RISK on Google Maps Shut Down

mrokkam writes "Hasbro owns the copyrights for the game of Risk, as the guy who wrote the google maps based Risk found out. This was featured on slashdot earlier. However, he does not seem too discouraged and asks people to submit ideas for other games using google maps that will not have such legal wrangles." One thing this reminded me of is how cool Risk is. My office is now in its 3rd round... Africa will be mine!

Comments

First Question!

[MindStalker]

Where can I get a job in your office!

Re:First Question!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember this next time Taco says "but I'm too busy to code a dupe checker!" or other excuse.

Re:First Question!

[SilentChris]

I actually briefly interned for the law firm that Hasbro uses. One guy had his office filled with toys (Mr. Potato Head and the like). In one corner was a framed check (lawyers often keep fake ones for memorabilia) of a $100,000 victory over some company.

Anyway, this was back in the day when the internet was still taking off. I was working on this guy's computer and, seeing I knew about them, he asked me "Are there any games online that are similar to what Hasbro makes?" Without thinking, I mentioned Download.com and all its shareware.

A couple of days later, I see him walking by with a huge stack of printouts -- screenshots of webpages. They were every little piece of shareware he could find that bared the faintest resemblance to a Hasbro title. He mentioned, "That was a great site you told me about." and walked off. A couple of months later I saw a number of those games disappear forever.

To this day, I'm kicking myself over telling him about it. Moral of the story: unless they're defending you, don't ever talk to a lawyer, even in passing.

Re:First Question!

[MilenCent]

Remind me to NOT tell you about WEBoggle...

Dammit.

Re:First Question!

[tomhudson]

He was happy because you were giving him stuff that made him look good to his bosses.

This didn't mean they had a case in even one of those sites.

Trademark protection of words, as opposed to made-up terms, is weak. "Electrolux" is a tradmark that can be protected. Neither Risk nor Windows can be - as Microsoft found out the hard way when they cut Lindows a check for $20 million.

If Microsoft can screw up that badly, so can Hasbro.

Incidently, get an older boxed version of the game - it only has "Hasbro" and "Parker Brothers" listed as trademarks on the box - they do not list "RISK" as a trademark, because they knew it wasn't protectable. Someone is trying a "lets expand our portfolio" game here.

Re:First Question!

[tomhudson]

No they don't just as Microsoft didn't have a case against Lindows. Remember how the judge said it was highly likely that Microsft's trademark on the term "Windows" was valid, and Microsoft then paid Lindows $20 million to walk away?

YOu Can't Successfully Trademark A Generic Word.

You might get the paperwork passed, and then use it to intimidate people who don't know better, but thats all its good for. You can call it Risk, use the same rules, same gameplay,etc. You DO have to supply your own original artwork, and text, and packaging. It will be known as "Anonymous Coward Risk", not "Hasbro Risk". And those two terms are covered by treademark. "Risk" by itself isn't. It's a generic word, not a "coined" term that is trade-markable.

Re:First Question!

[tomhudson]

Damn typo:

Remember how the judge said it was highly unlikely that Microsoft's etc etc

Hasbro only owns a valid trademark interest in "Hasbro Risk". not "Risk." Same with "Microsoft Windows"" vs "Windows".

Their claim to "X-Box" is similarly week, seeing as many unix boxes were running X a long time before, and were known as "X-Boxes" (or would that be "X-Boxen")

Re:First Question!

[rdoger6424]

you must be new here; it's IANAL

Re:First Question!

[MindStalker]

Yes I'm double posting. As I already said you can get a trademark using common words IF the common word does not describe your product (RISK isn't a very good description, "World Map Game" on the other hand would be, just as Windows describes a windowing application) And then your common word trademark would only cover things that exactly resemble your product or buisness.

Re:First Question!

[tomhudson]

Risk is a very good description of what you're doing. Invading is taking a risk. The whole game is about balancing risks. Monopoly - same thing - the best way to win is to be a monopolist. That's another trademark thats unenforceable. The reasons those generic terms were chosen is because they actually reflected the gameplay, as opposed to, say "Pony Go Fish" or "brigbragbrug". The use of a generic term carries the risk that you end up with no trademark rights, because the generic term IS descriptive of a significant point of your product.

1. Risk - generic term, and descriptive of the risks you take during game play. The whole point of the game is balancing risks so you win.
2. Monopoly - well, you are trying to get a monopoly of all the board properties, Again, descriptive of game play.
3. Mille Bornes - the goal, after all, IS to get to 1000 milestones. Again, too descriptive of the product to be a valid trademark on its own
4. Clue. Well, isn't that what you're doing? Getting clues?
5. Taboo. Can't say that word - its taboo. Another generic word that is descriptive of the gameplay, and not a valid trademark

Re:First Question!

[MindStalker]

Quote from http://www.gordonrees.com/pubs/pdf/ipnl031502.pdf

(b) Suggestive Trademarks
Suggestive marks, on the other hand, require the
consumer to use his or her
imagination in order to
create an association
between the trademark and
the associated product.
While suggestive
trademarks may suggest a
quality or feature of the
product related to the mark,
the suggestion is not one
that is so obvious that the mark is merely
descriptive of the product. Thus, suggestive
trademarks may be granted trademark protection.
The demarcation between what is a protected
suggestive trademark and an unprotected
descriptive term is often encountered by new
businesses that wish for their trademark to at
least partially identify the product the mark is
associated with. The desire to adopt a brand
name that identifies the associated product must
be balanced against the need to create a strong
trademark that the trademark owner can use to
the exclusion of its competitors. The difference
between "suggestive" and "descriptive" for a
particular trademark is primarily relevant when
the trademark is the subject of a federal
trademark application.

They go on to descibe an application for a resturant called Golden Gourmet which gets denied and Golden Wok which gets approved. Because Gourmet is too descriptive. So I don't know there is a line there somewhere. But you also have to consider the common perception to a product name. When you talk about Windows many computer users associate it with MS Windows, but many computer professionals may also associate it with the physical windows of which MS wasn't the originator of. Of the list Taboo is probably the only one too descriptive to receive trademark protection..

Quick lookup at http://www.uspto.gov/ reveals Taboo to be a several trademarks but I don't see the game, while it appears as if Hasbroo has a trademark on Monopoly for everything from casino games to resturant services.

Re:First Question!

[tomhudson]

Risk is descriptive of the game play. Everyone playing is balancing the risks of invading and defending with each roll of the dice.

On that basis alone, they have a descriptive, not suggestive, trademark. It describes the core feature of game play.

Interesting thing is, because Hasbro has acquired so many other brands (Parker Bros., Milton-Bradley, etc) they may now not be in an effective position, as a defacto quasi-monopoly, to use the same tactics to squash competitors that smaller companies can use.

A quick search of the Trademarks database reveals this: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=k f6uc6.1.1&p_search=searchstr&BackReference=&p_L=10 0&p_plural=no&p_s_PARA1=risk&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%2 4FM&expr=PARA1+or+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=&p_tagrepl~%3A=P ARA2%24ALL&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query

The first use for the game is http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=k f6uc6.2.4 in 1958, for a Word Mark in connection with a board game.

Of course, this conflicts with http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m016.htmthis.

And it conflicts with the Judge's statements in the Windows vs Lindows case.

Upshot (taking into account the judge's words) - they have an unenforceable, generic or descriptive word mark. Others can use it, and they can't stop them.

How about a light cycles type game?

[t0qer]

Remember the tron lightcycles? It wouldn't have to be realtime like the original, maybe just turn based with the goal of trapping your opponents in.

Re:How about a light cycles type game?

[mrcolj]

Hot 'bout Tron Lightcycles where you're building a wall along the border, without crossing over into foreign lands or ACLU lawyers? Who would be the blue bike, though?

Re:How about a light cycles type game?

[gfreeman]

Remember the tron lightcycles? It wouldn't have to be realtime like the original, maybe just turn based with the goal of trapping your opponents in.

The real life version has been done

Re:How about a light cycles type game?

[DoorFrame]

You mean Snake?

Re:How about a light cycles type game?

[J0nne]

[url=http://armagetronad.net/]armagetron[/url]

Open source, for Windows & Linux, multiplayer support, and it doesn't use google maps in any way. I don't really see how you could involve google maps in a game like that, btw.

Copyrights

[qbwiz]

I'm curious what Hasbro actually owns the copyrights on. They own the trademark on the name of the game, as the article says, and they own the copyright on the original game's rules, but do they own a copyright on any rephrasings of those rules?

If the game looks similar and plays the same, but does not have its rules phrased the same as the original game, is this a violation of copyright? I'm genuinely curious.

Re:Copyrights

[SirSlud]

What is important is that copyrights and trademarks be respected, otherwise there is no incentive to create boardgames that furthur human knowledge, culture, and society.

Imagine if we didn't have copyright law. Imagine a world without poker, bridge, snakes and ladders, blackjack, [insert one million fucking games better than risk, even tho risk does rule, here.]

I agree with copyright laws with limited term. I agree, even, with moderate trademark laws. I do not agree with anybody who suggests that the value of these laws to society at large increases with the magnitude of the legal strength they grant the owner.

Re:Copyrights

[codegen]

If the game looks similar and plays the same, but does not have its rules phrased the same as the original game, is this a violation of copyright? I'm genuinely curious

Two words:
derivative work.

Changing the name and changing the rules might be enough.I haven't seen the online version. But if you change the way results are calculated (instead of rolls of 6 sided dice) and change the resupply algorithm, it might be sufficient

Re:Copyrights

[JPriest]

Isn't that like paraphrasing a book and having the revised version published as your own?

Re:Copyrights

[Yartrebo]

IANAL, but ...

The copyright claim is probably a stretch. The title cannot be copyrighted, and merely formulating rules that are similar is not copyright infringement, though it is close enough for a lawsuit to stand on.

However, in these types of instances, trademarks cast a very wide net because of the anti-dilution clauses that were added to trademark law a few decades back. Judges often interpret the clause extremely broadly. The anti-consumer aspects of trademarks get their teeth from this, whereas the aspects of trademarks needed for a well functionin market, namely that one entity cannot pass off goods are being made by another, was very well handled by the older trademark laws.

Re:Copyrights

[Rydia]

You would probably have to introduce a lot of novel ideas into it, too. Courts aren't hapy when defendants come in with a laundry list of things that they obviously did just to circumvent the copyright while keeping the basic content.

Re:Copyrights

[bonkedproducer]

Speaking of copyright and whatnot - your sig should actually credit the late great Mitch Hedberg.

Re:Copyrights

[kfg]

You've just described 90% of all books. . .

And all of Shakespeare.

KFG

Re:Copyrights

[kenthorvath]

What is important is that copyrights and trademarks be respected, otherwise there is no incentive to create boardgames that furthur human knowledge, culture, and society.

Please back this statement up with both argument and conclusion based on reason and empirical evidence supported by scientific methods and statistics. I'm a bit skeptical.

Re:Copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

May I be the first to say, "WHOOSH!".

Re:Copyrights

[aevan]

Excuse my ignorance here, but bridge and poker both date hundreds of years back: poker to at least the early 1800s, and bridge back to 16th century..although bridge was modernized just into the 20th century...and both are just rules based on cards which go back to the 14th century.... ...how has copyrights protected them?

Re:Copyrights

[EvilFrog]

Here's the trick:

You can not copyright the rules to a game.

You can copyright the expression of the game— the artwork and the way the manual is written.

You can trademark the name of the game.

And most importantly you can patent a unique mechanic of a game.

I'm 99.9% certain the Hasbro does not own a patent on any of the mechanics used in Risk. They do however own the copyright on the board artwork and the wording of the rules, as well as a trademark on the name "Risk".

All you need to do in order to be legit in this case is to stop calling it "Risk".

Re:Copyrights

[m50d]

Of course it is. They've copied the game, like copying a story it doesn't have to be word-for-word.

Re:Copyrights

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, you can trademark the name of a game. You can patent the rules of a game (if they qualify for a patent; many will not be novel or nonobvious enough). And you can copyright a specific expression of the rules (provided it doesn't protect the underlying rules or other expressions of the rules), the art on the box, the art on the board (to the extent it's not functional for game playing purposes), the shape of the pieces (ditto), etc.

So looking similar may or may not be a stumbling block, but generally you're right; it's easy to make knock-off games since the rules by which the game functions are not copyrightable.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

Ther is nothing in Title 17 that allows for copyrighting game rules.

You can't copyright the the actual rules of a game, only the documents you use to express those rules. IOW, you can copyright the form in which you've written them up, but that's it. Anyone is free to implement the same rules, using different text.

You can TRADEMARK a board design and the actual game pieces you make, but that's it. Again, anyone else is free to implement their version, using a different design and game pieces. I seriously doubt that Hasbro's version of Risk has an actual map of the world underneath (I have both the board and computer versions, and the world they show is NOT the real world,or even a decent representation of it).

In other words, Hasbro needs to to realize that the internet gives everyone the power to search here and get the facts.

If you'd rather read a summary about game law, direct from the government, go here instead.

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

In order to register the copyrightable portions of a game, you must send the Library of Congress, Copyright Office, 101 Independence Avenue S.E., Washington, D.C. 20559-6000, the following elements in the same envelope or package:

So Hasbro can go fuck themselves. The guy should sue, as this was an obvious attempt at intimidation. They do NOT own the exclusive rights to RISK-style board games.

Re:Copyrights

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Oh, you mean like Cliff's Notes? I'm not aware that they have ever run into any copyright problems.

Re:Copyrights

[rbochan]

...They do however own the copyright on the board artwork...

Out of curiosity, can you even have a copyright on a map of the world?

Re:Copyrights

[endoplasmicMessenger]

You cannot copyright an idea. You can only copyright a particular expression of an idea. If your work is derived from the idea rather than the expression of it, then you should not be in violation of any copyrights. IANAL

Re:Copyrights

[JPriest]

Taking notes on someone elses work and crediting them for it is not the same as changing their work and passing it off as your own.

Re:Copyrights

[bigpat]

I don't think anyone could argue against hasbro's use of the trademark. He just can't call it risk. Although, just doing a simple trademark search comes up with thousands of other trademarks that incorporate the word "risk", so hasbro's trademark would be very limited in scope.

Really if the game is fun and well done, then it should stand on its own without needing to infringe on the trademark. And the rules need only be rewritten, if in fact they were taken word for word from the original. It might be good to throw in some variations just for fun.

Re:Copyrights

[rgoldste]

Let's assume he can create a Risk-like game that doesn't techincally violate copyrights or trademarks. Hasbro might still decide to "enforce" their IP by suing the guy. After all, they have millions of dollars to spend on lawyers and the Google Maps Risk creator probably doesn't.

Yes, maybe it's a specious lawsuit that no ethical lawyer should bring. Yes, the little guy might be able to counterclaim for the frivlolous lawsuit and recover attorney's fees plus damages. But that would require him to subject himself to the risk (no pun intended) of losing on Hasbro's lawsuit, then the further risk of suing Hasbro for malicious prosecution of a claim. It'd be far less risky to simply comply with Hasbro's request to remove the technically noninfringing claim.

