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.)

Comments

y'know

[heptapod]

There's a great way to enforce a cease-and-desist order. Slashdot the site.

Re:y'know

[l810c]

Yea, I clicked the link and all I got what a blank page with the word "Quijibo" on it.

Re:y'know

[Pseudonym]

Was it on a triple word score?

Re:y'know

[nmx]

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

[dnoyeb]

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...

Re:y'know

[Anonymous Coward]

Scrabble pirates!

How many points is "arrrrr" worth?

Re:y'know

[tacocat]

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.

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.

Uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Uhhh

[urbaer]

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.

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

[cgreuter]

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

[stratjakt]

It's a trademark issue, not copyright. There are tons of other online scrabble clones. I know, because my mother plays them obsessively.

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

[stratjakt]

It's Hasbro's game, and Hasbro's money, and I bet many of those 100,000 players thought (as in were deliberately tricked into believing) they were playing official Scrabble.

Fuck Jared and his Subway subs. He'll always be fat on the inside.

Re:Uhhh

[AssHatAnonymous]

Ditto for the Scrabble trademark.

Right. Because nobody should be able to stay in business under the same name as long as they are successful at it without some complete and total loser, like yourself, coming along and leveraging the original company's reputation, advertising, brand loyalty, in order to sell a cheap knockoff under the same name. Retard.

Re:Uhhh

[That's Unpossible!]

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"?

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

[Bios_Hakr]

They'll be lucky if that's all that happens to them. Like the grandparent said; this is why we have copyright law.

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

[stonecypher]

Isn't this just Hasbro saying "we'll take the game and the site from you and run it ourselves...

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

[Anonymous Coward]

If I get the coke formula and sell coke, the money belongs to Coca Cola.

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

[Ohreally_factor]

The site itself could continue, if it were changed enough to not infringe on the Scrabble trademark.

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

[stonecypher]

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.

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 ne&eacute 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

[shutdown -p now]

Would you think it is OK for a site to replicate Half-Life 2 in Java and make money off it?

Yes, it would, if the engine was written from scratch, and all data files are also clean re-make. After all, Carmack doesn't have anything against FreeDoom, which is exactly that kind of project.

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.

Re:Uhhh

[NormalVisual]

Perhaps games can be patented, but depending on the type of patent, it would only be good for either 14 or 20 years, so the patent would had to have been granted no later than 1985 for it to matter in this case. Scrabble and its clones have been around for almost 60 years now, so it seems that even if Hasbro had applied for a patent in the mid 80's or later, they'd have an uphill battle getting a defensible patent granted since the game had already been around for so long.

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

[roju]

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.

Re:Uhhh

[stonecypher]

You're right, and I probably should have been clear that I didn't mean to imply that Hasbro was acting on patent law. In another post in another thread I pointed that out explicitly and I forgot to here.

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

[stonecypher]

They're not going after the small software developers. They're not even going after a lot of the people selling the game, especially on platforms like cellular phones and palm pilots.

He collected money from hundreds of thousands of people. That's not small potatoes.

Re:Uhhh

[brlancer]

They'll be lucky if that's all that happens to them. Like the grandparent said; this is why we have copyright law.
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.

Well, a better name would have helped

[hsmith]

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?

Re:Well, a better name would have helped

[Senjutsu]

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.

Re:Well, a better name would have helped

[saddino]

Looks like one of those newfangled 'words in the dictionary' that arent suppose to be trademark-able to me. Whats wrong with the world.

What's wrong is that you think "newfangled 'words in the dictionary'...arent suppose to be trademark-able".

Go to the store. Do you see:
- Tide
- Scope
- Crest

Good. Now open your dictionary.

Any word makes a fine trademark as long as its not generic in its market. The "dictionary test" is a myth.

Re:Well, a better name would have helped

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who practices copyright law, I have to say that you're fairly well off the mark.

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

[1u3hr]

If a way to play a game isn't patentable, then why should a way to do something in software be patentable?

However, patents expire after 17 (?) years -- much too long for software to be useful, but Scrabble was invented in 1931, so any patents on the game concept are long dead. Copyright on the rules is easy, just paraphrase. The dumb thing was the name, which is trademarked, they can last forever.

Re:Well, a better name would have helped

[syousef]

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.

Re:Well, a better name would have helped

[RalphSlate]

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?

