas don't have a physical product, Hasbro stands to benefit from both versions in the case that a user decides to buy the old fashion board game.
But suppose Hasbro and Mattel—which owns the international rights, and is suing the brothers for international copyright violations—were to win their cases. They're still idiots, and here's why:
Despite earlier stories suggesting that Hasbro was negotiating with the Agarwallas and that talks stalled when the brothers asked for too much money for Scrabulous, Blecher said Hasbro has consistently declined to negotiate. "Hasbro never contacted the folks who have the infringing application," he said, adding that the company did, however, send the brothers a DMCA notice, warning that they were violating copyright law.
So, instead of negotiating a purchase of Scrabulous, which would come with 506,580 daily users, Hasbro is suing to shut down the application? As has been the case with other unpopular changes to Facebook, Scrabulous loyalists are organizing. Application designer Venkat Koduru has created an app. called "Save Scrabulous," which posts comments from people who love the game.
Here are a few posts defending Scrabulous:
The secondary issue is that, in order to get anything more than a C&D and a clever redesign from the Scrabulous developers, Hasbro/Mattel will need to demonstrate financial harm. I cannot sit at my desk and play a game of Scrabble, so I would never purchase it for that purpose. Where's the financial harm in me not buying something I was already not buying? -Facebook user Mike Gentine
I have bought tons of Hasbro original products, for myself and my students, friends and relatives- because of the free marketing done by people like the brothers who built Scrabulous. -Vidya Wang
...And a few posts defending Hasbro and Mattel:
The issue here is that Scrabble is a trademarked game. Scrabulous is sufficiently close to scrabble to constitutet rademark infringement. If the devs had called the game something else no one would have not noticed. Besides you can copyright the design elements of the game. -Joe Brady
Everyone keeps saying how Scrabulous has helped sales of Scrabble. That seems to me like stealing someone's toaster, but then justifying yourself by giving the previous owner a few slices.
If Hasbro/Mattel are not allowed to excercise the control over the Scrabble name and design that they are legally entitled to, then the whole idea of intellectual property rights becomes redundant. This is the very purpose for which such laws exist.
-Michael Deighton
How do the patrons of Hit&Run feel?
Elemenope|7.25.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Sometimes, in fact, people from Rhode Island can be very, very stupid. I'll be the first to admit it.
robc|7.25.08 @ 12:36PM|#
How do the patrons of Hit&Run feel?
I start by questioning whether intellectual property is, in fact,
property.
|7.25.08 @ 12:39PM|#
I start by questioning whether intellectual property is, in
fact, property.
It is, but is due for some tweaking.
|7.25.08 @ 12:45PM|#
I have never played Scrabulous, but I think there are a few key
things to point out.
1. Scrabble, as the original game, is really not all that creative.
Unless Scrabulous is using specific design elements (the layout of
the board, the same letter values, other rules, etc.), then I can't
really feel too much for Hasbro here
2. Scrabulous has no defense against the argument that they are
riding off of the existing concept of Scrabble, on account of their
name.
3. Re: Michael Deighton's response (as posted in the original
post).... what?
4. Part of me wants to say "oh well, your loss that you waited so
long" to Hasbro, but if Scrabulous really is that close to Hasbro's
version, and Scrabulous is generating some sort of profit... I
don't know.
Elemenope|7.25.08 @ 12:46PM|#
It is, but is due for some tweaking.
Hit me with why.
(I am an unabashed DotCommunist -- I don't believe that property
concepts can survive the invention of a means of costless
duplication, so you have your work cut out for you!)
Elemenope|7.25.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Scrabble, as the original game, is really not all that
creative. Unless Scrabulous is using specific design elements (the
layout of the board, the same letter values, other rules, etc.),
then I can't really feel too much for Hasbro here
Yes, it did (same values for letters, same board layout, and I
believe even same letter frequency distribution). So, if there *is*
a reasonable intellectual property argument to be made, it would be
made on the grounds that the game is a clear copy designwise.
Michael|7.25.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Everyone keeps saying how Scrabulous has helped sales of
Scrabble. That seems to me like stealing someone's toaster, but
then justifying yourself by giving the previous owner a few
slices.