Furthermore, it's not clear it would be a frivolous lawsuit. As long as they're making a good-faith claim to change the law, they can sue. I'm sure whatever lawyers Hasbro has can find some argument for extending IP protection to clones that's good enough to avoid being frivolous.

Re:Copyrights

[FLEB]

Or, suck it up, shut it down, and try for a more original idea. Why not aspire to a new original game rather than a technically-legal finagled version of something that already exists.

I commend the game's maker. There're so many, on both sides, who would spend more time fighting for rights in their old, dubiously legitimate creations than it would take to just come up with something new and better. This fellow's content to move on to bigger and better things. Someone should get this guy into Disney... they could use such an attitude.

Re:Copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

If the game looks similar and plays the same, but does not have its rules phrased the same as the original game, is this a violation of copyright? I'm genuinely curious.

Why bother asking? Hasbro has more money than you do.
Come up with anything which even remotely resembles anything
they have sold, thought of selling, or dreamed one night, and
they'll sue your ass off.

It's the American Way!

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

No, they don't own the trademark on the name of the game - nobody can. You're free to create your own game and call it risk: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

So Hasbro just fucked themselves - hard - because now a million nerds know they can make their own Risk game, even call it Risk, and there's nothing Hasbro can do about it.

Ditto with Monopoly.

Let the Clone Wars begin.

Re:Copyrights

[Klowner]

And with Hasbro's copyrights and trademarks on the Risk franchise, we are assured to always have official versions of Star Risk, Lord of The Risk, Risk Kong, Chronicles of Riskia, Spider-Risk, and of course, Harry Risker and the Riskerors Risk.

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

Of course you can trademark the name of a game. The link you gave is talking about THE GAME ITSELF. The rules of the game can not be protected, although a specific expression of those rules can be.

They clearly have a valid trademark in the name "Risk", when applied to a game.

I offer the name "Backstab" as an alternate name for a Risk-like game, as long as use of said name is not made exclusive. I leave it as an exercise to write down the rules of the game in a non-infringing manner (and would suggest using a CC copyright on them).

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

CThe name is NOT protectable. Read what the us copyright office has to say, for fuck sake:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

The name is not protectable - they own a "valid" trademark for the name "Risk" ONLY IN ASSOCIATION WITH THEIR VERSION OF THE GAME. You are free to create your own version of Risk, call it Risk, with the exact same gamplay rules, as long as you implement your own graphics and game pieces.

If youhad bothered to read the email the lawyer sent, he avoided saying that there ware any specific infringments - it was all bullshit. This is because they know that they have no legal leg to stand on.

I've emailed the dude asking for the lawyer's email address so I can send them a notice demanding exactly what elements they claim protection for. IOW, I'm going to clone the motherfucker, and stick it on a couple of servers (been thinking about it for more than a year, but now I'm pissed!)

Re:Copyrights

[schon]

Of course you can trademark the name of a game.

The name is NOT protectable.

Yes, it really, really is.

Read what the us copyright office has to say

What the copyright office has to say is meaningless, because we're not talking about copyright - we're talking about TRADEMARKS. And the name of a game is protectable as a trademark.

The name is not protectable

Correction: "the name is not protectable by copyright" Which is irrelevant, as the person you're replying to specifically used the word trademark.

You would do your self a favour by reading about trademarks before you post in this thread again.

Re:Copyrights

[schon]

I offer the name "Backstab" as an alternate name for a Risk-like game

My suggestion would be to call it "CISK" :o)

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

Oh, for fucks sake:

1. The copyright office also administers trademarks;
2. Trademarks to NOT grant exclusive rights to use - IOW - it is NOT akin to copyright;
3. The trademark is only protectable with the actual implementation of the game: IOW - their version of Risk. Your version is NOT the same (different graphics), and may use the name as a TRADEMARK for your product
4. the lawyer who wrote the smackdown letter knew this, and went out of his way to NOT claim any specific infringements. All he said was the usual "may be a..." "may violate". If there had been anything to stand on, don't you think he would have said so?

Learn your rights. Stand up for them. Fuck the lawyers.

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

It makes no sense to talk about trademark "only in connection with their version of the game". That's like saying that Ford only has a trademark in connection with their version of a car, but if someone makes a DIFFERENT car, they can call it a Ford as well.

Trademarks apply to areas of commerce. "Games" is one such area. You could make a car, and call it a "Risk Car" (as long as you don't call it a Ford Risk Car). You probably wouldn't sell any with that name, but Hasbro would have a lot of trouble trying to sue you for trademark infringement. Come out with a board game based on your Risk Car, and call it Risk Car Wars, and you probably WOULD lose in a trademark infringement suit (and it wouldn't matter if your game was similar or completely different).

A lawyer is going to be as vague as possible in such a letter - if you choose to stop using more than they have rights to, all the better for them. Since there is one element that is being infringed (the name "RISK"), the letter is not all bullshit. It is annoying, but if he named specific elements, and when it came to trial it turned out that part of the rules were verbatim copied and he hadn't mentioned it in his letter, they might have problems with that part because they hadn't mentioned it.

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

Oh, and as for "Backstab", I was confusing in my head Risk and Diplomacy. Ack! Backstab is a great name for a Diplomacy-like game.

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

No the USPTO administers trademarks. Your understanding of what trademark protects is woefully inadequate. A trademark on a board game clearly extends to computer games. If you created a program for doing insurance statistics and called it "RISK", you wouldn't be infringing. If you based a computer game on insurance companies and called it RISK, you almost certainly would be.

Re:Copyrights

[schon]

Oh, for fucks sake:

Yes, for fucks sake is right.

Trademarks to NOT grant exclusive rights to use - IOW - it is NOT akin to copyright;

Yes, which is exactly my point. You (however) are using the two interchangably, by (TWICE!?!) claiming that the name of a game is not protectable by trademarks, but by trying to back up that claim by posting something that specifically says it's not proctectable by *COPYRIGHT*. I'm glad to see that you understand there is a difference, but you aren't applying that understanding to the issue at hand.

The trademark is only protectable with the actual implementation of the game: IOW - their version of Risk.

No. Do some reading on "trademark dilution." You are completely and totally in the wrong here. You don't quite seem to grasp what it is that trademarks protect. Something does not have to be an exact copy to be infringing of a trademark.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

but if someone makes a DIFFERENT car, they can call it a Ford as well.

Actually, similar things HAVE happened, especially in the software world. Various other companies developed "Turbo" products, and Borland got all pissy. Net result - no name changes, just a disclaimer on the box saying that it ws no relation to "Borland Turbo C".

In other words, "Hasbro Risk" and "Your Risk - no relation to Hasbro", is all that's required. And the day that the newer version gets market share, YOu get to tel Hasbro to put a disclaimer on ITS box saying it is not related to you.

As you pointed out - its about commerce, not about rights. As long as there is a way to differentiate the products, its legal.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

Dude, the trademark rotects the name in association with the VENDOR. Witness the companies that produced "Turbo" products and got away with it by including "Not related to Borland Turbo C" on the box.

We'll find out - I've written the dud asking for the lawyer's email address, and I'm going to demand they specify what they claim is protected, and produce a none-infringing server-based version of the mother fucker.

Re:Copyrights

[mikek3332002]

yeah well if they get the amazon guys to do it for them, they could probably get a patent out on boardgames

Re:Copyrights

[schon]

no name changes, just a disclaimer on the box saying that it ws no relation to "Borland Turbo C".

This is not really comparable - Borland didn't trademark "Turbo", they trademarked "Turbo C" (and "Turbo Pascal", and a few others.) You'll note that none of the companies called their product "Turbo C - no relation to Borland Turbo C."

In other words, "Hasbro Risk" and "Your Risk - no relation to Hasbro", is all that's required.

In this case, the word "Risk" is trademarked, not "Hasbro Risk", so using the word "Risk" in the name of your game would be infringing. Simply adding "no relation" won't get you anywhere.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

You CANNOT trademark a generic english word.

You might succeed in getting the paperwork passed, but it won't pass muster in court.

http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/tech/windows.html

The litigation over the Windows trademark highlights a distinction between valid trademarks that become generic over time -- "escalator" for moving stairs is a frequently-cited example -- and words or phrases that were generic from the moment of their adoption by the purported trademark owner -- for example, "raisin bran" for breakfast cereal made from raisins and bran.

The word "escalator" was a made-up word that lost its protection through the general public using it for all sorts of "moving stairs", but it was initally a valid trademark. Windows never was - and it cost Microsoft $20 million to make Lindows go away rather than have a judge rule against them.

YOu can make a raisin bran cereal and call it "schon's Raisin Bran" - Kelloggs can't come after you. As long as you include YOUR name, to differentiate it from their product, you're okay. So, you can use the name Risk - its only trademarked in conjuction with Hasbro, in the sense of "Hasbro Risk", "schon's Risk" would NOT be an infringement, as Risk is NOT a "made-up" word, but a generic word from everyday english.

Hasbro can go fuck themselves. I have 4 copies of the Risk board game, plus the computer game - but they'll never see another penny from me. This was all bullshit. I also have a lot of their other games - but no more. And they can forget about the xmas gift-giving as well.

Re:Copyrights

[Dachannien]

I don't know if you were intending to be purely facetious or actually make a commentary on the way things are, but Hasbro is definitely working on that, though not just with Risk.

Re:Copyrights

[Lehk228]

not at all.

the best way to do it would be to9 have a person who has not read the rules observe the game being played by experienced players untill they had documented all of the important game mechanics then have another person who has not read the rules take that documentation and write out easily followed rules based on them, much like software and interface cloning is done.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

Just a few quick notes: Hasbro only recently tried to claim that the name Risk is copyrighted. I have a pre-2003 game, and they only claim trademark and/or copyright protection on Hasbro and Parker Brothers in that one.

On a more recent version, they claim trademark and/or copyright on Hasbro, Parker Bros, and RISK (all capitals). They do NOT claim trademark in either case on "Risk", only the stylized "RISK". Big difference in trademark law, but even then, they make a mistake. They also clame copyright on the rules, and the rules are not, by law, copyrightable, only the particular text used in their version.

My guess - someone was looking to try to expand their claims, 40 years after the fact. RISK has been around for a LONG time.

As I pointed out elsewhere, generic terms are not trade-markable on their own, only in connection with the company name.

Microsoft found this out the hard way with ther failed action against Lindows.

To be fully proof from misuse by others IN THE SAME FIELD, it has to be a "made-up" word - one that you can then claim uniqueness for your product. For example, if I make a new OS, and I call it the "redoxical", since the term "redoxical" doesn't exist before I coin it and apply it to MY product, it is protected. If on the other hand, I call it a "Windows" cOS, since windows isn't a "made-up" term, I do not get to claim exclusive use - only use with MY version.

Hence, "Microsoft Windows:" is protected, but "Windows" as the term for an operating system is not. It cost Microsoft $20 million to get Lindows to walk away from that one, and the judge had already stated his doubts that Microsoft would succeed. That's why Microsoft will pay up every time rather than go to court. They screwed up when they picked the name, and used a generic term.

This is also why IBM couldn't go after Sony over the PS2, even though IBM had already created their line of computing devices a decade earlier using the same name. PS2 is not distinct enough to be considered fully trademarkable. It thus enjoys protection only when used in conjunction with the company name - "IBM PSS" vs "Sony PS2"

Its also why Intel had to invent the "Pentium" brand - you can't copyright a term like "586". Generic.

Heck, even the X-Box is on shaky ground - any computer running X Windows back in the days when the console was the norm, would be referred to as an "X Box". Thats what I was calling them, and I'm sure I wasn't alone.

Re:Copyrights

[Xarius]

You may not be able to copyright the name of a game, but you can certainly trademark it. This is why you cannot release a game called Tetris, even though you can make a perfect clone of the gameplay mechanics.

In fact, I don't even think you can legally release a game with the -tris suffix as that is also protected by trademark laws.

Re:Copyrights

[Lehk228]

that is stupid, you cannot make another game and call it risk, that is EXACTLY the point of trademark law.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

that is stupid, you cannot make another game and call it risk, that is EXACTLY the point of trademark law.

Sure you can. Trademark protection doesn't extend to non-original words. Only to invented, made-up, coined words.

Think about Windows. Microsoft paid Lindows $20 million after a judge publicly stated he doubted they would be able to show that Windows, even though trademarked, had any actual protection under trademark law. Microsoft is unable to defend Windows as a proper trademark, becuase it isn't. They CAN defend "Microsoft Windows", but that's it.

Trademarks were designed to give a LIMITED protection for products - and with this protection comes the obligation not to use a term that is too generic, or that has been in use prior to your using it. Both Windows and Risk are generic english words.

BTW, get an older copy fo Risk and look at the box - even the 2003 version doesn't claim "RISK" as a trademark. Only the latest versions do - and remember, Risk goes back decades. Hasbro is playing Monopoly here.

Re:Copyrights

[ovit]

You cannot copywrite an idea, you can copywrite "creative" work...

Essentially what this means is that if you made a game called foobar, that was just like tetris except you called it "foobar"... And you had rights to all of the assets used in the game (art, sound... IE, you didn't screen grab tetris and cut out the bits you needed, you made them from scratch yourself)... even if the game plays exactly the same, it is totally legal...

Hence, the jillions of tetris clones...

Gameplay is not copywriteable... Ideas can be Patented, but not copywrited...

        td

Re:Copyrights

[Lehk228]

'risk' has little to do with the rules of the game itself, which makes it significantly stronger as a trademark than 'windows', which is almost purely a discription of the funciton of the operating system from a user interface point of view.

'Scion' was an existing term but Ford would get sued by Toyota and probably lose if they tried to sell a 'Ford Scion', and Ford would sue Toyota if they made a 'Toyota Explorer'.


windows is descriptive which is why it is trademarked as 'Microsoft Windows'

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

Your example actually proves my point, because you're wrong:

'Scion' was an existing term but Ford would get sued by Toyota and probably lose if they tried to sell a 'Ford Scion', and Ford would sue Toyota if they made a 'Toyota Explorer'.

Car manufacturers HAVE copied each others model names.

The Pontiac GTO was named after the Ferarri GTO The Pontiac Esprit is a rip-off of the Lotus Esprit.

The latest? The Ford GT. How many GTs have their been in the past from different manufacturers?

So much for that theory. Toyota could produce an Explorer model if they wanted to. Though who would, with a crap record like Fords'. On the other hand, "Camry", being a made-upword", is much better protected.

Risk is a pre-existing word. As such, it does not enjoy trademark protection, even in its own product domain. Same as GTO with cars. Same as PS2 in the digital world. Same as Windows.

Re:Copyrights

[m50d]

If what you mean were true, surely there would be no such thing as indirect or subconscious copying?

