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.)
There's a great way to enforce a cease-and-desist order. Slashdot the site.
Okay, so... they took the trademarked name and one would assume copyrighted game design that hasbro sells in stores and... gave away without permission a video game that replicated it perfectly. ...
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.
e-scrabble is sort of RETARDED. It would be like starting up a new websoftware company called eMicrosoft. OO i wonder who would sue me then!
It may be a good piece of software and i doubt they could sue for the game idea. Rename it possibly?
When I started up www.e-slashdot.org, over 100,00 people came and read my geek news. Then some lawyers from some Open Source Lab place got all pissy and sent me a letter. Once more a large corporation slams the little guy!
I was posting good news from independent sources. Heck, they should have paid me!
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
Or, if you can't innovate and can't afford to litigate, copy old Hasbro games and put them on the internet.
Well transfer the name to me and I will host it until Hasbro sues me. Then I will grant them thier wish but only after I transfer it to one of the other 100,000 players. I think we should be able to do this for at least a couple of years. :)
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
I am not a lawyer, but I have followed the similar Tetris 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, I'm not so positive that copyright applies to the elements of a game itself.
I mean you can't argue that scrabble is a trademark of Hasbro. You can't argue that it is abandonware (last time I checked scrabble is still sold in stores).
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.
Wow! After reading that letter, it seems like they want to take over from him. They demand the site and the code to it.
Oh, and obligatory
1. Let fan make game
2 Sue fan and steal game
3. ??? ( can be omitted)
4. Profit
This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
http://www.isc.ro/ is an alternative site. You can't play on the website itself but it has Java clients which you can download and then connect to the isc.ro server.
It's definitely reduced my sleeping hours!
Then you're free to go, just remember to yell Elb Barcs when you win and not Scrabble.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
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 is a game that you can play on Yahoo! Games, and everyone knows and thinks of it as Scrabble. What a bunch of hooey.
Scrabble is a trademark. Everyone knows that.
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.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
http://isc.ro is the best on-line scrabble site anyway.
I haven't been there, nor have I played e-scrabble, but is this guy Jared paying for the server, bandwidth, whatever else without making a dime in return? Is there some sort of advertising that is on there to recoup his costs?
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.
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?
What about Internet Scrabble Club? Are they safe because they're outside the US, licensed, or are they next?
When I told a friend a while back that Hasbro owns both Parker Brothers and Milton Bradley, he asked, perfectly sincerely, "Isn't that some sort of monopoly?" And then instantly recognized the accidental pun.
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
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")
Frankly, Hasbro is basically right with regards to the name -- it might be possible to show that the name is generic, but it'd be difficult and seems somewhat unlikely.
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.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
That's not the point. The point is that it can get expensive defending against such lawsuits. It's not uncommon for large companies filing meritless lawsuits knowing full well their targets are likely to settle since they can't afford the legal fees involved.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Hasbro has a pretty open-and-shut case. Why pay for e-scrabble, when they can acquire it as part of a settlement?
Yes, Hasbro holds a copyright in the design and layout of the Scrabble board, but they DO NOT hold copyright in the rules, no matter what they say.
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....
...usually I'm against it when it comes to big corp crushing the little guy - but e-scrabble? Seriously, "Company who has spent years building up a brand name and mindhare of a game sending C&D to cheap ripoff" sounds more like it.
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
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
He could have called it iScrabble and had Apple on their ass too.
Now i do agree this probably isn't the best way to deal with it, by sending a cease and desist letter, Hasbro does have the right. I'm pretty sure that it's clearly marked on the box, and in the instruction manual that scarbble, it's name and idea are owned by hasboro.
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.
Uh, it's Hasbro's property that e-Scrabble has copied. Tell me again who's the party that's failing to innovate here?
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.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
From TFA:
Today I received the letter below via e-mail. It is not clear if I will have to take the site down or not. I am consulting with a lawyer. Please stay tuned.
IANAL, but, you're screwed pal. AFAICT, you used their board layout and their layout. You shouldn't be worried about if you will have to take the site down. You should be worried about whether your setttlement with them is going to bankrupt you.
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?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
>Hasbro should pay Jared, not sue him
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...
Yeah, right. Maybe in a reasonable world.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Compare Hasbro's behavior on this matter to what german boardgame companies do about online boardgames. Websites likeBSWlet 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, 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? 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".
Seriously. Back in 1995 I had a website up on my schools computer that was for Connect Four. I got calls from Hasbro's lawyers. Of course, once they found out that I didn't make any money on it they stopped returning my calls.
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.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
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.
Is everyone else done with the Subway jokes?