Re:Well, a better name would have helped

[stonecypher]

This is a well-meaning misunderstanding. The reason that game designs cannot be copywritten is not that they are not legally defensible. The reason is because they get patented instead. Tengen and Mirrorsoft found this out from Nintendo, Spectrum Holobyte and Elorg. Sega found this out from Hudsonsoft, and then a second time later from Sammy, who now owns them. Many small software developers have recently found this out (in a remarkably pleasant fashion) from Capcom, because Rio Grande games used to take a very lenient stance on independant development of their games including the popular Settlers of Cataan, but later sold the game rights to Capcom, who turned around and put a stop to the amateur developers.

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

Happened to me too

[Dimwit]

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!

Pay him?

[RedWizzard]

Timothy wrote:

It's also the best online scrabble game I've seen; Hasbro should pay Jared, not sue him.

Why would Hasbro pay Jared? What are they getting out of it exactly?

Copyrightable?

[tepples]

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.

Re:Copyrightable?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

If he really wanted to stick it to them, he could just change the name of his game to "Hasbro the Scrabble Bully". Now with triple-lawsuit score.

Re:Copyrightable?

[Cryptnotic]

No, but the design and mechanics of a game are patentable.

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

[episodic]

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

[Canadian_Daemon]

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

Another great site / client

[haluness]

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!

Guess what

[stratjakt]

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.

Jared should pay Hasbro

[YukiKotetsu]

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.

Re:Pay him?

[j0e_average]

What kind of bullshitery is that?

I don't know, but bullshitery would be worth 19 points, assuming 1) no premium word/letter spaces, and 2) that it was a real word!

Re:Showing Milton Bradley how Monopoly is played

[UWC]

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.

Trademarks

[Supertroll]

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")

Hasbro's C&D letter somewhat inaccurate

[Anonymous Coward]

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....

Oh please...

[Kjella]

...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

Re:Go To Romania To Play Scrabble

[un1xl0ser]

That site may have the best Scrabble game in the world on it. My problem is that the last time I downloaded a "client program" from Romania, I ended up paying a lot of money in long distance phone bills that I couldn't explain.

Someone else willing to vouch for this guy? :-P

Could Be Worse

[TimCrider]

He could have called it iScrabble and had Apple on their ass too.

Re:Well...

[WIAKywbfatw]

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.

Only now? That's laughable.

[prezninja]

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.

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".

#Jeopardy on IRC was hit too

[AtariAmarok]

More than 10 years ago, something similar happened on IRC. This was when most of IRC was "efnet", and it had only a couple thousand live users at once. There was a popular channel called #jeopardy, that had a well-designed automatic bot-run Jeopardy game anyone could drop in and play.

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.

igorance of the law: no excuse for it

[tverbeek]

Hasbro should pay Jared, not sue him.

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.

Re:igorance of the law: no excuse for it

[timothy]

I wrote the comment you're complaining about, and here's a small (one-shot) response.

When I worked at my University's student paper, we would get letters from due-diligence lawyers pointing out that Kleenex is a trademark -- not sure if we had actually mis-used it; I think those letters come every year. I'm not surprised by the C&D letter, and agree with you that Hasbro is within their rights and obligations to say "cut it out" to Jared.

I don't think that the law always sticks it to the little guy (that happens, and so does the opposite. Certain aspects -- like the money it takes to sustain any legal fight past 1 day in small-claims court -- may not favor the little guy, but especially in tort cases, greed and envy often put the big guy at a different sort of disadvantage ... ), and I agree with you that trademark law in particular is not there only or merely to benefit corporations. It is sometimes used in ways I think are abusive, but no one's arguing that.

I also agree with you that trademarks are valuable tools for customers, and if you hadn't I might have raised the same example (the iPod). I'm not whining to get rid of trademarks, or copyrights, or patents. All three are broken in different ways, maybe, but I think they're all worth salvaging. (My sink is dripping IRL, and needs fixing soon, but I won't be taking it out with a sledgehammer!)