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

The US copyright office disagrees when it comes to games:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Don't even need a laundry list.

As for trademark, the term "Hasbro Risk" is a valid trademark. "Risk" by itself isn't. You can't trademark a preexisting generic world. YOu CAN trademark a new word you've made up.

Thats why, in the car world, you see plenty of GTOs, GTs, LXs, DXs, etc, but only one Camry.

Re:Copyrights

[niktemadur]

You reminded me of an old Stephen Wright line:

I have a life-size map of the world. The legend says "1 Mile = 1 Mile".

But then, Umberto Eco noted that a life-size map of the world would alter the landscape just by existing, therefore it would have to take itself into account for it to not be immediately obsolete.

Anyway, don't mind me, carry on...

Re:Copyrights

[RealTobriand]

To be honest, if Lindows had trouble with MS over a single letter shift, I'd be incredibly surprised if you could get away with a similar shift for an even more similar product, albeit with a company a LOT smaller than MS being the pissed off people.

Re:Copyrights

[Iago515]

If you check Hasbro's own Trademarks and Copyright page, you'll see that Risk is not mentioned once. It seems that when it matters they know they don't have the copyright to the name.

Re:Copyrights

[teknomage1]

I appreciate your humorous post, but I hope people remember that most of those games ere all created before copyright existed anyway. I was teaching at a summer camp recently and the kids were amazed that copyrights on things used to expire.

Re:Copyrights

[Ikester8]

"I was teaching at a summer camp recently and the kids were amazed that copyrights on things used to expire."

Most. Boring. Camp. Ever.

Re:Copyrights

[Lehk228]

the GT/ GTO models probably mean something (i know jack shit about cars so i don't know what)

being made up is better than any existing word, however existing and descriptive is still weaker than existing and irrelevant

Re:Copyrights

[The One and Only]

You can not copyright the rules to a game.

Sure you can, just like you can copyright any other passage of text. It's just that the copyright only applies to your specific text and not to the meaning of the text.

Re:Copyrights

[schon]

You have no clue. You are wrong, almost totally and completely.

The "vendor" has *ZERO* meaning with regards to trademarks. What matters is the *PHRASE*.

If a generic word can't be trademarked, then how is it that Parker Brothers managed to register the trademark?

If MS lost against Lindows, why is Lindows not called Lindows anymore?

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

What I think everyone's failed to realize here is that Hasbro missed a real opportunity with this.

Intead of bitchin' and moanin', they could have approched the guy and said, You know, we really like what you've done. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and we're flattered you took the time and energy to do this.

How about you include our logo and a link back to our site, so people can check out the "real deal"?

They would have had the Hasbro logo staring people in the face for hours at a time, instead of the seconds you get with any other web ad. And FOR FREE!

This whole thing is reminiscent of Hershey's not wanting their product associated with "little green aliens" and declining to work out a deal for ET. Reeses Pieces picked up the slack, and the rest is his-tor-y.

If Hasbro has any brains, they'll fire the lawyer, who was supposed to be looking out for their best interests, and didn't bother to mention this obvious move, figure out which "suit" was (ir)responsible enough to pull this shit, fire him or her, and fire the dickhead who hired them.

If it wren't so stupid, it would be funny.

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

However, RISK is not a generic term in the field of board games. And "Risk" can be easily shown to be confusingly similar to RISK that trademark protection would extend to it. The Windows case is diluted precisely because there are things like "X Windows" that already existed.

If the rules have a copyright notice on it, that's exactly what it is doing - copyrighting the text of the rules. There's nothing wrong with that. It isn't claiming copyright protection over any expression of rules with the same effect, only their own words.

Re:Copyrights

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

Actually it is the same. Taking notes on some work and then selling it is changing the original work and passing the notes off as your own. Likewise, modifying the rules of a board game and releasing the modified version is passing the new game off as your own work. In both cases the source material is changed and the originator of the material is not compensated for the derivative work.

Re:Copyrights

[Pxtl]

Risk does not rule. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that all of the classic MB and Hasbro games suck. They're all poorly balanced, sluggish, and take days to complete. Did anyone ever finish a game of Monopoly? Hell, did anybody ever get much further than the "buy up all the empty properties" phase? Especially since many of these games were elimination games - the winners are decided in the first hour or two of play, and the remaining players get to sit and watch.

Risk is pretty much just all about getting the cards, and then a tedious grind of actually ploughing troops into the other players. Tons of slow administration, and really not too much fun.

Still, some new popular games are equally tedious (Twilight Imperium comes to mind - Master of Orion without a computer to handle all the calculations for you) but there are so many new modern games that (a) don't take days to complete (b) are fun, and (c) don't base victory on elimination. Risk 2150, for example, makes Risk a little more tedious with extra rules, but also makes victory achievable - the game is much shorter, and doesn't base it on the lottery of the cards. Then there's all the laundry-list of "odd, historical non-violent European boardgames named after some odd little place" like Settlers of Catan, Carcasonne, and Tikal - they're all much more fun than the "classics".

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

It has nothing to do whether its generic in its field, but whether its generic, period. You can't all of a sudden claim proprietary rights to a word that has always been in the public commons.

Perhaps you should look at the examples Lindows put forth in Microsoft vs. Lindows. Most of them had NOTHING to do with computers - they predated computers. Like Window - an opening in a wall. Window washer. "Window into your mind." Caeement, single, double windows. WTF doe these have to do with a computer.

As the judge pointed out, you cannot take a generic term on its own and make it into a valid trademark. And once a term is generic, it stays generic forever.

Risk was a generic term. It never meant specifically the game Risk until the game was made. And even then, it was not a valid trademark because the term was already generic for something known as "risk" - calculating odds.

If you don't like it, thats not my problem, but that's the way it is. The courts have already pronounced on it, Hasbro are jerks - they threw away a perfectly golden marketing opportunity - and even Microsoft had to walk away poorer rather than risk a definitive judgment - they didn't like the risks.

If you can show that a term was in general use before someone tries to trademark it, you've got a generic term, and they've got squat. Let them be a bit inventive next time - create a term, rather than try to appropriate one from the commons.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

Funny how they didn't go after all the other Risk clones, even though many of them use the same name, rules, etc. (see my journal for examples posted by other people).

Trademarks lapse if you don't efend them. They never had a valid on in any case, but in this case, its too late - that horse is no longer in the barn.

They won't sue. An analysis of their letter made it pretty obvious they don't have a case, and were hoping for the usual "ohoh - a lawyer said it so it must be true". Remember, half of all lawyers lose. And most of them absolutely hate going to court. Its not profitable, compared to working ut a settlement, and there's always the risk of losing. (there - another use of the term risk - its generic).

Next question - is Hasbro a de facto monopolist in the board game segment? How much of the market do they control through their various brands, such as Parker Brothers and Milton-Bradley? When you go to WallyWorld or Toys-R-Crap, that's pretty much all you see,

Next time I go into a store, I'm going to check out the shelves. If they've got 80% or more, they're a de facto monopoly. The rules are very much different in such cases, when it comes to anti-competitive behaviour.

Re:Copyrights

[MntlChaos]

I'll second the AC that replied to the post above this.

WHOOOSH!

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

So Apple, the various cat names for Mac OSX (Panther, Jaguar, Tiger), Safari, Photoshop, Adobe, Lotus, Dell, Gateway ... those are all invalid trademarks? Right.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

Yep. Apple (the computer co) and Apple (the music co) were very careful about avoiding a showdown in court when push came to shove. The risk was the same as in Windows vs Lindows - complete invalidation of the term.

Dell is named after its founder - specifically allowed under corporate law.

If you look at all the others, you'll see that they only claim the marks in relation to their particular product or service. They know that they can't claim a global ownership of a generic term. Hence both sides blinking in the Apple vs Apple conflict.

As for OSX Tiger, they ARE being sued.

Photoshop - as a 1-word term - didn't exist until Adobe created it.

IOW: Those who don't know history are doomed to get bitten by it.

Re:Copyrights

[SirSlud]

Thats what we folks like to call a 'nerd cliff'; you stood at the very edge of something worth commenting on, and leaped off on your own.

Not that your points arn't valid, simply that you're looking for another thread.

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

Right, the mark in relation to their particular product or service. So a game called RISK is a particular product or service, in the field of games. They aren't claiming "global ownership of a generic term", they are only claiming it in relation to a game.

Sure, Dell is named after its founder. Doesn't help if someone else has the trademark, or the term has become generic. It isn't generic, though, even though it is a "real word". Nor could someone by the name of MacDonald start a restaurant called MacDonald's.

If Ford had allowed the name "Ford" to become generic for "car" (in the same way "Coke" has become generic for "soft drink" in parts of the South), they'd have lost the trademark, name of the founder or not.

And yes, Apple was being sued over Tiger. Not because it isn't a made-up word, though, but because someone else used the word in THEIR trademark, in a related field, as well. Tiger Direct lost, by the way. You'd have had a better argument by pointing out that Apple isn't actually claiming a trademark over Tiger!

Note that there are a lot of cars with trademarked animal names, though. I notice that Apple wasn't sued by Jaguar Cars.

I bet you could find at least one instance of "John's Photoshop" before the program was thus named. And what about Adobe?

You're badly misusing the term "generic" to mean "not a made-up word", and note that even a made up word can become generic, e.g. linoleum, aspirin.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

Nor could someone by the name of MacDonald start a restaurant called MacDonald's.

Wrong. Its been done. What they CAN'T do is make their promotional material, logos, etc., copy the look and feel of the McDonalds Golden Arches Co.

If you check, you'll see that most companies aren't called what you think they are. There's no such thinng as "McDonalds". It's "McDonalds Corporation". If your name is Joe McDonald, there is nothing to keep you from opening up a restaurant serving hamburgers called "Joe McDonald's Corporation", and putting up signs saying "McDonalds", provided they're not in the same color, background,and arrangement as the Big Mac people.

Hell, one guy opened a McDeli's right across the street from a McDonalds (literrally - if you jaywalked, the entrances were face-to-face) from McDonalds, look-alike buildings, etc, and McDonalds had to just sit there and take it up the you-know-what for a decade.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

ou're badly misusing the term "generic" to mean "not a made-up word", and note that even a made up word can become generic, e.g. linoleum, aspirin.

a implies b does not mean b implies a.

Of course made-up words can become generic. Never said otherwise - I actually have been arguing FOR that very point, in case you missed it.

The term "Risk" is generic - and if you look VERY carefully, they hoe that people won't notice their only claim is to the word "RISK" - all caps. All their literature, etc., even the legal beagle's letter, uses only the capitalized version.

Now what IS interesting is seeing if they move quickly to make a land grab for "OpenRisk" or "OpenRISK" or "openRISK" or variants thereof, now that I've broached the subject of sticking up a few game servers down the road using that name.

BTW - I still don't have the lawyer's email addy, but when I get it, I WILL post what I write, and their response. That should get at least a +1 Informative with you, instead of us just arguing back and forth :-)

So, what do you think about a game server where you can play OpenRISK with people aroud the world? And, of course, game mods, skins, etc. Do you have any particular features you'd like to see?

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

McDeli's, fine. McDonald's or MacDonald's, no. Show me a restaurant, other than the one or two I've heard of that were using the name BEFORE The Fine Hamburger Company, that is called "MacDonald's" or "McDonald's". You'd also have a problem if you put up "Two Golden Arches" that were confusingly similar to TFHC. You don't have to exactly match the trademarked usage, it just has to be confusingly similar.

McDonald's does claim "McDonald's" as a trademark, btw, just as they claim a whole bunch of other things as trademarks.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

McDonald's" as a trademark, btw,

only in connection with their business - too many others had prior claims dating back to along long ago,

They may not have any trademark protection because they failed to protect it when the game clones came out http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/123559

But hopefully we'll find out just how much they're willing to push things sometime next year http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/123696 Why debate it when we can actually test it?

Constructive input welcome, of course :-)

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

WHAT is the term "Risk" or "RISK" generic for, in the field of games? "Dice" or "Cards" would be a generic name. You couldn't sell a board game called "DIce" and expect to be able to protect that as a trademark. When someone says "Let's play RISK", does it ever mean something other than "Let's play that game with markers and cards on a board of a map of the world, as published by Hasbro"? Does it mean, say, "Let's play a game where we might get killed" or "Let's play one of many insurance actuarial games"? If not, then it is NOT A GENERIC TERM. "Generic" is when someone refers to tissue paper as "Kleenex", or refers to any copying machine as a "Xerox machine", or any vacuum cleaner as a "Hoover", or worse, starts to use it as a verb. I wouldn't be surprised to see Google lose their trademark protection, if people continue to refer to doing any Internet search as "googling for it", regardless of which search site they're actually using. They'll lose it just like Aspirin and Linoleum did. And that's why Hasbro writes letter like that, because if they don't, they can lose their trademark as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyer ignores you. You don't have standing to demand of him any explanation of his letter to someone else.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

As the judge pointed out in Microsoft vs Lindows, it doesn't have to be generic in that field. It just has to be a generic word, as opposed to a "coined" word. You can read up on his comments or you can keep arguing the same stupidity.

As I pointed out, they probably have already lost it when they didn't defend against any of the numerous Risk clones over the years. As you point out - defend it or lose it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyer ignores you. You don't have standing to demand of him any explanation of his letter to someone else.

Geez - all that huffing and puffing and you obviously didn't even read the frigging letter! What a waste of time.

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

What in that letter implies that he'd bother giving you the time of day?

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

So show me a restaurant called "McDonald's". What does "only in connection with their business" mean? What else would it be used in connection with?

They don't have to shut down 100% of all clones - they have to actively protect it. As they find out about them, they send letters. As they sent a letter in this case. So obviously, they are still protecting it. Where they lose is when the public starts to call any board game played on a world map "Risk".

BTW, you keep bringing up the Lindows v Microsoft case, and it doesn't support what you're saying, at all. Microsoft probably would have lost that case, true, but the facts in that case are quite different from the use of RISK as a trademarked name for a game.

Also, you characterized it as Microsoft rolling over and paying them $20 million - but Microsoft was winning in most of Europe, so it could easily be seen as Lindows rolling over. They did change their name, after all. $20 million is chump change to Microsoft, they easily saved that much by avoiding further litigation worldwide, and the loss of the trademark in the United States would have been embarrassing. That might even be a good business model - start releasing products called "Free Windows" or similar, then get Microsoft to pay you a couple million to stop.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

Whooosh!

If you've been here long enough, you know what that means - you've missed the obvious.

How that's possible in this case, when I made it quite plain that it was obvious from your response that you either didn't read the letter, or didn't grok it, is beyond me. I am astounded. Flabbergasted (well, actualy, I'm laughing my pants off :-)

The possibilities that come to mind are either:

1. you need to have your hand held every step of the way in putting 2 and 2 together, in which case why would any bother giving credence to your opinions;
2. you don't understand the significance of what you read, in which case, again, why would anyone bother to credit your opinions when you miss the obvious;
3. you STILL haven't read the lawyers' letter, in which case, as I said before, why should anyone bother listening to someone who can't be bothered to take a half-minute to read a letter?