Having never used eScrabble myself, I cannot attest to how good it is. But as to Why would Hasbro pay Jared? What are they getting out of it exactly?:
Well, they get an online version of their *really good* board game, without having to hire coders to write it. This online version shows people who've never played the game how much fun it is. It tells them it exists because of the ads that would be splotched all over the page "Like this version? Buy the board game and play with your technophobic friends!"
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.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Lindows was found to be NOT infringing trademark. So, Microsoft sued them in Sweeden, on the grounds that Sweedish users could go to the site too. Microsoft lost, again. Then Microsoft sued them in Germany, over the same issue, and lost, again. Next microsoft sued them in the Netherlands and didn't even bother telling them about it, so they didn't turn up to the court and Microsoft won by default (apparently posting a notice in the local paper is sufficient in the Netherlands). Almost certainly it would be overturned on appeal.
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.
Whoever wrote the page at http://home.teleport.com/~stevena/scrabble/legal/i ssues.html seems to think that the quoted case shows that online gameplay should be allowed under US fair use laws (I don't think it would be allowed in UK law though).
s html.
... if you could find original documents and copy those instead of copying the later protected documents/works. Bit hard though!
P ublic_Domain.htm they suggest that it's possible that Scrabble is in fact in the public domain, you'd need to check the copyright renewal details. Otherwise it seems we have about 40 years to wait for Open Scrabble.
s no=71570633 (original number is 524505).
The infringement of the trademark would be a problem though so a domain name change (howabout the letters of scrabble, scrabbled??) would appear to be in order.
Some info on the history of scrabble is at http://www.seniorcenterinc.org/programs/scrabble.
This site is quite thorough on the history http://www.scrammble.com/historyscrabble.html.
It seems that Scrabble was actually invented in 1933 which could be a way around the patent and copyright issues
If you look at sites like http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_
I'd ask for details of how it is protected. No patent numbers are given for the applications. I think you should be allowed to use any details in the 1948 patent (? various sites say it was copyrighted and/or patented 1st December 1948) in accordance with whatever copyright notice it carries. But IANAL nor a US IP Judge.
Peace.
PS: The TRADEMARK details are here http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes but it is a very painful Operation to separate a monopoly once it has been created. It is a real Twister with all of the different common departments that must be sorted out. There are ways but none of the approch Perfection.
I guess that is just what happens in the Game of Life.
After all, the "e-" in "e-Scrabble" ain't for nothing!
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.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
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".
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.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Oh horseshit.
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.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
I think Hasbro are perfectly within their rights to shut down this site. The guy who runs it wasn't thinking straight when he decided to clone another companies product, use their trademark, copy their copyrighted board design, etc. That was just dumb.
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.
www.sjbaker.org
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.
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?
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.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
"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."
Yeah, one Frustration after another.
That's what's happening with City of Heroes. Marvel is suing on the basis that, with their generic engine, they can build and play Marvel characters.
Scrabble is a registered trademark owned in the United States and Canada by Hasbro, Inc., and in Great Britain and everywhere else in the world, by J.W. Spear & Sons PLC, a subsidiary of Mattel.
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.
The unreasonable part is that Scrabble was developed in the 1920s and was first published in 1948. That's over 50 years ago. It has become a part of the western cultures, and should be in the public domain.
Granting copyright protection to the game does no longer help to "advance the progress of science and the useful arts to benefit the public".
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.
Actually, "Scrabble" only belongs to Hasbro in the US and Canada. Everywhere else in the world it belongs to Spears.
Ho hum for the life of a bear
IANAL- just like to pretend and pay attention when issues arise....
There is a legal defence of laches (Negligence or undue delay in asserting a legal right or privilege: dictionary.com). Not exactly the best in the world, but if the ever broadening discovery of electronic documents uncovers evidence that the company knew about the site for a couple of years but did not bother to care, then it is a little difficult to claim that the site is currently irrepairibly damaging the consumer's association of scrabble with hasbro.
At least traditionally trademark is not really something to own concretely, even though companies would like it to be, have repeatedly argued as if it were the case, and at least as far as branding on apparel, team gear, ect. have made some head- way in that direction (in certain circuits). Otherwise, I was taught to think of it as a bonafide good reputation or indicator of quality.
In reality, regardless of the merits or no, if it were to go to court it would be in hasbro's interest to prolong the matter until the little guy ran out of money to pay thier council. When you have a big army, a siege is still quite effective.
felis, too lazy to log in....
Seems to me that if e-Scrabble just buys a few Scrabble sets, one for every concurrent virtual board in play, they would be perfectly entitled to run their remote playing service.
We had a similar incident in Sweden a couple of years ago, with a privately created online Scrabble(tm) game. He also got a C&D letter (from Mattel, I think they own the UK rights?) but in his case I think it was enough to change the name. The bad news is he started charging people to play it :/ Fortunately, a few months later the free version surfaced and now I'm happily wasting lots of time juggling letters.