This is a hard point -- I can't prove it, and it's unfalsifiable (too many variables for us to do anything but disagree), but I don't think that e-Scrabble cuts down on sales of the board game. (It might in some cases, and it might increase sales in others; I respectfully doubt that it was "designed to cut into the sales of their board sets," and will until I see some reason to think otherwise. It seems to me that Jared liked the game and wanted to make an easy way for people to play it from a distance.) At the age of the game, I suspect that most Scrabble sales are either plain replacements for old ones (missing tiles are a pain, and the boards rip after enough abuse), or upgrades to the Deluxe swiveling model, or Travel or (mega?)Scrabble -- the one with more tiles and a larger board. The online version seems useful (IMO) only when people *can't* play face-to-face. I've played more (physical) scrabble since being reminded of it by e-scrabble, and in-person is a different experience. I wouldn't play scrabble with friends by sitting around a table with open laptops :) That is, I *might* do that, but I'd sure rather go out (if I didn't have one already!) and buy the game, which is $10-12 the last time I purchased one.

(For the same reason, I doubt that the version of Solitaire pre-loaded on Windows, or all the other card games people can play on their computers, cut measurably into the sale of decks of cards. Card sales might be down in general, but I doubt simply because there are electronic versions.)

When I say Hasbro should pay him, I don't mean they're obligated to. I mean that he's created a brilliantly easy way to play scrabble with distant people, something which Hasbro (to my knowledge) has not. There's a huge online interest in Scrabble (whaddya know?), with word-freaks and more casual players like me trying to increase our scores, and Jared's version would be a perfect addition to the official site. I can't make Hasbro's decisions, and maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe people would stop buying boards and make their weekly games over coffee distributed-solo events rather than in-person social gatherings in great enough numbers to actually affect their sales. I believe the opposite is true, though. Jared's version of Scrabble, with built-in chat, ability to "eavesdrop" on others' ongoing games, and extremely non-intrusive Web design, I think could be a great hook for current non-players. It's not as if Scrabble is an up-and-comer! I think of it nowadays (mostly) as a game for old people, even though I'm only half-old, and many of the people I've played are younger. It has a timeles

Very bad example

[lakeland]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Grow up.

[stonecypher]

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.

poor guy

[icepick72]

and only now does Hasbro come forth with a lawsuit.

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.

Re:Well...

[Ohreally_factor]

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.

Re:Well...

[symbolic]

"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."

You get sued by Marvel.

[the_skywise]

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.

Re:You get sued by Marvel.

[gowen]

Not any more, because Marvel is getting creamed in the City Of Heroes Lawsuit.

Re:WTF? Scrabble is not copyrighted.

[humankind]

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...

[jeti]

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".

Re:The unreasonable part...

[Moraelin]

Even so, "Scrabble" is a trademark of Hasbro. As long as they're willing to defend that trademark, it's theirs. And in fact they _have_ to defend it or lose it. That's in fact the _only_ way for a trademark to be lost: they don't have a time limit.

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.

Kurnik

[KiloByte]

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".

Can't TRADEMARK NAME USED IN Expired Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Similar incident

[Smuffe]

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.

Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Also worth wondering about chess

[Moraelin]

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.

Why Work So Hard To Be Wrong?

[reallocate]

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.

Re:Why Work So Hard To Be Wrong?

[MynockGuano]

I don't think it's really fair to say that they have a right to sue people over a basic word game. In fact, I doubt even they came up with the idea in the first place -- there's probably some ancient depiction of Greek commonpeople playing a local variant of similar game somewhere.

"I have [snake][square][dagger][cat][squiggly][triangle] on a triple-word score!"
"Hey, that's not a word!"
"Is so! The -[squiggly][triangle] is an accepted alternate spelling. Check the Book of Ra-sha-ha if you don't believe me!"

Tomorrow, the New York Times will sue online crossword-puzzle sites.

P.S. darn you, /., and your non-support of heiroglyphic charactersets!

Re:Why Work So Hard To Be Wrong?

[mopslik]

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 as well.

Re:Only 14 years?

[BlueUnderwear]

AFAIK you *cannot* patent game mechanics in the US.

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...

Why there is no substitute for Scrabble

[Finkbug]

Hasbro does not own worldwide Scrabble rights. Competitor Mattel is the owner in many countries, most notably England.

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 /. appear and complain it'll be rewritten. (Won't, but a fantatic Tangleworder can dream.)

Torrent?

[gothzilla]

So who's got a torrent of the game?

Re:Well...

[Shalda]

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.

What damages?

[danieljpost]

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.