Any one of these (or all three in combination) really discredits any argument you may try to advance. Read the lawyers' letter. And please, don't say you have if you haven't. While you're at it, you might want to advance an argument as to why a lawyer (or better yet, the company CEO) would ignore a query about their legal stand from someone who's prepared to act on their silence, and use it (their silence) as evidence that they are NOT willing to defend their word mark. They opened this can of worms, not me.

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

You said earlier "so I can send them a notice demanding exactly what elements they claim protection for".

If you send them a letter saying "Hi, I'm running a server, I'm calling it "Open Risk", so nyah nyah", you will most definitely get a response. If you do what you said: "Sir, I demand that you tell me what you meant in that letter you sent that I heard about on Slashdot", it probably won't make it past his secretary.

So Whoooosh all you want to, you still haven't answered my question. What in that letter makes you think they'd respond to you if you demand to know what precisely they claim protection on when they say they have rights to "the RISK? game, including the rules" and "trademark rights to the RISK? name", or to be more specific about "elements of Hasbro's RISK? game and rules as well as its trademark" that his game is infringing on, or why exactly they think "unauthorized use of the RISK? game constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. ? 501" and "unauthorized use of the RISK? name also violates the federal trademark laws ... creating a likelihood of confusion ... likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the RISK? game and trademark ... in violation of 15 U.S.C. ? 1125(c) and numerous state anti-dilution laws"?

Just answer the question. While you're at it, I'm still waiting for an example of a restaurant named "McDonald's" that isn't a Fine Hamburger Establishment sporting Golden Arches.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

I'm still waiting for any sign you even read the god-damn letter! If you have, read it again, because you've missed a point that really reflects badly on your whole ability to argue any issue with any sort of credibility.

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

The problem with "Raisin Bran" as a trademark all by itself is that it is too descriptive. The problem with Windows as a trademark is that it was in use as a generic term (NOT the same thing as "not a made-up word", as you seem to keep trying to use it) for a method of graphical interfaces. Microsoft failed to get it registered initially, in fact. The Lindows case would probably have been lost for Microsoft because of the judge's ruling that the jury could consider whether the term was generic AT THE TIME - Microsoft was arguing that it didn't matter if it used to be generic, it isn't any longer. THAT"S where you get the phrase you keep repeating, that "once it's generic, it stays generic". NOT because "windows" was an ordinary word that referred to things you put in walls so you can look outside, but because it was being used IN COMPUTERS. The judge never said that it didn't matter in what field the term was being used as a trademark. In fact, he referred specifically to its usage in graphical user interfaces of the time (and, in fact, that Microsoft referred to it as a "window manager"). Why would he do that, you think, if all he had to say was "oh, it is an ordinary english word, so it can't be a valid trademark, case dismissed!"? Remember, he DENIED Lindows request for summary judgment, it was going to go to a jury trial. The ruling that you keep trumpeting was merely in regards to instructions to the jury.

If I wanted to make a game, based on the Hasbro game "Headache", but call it "Aspirin", I'll bet I could get a trademark for that, despite "aspirin" being generic for acetylsalicylic acid. As long as I don't copy graphical elements, write the rules in my own word, and never call it "Headache", I'd be safe from Hasbro (they could have patented aspects of it, but the game has been around long enough that any patents would have expired by now). If I wrote a computer program to run an automated milling machine and called it "Tin Snips", I could trademark that (assuming no one else has it), but if I tried to sell tools under the brand name "Tin Snips", I'd be spectacularly unsuccessful in attempting to sue someone for having "Tin Snips" on their packaging.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

The interpretation of a legal argument sometimes comes down to the meaning of a single word. You either haven't read the lawyer's letter, or your previous posts demonstrate an uncanny ability to miss the obvious.

So, now we go from "Whoosh" over your head ... to "Whoosh Whoosh! Is this thing on?"

Read the lawyer's letter. Review your previous comments about it. You really did miss the obvious. And if you can miss the obvious in such a short letter, how is anyone to credit you with being adroit in more complicated situations?

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

I just COPIED AND PASTED pieces of the damned letter, how much MORE OBVIOUS CAN I GET? I even ended up pasting the non-ASCII characters from the letter, and didn't preview to catch it (Slashdot converted them to the ? after RISK).

You've got a lot of nerve talking about credibility. You make blatantly wrong statements (e.g. quoting the US Copyright website regarding COPYRIGHT on games, in response to a statement on TRADEMARK, then claiming that the Copyright Office also administers trademarks). You claim things that the judge didn't say (that generic terms can't be used as trademarks REGARDLESS OF FIELD), you don't seem to understand that the term "generic" does not mean "not made up".

So show me this magical "point that really reflects badly" on my credibility. Go on, I double dog dare you. Is it the part where she (I'm assuming "Carin" is female) signs the letter "Sincerely"? Hint, lawyers write that all the time, it doesn't mean they're sincere. Oh, wait, I see it now. The part that says "and please tell all your friends that if they have any legal questions as to what constitutes trademark and/or copyright infringement, please have them write to us and we'll get back to them right away." How stupid of me, I should have seen that in my first reading.

Or, no, I got it now, the part that says "Please confirm to me in writing as soon as possible, or have tomhudson on Slashdot follow up with questions. This letter does not purport to be a complete statement of the facts or the law, but we're happy to provide free legal advice as to how closely you can copy our games and not lose a lawsuit".

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

Oh, I get it. You're referring to my originally saying "he". You're right, I didn't pay attention to the lawyer's name, so didn't say "she". Wow, you got me. You've proved your point. You, by virtue of the fact you looked at the LAWYER'S NAME, obviously know everything about copyright and trademark law. Hell, you could write a book about it now that you know the lawyer's name. Silly me, I was looking at the content of the letter.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

Hey, finally clued in.

You kept calling the lawyer "he". I pointed out the sentence where you made the mistake, and you just kept right on.

Geez, took you long enough.

Now you get a colouring book so you can colour between the lines.

Seriously, how credible would you look, say, addressing a woman as "Dear Sir"? That you went on and on, after I went out of my way to quote the exact sentence you screwed up in, and repeated the mistake, was quite amusing.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

Yep, got you fair and square.

Kept pointing you back to the source document. Quoted where you made your mistake. Kept on. How many times did you have to read it before you finally clued in, honestly?

Now, think of how many times you should read the judge's words in the Windows vs Lindows case.

Or sit in a courtroom for a few months and pick up how, while the words may be the same, they don't have the same meaning ... Microsoft has never allowed a trademark case on Windows to go to judgment in the States. There's a reason why. Now Lindows was quite happy to take the money and change their name. For $20,000,000, wouldn't you change your name? They had made their point, gotten a load of swag, and a ton of free publicity to boot. Obviously it works for them.

Silly me, I was looking at the content of the letter.

The sig is the most important part of the content. Without a signature, the letter has zero legal value. Even you know that.

You can see how nobody can resist bait like that, especially yesterday, Troll Tuesday [tt] (gotta keep an eye on the calendar :-)

Well, its been fun, and you're certainly welcome to play along next week. You do have talent, and slashdot certainly needs a swift kick in the butt to help avoid the echo chamber effect (someone has to play devils' advocate - and besides, OpenRisk isn't a bad idea.

I was thinking of doing it a while ago and offering it to Hasbro, because I really like the game, but if they can screw up a marketing opportunity like they had with risk on Google, they can screw up anything, and are not to be trusted without a long, hard look, and I don't feel like squinting that long.

So, are you in, or out?

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

You quoted my statement once. BFD. How many times did I read it? Once, then I read it 2 more times because you seemed so damned sure there was something actually relevant. You know, to answering my question. Which you still haven't answered, you know, why the lawyer would bother to give you the time of day, whether that lawyer is a he or a she.

Let's see, who referenced the lawyer as a "he" first. Could it be... why yes, it could be:

The lawyer was talking out of his ass.

Notice how he doesn't specify any specific legal steps they'll take.

Now the layer covers his lame ass

Now, as you point out, he wrote "Risk the Game".

he avoided saying that there ware any specific infringments

You even pasted in the lawyer's name just before you called "him" a smarmy bastard.

So if you didn't even check to see if YOU had referred to the lawyer as a "he", I don't see why you think you have the wits to comprehend even a 3-page order. Clue: you put up a server with a game, and call it "RISK", or "Risk", or even "Tom Hudson's Risk", and then let Hasbro know about it, you'll be taking it down as soon as you get the advice of a competent attorney. Either that, or you're going to be out quite a bit of money. You simply have no idea whatsoever about how trademark actually works.

An e-mail signature isn't legally binding at all. Even you should know that.

Re:Copyrights

[tomhudson]

If you read the letter, it was delivered as well as emailed :-)

I'll be putting up a game server in 2-3 months, and yes, it will be using the term "Risk". And I fully expect to get a takedown notice. That's where the fun begins.

As I pointed out before, they have aleady lost any word mark protection from failing to act on the very blatant copies that have been around for ages. Use it or lose it. They've lost it. Even you agreed that a mark that isn't vigorously defended is forfeited. It happened to thermos, escalator, linoleum - and these weren't generic terms - they were coined. They still lost their word mark protection from not being vigorously defended.

You don't have the option, as the owner of a word mark, to pick and shoose which cases of infringement you go after. You can't voluntarily turn a blind eye to some and act on others. If you wish to "turn a blind eye", what you have to do is grant limited approval. This preserves the word mark.

It doesn't have to be over the course of decades - a few years is enough. Look what happened to the term "linux" in Australia. http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/16/ 0537233 daria42 writes "Linus Torvalds' bid to have the word 'Linux' trademarked in Australia has failed, with the local intellectual property regulator sending his lawyer a vitriolic letter deriding efforts to provide evidence the trademark application was legitimate. In the letter, the regulator points out that information from Wikipedia and Google used by the lawyer to support the trademark application is simply not effective in making the case for a trademark to be registered." I had previously said that trying to get protection for "linux" in Oz was going to fail, and that the lawyer in the case was a complete idiot. Everyone said I was wrong. The regulator obviously agreed with my take on it. Remember, as I said, words have a different meaning in courtrooms.

For example - generic. In the "real world", it means a plain-jane no-name brand. Not so in a court hearing about trademarks. There it means any word that was in existence prior to the device or thing being created.

An analogy would be between real property and ordinary property. In the "real world", real property is anything you can touch - that's read - as opposed to imaginary, fictitious, or virtual. In the courtroom, real property refers only to land and the buildings and structures thereon. Nothing else qualifies as real property. Not the car sitting in the driveway, not the dog digging up the roses, not the tv in the living room (unless its built into the wall or permanently bolted down, or the place where it is currently located was designed specifically to hold that tv - the rules get a bit weird when you look at the details). Hence the term real estate.

I'm not worried. I can show they've been ignoring other public "infringing" uses over a sufficient period of time. Also, I can show that risk is a generic term that was in use well before the board game, that it also describes the chances or odds of a certain action, and that the name "risk" is descriptive of the gameplay, not suggestive as required.

The same would apply to a lot of their other titles, such as Concentration and Monopoly, which actually describe a central feature of gameplay.

This is why I fully expect them to answer when I write to know what specific features they are making claims to. Because if they don't, after being informed of exactly what's going on, the courts will take that into consideration, and they know it. Remember, either defend it or lose it. Refusing to even answer in such a case IS a refusal to defend it. So, yes, perhaps now you can see why they WILL answer. They have no other option, except to ignore me and hope I go away. They started this by pissing off a loyal customer, and I'm not the only one they pissed off. Slashdotters like their risk games.

If they wer

Re:Copyrights

[tricorn]

Let's take a poll of the general populace. What percentage, when they're asked about a game called RISK, will say "oh, that's a type of game they play on that there Internet thingy", and how many will say "Oh, that's a board game, I forget who makes it. What, a version on the Internet? Never heard of it!" A few hundred or even a few thousand or even tens of thousands of people does not make a word generic.

I sure hope you talk to a lawyer BEFORE you start mooning Hasbro. He (or she) will set you straight on what "generic" means in trademark law, since you still don't get it. And, unless you tell them you've actually released a version of "OpenRisk", I don't expect them to bother replying to you, and no, their non-reply would not be evidence in your favor. You really need to go talk to a lawyer, you have some very foolish notions.

You might, just possibly, be able to get away with calling your version of the game "Risky Business".

I see no reason for a Web-app version of a RISK-like game. There are enough such games already in existence (most being smart and not calling them "Risk"). I prefer Diplomacy, anyway.

So don't use the name RISK?

[mridley]

I never saw the original game web site, so I'm not sure exactly what it looked like. But as long as you don't use the name RISK and you don't copy, word for word, their rules out of the physical cardboard box that the game comes in (ie. don't infringe their copyright), then I don't see why you couldn't put this back online.

After all, what was that game - Tradewars? - that was exactly like RISK but I don't think anyone ever made an issue out of it.

-m

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[brxndxn]

Agreed.. Just change the name to "Nerdworld Takeover" and everyone will be happy. Except, Hasbro won't be happy because they don't own the copyright for every possible variation of Risk and the way it can be played.

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[yeremein]

The Hasbro bark letter seems to complain that "unauthorized use of [elements of R*SK] is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the R*SK game" (can't be too careful here). It seems to me that Hasbro would like to imply that they own the m*n*p*ly (is that a Hasbro trademark too?) on all R*SK-like games, but all that's legally enforceable is the R*SK name and actual written rules. I agree that a R*SK-like strategy game that didn't actually use the name "R*SK" or copy its rule book verbatim (and I don't know whether the offending game did that) should be legally okay. After all, there haven't been any lawsuits in the video game industry, where every single FPS that ever existed is exactly the same as every other one other than the name...

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[DrunkenTerror]

Global War, a BBS door game.

It's still around. You can download it here. You'll need a BBS to run it any way other than hotseat multiplayer. Or you could log onto any one of hundreds of BBSs that could be running it.

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[hackstraw]

BTW, yes, Hasbro owns Monopoly as well.

But this brings up the eternal question. When do things like this loose copyright and/or trademark?

We have checkers, chess, card games like poker, hearts, spades, bunches of solitaire games. In fact, Hasbro sells checkers as well.

How long do we have to pay "da man" to play games? I can't find too much history about RISK right now, but it appears to have been a French game that had its rules slightly modified and was being sold by Hasbro since 1959. That will be 50 years in a couple. Again, I don't know the details, but Monopoly was originally made by some "regular guy" (or gal) and then bought and licensed by Hasbro ever since.

So, how long do we have to pay somebody for the right to have old inferior versions?

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[Nogami_Saeko]

Seems a shame that some middle-manager ran to the lawyers and got them to dash-off this letter (in the event that the lawyers weren't just operating on auto-pilot). I mean, when was the last time that anyone here actually bought a RISK board game? Hell, I don't even remember the rules.