This has to be the most inept analogy I've ever read.
t3knomanser|7.25.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Copyright protects the specific expression of a creative idea.
It doesn't, for example, protect the rules of the game, but it
would protect the contents of the instruction booklet.
It's a fine distinction, but it could be argued that Scrabulous is
a derivative work based off of that rulebook. Same of course for
the board layout, and perhaps the scores associated with the
pieces.
With the trend towards copyright maximalism in the courts, I think
things will go Hasbro's way.
That said, I think it's stupid. Attacking fan-made derivatives that
don't impact your bottom line is stupid, always. Whether it's
fanfic or digitized versions of a game, anime music videos or
youtube dance videos, your fans are your customers. It's never wise
to piss them off.
Elemenope|7.25.08 @ 1:02PM|#
This has to be the most inept analogy I've ever
read.
Yah. Slightly less elegant but more accurate would be:
I have a toaster. You made a drawing of my toaster, and then
photocopied that drawing and shared it with whoever wanted one. The
photocopies become popular. I sue for royalties on the notion that
I owned the model upon which your drawing was made.
You tell me to kiss your ass.
Nigel Watt|7.25.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Hasbro ought to have to demonstrate harm done to it, which as far as I can tell there hasn't been.
Taktix®|7.25.08 @ 1:07PM|#
This has to be the most inept analogy I've ever
read.
Yes, it's like a monkey who, once getting the stick, uses it for
cooking.
|7.25.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Poor decision.
They'd do better striking a deal that legitimately turned the
offending site into a revenue generator: have them put ads and
links to the Hasbro website on the pages.
EJM|7.25.08 @ 1:11PM|#
How do the patrons of Hit&Run feel?
I'd actually like to hear from Chuck Woolery or
Charlie
Tuna on the matter.
(On a related note, Sony some time ago threatened legal action
against FlashGames concerning its properties--hence no Barry & Enright-
or Merrill Heatter-affiliated games on the FG site.)
|7.25.08 @ 1:12PM|#
Intellectual property is designed to compensate producers for their efforts, and when it doesn't do this, it should not be respected - as opposed to real property, which needs no such justification. No harm, no foul. (This reasoning can be non-tortuously read from the Constitution, so if the judges of the Supreme Court weren't all wusses, they could bring the copyright term back down to a reasonable length like 10-20 years, and then this case wouldn't have happened.)
|7.25.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Other than my feeling that copyright and trademarks are abused concepts (lasting an incredibly long time, as opposed to something, like say, medicine patents), Scrabulus does look like it was copying Scrabble much like China is copying GM/BMW/Mercedes. Where Hasbro played this wrong though is launching a similar product before going after Scrabulus. If they truly wanted to protect their copyright, as soon as they thought about creating a similar product online, they should have asserted their patent. By launching a similar product, they were tacitly condoning Scrabulus assuming they would immediately get customers. When their product failed, they fell back on the old "copyright" protection to eliminate competition. I think some statute of limitations should apply to companies that assert their copyright after allowing the coexistence of a similar product in a market. Either compete or protect your copyright, don't try and save money by seeing if you can win by competing, then when lost, buy the lawyers.
|7.25.08 @ 1:16PM|#
I don't believe that property concepts can survive the
invention of a means of costless duplication
I-tunes generates profits.
Hulu sells ad time.
"Free" Venture Brothers down loads start with an ad.
Your ideas are so 2001.
Ska|7.25.08 @ 1:18PM|#
LMNOP -
Except that the drawing would have to be able to make toast. The
people playing scrabulous are getting the same end benefit as a
scrabble user.
|7.25.08 @ 1:20PM|#
End Copyright Now
Nah.
Move back copy right expiration to more reasonable time
frames...25-30 years should be good.
Just Sayin\'|7.25.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Warren | July 25, 2008, 12:56pm | #
End Copyright Now
Spoken like someone who has never written or created something that
anyone would want to buy.
The Writers of Happy Birthday!|7.25.08 @ 1:25PM|#
They will take my intellectual property when they pry it from my cold dead hands!!!
|7.25.08 @ 1:26PM|#
My wife, to practice for a group game, played 2 rounds against the compter opponent. In the first round it played the N word. In the second round it played another racial slur, although as the first half of spic-and-span maybe that one is excusable.
