Scrabulous Returns To Facebook, As Wordscraper

porcupine8 writes "Good news for those that have had a hole in their heart (and Facebook profile) since Hasbro forced Facebook to remove Scrabulous over copyright and trademark issues. The creators of Scrabulous have wasted no time in tweaking the game and have launched a new tile-based game called Wordscraper. In addition to changing the name, they have changed the board look so as not to directly copy the colors, etc of a Scrabble board, and have even made provisions for players to create their own board layout! Interested Scrabulous fans can add the application now. Only time will tell if the changes were extensive enough to keep Hasbro's lawyers at bay."

Comments

to Quote Nelson..

[UberHoser]

Ha Ha !

Seriously, if your app of the game sucks and theirs doesn't, just pony up the money and buy their company.

Re:to Quote Nelson..

[beckerist]

From what I heard it sounds like that was already tried but the developers felt they weren't offered enough so they turned it down. That's when Hasbro sent in the dogs...er...lawyers...

(minutes elapsed)

Though now after having looked around I can't find any sources to back me up, so I could just be spouting off rumor.

Copyright broken

[fluffykitty1234]

This is a pretty good example of broken copyright laws. How long has Scrabble been out, 60 years? And because of the crazy long copyright terms now, innovation is being stifled. This is not what copyright was intended for...

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Not copyright. Trademark infringement. Entirely different legal structure...

Re:Copyright broken

[lgw]

No, copyright too. You can't copyright the idea of how you play the game, but you can copyright the board artwork. Of course, you can significantly aletr the board artwork so that it's different enough to avoid copyright infringement without changing how the game is played. Most game ripoffs do just this.

Sadly, the Scrabulous guys didn't take this step, and they could still be facing a lot of trouble over that. The new game solves this problem - guess they finally bothered to care what minimal steps they needed to take to be legal.

Re:Copyright broken

[wattrlz]

Far be it from me to RTFA, but the summary implies that the miss-application of copyright laws seems to have inspired some innovation.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is against the groupthink, and I DO agree that patents certainly stifle innovation - but how is innovation being stifled here? Someone 60 years later basically copying an existing game is HARDLY to be called innovation. Its really just called, well, copying. And non-innovation.

Re:Copyright broken

[pembo13]

Bad example. In this case it caused innovation.

Re:Copyright broken

[geobeck]

How long has Scrabble been out, 60 years? And because of the crazy long copyright terms now, innovation is being stifled.

If you define 'innovation' as copying someone else's idea in almost every detail.

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

You can't copyright the idea of how you play the game, but you can copyright the board artwork.

There is nothing broken about this. At all. This is, in fact, exactly as it should be. Otherwise, all someone would have to do to duplicate my game would be to change the title.

Game designs and rules are unprotected. Titles, presentation, artwork and appearances are protected. This is ideal. No brokenness here.

Re:Copyright broken

[Tankko]

How is copying someone else's game innovation? Seems like them having to figure out a different (better) game is what the real innovation was, and that was "because" of the copyright laws.

Re:Copyright broken

[kesuki]

"Game designs and rules are unprotected. Titles, presentation, artwork and appearances are protected. This is ideal. No brokenness here."

so, who owns chess, and who owns shogi?

and if all you have to do is change the design, why isn't there a boardgame out there at wal-mart for $5 made in china that has alphabetical discs, instead of tiles, with the same basic rules as scrabble?

the only game i can recall having 'dupes' are kismet 'the modern game of yacht' and yahtzee. and kismet went so far as to change the color of the pips on the dice.

Re:Copyright broken

[2nd Post!]

So copying Scrabble is innovation?

Is that like adding "internet" to an old patent and getting a new one?

Innovation is making the game new, not copying someone else's game onto the internet.

Re:Copyright broken

[abstract daddy]

Nobody owns chess, it's ancient. What is your point?

Re:Copyright broken

[2nd Post!]

You're claiming a failure to trademark or copyright chess or shogi implies trademark or copyright is broken?

As for the "why no knockoff Scrabble", it's because people don't want to play a knockoff, they want to play Scrabble. If you want a proper example...
Witness the multitude of playing cards available; every single one is interchangeable, but each one is still protected by trademark.

Re:Copyright broken

[Mistshadow2k4]

No brokenness? You can't copy a game that you played before you turned ten when you're an old man, and you say that's not broken? That's ridiculous! At this rate, everything in our culture now will still be copyrighted/trademarked when our great-grandchildren are adults and we're long in our graves. Copyrights were not meant to be extended across generations. They were meant to protect innovators for part of their lives to generate income, not grant a corporation a monopoly on part of our culture for 6 decades.

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

so, who owns chess, and who owns shogi?