If they had been smart (and yes, I know that's a stretch for "suits"), they would've just asked him to link some advertising back to the Hasbro site, and maybe said "ya, it's a violation, but we'll let you run it for another six months because you're helping to promote our product with the time and effort you put into it - after that, we'd ask you to please take it down".

Results? Free advertising on Slashdot (and others), warm feelings for the company, and possibly some extra board games sold before xmas...

Too bad...

N.

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[PJ Brunet]

I think that you are talking about the multiplayer "Global Wars" which was a door game for BBS's back in the day. Probably they adopted the name from the movie "War Games" which was one of the first movies to have a kid dialing up with a modem to play games... in one scene the computer says something like, "Would you like to play Global Thermonuclear War?" Tradewars was like Yankee Trader, you basically used up all your turns to explore space, trade stuff, make money, buy spaceships, etc.

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[DrSkwid]

> After all, there haven't been any lawsuits in the video game industry, where every single FPS that ever existed is exactly the same as every other one other than the name...

But there have been lawsuits

Crazy Taxi v. Simpsons Road Rage

http://www.out-law.com/page-4155

There's even a Law/Business workshop based on it

http://www.cmpevents.com/GD06/a.asp?option=C&V=11& SessID=1555

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[yeremein]

But there have been lawsuits

I hadn't heard about that one, but I guess I shouldn't have been so naive.

For what it's worth, though, that's a "patent" "infringement" case, and any patent over R!$K would have expired decades ago, so Ha$bro wouldn't have been able to use it against gmrisk.

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[FLEB]

How long do we have to pay "da man" to play games?

Until a.) The copyright/patent expires. b.) You think of and implement a unique game idea.

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[mridley]

Ah yes, thanks, Global War is what I was thinking of. I knew Tradewars was probably wrong and right after I submitted my comment I remembered that Tradewars was that space commerce game.

So yeah, Global War. Haven't played that game since, well, BBS days. I was always more of a fan of Baron Realms Elite though...gosh..that brings back memories.

-m

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[DrunkenTerror]

*ahem* Check my latest journal entry. ;)

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[petermgreen]

hmm your download link seems to be broken

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[tricorn]

Trademark (the only thing of relevance here, unless he was copying the words of the rules of the game, instead of using his own words to express the rules) lasts forever, as long as it continues to be used and defended.

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[tricorn]

Risk is still available, and is still popular. There's even a PlayStation version. I haven't checked to see if you have to play it all in one sitting, or if you can save the current board position, or if the game is saved on the server so it can be played among various people over a multiple-day period.

There was a version of RISK on PLATO in the 80's. Allowed 2-7 players per game, multiple games, settable time period. Due to concerns over trademark, it was renamed to "backstab".

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[DrunkenTerror]

Wow! Sorry, John Dailey! I didn't mean to slashdot you! I shoulda have used Coral Cache but it slipped my mind. Man, I feel bad now. :(

Re:So don't use the name RISK?

[tricorn]

Replying to myself - I was thinking of Diplomacy, not RISK, on PLATO. NOW you know why we called it "backstab", which doesn't make much sense for Risk.

Litigious bastards

[plams]

Hasbro has a long history of suing amateurs who make games based on their games. I think they own a lot of classic arcade games too (e.g. from acquiring atari), so when someone makes, say, a Missile Command clone they also issue legal threats. Makes my inner baby cry.

Re:Litigious bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, they tried a long time ago to stop a bunch of us that were publishing alternative rules to Risk. I.E. you hat to own risk and then add in our rules that were 100% origional to enhance the game. They sent letters we flipped them the bird by publishing all of the rules and giving out thousands upon thousands of copies at College campuses.

today I can find many of our add-on rules modified slightly and on the internet (mutually assured destruction Risk with nukes, and Alien attack Risk with having the green be aliens that are trying to take over the world... required 2 sets of risk pieces to give the aliens overwhelming forces, and the only way to win was to contain the alien beachhead from the very beginning.)

Their lawyers told me and the around 15 scattered friends around the globe that we were not to distribute the rules and we were to destroy them. WE did the opposite, instead of selling the 5 photocopied sheets for $0.50US we gave them to everyone everywhere.

The only answer is to do what they do not expect and go against their demands, that is the only way to deal with the scum that are lawyers.

Re:Litigious bastards

[FLEB]

Did anything happen? I don't see what legal leg they'd have to stand on, as long as it was clear that yours wasn't a Hasbro or Risk branded addon.

Obligatory Seinfeld Quote

[dancingmad]

One thing this reminded me of is how cool Risk is. My office is now in its 3rd round... Africa will be mine!

Jerry: "A game of world domination played by two people who can barely run their own lives!"

I kid, I kid!

A copyright? so what?

[frovingslosh]

I don't see the issue here. What could be copyrighted? The name (lets ignore that you can't copyright a name!)? Just change the name, call it World Domination, or Bush's Dream or something else. That will get past the trademark issue, which is a bigger problem than copyright. Obviously don't copy the printed rules for Risk, that might be a copyright infringement. He clearly isn't using the Risk copyrighted map. And it certainly isn't a patent issue, the game has well past any patent age (in fact, if it's been patented then the fact that the patent has expired goes a long way to saying that the game has validly passed into public domain, which is the public's right for granting a patent).

Re:A copyright? so what?

[BodhiCat]

Just change the name, call it World Domination, or Bush's Dream or something else.

That makes me wonder, do you think Bush every played Risk as a child? If he did don't you think he would have learned not to go into the Middle East without enough divisions? If he had played he probably would have been one of those hot headed players who constantly attacks every country around him without building up his forces or making allies and would have been out early in the game.

Idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

asks people to submit ideas for other games using google maps that will not have such legal wrangles

Um... turn the Google Maps upside-down and call it "Ksir"?

"The game of conquest in weird superman's world!"

Re:Idea!

[Jonny_eh]

You mean Bizarro Superman. I've never seen so many comments on an article with Seinfeld references!

Re:Idea!

[icydog]

I think a more appropriate name would be "Aussie Risk."

Re:Idea!

[cyrax256]

Richard Stallman, is that you?

Great idea!

[StringBlade]

We'll call it "Imperil" and it'll take place on Pangea with toops of dinosaurs and other pre-historic species of animals trying to take over the world before it breaks apart.

Re:Great idea!

[tomhudson]

You can use the Risk name and rules - they are specifically not copyrightable. The lawyer was talking out of his ass.

Here's what the copyright office has to say about it: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Hasbro's lawyers need to learn to respect copyright law.

BTW: I've already emailed the dude in the article.

If you read the email Hasbro sent him, it has a nice disclaimer in it - and nowhere do they actually state that he is violating any law. The fuckers!

Re:Great idea!

[kimvette]

Based on what I see, judges need to start respecting copyright law as well - especially the Fair Use clause.

Re:Great idea!

[tomhudson]

It's not even a question of "fair use".

The law doesn't provide protection, either under copyright or under trademark, for generic words. For example, Windows is not a trademark of Microsoft. They learned that lesson the hard way, and it cost them $20 million to avoid hearing a judge say that (google Microsoft Lindows)

Trademark protection only is valid for non-generic, coined terms, and even then it can be lost by neglect, or adoption by the public as a generic (Escalator is a good example). But you can NOT trademark a term such as "Raisin Bran" and expect to win in court. Kelloggs can't sue Post, because only the terms "Kelloggs Raisin Bran" or "Post Raisin Bran" are protected, not "Raisin Bran" by itself.

So you can create a game called "kimvette RISK" and there's nothing they can do except bluster and threaten.

Here's the actual letter they wrote:

Dear Mr. Hazen:

We are counsel for Hasbro, Inc. (.Hasbro.), the owner of the copyrights and trademarks for the famous RISK� game. We write concerning the online .Risk. game (the .Game.) that you have made available for use in conjunction with Google maps at your website www.ashotoforangejuice.com/gmrisk.html. Your Game appears to copy elements of Hasbro.s RISK� game and rules as well as its trademark. The RISK� game, including the rules, is the copyrighted property of Hasbro.

Translation: If this sneaks by your bullshit detector, I p0wn you. Hopefully, you won't check to see exactly what the law says ...

Of course, the law says otherwise - they do NOT "own" the rules The rules to the game of Risk are not protected by copyright:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

... So much for that. Let's continue

Hasbro also owns the trademark rights to the RISK� name.

They may have a piece of paper from the trademark office saying that, but its unenforceable. You can no more trademark the work "Risk" in connection with a game than you can trademark "Windows" in connection with computers. Microsoft found that out, and it cost the $20 Million to get Lindows to walk away from Microsoft's own lawsuit. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Trademark is only enforceable on terms that are not generic - in other words, a word YOU make up, not one you find in a dictionary.

Your unauthorized use of the RISK� game constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. � 501. Your unauthorized use of the RISK� name also violates the federal trademark laws, including 15 U.S.C. �� 1114(1) and 1125(a), by creating a likelihood of confusion with respect to Hasbro.s authorization or sponsorship of or association with your commercial activities. Even if confusion were not likely, your unauthorized use of these elements is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the RISK� game and trademark and hamper their ability to function as source-identifying marks in violation of 15 U.S.C. � 1125(c) and numerous state anti-dilution laws.

Translation: I'm throwing a whole bunch of legal shit against the wall, in the hope that some will stic

Re:Great idea!

[birder]

And this is why people despise lawyers. They purposefully lie and make threats against people freely and in most cases get their way. If a non-lawyer tried this, they would get sued...by a lawyer.

Re:Great idea!

[tomhudson]

Actually, non-lawyers are also free to do the same - there's an exemption in the law that states that threats of legal action are not considered extortion.

er....troops

[StringBlade]

Damn dyslexia my.

Re:er....troops

[Geno Z Heinlein]

Damn dyslexia my.

You might want to have the doctor run some tests for Yoda-itis, too.

FreeRisk? Google Maps? Why not the Blue Marble?

[Lord Satri]

Couldn't there be a way to make a FreeRisk.org in the same way there is a FreeCiv.org? And thus, bypass legal limitations?

Civ IV can even use NASA Blue Marble tiles, I don't see why a FreeRisk or not-so-free Risk couldn't make use of NASA's Blue Marble data. It would be more beautiful than a Google Map basemap. Am I wrong?

Clearly, this is another example where IP impeds innovation...

Re:FreeRisk? Google Maps? Why not the Blue Marble?

[Rydia]

Yes, without this great evil, we would have an avalanche of innovative "taking someone else's idea and product and sticking it on the internet" innovation! I mean, it's not like IP law helps companies, inventors, and the economy (by making useful research/production profitable, by protecting ideas and by precluding problematic price wars with new products, respectively)!

But gosh darn it, we want this thing, and THE MAN is telling us that we can't have it unless we pay him money! That's unamerican!

Re:FreeRisk? Google Maps? Why not the Blue Marble?

[Lord Satri]

we would have an avalanche of innovative "taking someone else's idea and product and sticking it on the internet" innovation!

He he he... not exactly what I had in mind ;-)
But the thing is: IP really is a limitation because you are prohibited to try new mixes: in this example, mixing Internet, a game and a webmapping service/data. If there wasn't any Hasbro IP, in the end, the potential for innovation would be greater. In other words, I disagree with you :-)

Re:FreeRisk? Google Maps? Why not the Blue Marble?

[lysergic.acid]

No, he's right; look at how IP laws rewarded BlackBerry for their innovation... oh wait.

Really, I don't see why monetary reward has to be the primary motivation behind everything. I mean, do you think Edison wouldn't have invented the lightbulb if there hadn't been IP laws in place back then? (I'm not sure if there were, but I highly doubt they would have made much of a difference either way) Likewise with Shakespeare's plays.

Re:FreeRisk? Google Maps? Why not the Blue Marble?

[agraupe]

In case you haven't noticed, RISK is hardly a new thing. I think Hasbro has had the past... I don't know, 50 years, to make money off this idea. I can see them being rightfully mad if someone distributed a similar board game and sold it in stores, but this situation is just excessive.

Re:FreeRisk? Google Maps? Why not the Blue Marble?

[Ragesoss]

FreeCiv.org doesn't so much bypass legal limitations... it's more like the Civilization IP owners just don't think it's worth alienating so many fans of a relatively small genre. A lot of FreeCiv (it's based on Civ 2, is it not) are still going to buy Civ 4, while older Civilization games aren't exactly bringing in the big bucks anymore.

RISK has a somewhat broader base, and still finds its way onto toy store shelves all over. Alhough I'm not sure how the Google Maps version could hurt them (it seems like it would remind people of the joys of risk and push sales rather than compete with the board game version).

Re:FreeRisk? Google Maps? Why not the Blue Marble?

[meringuoid]

I mean, do you think Edison wouldn't have invented the lightbulb if there hadn't been IP laws in place back then? (I'm not sure if there were, but I highly doubt they would have made much of a difference either way)

There were, and they did. Edison was sued by Joseph Swan, who had already invented the lightbulb, but AFAIK had not entered the American market, so Edison may have been unaware of this. The legal trouble was ended by a merger between the Edison and Swan companies, allowing money to be made on both sides of the Atlantic.

One more entry...

[MuckSavage]

...to my shit list. Thanks, Hasbro!

Trademark

[MicroBerto]

I bet the trademark infringement was by far the worst part of it. Maybe some sound legal advise can get this thing going again.

Anyway, how scary must it be to receive one of these letters? I can imagine losing my stool after some company writes me a letter like that

Re:Trademark

[networkBoy]

It is unnerving when you get one of those letters.
here's mine:
http://farmersreallysucks.com/cgi-bin/QAD_CMS.pl?p age=E1_First_Takedown.html
Anyway, my first reaction was "Oh Shit, Oh Shit, Oh Shit" then I took some time and realised that they were using baseless assertions, thus I got a little pissed. Finally I spent the next week looking up laws in US Title 15 and writing my rebuttal (the red text).
-nB

Re:Trademark

[Thing 1]

That was back in March. Has anything happened since then?

Re:Trademark

[tomhudson]

The do NOT own a valid trademark to the name "Risk" - only to "Hasbro Risk". You can't trademark an existing term, only terms you either created specifically for your product ("For example - "Triominoes" would stand on its own, because it was coined specifically for a game), or a generic term in use with a unique identifier, such as "Hasbro Risk"

Same thing with car companies - Pontiac didn't come up with the term "GTO" - they took it from the Ferarri GTO - but they were allowed to because "Pontiac GTO" is not the same, even though they both refer to cars.

Same thing with Raisin Bran. Kelloggs doesn't own the trademark to it - which is why you see "Post Rasin Bran" and "Kelloggs Raisin Bran". You can't claim trademark to a pre-existing term all by itself.

Look at the smackdown Microsoft got for trying to claim that "Windows", by itself, was their exclusive trademark. Cost them $20 million to find out that they didn't want to go there.