Elemenope|7.25.08 @ 1:28PM|#
The people playing scrabulous are getting the same end
benefit as a scrabble user.
Disagree. Playing Scrabulous was a different experience
qualitatively than playing Scrabble. It's along the difference
between playing Diplomacy in person and playing it by mail.
I-tunes generates profits.
Hulu sells ad time.
"Free" Venture Brothers down loads start with an ad.
I didn't say profit couldn't be made. I said the notion of property
as inviolate is demonstrably untrue. For every iTunes song in the
wild, there are probably three hundred of the same song as a
privately ripped MP3 or copies thereof. Doesn't mean that iTunes
can't make money.
It just means that iTunes isn't dealing in *property*.
James|7.25.08 @ 1:29PM|#
The Writers of Happy Birthday!
They will take my intellectual property when they pry it from my
cold dead hands!!!
LOL. Writers wis the thread!
|7.25.08 @ 1:33PM|#
I don't believe that property concepts can survive the
invention of a means of costless duplication,
Most money these days exists in digital form and can, presumably,
be costlessly duplicated (only a tiny percentage is in cash, and I
would even argue that the cost of printing more cash is de
minimis).
Does that mean that no one can/should have property rights in their
money?
Elemenope|7.25.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Money is not property; the concepts are not fungible.
The rights one has to each are very similar, but not identical.
Money plays a functional role in facilitating commerce by providing
a common means of exchange, and as such can and should be protected
from unlawful duplication.
(And, FWIW, arguing that digital records of assets are themselves
cash is confusing the map with the territory in the very worst
way.)
Either way, there's a chasm and a leap between money and songs,
videos, and board games.
robc|7.25.08 @ 1:43PM|#
lmnop,
It's along the difference between playing Diplomacy in person
and playing it by mail.
Diplomacy by mail, also called "real time" diplomacy.
Lepanto opening - suck it Turkey!
|7.25.08 @ 1:47PM|#
My wife, to practice for a group game, played 2 rounds
against the compter opponent. In the first round it played the N
word.
If it spelled out "Noose" would joe have had it arrested?
Josh|7.25.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Does that mean that no one can/should have property rights
in their money?
It means that we shouldn't have fake digital money that's not even
backed up by fake paper money.
|7.25.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Yeah, this is a clear case where intellectual "property" shows
that it is nothing of the sort. Simply put, if this is illegal so
should playing Scrabble with a homemade game board and pieces.
These guys weren't making a fraudulent profit from this and, in
fact, were giving away some pretty good advertising to
Hasbro.
Somehow we've arrived at this bizarre notion that the only way to
profit from an idea is to forcibly prevent other people from using
it. No matter what tortuous legal mechanisms you come up with, you
will never remove the gameplay and rules of scrabble from my brain.
I will do what I want with the contents of my own brain, thank you
very much, and that includes sharing said contents with other
people.
And if I should try to claim "rights" over these ideas and profit
from them, I would simply be guilty of basic fraud. No bullshit
necessary.
Elemenope|7.25.08 @ 1:51PM|#
Diplomacy by mail, also called "real time" diplomacy.
Lepanto opening - suck it Turkey!
Word.
For some reason, I always end up playing Russia.
Nash|7.25.08 @ 1:56PM|#
For me the issue is less about whether Hasbro has a case here (they probably do considering how IP works) and more about, as the article noted, what a stupid business decision this is.
Steve Verdon|7.25.08 @ 2:14PM|#
End Copyright Now
Right...or at least seriously weaken it.
Spoken like someone who has never written or created something that anyone would want to buy.
Meh...this is a facile argument. Prior to copyright laws people
wrote stuff that others wanted to buy. You think books, music and
such were written only after copyright came into existence?
The bottomline is that monopoly is rarely a good thing for the
state to enforce.
I don't believe that property concepts can survive the invention of a means of costless duplication
TANSTAAFL. Really.
carrick|7.25.08 @ 2:24PM|#
As someone who has vigorously defended IP rights in this forum
in the past:
Patents cover designs, methods, and implemenations of inventions.
