Slashdot Mirror
e-Scrabble gets Cease and Desist Order from Hasbro
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.)
Actually, while a specific instance (ie, a manual) of the rules is copyrightable, the "idea" of the rules of the game is neither copywritable nor patentable.
This guy was just asking for trouble by naming the game eScrabble, though.
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't trademark holders required to defend their trademarks or risk losing them? (like what happened with "Aspirin")
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. The screen on the page looks rather Jeopardy-like. So far, I think they have avoided frivolous lawsuits from Tom Cruise.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Let me say this.
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...
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.
As someone who practices software development, I have to ask what happens if you externalize all these values.
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.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Interesting concept, but it's a Pandora's box.
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?
I saw Scrabble for sale at a games store not too long ago. Those bastards.
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. 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.
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.
Someone asked if I had patched against MSBlast; I said yes, I installed Linux.
Well... try to give kurnik.{org,pl} a slashdotting.
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".
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
The "Shredded Wheat" case stands for the principle that a name used to identify the invention in an expired patent is generic i.e. cannot support a trademark. If Scrabble was named in a patent that is now expired, then e-scrabble should be able to use the name freely, since the name is part of the invention that reverted to the public after the patent term. IAAL, but this is recollection from IP class 20 years ago. But the theory should be checked out.
Your opinion of the quality of Hasbro CD's is irrelevant and doesn't have a thing to do with their right to sue.
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.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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 from registering such patents, and sadly enough, it didn't stop the courts from finding in their favor either...
Say no to software patents.
Hasbro does not own worldwide Scrabble rights. Competitor Mattel is the owner in many countries, most notably England.
/. appear and complain it'll be rewritten. (Won't, but a fantatic Tangleworder can dream.)
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
Feeling so good natured I could drool
At first I looked at this & thought that Hasbro had a pretty good case. The C&D itself certainly presents a prima facie argument. Certainly they do own copyrights on the physical game board and the printed rules that come with every Scrabble game. But then I thought about damages. Here's the thing: It would be absolutely illegal for someone to start making his own scrabble box sets with the name Scrabble on the box and a photocopy of the original rules in the box. So obviously illegal that I'm sure nobody has ever seriously considered trying it. And if Hasbro could successfully argue that they suffered a loss of sales due to this guy's efforts, the case would be closed pretty dern quickly. I think they would fail to prove this charge. Here's why: it would be extremely unlikely that anyone playing online Scrabble DOES NOT also own a physical Scrabble box set. Perhaps they should take a (real, scientific, not online) survey of those 10,000 online users. I bet there would be about 10 who do not currently own a copy of the game. And 3 more who never have. The benefit of playing online, I would argue, is clearly NOT to avoid having to buy the box set. The benefit is that you could be more flexible in when to play, and whom. It's a chat room for people who love the game (I have not seen the pre-Slashdot site). Scrabble players could accomplish the same thing by talking on the phone, on two identical Hasbro-approved boards, like "I placed QUUX vertically connected to your XRAY, Triple Word Score!!". But obviously such game play would suck. He may end up losing this battle, but it's not like he couldn't put up a fight. And just to be a dick I think he should give up the domain name. He PAID for that (I assume). Last thought: it's a damn good thing that Chess is in the public domain. I own a $3 plastic chess set, a ~$20 wooden set, and a $150+ marble set, all from different places. I can legally write my own online chess game with no worries at all. These are Good Things.
We must drive a sword through any hypothesis that is not strictly necessary.