They have no more right to the term "RisK" by itself as a board game name than anyone else.

BTW - dig up a copy of Risk - I've got versions from 2003 and last yer. The 2003 one only mentions "Hasbro" and "Parker Brothers" as trademarks. This is a case of someone trying to expand their trademark pool. It's bogus.

On a side note, that they have now stipulated in a legal notice that "Hasbro Risk" isn't sufficient to differentiate their product in the consumers mind, that they need to be able to expand their title claims to all uses of "Risk" in conjunction with a board game, indicates that the term Risk in conjunction with territorial conquest board games has in fact become generic - a stipulation that I am quite happy to accept.

Re:Trademark

[neo]

On a side note, that they have now stipulated in a legal notice that "Hasbro Risk" isn't sufficient to differentiate their product in the consumers mind, that they need to be able to expand their title claims to all uses of "Risk" in conjunction with a board game, indicates that the term Risk in conjunction with territorial conquest board games has in fact become generic - a stipulation that I am quite happy to accept.

Did I ever imply otherwise?

Re:Trademark

[tomhudson]

"Did I ever imply otherwise?"

So how di I parse your previous statement?

But they do own the trademark Risk, and have every right to protect it.

They never owned a valid trademark to "Risk" as a standalone term, and as such they had no legal right to pull the sort of crap they've been pulling. And they know it. They are very much aware they're in the wrong - look at the lawyer's letter they sent. This is not a letter from someone confident they'll win in court - its a letter from someone hoping nobody will cotton on to at least one lie - their claim they own the copyright to the rules for playing the game, which is uncopyrightable.

Re:Trademark

[neo]

They never owned a valid trademark to "Risk" as a standalone term

To take that statement out of the context of the discussion would certainly make it look stupid, but since it was in a threaded conversation refering to Risk the Game being recreated using Google Maps API and refered to as Risk the Game on that person's page... I think I was more than clear enough. Either that or you don't bother looking for context.

BTW, they can Copyright their rules, by which I mean they way they wrote their rules and not the mechanics of the rules. The text that explains the mechanics of the game ARE Copyrightable and using them verbatum requires their authorization.

Re:Trademark

[tomhudson]

Definitely agree that they can copyright the individual words, format, etc., of the text of the rules. However, what they can't claim is that they own the copyright to the rules (the methods, gameplay, egc.) These are barred from copyright, and its the latter that the lawyer claims in the letter:

The RISK game, including the rules, is the copyrighted property of Hasbro.

Glad you agree. For those just tuning in, tere's quite a difference. For example, you write a book on driving, and you include your version of the rules of the road. I'm free to write my version of the rules of the road. As long as my rules are my words, and not just plagerizing yours, there's no problem. Neither of us owns copyright to the "rules of the road" - just to our descriptions of them.

And yet, the lawyer is claiming that the rules themselves, not their particular text of them, is covered by copyright.

Bizarre.

Now, as you point out, he wrote "Risk the Game". Well, Hasbro doesn't own a trademark to "Risk The Game". They own a (questionable) word mark to "Risk", but nothing to "Risk the Game". A search of tess2.uspto.gov for "risk AND the AND game" turns up 34 hits, none of them with "Risk the Game" as a wordmark.

Could be argued the same as the Hard Rock Cafe vs Original Hard Rock Cafe fubar. That's what makes lawyers rich.

Same as you can bring out a game called "Risk - Emporer". Just don't copy their text or artwork, or their stylized logo (which is what they're probably going to base it on - RISK in all-caps as opposed to Risk" And if he was using the term w/o capitalizing it, he wasn't infringing their trademark (Hint - look at the box, and read their rules. It's all-caps). RISK vs Risk vs risk. They have a word mark on RISK. Even if "RISK" is a word mark, "Risk" isn't. It's just a plain english word describing one element of the game "Risk - the Game".

Next - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ...

Re:Trademark

[networkBoy]

Yes, they monitor the site monthly and spider it.
I think they are basically waiting for me to exceed my legally protected rights and then pounce.
I will give them no such satisfaction.
-nB

Office?

[afabbro]

Um, what office, Taco? From what I saw in "Revolution O/S," you lie around on a couch...

Re:Office?

[ClamIAm]

Taco only works during LinuxWorld?

New Game To Play on Maps

[thpdg]

Monopoly.

Re:New Game To Play on Maps

[Gryle]

Microsoft is already hard at work on the live-action version of this.

Re:New Game To Play on Maps

[askegg]

How about a nice game of Thermo Global Nuclear War? Trouble is no one would play it as the only way of winning is not to play at all.

One has to wonder

[Fahrvergnuugen]

how has Lux escaped the wrath of hasbro?

Re:One has to wonder

[bsartist]

how has Lux escaped the wrath of hasbro?

Easy: They named their game "Lux", instead of using the trademarked name "Risk".

Re:CmdrTaco

[iCEBaLM]

Wow, new here, aren't you?

Copyright infringement?

[jollyroger1210]

Exactly, how close scan a game be without being infringement? http://www.windowsgames.co.uk/conquest.html Sorry to /. you, Sean.

Re:Copyright infringement?

[Lehk228]

anything but copying art (copyright) text of the rules(copyright) name (trademark) unless the rules of the game are patented. most often they are not however games such as magic the gathering actually do have patents on certain elements. in particular rotating a card ti indicate it has been used.

Variations

[plopez]

There is a variation called 'space 2440' or something like that which won a court case against Hasbro IIRC.

The map was different, the rules slightly as well. In addition to continents you had space and ocean colonies and more sophisticated pieces + rules. I found it more intersting than plain "Risk".

The name "Risk" itself is a generic term and as such, from what I understand of copyright law, cannot be copyrighted.

If he were to change the rules and call it 'Risk ' then he should be OK. Though Hasbro may win de facto if the game author doesn't have the resources or will to deal with lawyers.

Re:Variations

[hhawk]

With a trademark on the name using the name RISK, you might cause confusion... picking a totally different name gets' you out of the trademark issue (unless you call it something that would cause confusion (same/similar name and the same or similar product).

Thus Lexis and Lexsus (the database and the car company) DO NOT infringe because no one (reasonable) would think they are buying database access and ooopps find out they bought a car instead...

Re:Variations

[Rivak]

The variation you speak of is called 'Risk 2210 A.D.' made by Avalon Hill - which i think was once Hasbro but now is WotC? I worked for a startup a few years ago and we would play or continue games of risk on our lunchbreak in the conf room [Before i started working there they were playing HalfLife]. After a while it became routine and we looked for a new game. I found this online and it became a new hit at lunch -- before we knew it we had 3 sets and multiple games going [and had to laminate the cards]. It was a fun updated version of risk and much more interesting than any of us thought it would be before we bought it. you can read more about it: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/prod/risk2 210 or view pictures: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/imagegallery.php3?gam eid=1829 . fun game

Why not slashdot Hasbro?

[ncrypted]

Since there seems to be a large base of RISK fans in the Slashdot user-base, why don't we (as a group) try to get Hasbro to rescind their cease-and-desist, and maybe even sponsor the developer? It seems logical, right? The RISK IP has not been properly exploited in many years, save an OK PS1 game, and a lackluster PS2 outing. So why not encourage the owner of the IP in question to follow the grassroots lead and let homeboy fully develop his idea. I'm not saying they should SPONSOR him, although that would be a BRILLIANT step on their part, but to see where it goes. It may lead to greater interest in their board game, and might also lead to a new and more usable computer based version.

Just an idea.

Another game

[suso]

How about Where in the world is Carmen Sandiago? (Oh wait, that's copyrighted too)

Maybe a game like geographical 20 questions or something. You have a list of questions that narrow things down to a city.

Re:Another game

[mrchaotica]

A "Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego"-type Google Maps game was on Slashdot too.

Re:Another game

[tomhudson]

You can't copyright a game. Neither the name, nor the rules. Only the unique graphics and pieces.

Here's what the US Copyright office has to say about it - and they should know http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

he idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

So make your Risk game, your Camen Sandiego game, yur Sim City game - you can even use the same name. All these attempted smack-downs by lawyers who should know better make me sick. No wonder Shakespeare said "first we kill all the lawyers."

Re:Another game

[tylernt]

Ok, so you can't copyright a game. Cool. Only problem is, I bet RISK and Carmen Sandiego are patented.

Re:Another game

[bsartist]

So make your Risk game, your Camen Sandiego game, yur Sim City game - you can even use the same name.

Actually, "Risk" is a trademark, so he couldn't use that name. That's what got him in trouble - if he'd called it by any other name, and made sure to use his own description of the rules and mechanics, and his own artwork, he wouldn't be in trouble right now.

All these attempted smack-downs by lawyers who should know better make me sick.

Lawyers in general make me sick... but they didn't really have a choice in this instance. Trademark is a "defend it or lose it" proposition.

Re:Another game

[tomhudson]

Nope. Can't patent them either.

Re:Another game

[tomhudson]

http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/tech/windows.html

The Ninth Circuit's dismissal of the appeal means that Microsoft will not be able to argue at trial that consumers today recognize "Windows" to be a valid brand of operating system proprietary to Microsoft.

The litigation over the Windows trademark highlights a distinction between valid trademarks that become generic over time -- "escalator" for moving stairs is a frequently-cited example -- and words or phrases that were generic from the moment of their adoption by the purported trademark owner -- for example, "raisin bran" for breakfast cereal made from raisins and bran.

Risk was in the english a LONG time before Hasbro stuck it on a game. Anyone may use it in conjuction with a game, same as anyone may make a raisin bran cereal. and call it raisin bram. Kelloggs Raisin Bran vs Post Raisin Bran. Hasbro Risk vs Your Risk.

Trademarks are subject to dilution. Hasbro isn't in connection with a game company. That's their business name. Risk is - its not their name, its the name of a product, and as such, enjoys a LOT less protection. The Reg had an interesting article on how trademarks get diluted. In this case, Risk isn't even a trademarkable word - its a generic english term. Same with Windows. Remember how Microsoft backed down and paid Lindows $20 million to go away when the issue looked like it was going to go before a judge?

http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2002-all/isenberg- 2002-04-all.html

The current dispute, which Microsoft brought against Lindows.com, already has backfired against the software giant. In March, a federal district judge in Seattle denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction preventing Lindows.com from using its trademark, which Microsoft said violated its own rights to the Windows trademark. In doing so, the judge said the case raised "serious questions" about the validity of the Windows trademark.

Here's why: An elementary principle of trademark law says that generic terms cannot be protected. So, for example, no company could obtain trademark rights to the word "computer" to describe what we all know as a computer. As the judge in the ongoing Lindows case explained: "when a trademark's primary significance is to describe the type of product rather than the producer or source, the mark is a generic term." Generic terms can be used by anyone.

Here's another way of looking at it: If you can't think of any other term to describe a product, that term probably is generic. So, ask yourself this question: What term could the maker of a windows-based user interface (such as Lindows.com) use, other than "windows," to describe its product? If you can't think of one, then windows just might be generic.

As a result, if "Windows" is generic for graphical user interfaces, then Microsoft cannot prevent anyone else from using that mark -- or a similar mark, such as "Lindows."

Hasbro better not roll the dice on this one - the defenders dies are all 6s to their snake-eyes

Re:Another game

[MindStalker]

You forgot to the part about a non associated word. For example if I name my computer OS based on the concept of windowing, "windows" I don't nessesarly get trademark protection. But if I name it "lamp" I can receive a trademark that covers my exact market. Meaning I have trademark rights over any windowing OS but not nessesarly other applications. Hence if I named risk "World Map Game" I might have a hard time defending my trademark. On the other hand "Risk" is fairly an unobvious description.

Re:Another game

[tomhudson]

"Risk" by itself is a pre-existing word, and not eligible for trademark protection. Just as Windows is a pre-existing word and not eligible for trademark protectio.

You can't use a generic word as the sole basis of a trademark.

Lamp would fail.

Triominos succeeds because it was a word coined to describe a specific product, and didn't exist beforehand, so it does define a specific product on its own. Just as "Microsoft Windows" does. Just as "Hasbro Risk" does.

Remember, Microsoft got the paperwork for "WIndows" as a trademark, then had to walk away, after coughing up $20 million, when they sued Lindows, becaue "Windows" by itself isn't a valid trademark.

The criteria you should be looking at isn't obviousness, or even relevancy to your field - its whether the word existed before. If so, then there is the danger it will become generic, or that it already is. Risk is a generic term that has been in use for hundreds of years. By itself it is not a valid, defendable trademark.

If you read the lawyers' letter, you would have seen the weasel words and the bs, and at least one outright lie - that they claim to own the copyright to the rules of Risk, when game rules are uncopyrightable.

Here's the copyright office take on it: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

You can't copyright the rules. And yet they claim they DO own copyright to the rules:

The RISK game, including the rules, is the copyrighted property of Hasbro.

They don't. They only own copyright to the text and formatting of the rules. Anyone is free to impliment a game called Risk using similar rules, or no rules at all, and let the user play by the rules they want.

So, who are you going to believe - a lawyer stupid enough to put a lie into print, or the copyright office?

Re:Another game

[mdwh2]

The point about Windows wasn't just that it was a generic word, but that it was a generic word *which had meaning in that market* - ie, "window" was already commonly used to refer any window in a GUI.

If window had never been used in the context of a GUI before, then it's possible the case may have been done differently. I mean, do you think another company would get away with calling themselves "Apple", and selling computers?

"Risk" being a generic word surely isn't enough to mean it can't be trademarked - I would say the question is whether this term already has a specific meaning in the context of board games. It's possible you may end up being right and a court may rule that it isn't a valid trademark, but I wouldn't be sure simply because it's a word in the English language.

Re:Another game

[MindStalker]

Lookup the term Abitrary Trademark, Quoting from a Intellectual property newsletter, but you can find many like this.

(c) Fanciful and Arbitrary Marks
The strongest trademarks are those that are
unique, fanciful or
arbitrary, rather than
merely descriptive or
suggestive of the
associated product.
The strongest
trademarks contain
no commonly
understood or
recognizable word or
picture elements,
and have no meaning beyond the products with
which they are associated. These are called
fanciful marks. Fanciful trademarks are only
limited by one's imagination, for example,
EXXON, KODAK, and CISCO.
The next strongest trademarks are arbitrary
marks. Arbitrary trademarks consist of one or
more common words or images that are used in
such an arbitrary manner that there is no
association between the trademark and the
product it identifies. For example, APPLE (a real
word, but arbitrarily used when associated with
personal computer goods) may only be used by
Apple Computer, Inc. as a trademark to identify
certain computer hardware and software
products.

Re:Another game

[tomhudson]

You're ignoring what the judge said in Lindows vs. Microsoft. It has nothing - zip - ndaa - zilch - zero to do with a particular market.

The uses of the word Windows that were presented as generic included uses from before computers existed. "Like the hole in the wall that you look thru and might have some glass".