Nobody, just like Shakespeare and The Odessey. A basic familiarity with the law might help you here. Nobody ever filed for or was granted protection on those items, and if they had been, they'd be several thousands of years expired by now.

and if all you have to do is change the design, why isn't there a boardgame out there at wal-mart for $5 made in china that has alphabetical discs, instead of tiles, with the same basic rules as scrabble?

Brand recognition. People periodically try to replace Scrabble. It happens every several years.

the only game i can recall having 'dupes' are kismet 'the modern game of yacht' and yahtzee.

This is primarily an indication that you don't know much about the games market. Games that perenially get copied include Uno, Sorry, Yahtzee, Connect 4, Mille Bornes, Scrabble, Rubik's Cube, Battleship, and on and on the list goes.

Perhaps you don't understand market forces. Clones aren't absent because they're illegal. They're absent because nobody buys them.

Re:Copyright broken

[camperdave]

If you think that legal loop-holery, and copyright aviosion is advancing the state of the art, then by all means, innovation took place. Myself, I think the purpose of the "intellectual property" laws has a more noble purpose than baiting a legal trap: to allow the creator to recoup the development costs in order to have finances to create again.

Re:Copyright broken

[Budha_man_99]

I think the point is the length of the copyright. I agree that copyright is needed to protect peoples ideas and inventions, but after the creator/inventor is dead should the copyright still be in place? I believe the point was the length of the copyright, not copyright itself.

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

No brokenness? You can't copy a game that you played before you turned ten when you're an old man, and you say that's not broken?

Uh, sure you can. You just can't steal their title or artwork.

Copyrights were not meant to be extended across generations.

I'd be a lot more inclined to take you seriously if you were at least getting the right branch of the law. This is not and never was a copyright issue.

They were meant to protect innovators for part of their lives to generate income

No, that's patents. Copyright has nothing to do with innovation, and this is neither a copyright nor a patent issue. Please settle down until you have at least a basic familiarity with the laws or case in question. This is a waste of time.

Re:Copyright broken

[Miseph]

"after the creator/inventor is dead should the copyright still be in place?"

In fairness, it probably should. Otherwise I could see it being encouragement for some people to try and make the copyright holder dead in order to better evade it.

Death is also problematic when corporations are able to hold copyrights because it's not something they are subject to. If you're waiting for my immortal corporation to die in order for the copyright to expire, you'll be waiting a very long time.

Re:Copyright broken

[iamhassi]

"it's because people don't want to play a knockoff, they want to play Scrabble."

Exactly. They've been stealing Scrabble's design for years and have become rich from it. I hope Hasbro sues them for years of theft because what good is copyright or trademark if someone can steal it for a few years, make millions from it, then say "Oops Sorry!" and then give it back and walk away with the money?

Re:Copyright broken

[p0tat03]

Actually, in this case I think the claim was that Scrabulous was infringing upon the Scrabble trademark. IMHO trademarks *should* last as long as the company is in operation. There's no reason why a company should have to lose its trade name over the course of time.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

There is nothing broken about this. At all. This is, in fact, exactly as it should be. Otherwise, all someone would have to do to duplicate my game would be to change the title.

The part that is broken about it is the sixty years. Copyright should be a limited monopoly to give people an incentive to continue to make creative works, not an unending monopoly - enforced by the taxpayer - that enables people to stop creating and simply milk the same idea in perpetuity.

I think that after sixty years - in fact, after far less than sixty years - the originator of the work has had ample opportunity to be compensated for their "innovation," and should give something back to the public who paid to enforce their monopoly. That means letting the work enter the Public Domain.

I also feel that art is as much the act of appreciation as it is the act of creation. The latest Christina Aguilera CD wouldn't be worth anything to anyone if not for the fact that her fans want to hear it. Patrons give art relevance, and play a role at least as important in the creative process as the person who is generally credited as the "artist."

Once a work of art has been around long enough to become part of our collective culture, it should belong to no one.

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

I think the point is the length of the copyright.

You think wrong. It's not a copyright issue at all, and there is no time frame attached at all. The issue is that Scrabulous was a brand ripoff. Game clones are okay. Brand clones aren't.

Copyright and trademark are about as related as boats and cars. Please put more effort into debate. It's really annoying for a debate about cars to have people keep saying "but the problem is the water level in the lake." Trademarks do not, and should not, expire. It doesn't matter if Microsoft has been around for 80 years; nobody else should ever be able to claim to be Microsoft. This is a trademark issue because the company needs to be able to protect the brand. Scrabble clones can be released. Scrabble, the brand, is still S+R / Hasbro's property.

If you don't understand the difference between copyright/trademark, or between a product and a brand, you really need to stay out of discussions like this.

Re:Copyright broken

[rickb928]

Absolutely!

This isn't broken. Let Scrabulous redesign, re-engineer, um, dare we say it, 'improve' on the game.

I hope they copyright their work. Let Hasbro compete, if they can.