One of the dumbest patents ever covers using a laser pointer to
exercise a cat -- and I actually saw a laser pointer in the cat toy
section of the store referencing said patent.
Hasbro/Mattel have not claimed a patent; so I don't think the rules
of the game (a method) are protected.
Copyright covers expressions of ideas, images, and sounds.
Scrabulous may infringe on the look and feel of Scrabble, but
Hasbro/Mattel should be required to show that Srabulous actually
devalued their IP somehow. I can't see how that is true.
Trademarks cover business names, marketing expresssions, etc. I
can't see how anyone would confuse Scrabble and Scrabulous.
Hasbro/Mattel should have bought out Srabulous; replaced the name
with Srabble; then tried to extract some value (eyes for
advertisiing or some such thing) from the half million current
users.
It's hard to defend IP when there are so many corporate dickheads
in the world.
K. Bolino|7.25.08 @ 2:27PM|#
I think that Hasbro has a legitimate claim to copyright infringement, and I have a feeling that the law is on its side. That being said, Hasbro is (or at least should be) under no obligation to actually enforce its copyright over Scrabulous. They stand to gain nothing, and will probably lose the respect of Scrabulous players, who would otherwise have nothing against the company. Simply because Hasbro has this option does not make it wise for them to exercise it.
carrick|7.25.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Somehow we've arrived at this bizarre notion that the only
way to profit from an idea is to forcibly prevent other people from
using it.
Get a life Stretch.
If you make a .pdf of a novel covered by copywright, post it on the
internet where anyone can get to it, then sales of the printed
version of the novel drop to nearly nothing then you have done
serious financial harm to the owner of the copyright.
The philosophical question is whether or not the owner of the
copyright has any "real property right" that leads to an expection
of being able to make money by selling copies of a creative
work.
Useability is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Tom Traina|7.25.08 @ 3:14PM|#
I did a paper on this issue in law school. Games are not
copyrightable subject matter. Game boards can be copyrighted like a
picture, and rules can be copyrighted as a written work, but
neither can be used to exercise rights over the game itself. Unless
you patent a game, it falls into the public domain
automatically.
Over the last 70 years, game companies have used a lot of fun
tricks to try to protect games, all of which courts have rejected,
including games with the rulebooks, like the game being a
derivative work of the rules or the game being a public performance
of the rules.
Needless to say, I think Hasbro is overreaching in light of the
case law and the statutory exclusion of processes and methods of
operation from copyright protection.
|7.25.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Unless you patent a game, it falls into the public domain
automatically.
Exactly! I'll also add that Scrabble's patent (#2,752,158)
expired in the 1970s. And even that only included those little
triangles sticking off of the score spaces, so you could see what
the score would be without moving the tile.
The Scrabble concept is absolutely public domain.
t3knomanser|7.25.08 @ 3:35PM|#
@Tom: I kinda thought so, but didn't have the legal background to argue it. Copyright usually protects the expression of a work, not the ideas contained within. So the board could be copyrighted (although, aside from scoring locations, there's nothing creative about the board), but not the game itself.
Zeno|7.25.08 @ 3:56PM|#
my problem with the suit is that there are SO MANY other ways
Hasbro might have gone about this. They could have tried a buyout,
a partnership, some kind of licensing agreement, offers to the
programmers of Scrabulous to make an exactly identical and exactly
legal Hasbro Scrabble app for facebook.
And what did they choose to do? The legal action will probably cost
them more than the buyout, and there's no money in the app that
Hasbro could take. The effect will either be Hasbro's defeat or the
closing of Scrabulous.
What makes a company like Hasbro so blind to the obvious potential
of a light affiliation (or more) with people who'll publicize their
product online, on their own time, for very little money or none at
all? This isn't at all the first time that something like this has
happened.
If Scrabulous is forced to close, a protest movement might simply
distribute the source code for the app to everyone. This would mean
that thousands of people could "create" their very own app. Within
a week, so many varieties of baby-Scrabulouses would have emerged
that it would take years to find out who to sue, let alone carry it
out.
|7.25.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Money is not property; the concepts are not
fungible.
I'm not saying they are fungible; I am saying that you have the
same basic property rights in your money that you have in your
other assets.
The rights one has to each are very similar, but not
identical.