That's what generic means. Not "to a specific market". That would be the opposite of generic.

Re:Another game

[tomhudson]

Exactly. Risk in this case fails the first test - it is not a made-up word.

It also fails the second test, because a central element of playing the game is evaluating the risk of invading other territories. You simply can't play the game if you don't evaluate your risks.

Re:Another game

[SmittyTheBold]

The magic word you're looking for is "trademarked." Trademarks are government-granted monopolies on specific names, logos, or even colors that distinguish a product in a given market. Trademarks maintain validity as long as the controlling company wants them to, and adequately defends their trademark.

For example, I can't sell computers called "Macintosh" or even "Mac" because Apple has trademarked those names. I can, however, market Macintosh apples, Macintosh chicken wire, or Macintosh utility vehicles since they're in distinct categories of products. Apple has a trademark on Macintosh for computers (and likely many items of related elctronics) but that's as far as the protection extends.

Likewise, Hasbro has the trademark for RISK. Nobody else can legally market a game under that name, and they will not be able to for as long as Hasbro chooses to defend the mark.

In other words, trademark law is definitely a portion of intellectual property law, but it is quite distinct from patent and copyright laws.

A very good argument...

[squoozer]

... for why copyright terms should be dramatically cut. Far from increasing the productivity of gifted artists the current copyright laws seem to cause them to give up work after they have had one success. I'm not saying that artists shouldn't be compensated but 20 years, to me, feels like about the right amount of time to protect the work. It's long enough that no business will just wait 20 years for the copyright on a work to expire before publishing and it's not so short that the artists would struggle to reap their just rewards.

I remember playing Risk as a kid and it wasn't a new game then (my parents bought the set). How can it be right that it is still protected by copyright?. If copyrights were shorter Hasbro would no doubt have pumped money into developing new more exciting games.

Having said that I suppose there is no problem with producing a very similar game with a different name to get around the copyright problem. I suppose we should be thankful they didn't patent it :o). The parting thought is this though - there is a reason they call them board games and it's not because they are played on a board.

Re:A very good argument...

[tricorn]

It isn't copyright, it is trademark. It isn't patent, because the patent would have expired by now. Terms of copyright should be shorter, but that isn't the issue here. The issue here is trademark, and Hasbro has a valid objection to calling a game "RISK".

Re:A very good argument...

[Vintermann]

Harassbro's games only sell because they are marketed to death and then a mile. They sure don't waste much money on good designers.
Good games have the designer's name on the cover. That way, they are artistically accountable for their work.

http://www.gamecabinet.com/sumo/Issue23/node19.htm l

The problem here is not one of Copyright, but...

[Svartalf]

...one of Trademarks. While I'm not a lawyer, I am rather familiar with the various "IP" laws, being an inventor and an author of SF. Since the online Risk game used the name, the guy who wrote the Google Maps version had a problem with that part specifically- and Hasbro DID have a right to ask him to stop calling it that. The other claims of the elements of Risk are bogus since these are NOT really trademarkable, only Copyrightable. Since Copyright only covers the SPECIFIC implementation of an idea, they really didn't have a leg to stand on as this was a game, played on the Web that used Google Maps to render portions of the screens- NOT a board game like Risk is. The MAIN reason why the guy pulled it was one of not having the funds to put up a defense against the rest of the complaints Hasbro fobbed off on him. And, that's the biggest complaint I've got about how the "IP" laws are worded- the rich are the only ones that can actually use it or defend against spurious uses thereof. If you're a rights holder, you only have as much protection for your "IP" as you have cash to burn defending your rights. If you're not and aren't really infringing on things, you only have as much defense against unreasonable claims as you've got cash to burn defending your rights.

Disney Junior

[Deliveranc3]

Another company owns my childhood culture.

I've seen risk boards at least 30-40 years old.

How long will THIS copywrite hold up.

Re:20% additional copyright is NEW copyright

[lkcl]

oh.

of course.

if he rewrote 20% of the original rules, that'd comprise a new
copyright work.

yeh.

definitely.

work through each of their complaints, and tell them to xxxx off.

claim it's a "risk-inspired" or "risk-like" game.

etc.

Online RISK Games?

[knipknap]

Does anyone know where you can play Risk online without Java/Flash/Plugins and without overzealous advertising?

Re:Online RISK Games?

[Micah]

There are a couple of free Risk-type games, both of which run on Linux and both of which support computer AI and network play:

TEG is a clone of an Argentinian clone of Risk. The basic idea is the same, but there are some differences: 1) After winning a battle, you can move at MOST 3 armies instead of at LEAST 3. 2) Defender also uses 3 dice. 3) You do not take a person's cards when you wipe them out. 3) You get the extra 2 armies from a card when you DRAW the card, not when you play it (which takes out a bit of strategy). 4) You can have as many free-moves at the end of your turn as you want, with the condition that no single army moves more than one consecutive country. There may be more, but that's what comes to mind. The combination of #1 and #4 means that you can not just take out a whole continent in one turn, even with hundreds of armies. You can only move the "horde" one country per turn. Have to admit that I'm hopelessly addicted to this game.

The other is JRisk which, frankly, should be Hasbro's next hit. It does seem to violate their copyright and/or trademark. It's a reasonably faithful clone of Risk.

Re:Online RISK Games?

[knipknap]

Teg is the one I currently use against the computer, but the network play never worked (the server list is always empty, even after pressing the "Update" button).

The basic idea is the same, but there are some differences

Actually, the rules 1) and 4) are the same as I knew them from the (German) "hardware" game.

The combination of #1 and #4 means that you can not just take out a whole continent in one turn, even with hundreds of armies.

Well, with luck you can. Example: Attack Egypt, move 3 in. Attack Madagascar, move 2 in. Attack Zaire, move one in. The same chain with Sahara -> Ethiopa -> South Africa. Granted, you have to be *really* lucky, but with Australia (Oceania) it's even easier.

I haven't tried jrisk though, but I may try it when it's shipped with Ubuntu.

Re:Online RISK Games?

[Micah]

Ok, interesting. I've never actually played TEG against humans, so I wouldn't have caught that bug. :) Looks like it should work though.

I like JRisk, but I am just longing for the day when it runs under a Free VM. With gcj/gij 4.0.2, it starts, but doesn't display anything. Probably uses some Swing features not yet in Classpath as of that release. Hopefully it will work with 4.1 and the new Classpath.

Both TEG and JRisk could use better AI, but it's better than nothing.

Not really a Copyright issue...

[Svartalf]

It's a Trademark issue and they're claiming Trademark on the entire game including gameplay (which is what was in the cease and desist letter...). However, they can only Trademark (and I'd love to check and see if they've GOT the registrations on all of that up-to-date (because if they don't- I'm advising the guy go get a lawyer and sue the hell out of Hasbro for harassment...)) and they can only trademark something along the lines of the look and feel of the game pieces at best. "Risk" is a very common word and would be difficult to make a trademark case out of any "infringements" on the same. The actual rules might be copyrighted, but since he's not duplicating the content thereof, only the mechanics, that's not applicable.

Simply put, he pulled it because he didn't have a Lawyer to defend his position, nor could he afford to mount a case. Me, I might have changed the name, but the rest, I'd have told them to go pound sand as they can't make the claims they're making.

Re:Not really a Copyright issue...

[Svartalf]

Upon a proper search of the USPTO database of Registered Trademarks, "Risk" for the board and computer game variants IS registered for Hasbro. However, there is no registration for the look/feel of the game pieces, etc. so that falls pretty clearly into the Copyright domain. Now, since the Web Risk[TM] game that used Google Maps to render the globe's details didn't really USE anything other than the game mechanics, doesn't specifically copy the verbiage from the game's rulesheet, and didn't appear to do anything else that might have infringed on Hasbro's "IP" rights, I reccomend that he consult a lawyer for certainty, strip out the Trademark Violation from the game, and tell Hasbro to go pound sand on the rest of it as it's not infringing nor is it a Trademark Violation at that point.

Just re-arrange the countries.

[neo]

There are a ton of alternate maps, including world maps and maps of middle earth. Just cut the countries differently and you're good to go.

corporations can't see past the end of their desks

[ftide]

If Hasbro was smart they'd create a marketing division just for this guy's work and contact him about setting up a new element to the game with licensing.

But no.. They can't completely control this type of endeavor anymore so it's all or nothing.

Still available?

[Aladrin]

I don't suppose anyone has a way to still play this? Or even some screenshots? I missed the first news post and it sounds very interesting.

Idea-expression dichotomy

[tepples]

Two words: derivative work.

Three words: idea-expression dichotomy. The rules of RISK, including the graph theoretic structure of the game board, make up a process, which is deliberately not subject to copyright (17 USC 102). If you express the same rules differently, then your work is not a copy and not a derivative.

Re:diplomacy

[TheRaven64]

Diplomacy is very much at the opposite end of the spectrum to RISK. While I find that RISK is too random, I have never yet found a deterministic game that is fun over multiple games. I would like to see a game that is somewhere between RISK and Diplomacy. I would also like a few more elements to be added to Diplomacy (the introduction of air power in the 1920s, and the ability to deploy more than a single division in an area, for example).

Re:diplomacy

[gfreeman]

If you like risk, and have 4-5 hours to play, try diplomacy.

There's everything you need to know about Diplomacy here, including how to join an online game, and how to improve your gameplay.

Re:20% additional copyright is NEW copyright

[gandreas]

> this is not very commonly known.

So uncommon that not even the http:///http://copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf>Co pyright Law of the United States of America knows about it.

The only place where "20 percent" appears at all is a section on rolayty payments...

what about changing name?

[someone1234]

I think changing the name, and altering the rules just a bit will be enough.

Who is responsible for this sort of stupidity?

[KonoWatakushi]

Is it the lawyers that companies keep on staff, actively trying to make themselves seem "useful," or is there really some bonehead at the company in a position of power who really believes that this is in Hasbro's best interests?

The settings for board games and online games are typically completely different, with very little overlap. You don't (typically) sit around at home and play a board game by yourself. Likewise, Hasbro doesn't even have a net capable product to offer. At worst, this would have generated more interest, and hence more sales of the game. Instead, they choose to pursue legal actions which will only anger people, and ensure that they will actively search for alternatives to their products.

While technically this wasn't an online multi-player game, such a version was rumored to be in development. I can't see that enough people would choose to huddle around a computer in this way to be any threat to their business. Certainly, if one likes to play chess, and has people available to play with, 99.9% of them would choose to buy a chess set.

Re:Who is responsible for this sort of stupidity?

[16K Ram Pack]

The problem is that often people are either charged with a job, which means that they pursue it, as it is not their job to do a "big picture" view.

Also, a lot of companies don't get the whole counter-logic pro-emotion/cool/mindshare thing. It's a little like music - you may lose some sales as a result of someone downloading an MP3 of your single, but you also might just raise the awareness, which will increase sales and compensate for the loss.

Google get this. They could have shut down people ripping Google maps, but decided to open up the API instead. They're probably watching what people are doing with the API and learning what people look for and how.

Re:Who is responsible for this sort of stupidity?

[tricorn]

Actually, the PS2 RISK game IS network-enabled.

Re:Who is responsible for this sort of stupidity?

[BigLug]

Who is responsible for this stupidity? Not sure, not really the schools, maybe the Patent Office or whatever organisation deals with copyright. I think the problem here is mainly one of education. The company exists for one purpose, and only one purpose: to make money.

One way to help with that is to scare some poor bugger into taking down his Risk game .. after all it could be seen to be cooler than the product you're selling, and so you may lose some sales.

I don't blame them. I hate corporations that do this sort of thing, but at the same time, their entire reason for existance is to make as much money as possible.

So where does the Patent Office come in?

I'd like to visit their website and click on a button that says "I've been sent a cease-and-desists by some big company, what do I do?". That link would then take me through the various reasons why they might have a case, and why they might not have a case. The game-maker here would click on 'Game' then he'd select the reasons in the C&D ... 'Title', 'Rules'. That would then give him plain-spoken information on what rights the corporation DID have. (Can't copyright a title, but can trademark it in a given area; Method of play can be the same, but the written version of the rules is subject to copyright). It would then link to relevent legislation and suggest legal advice from an IP lawyer.

That puts you back in the driver's seat. You can either engage legal representation, or you have the relevent legislation to fight back with. "Dear Hasbro, I understand the position you take, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. I've done some research (which admittedly I should have done earlier) and note from the Patent Office website that your rules are subject to copyright, so as I don't have them on my site, we can agree that there is no problem there. However I now understand that the word 'Risk' when used as the title of a game is subject to trademark law and so I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear I've changed the name of my game to 'domin8'. Sincerely, blah blah"

Should Hasbro fight back, you go back the website, look up whatever rubbish they're now pushing and either respond or get legal representation to fight on your behalf (or, if the website says you're screwed, stop whatever you're doing and appologise)

Maybe, just maybe...

[agraupe]

Hasbro should suck a fat cock... RISK is what, like 50 years old? Give it up already. I can see that you might be angry if a similar commercial product was to be released, but from what I can tell, this was a noncommerical venture. I made a RISK board of my own for a school project recently... are they gonna come and sue me? Copyright should definitely run out for RISK soon.

Re:Maybe, just maybe...

[Teancum]

If you feel this way, you should also be supportive of much, much shorter term limits on copyrighted material. The current poltical setup is life + 75 years, or just 75 years if it is a "work for hire" from a corporation. With this reckoning, there is at least 25 more years beyond the 50 you have just mentioned.

Personally, I don't see why anything needs to be copyrighted beyond 24 years (12 years + 12 more with formal renewal registration). Copyright starts as soon as it is "published" in a public forum, so that would still allow widows of people like John Lennon (thank you Yoko) to continue to earn some extra money from the estate of their spouse for many more years after the death of that "artist". Think of the computer software that was written 24 years ago, and you know it isn't really worth the media it is recorded on except for historical reference and maintaining obsolete computer systems. Certainly no computer programmer that I know of is earning royalties off of computer software written 24 years ago... or really that many earning royalties off of software they wrote 24 days ago for that matter, but that is another issue entirely. It is a very rare musician earning money off of recordings done more than 20 years ago, if you can even get a music publisher to even acknowledge that they have royalties coming their way.

Writing a RISK game is a derivitive product from the original source, aka the board game. Yes, they can come and sue your ass for $150,000 even if it was a non-commercial venture. There is also no statute of limitations on copyright infringement either. Copyright laws for board games is rather unusual though that only the game rules themselves can be copyrighted and not the board itself (except as a specific image). This was decided in the case of Parker Brothers vs. the folks who made Anti-Monopoly (I can't remember the exact case name here). Parker Brothers sued this other group due to trademark infringement (the name Anti-Monopoly came up) and a very similar shaped board even though the rules for the game were quite a bit different. Anti-Monopoly is where you are a Justice Dept. lawyer with the assignment to break up monopolies on the standard Monopoly board and a few unique twists. The judicial decision was that game copyright only applied to just the rules and not the rest of the contents of the game as long as it wasn't a direct photocopy of the game (aka a cheap clone copy pretending to be made by Parker Brothers in this case). Tokens could only be copyrighted like other 3D models, with similar restrictions, and wasn't an issue in the Anti-Monopoly case.