Well, since you mention Pepsi Cola vs Coca Cola - I always wondered why Pepsi got away with using a similar name - I guess there must have been variants of "Cola" out there when Coca Cola entered the business.
Imagine chess had been invented in our times, and trademarked, then no-one could use the word "chess" to sell a chess set. It is kind of worrying that common culturals stock can become 0wn3d by big business this way. Just consider that the workaround would be to privately rename every game: "Uh, chess? We call it 'wuyallix' here."
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
That's because most of us recognise that this particular coder is a total dumbass for using copyrighted material and trademarks without permission. The paraphrase what everyone else has been saying, he'd have been somewhat safer if he'd designed his own board layout and come up with a different name for the game.
I'm not sure where this story starts with the stupid, but it certainly does wallow in it. Let's see, for over a year you have blatantly used copyrighted material. You get caught, and instead of just taking down the material, you get indignant about it, and Slashdot backs you up. Huh. Let's count the ways you could have NOT ended up here in the first place.
1. Not used the word Scrabble in reference to your game. (even better, not used a 1 letter difference in the name.)
2. Made a word game with very similar rules that does not use very obvious imitations of the commercial game.
3. Made an ORIGINAL word game
Geez, talk about an easy fix. But NOOOOOOOoo, we better all get self-rightious about this and piss all over Hasbro for not wanting you to copy their game. You do all know that it is in fact, THEIR GAME, right? nobody forgot that did they? of course not, that would be stupid.
grow up.
Thing is, would it have become even socially acceptable, much less common cultural stock, if it was invented in 1948?
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.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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
So who's got a torrent of the game?
All these extensions apply retroactively automatically. They're sometimes called "Mickey Mouse" extensions as the most notable work that's just this side of falling into the public domain is the first Mickey Mouse cartoon.
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.
bance.net
What they really ought to do is make him a business proposition. They hire him to maintain and further develop the site, since there is obviously a market for it, and for their cash they get a community of 100.000 players, a system that apparently works already and someone who can drive it on.
You'd have to be pretty daft to not see an opportunity here, but then again, where do you think all the people in the financial sector come from :-).
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.
Hasbro(TM)(R)(C)(YMMV) should've just posted the story to /. and let nature run its course.
The layout of the board is copyrighted.
He is using their board layout without permission.
Hence, he is in the wrong.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
It's a valid observation, though, and I suppose it does illustrate a few points. Thanks for bringing it up.
See, what I had in mind by "socially acceptable" was more along the lines of "acceptable for adults". As in, you won't see the CEO of a company (unless maybe if the company is Games Workshop itself) playing Warhammer 40k at the club, but chess might be socially acceptable.
High school is a more interesting case, at least in the wester world, because IMHO it's a massive cultural failure. Doing anything even remotely intellectual-like, or god forbid actually being any good at using your brains, is more likely than not to get you ridiculed, ostracized or downright bullied.
(And in more pathological cases even arrested or questioned. Dangerous people those ostracized nerds, apparently. You never know when they'll shoot up the school;)
It doesn't even matter if it's chess or anything else that requires more than one braincell awake. Being a mindless lemming with a cool t-shirt and the latest Brittney Spears is good, using your brains is bad. It's way uncool to have a brain.
Also, well, chess happens to fall under the heading of "stuff that adults do". You won't catch a cool teenager touching that stuff with a 10 ft pole.
Though that kind of age preconception isn't exclusive to teenagers. It works both ways. A lot of adults won't touch a lot of games with a 10 ft pole (board, table-top and/or video games) if they seem to fall under the heading "stuff for kids."
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The US has repeatedly extended the copyright term from 14 years to 75 years.....in part to keep Disney's Mickey Mouse from passing into the public domain. But the most of the rest of the world uses a 50 year copyright term. If Scrabble is more than 50 years old, the e-scrabble folks could relocate it to a server in a country with less onerous and unfriendly copyright laws than the US. I wonder if the US will try to extent their limit from 75 years to 100 years when Mickey comes up for expiry next time?
Only boring people are ever bored.
Jared's closed the site.
1 - In what way was he making money from it (I played there, never had to pay, didn't have to look at ads or anything.)
2 - Copyright and trademark infringement aside, I'd be careful about going after some of these people - Sony have "recently" done that and lost their trademark on walkman in Austria (and derivatively elsewhere - I'll just include the brandchannel article)
Kinda makes you wonder about the iPod dunnit? iPod is becoming a victim of it's own success with regards to naming. Many people here in NZ refer to all mp3 players as iPods... weirdos.
meth