What rights do I have in my other assets that I do not have in my
money? And vice versa?
arguing that digital records of assets are themselves cash is
confusing the map with the territory in the very worst
way.
I agree, but that's not what I am saying.
I am saying that most money in the world today exists only
as a digital record. Just as most intangible assets
(stocks, bonds, etc.) exist only as a digital
record; practically nobody owns, or transacts, stocks, bonds, etc.
in their paper form. Even if they did, the paper document is only a
paper record of the underlying asset, which is, by definition,
intangible. Duplication of paper is sufficiently low cost that I'm
having a hard time saying it isn't effectively "costless" as
well.
I think the point still stands - the statement that we cannot have
property rights in something that can be "costlessly duplicated"
raises very serious questions about the legitimacy of intangible
assets of all kinds, up to and including the most fungible
intangible asset, cash.
It means that we shouldn't have fake digital money that's not
even backed up by fake paper money.
The only way to get around this objection is to require that all
transactions be conducted with exchange of actual pieces of metal.
I don't think you could run a modern economy that way.
|7.25.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Get a life Stretch.
There's no need to be rude.
If you make a .pdf of a novel covered by copywright, post it on
the internet where anyone can get to it, then sales of the printed
version of the novel drop to nearly nothing then you have done
serious financial harm to the owner of the copyright.
Certainly, I don't claim otherwise.
The philosophical question is whether or not the owner of the
copyright has any "real property right" that leads to an expection
of being able to make money by selling copies of a creative
work.
Yes, that's exactly the question and I would argue that the owner
of the copyright does not have a "real property right" but rather
has been granted a limited monopoly on the use of his idea. In your
example above, of course I'm violating the copyright laws and
consequently the author's monopoly, but the potential harm I'm
dealing him is entirely due to the legal structures we've built and
he relied on, not some unalienable property right.
Useability is completely irrelevant to the
discussion.
Sure it's relevant. Under our current system, I am limited in my
uses of his material, not only the physical copy of the book, but
also in the way in which I can use the actual ideas from his book
in conjunction with my own ideas. The ideas exist totally within my
own head and yet I must either pay him, be granted an exemption or
so distort his words that the law no longer applies.
|7.25.08 @ 4:39PM|#
FWIW, Scrabulous does have the look and feel of Scrabble, and
it's rules are the same. If they changed it just a bit(different
shape board, different placement of scoring bonuses) I believe the
creators would have a stronger position, but they basically copied
the game. Weren't there a bunch of lawsuits about Tetris?
Second, I believe the creators of Scrabulous are making a profit.
Maybe not on Facebook, but they have advertising on their
website.
Kolohe|7.25.08 @ 5:11PM|#
On general principle, I side with Scrabble over Scrabulous -
this is definitely not fair use.
But I think Scrabble should be in the public domain by now; my main
beef with current copyright/trademark/patent law is we've gone too
far away from the 'limited' in 'securing for limited Times to
Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries.'
Alfred Mosher Butts invented the game in 1931; charitably, you
could say he didn't trademark it until 1948, when it was first
called scrabble. Either way, it's been at least 60 years; providing
the trademark protection is not encouraging Hasbro to 'promote the
useful arts' (which arguably the Agarwalla's are).
And Butts died about 5 years ago, which should also terminate the
copyright. (you want to ensure your family is cared for in the
event of your demise, get life insurance)
|7.25.08 @ 5:32PM|#
As inventor of Splattergories™, Buggle™, and Polopony™, I support my brothers at Scrabulous in their fight against Big Game.
kinnath|7.25.08 @ 6:13PM|#
. . . but also in the way in which I can use the actual
ideas from his book in conjunction with my own ideas.
Wrong. Copyright does not cover ideas, never has. You are free to
restate someone else's ideas in your own words, and then claim
copyright on your new expression of those ideas.
Note that this does not cover borrowing characters from someone's
novel and telling a new story unless it is a parody.
kinnath|7.25.08 @ 6:20PM|#
I am so tired of people that claim copyright covers ideas when
it is patently false.