Re:Maybe, just maybe...

[agraupe]

Well, then I'm safe. Although the dice-rolling mechanic was basically the same, I added and removed enough other things that it's not exactly a copy. The game board was done from scratch, so that's not a problem either.

Re:CmdrTaco

[rincebrain]

It's been spammed before, but I'll say it again.

CmdrTaco has always said this is his blog, we just choose to read it. He rarely makes personal posts any more, but such it remains, according to him.

Don't like it, so be it.

Diplomacy

[sysrpl]

Ever heard of the game Diplomacy?

And you guys call yourselves nerds...

[kmartshopper]

Come on this one is easy -- just play GNRISK!

Re:And you guys call yourselves nerds...

[Cro Magnon]

I use KDE, you insensitive clod!

many other risk clone around

[simonech]

Why did they not shut down also http://jrisk.sourceforge.net/ a java implementation of risk?
or this http://www.dominategame.com/website.php, which is the same a risk
or this turbo risk? http://www.marioferrari.org/freeware.html

all of this version are listed on wikipedia.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_game

that could be an interesting question

Re:20% additional copyright is NEW copyright

[cpt kangarooski]

LOL. In fact, courts don't care how much new material there might be in an infringing work, they only care about the part that is infringing, even if it were only one hundreth of a percent of the new work. Adding lots of stuff is irrelevant; taking lots of stuff is where you get in trouble.

Global War

[radarsat1]

For a long while I was playing Global War like every day. But sadly, I eventually found that the legally necessary modifications to the Risk rules just kind of ruined the game for me. It would almost always end up in a never-ending battle between the last 2 or 3 people, that got really boring really fast.

Does anyone remember the "Global War" BBS game, by the way? Now that was fun. ASCII Risk!

Re:Global War

[tricorn]

There's no need to change the game rules. All you have to do is express the rules in your own words, rather than copying the wording of the "official rules" from Hasbro.

copyright on rules

[pruss]

IANAL. But here's what I found by a quick googling:

"Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

"Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable." - The U.S. Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html)

Basically, from the copyright point of view, the guy would have been OK unless he copied the rules verbatim (or maybe close to verbatim) or he copied other parts of the game graphics.

By the way, I wonder if it is possible to sue people for providing false or misleading legal information when they ought to have known better? I am not saying Hasbro is guilty here--that depends on whether the rules were copied verbatim. Another example of the provision of false information are the warnings on DVDs saying that ALL copying is prohibited by law, which is simply false, since there is NO reasonable interpretation (though IANAL) of copyright law under which there is no such thing as fair use. For instance, it seems clearly legal to take a family photograph, for non-commercial purposes, with a TV playing the movie in the background (incidental copying, I think it's called). I wonder if one could get a class action lawsuit by people who were defrauded through the signage.

Re:copyright on rules

[SuiteSisterMary]

It was probably using the trade name 'Risk(TM).' I can't sell Rollerblades; I can, however, sell in-line skates. I can't sell Kleenex; I can, however, sell facial tissues. And I can't sell Risk, but I can make a world conquest game using a map of the Earth.

JNR. Or GRNR.

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

They own the trademark on the name of the game...

Well that's easy enough: Just rename it to something like JNR, which would stand for "JNR's Not Risk!"

Or maybe GRNR: "Google Risk's Not Risk!"

Re:Because you are modded 'Informative'

[maxume]

The name "Risk" itself is a generic term and as such, from what I understand of copyright law, cannot be copyrighted. If he were to change the rules and call it 'Risk ' then he should be OK. Though Hasbro may win de facto if the game author doesn't have the resources or will to deal with lawyers.

The name "Risk" is trademarked. This gives hasbro the exclusive rights to market a game with the name "Risk". This means that any substantially similar product (probably any game-like product at all fits the definition of 'substantially similar) cannot use the name "Risk" without the permission of hasbro.

Re:Copyrights (patents?) working for innovation

[saskboy]

"I think this is an example of copyrights doing a good thing for innovation."

I don't think so Tim.
It's an example of the opposite, because something new and innovative was invented, but because it wasn't invented by the right person, it will be killed instead of adopted. Just when you and school children thought it was safe to learn where Uzbekistan is, too...

Lux?

[karnifex]

How do shareware games like Lux (sillysoft.net) get away with selling a game directly based on Risk, and this guy - who isn't making a dime - gets shut down?

Re:Lux?

[Surt]

Because he called it 'risk via google maps'. If he had called it 'Gelzam via google maps' and described it as a risk-like game, he'd have been fine.

so....

[coolcold]

its a risk to call the game risk?

Trademarks must be defended...

[Eric Damron]

It seems to me that Hasbro cannot stop a game that uses Google maps to track military movements around the world.

The mistake that this guy made was to blatantly refer to RISK and to base his rules on that game. Risk was published a LONG time ago (more than 20 years) so I don't see how they could own any kind of patent on the game process but they must defend their trademark or risk losing it.

If I were this guy I would create a game with my own rules that used Google maps. Hasbro certainly does not have the right to stop the development of a new game that uses maps and military unit counters.

Re:Trademarks must be defended...

[Kent Simon]

but they must defend their trademark or risk losing it.

pun intended?

Re:Trademarks must be defended...

[Eric Damron]

My bad ;-)

Re:diplomacy

[wcbarksdale]

s/hours/friends to lose

Re:diplomacy

[tricorn]

Diplomacy is not a deterministic game as, say, chess is. Since moves are executed simultaneously, there is imperfect information. Every game is different because the PLAYERS are the random element. It is also extremely well balanced in published form, changing the rules would be difficult to balance properly. However, there are apparently thousands of such variations, see the Wikipedia article on Diplomacy for some links.

Re:diplomacy

[Mashdar]

While I am a great fan of diplomacy, I must say that I doubt an online version would be incredibly entertaining. The fun of diplomacy is the intense human interaction. The ability to convince someone that you are telling the truth and that something is in their best interest (whether or not either is true) would obfuscated by a lack of personal presence.

That said, I strongly recommend that every who has not give Diplomacy a go. You can read rules online and print out maps, so it will only cost you time. The best part of the game is that absolutely nothing is left to luck (beyond which nation you start as). Risk always annoyed me because you could lose a huge number of men on an unfortunate set of rolls. If you can mastermind a way to overcome your foes, you know it was not thanks to luck. Correctly anticipating the movements of your enemies and swiftly defeating them is incredibly gratifying.

Global Wars anyone?

[Aexia]

Remember the old BBS door game Global Wars?

Exact same rules as Risk except that it wasn't called Risk. The author even charged money for registrations. As far as I know, he never had any legal problems.

This guy just needs to change the name of the site to something that isn't trademarked and he'll be fine.

Other games we could play

[Adelle]

How about chess? Or thermonuclear war?

Other risk clones

[saifatlast]

There are all kinds of risk cones% tegame, finalconquest, turborisk, etc, etc.) Couldn't he just change the name and keep going like all these otherS?

Solutions ???

[dr.Flake]

So, one can't trademark /copyright the word "RISK", but the poor chap can't "risk" it.

But if we open source it, on a server deeply burried in China...

Make some really poor chap over there sys-admin, with no known adres/phonenumber

Call it "ZIMOR" (Zimor Is NOt Risk ) or something GNU like that....

Should keep the lawyers busy for a while.

Re:Solutions ???

[kaleposhobios]

For what it's worth, it would be: ZINOR.

Clever, though, I think.

Re:The problem here is not one of Copyright, but..

[servognome]

And, that's the biggest complaint I've got about how the "IP" laws are worded- the rich are the only ones that can actually use it or defend against spurious uses thereof. If you're a rights holder, you only have as much protection for your "IP" as you have cash to burn defending your rights. If you're not and aren't really infringing on things, you only have as much defense against unreasonable claims as you've got cash to burn defending your rights.

It's like that for all laws. Criminal law it's you against the resources of "The People of the State of California" or whatever jurisdiction you are being prosecuted in. Yes the law for the rich is different from that of the poor, but you won't be able to change that through the legal system. It has to be done in the legislative arena, but that would require people to actually care and vote.

The example of Tetris

[tepples]

The same thing happened with Tetris.

And in that case, you can look up the references at the Wikipedia article or at the E2 article.

Re:Because you are modded 'Informative'

[MadJo]

So could it be that by using the word "Risk" you "risk" getting sued?

Copy of the javascript?

[ctenet]

Does anyone have a copy of version 0.9.7 (I think that was the latest one, before it was taken down.) of http://www.ashotoforangejuice.com/jsrisk.js
I tried looking for it on http://web.archive.org/web/*/ashotoforangejuice.co m/* , but obviously had no luck. Is there any chance that Google might be caching it? They certianly have the HTML (which is pretty much worthless) here http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:RrdLpS5Pm5IJ: ashotoforangejuice.com/gmrisk.html+site:ashotofora ngejuice.com&hl=en&client=firefox-a , but I don't know whether Google caches javascript files.

By the way, I have 0.9.5 if anyone wants it.

TEG

[Tycho]

Personally, I like TEG better than Risk anyway. I think that TEG is better because it has some small tweaks that make the rules more balanced rules than Risk. I also like how the default world map is divided and connected in TEG as compared to how the map is divided and connected in Risk. Best of all a free client and server for TEG is available at http://teg.sourceforge.net/

Re:You insesitive clods

[Illender]

just curious, cause I would pay for a RISK game cause I love the game so much, but uh....Hasbro Employee?

Deathtrap

[CmdrDawgface]

Africa is a deathtrap. Get out now.

Trademark

[neo]

But they do own the trademark Risk, and have every right to protect it. So while you're right that they can't use copyright, they have every right to protect their trademark. The lawyer was just lazy.

Re:diplomacy

[Dullin]

You might want to try Axis & Allies then.

What poor sports.

[tivoKlr]

It's not like this guy was making money off of his idea. And the creativity to get this to work.

Mostly, I was out of town all weekend and unable to try it and I really was looking forward to playing.

Re:Diplomacy

[ClamIAm]

My roomate introduced me to his version of Risk, where you can establish treaties to break rules. It's pretty cool.

Man, these people never learn.

[seebs]

Games are not subject to copyright; see Allen v. Academic Games. The issue, though, is that certain large companies will initiate legal action anyway, because it's too expensive to defend. However, the current state of copyright law holds that a game is a process, and thus not subject to copyright, although the specific words used to describe it may be.

Hasbro not necissarily evil

[skorch]

now IANAL but I believe there might be legitimate reasons for Hasbro pursuing this course of action beyond what most previous posters seem to believe. I could be wrong but I seem to recall that there are some conditions in copyright law that requires that you actively defend your copyrights in order to keep them (although perhaps I have remembered incorrectly and this might just apply to patents or something). If a copyright holder does not actively defend the IP, they run a serious risk of losing it to public domain.

Here we have a case where someone is clearly using the Risk name and brand to promote his own service without any authorization or liscencing from Hasbro. If he had used a different title from the start, how many people would have even taken interest to begin with? He sold the idea on the name "Risk". So now, even if Hasbro didn't mind or thought it was a good idea, the very least they can do is demonstrate that they attempted to defend their copyright legally (whether their case holds much water or not). So even if they lose the case, they get to show that they didn't let this "offense" slide and can keep control of their property. Perhaps there are less aggressive or more tactful ways of doing this if they actually support this guy's idea. But let's not forget that he went ahead without their permission to begin with.

Now plenty of people have already suggested plenty of ways around this legally for the "offender" in question which doesn't put Hasbro's property at risk. I'm really on his side, but I think people might be unfairly assuming Hasbro are just taking shortsighted legal action. Sometimes the law may leave a company no choice but to be letigious (as infuriating as it may be for the rest of us).

But again, I'm not sure about the specifics of copyrite law in this area, so maybe someone else who knows more could comment on this?

Re:Hasbro not necissarily evil

[damsa]

It's not copyright, it is trademark law. They don't want Risk to become a generic name for a world domination game. That way when you buy a Risk game you know what kind of rules it comes with. The Yo Yo used to be a trademarked term as well.

No Site Copy

[earthstar]

I missed the game when the site was up.....
Look like the guy has removed the page @ Google Cache & Archive.org too !!!!

No, you're right.

[Vintermann]

Risk is Not Cool. But not because geeks play it, obviously. It's Not Cool in part because it's Harassbro, but mostly because it's an awful, awful game design. Who wins is obvious probably 30 turns before the end. If another player has as objective to eliminate you then the game is strongly tilted in your disfavour. There's no strategy to speak of, only people like Rimmer in Red Dwarf believe that.
If you really want to play a stupid wargame, you can at least play a better designed stupid wargame, like Memoir'44. But it's much better to play a german game. Game designers are celebrities over there, so although rules can't be copyrighted, if you tried to make a rip-off of Siedler von Catan or Puerto Rico, you'd be about as successful as an artist who tried to steal the idea for the Mona Lisa.
Except that 95% of german games are never heard of outside germany. So the rip-offs from Harassbro will come eventually, as soon as they realize that the german boardgames are the reason the german boardgame market is as big as the rest of europe's combined.

Re:No, you're right.

[jthayden]

Can you recomend a few of these German games? I'd be curious to give them a try.

I'd recommend both Fluxx and Wizard as good, but they ain't German.

Re:No, you're right.

[Vintermann]

"Can you recomend a few of these German games? I'd be curious to give them a try."

Puerto Rico by Andeas Seyfarth is a somewhat heavy and complex game (heavy, playing time ca. 2 hours) . It's balanced, addictive, plenty of both strategy and tactics. Very popular among gamers, quite popular among critics. Won a German gamer's award.

Carcassonne (lighter) by Klaus-Jürgen Wrede. It's a simple tile-laying game. Can be played with children, because it appears to be a game of skill, while there's really much chance involved. (So the adults won't win every time) It has won great critical acclaim - Game of the Year in Germany, and also the gamer's award.

Settlers of Catan (in between) by Klaus Teuber. Game of bargaining and resource management, very addictive. Best selling German game ever, won both Game of the Year (critic's prize) and German gamer's award.

Bohnanza by Uwe Rosenberg, fast card game with the curious property that women always win. Perhaps it's because it's a very social bargaining game!

Those four are my favourites. I'd note that there are a lot of good games in german style from other countries, too. I thought Days of Wonder's Ticket to Ride looked cool, but I've never played it. It's american, won the german critic's prize in 2004 ("Zug um Zug" :-)

Hasbro should thank this guy

[persicom]

How many people like me (40 years old) forgot about Risk, and then, once remembered thanks to Google Risk, went out and BOUGHT the board game for their kids for Christmas?