Claiming someone else's ideas as your own is plagiarism, not
copyright infringement.
|7.26.08 @ 2:22AM|#
Hasbro has a deal with Electronic Arts for online versions of
its games. The National Scrabble Association (owned by Hasbro) sent
out an email earlier this week urging members to sign up at
pogo.com (owned by EA), "the first and only online SCRABBLE game
officially endorsed by the NSA". I haven't tried it, but I'm sure
it sucks.
Scrabulous never appealed to me anyway. The cool geeks play online
at isc.ro.
|7.26.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Libertarians are against intellectual property, right?
Right??
http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
Alan Light|7.26.08 @ 8:52PM|#
I'm siding with Scrabulous.
1. Copyright terms are FAR too long. There are good reasons to
consider a 5 year term (90% of profits are typically in the first 5
to 6 years), the original term was 14 years (in the U.S.), and I
could deal with 30 years. Life of the author plus 70 years (for
works since 1976) or 95 years (works produced between 1923 and
1976) are both waaaaaaay out of line, and serve only to limit
innovation, which is precisely the opposite of the Constitutional
justification of granting monopolies to copyright holders.
2. Copyright covers implementations, not ideas.
3. The folks at Hasbro have got to be stupid to piss off half a
million users who might be willing to pay Hasbro for physical
copies of the original game. The online version keeps the concept
fresh and current, and will encourage customers to go out and get
the original - but this lawsuit will dissuade them from giving
money to people who haven't really done anything to earn it for the
past 60 years.
4. Hasbro might have a point about Trademark law, but they're still
damned stupid not to take advantage of free advertising.
Ben1|7.27.08 @ 5:42PM|#
Kolohe wrote:
...my main beef with current copyright/trademark/patent law is we've gone too far away from the 'limited' in 'securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.'
I'm pretty much a rabid constitutionalist, as even a cursory
examination of my postings here will immediately show; but I can't
agree with you here. "Limited time" is not synonymous with "short
time."
Humans only live for a limited time (about a hundred years.) The
inquisition only operated for a limited time (800 years.) The
dinosaurs only existed for a limited time (millions of years.) The
earth has only persisted for a limited time (about 4.5 billion
years.) The universe has only persisted for a limited time (about
13 billion years.)
It is very clear that the word "limited" implies that there are
boundaries to a concept, but it is just as clear that there's no
required association of "short" or "small" to those
boundaries.
Consequently -- speaking only in the constitutional sense
-- there's no basis there to justify an "must be of a short length
in relation to the author's or inventor's lifespan" interpretation.
The intent of the constitution, as written and interpreted as if it
was intended to be understood by a reasonably intelligent and
literate human being, was that the power to protect ideas for the
benefit of authors and inventors (not their heirs, you'll note) was
authorized, and that said power was intended to be used to define
the limits in such a way as they saw fit in order to meet those
goals. Further -- and I really don't think you can make a sensible
argument otherwise -- it has done society a great deal of good to
formally incentivize invention and the creative paths in
general.
Personally, I think "average human lifespan at the time of
publication/release" is the "sweet spot" for quite a few reasons;
but I have almost no influence, so what I think doesn't matter a
whole lot. I'd change that position only if the average human
lifespan broke 100 years.
MAX HATS|7.28.08 @ 12:23AM|#
Seriously? How is this not the most open-shut case in the world? How is this in any way controversial? They even used the same color scheme. Hasbro, as the trademark holder, has an obligation to aggressively protect that trademark. Writing the Scrableicious team a check might have been the better business decision, but Hasbro has every right to make terrible decisions for itself. Our intellectual property regime might be out of whack, but that's hardly Hasbro's fault.
|7.29.08 @ 11:20AM|#
@ Max Hats
No, actually it is Hasbro's fault. Hasbro, Disney, et al are very
responsible for the current intellectual property regime. Until
cases are decided against them, this regime will continue along the
current path of ever increasing periods, however 'limited' they may
be.
I agree with earlier comments. There are two major premises: (a)
Under the letter of the law, this is not an open and shut case for
many reasons. (b) From a business point of view, there were and are
so many more positive options for Hasbro.
Finally, from a social perspective, Hasbro and the current IP
regime is just dumb. If there is a place in the ecosystem for
gigantic corporations, it should be in sponsoring innovation, not
stifling it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245