Sheesh. The best part of this is the apparent poor knowledge of history amongst Facebook users. Wonder if they know where Facebook came from, or where the term 'Facebook' originated... Hypocrisy...

Re:Copyright broken

[croddy]

Well, the reason there's no scrabble clone with discs instead of rectangular tiles is that discs don't tile as well, and the board would be a mess. This is not a problem for a computer game, of course, but would be impractical in a physical game set.

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

The part that is broken about it is the sixty years.

Because this is not a copyright issue, there is no sixty year timeframe involved.

Once a work of art has been around long enough to become part of our collective culture, it should belong to no one.

As a game designer, I would like to remind you that in the eyes of the law, for a very good reason, game designs are not art.

Incidentally, Scrabble was clonable the first day it was released. You just had to use a different name and color the board differently. This whole thing you're on about is completely mis-aimed. The real problem here is just that Scrabulous was visually similar and had a similar name.

Spend less time worrying about what should or should not be, and more time understanding the situation correctly.

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

I hope they copyright their work.

Games are not subject to copyright. (The binaries of computer games are, but that's a seperate issue.) This is a trademark issue, and no amount of trademarking their title will make any difference to Hasbro.

The facebook traffic is a drop in the bucket in the Scrabble world. This is really about protecting the Scrabble copyright, so that newspapers can't use the name. If Hasbro didn't say "stop it", other people would be able to say that the trademark was out of defense and therefore invalid.

None of this has anything to do with copyright.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

No, copyright infringement. The DMCA was used to bring the program down. The DMCA doesn't cover trademark infringement.

If this were trademark infringement, the normal (non-DMCA) legal avenues would have to have been taken. Clearly, Hasbro's lawyers do NOT feel Scrabulous violated trademark, but rather included copyrighted code from Hasbro.

Either that or Hasbro's lawyers committed perjury.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasbro has a history of having draconian fascist ideas about their licenses. I recall years ago that they were going after people making little test games on a gaming programming help website.

The solution: Boycott hasbro products completely.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Cowpat]

they didn't claim to be 'scrabble'. They claimed to be 'scrabulous'. Is this the 5 8ths rule? if you use more than the larger half (in the case of odd numbers) or one more than half (in the case of even numbers) of the letters of someone else's trademark in consecutive order then you're in breach of it? Because I see all sorts of problems for microstar and anyone who sells a generic microwave.
If scrabulous were a Hasbro product it would have been called 'Scrabble' or 'Scrabble online', it would not have been a deliberate portmanteau of 'scrabble' and 'fabulous'. Any reasonable person should come to the conclusion that they're not related except that the scrab- prefix indicates that it's a scrabble-like game. Thus; not a trademark infringement.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

Because this is not a copyright issue, there is no sixty year timeframe involved.

I'm just going by what the various articles have said. Like this one, which says "News wire service Reuters is reporting Hasbro and Mattel are demanding that Facebook remove the popular Facebook application Scrabulous due to copyright infringement." Or this one, which says "Hasbro on Thursday filed a copyright and trademark lawsuit in New York against the creators of the ad-supported Scrabulous application, which boasts an astonishing half-million daily users." Or this one, which says "Hasbro, the Rhode Island company that owns the trademark to the 60-year-old board game, Scrabble, on which Scrabulous is closely based, has also asked Facebook to remove the game under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ..."

But, hey, some random stranger on Slasdot assures me this has nothing to do with copyright, so I guess I'll just go with that.

As a game designer, I would like to remind you that in the eyes of the law, for a very good reason, game designs are not art.

As an intelligent human being who has actually looked around and noticed what happens in the real world, I would like to remind you that a can of Campbell's soup can be art. Art is not a thing, it is the act of creation and appreciation. I've even taken some pretty artistic dumps in my day.

Spend less time worrying about what should or should not be, and more time understanding the situation correctly.

Spend more time actually reading up on the subject we are commenting on, and less dispensing unsolicited advise to people who didn't ask for it.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with everything you've said in the thread so far except this:

Copyright has nothing to do with innovation

I'm pretty sure intellectual property, or indeed *anything* that falls under copyright law is "innovated" in some manner. The difference in patent terms - the invention of some device or method - is the applicative usability of it in immediate material terms. But information is no less innovated. They are all the product of human intellect.

I think attribution is the only thing we can agree on. Imposed limitations on anything other than that are artificial, and silly. Attributing works of the human mind to their originators is an intuitive concept, because it ties nicely with truth and falsity (claiming false origin is basically lying). Preventing others from using and benefiting from them is a far more controversial issue.

Re:Copyright broken

[rickb928]

"This is really about protecting the Scrabble copyright..."

"None of this has anything to do with copyright."

Which is it, exactly?

Re:Copyright broken

[Oktober Sunset]

Your confusing creation with innovation, innovation is the introduction of something new, if I paint a picture of a kitty cat, it is a creative process, but its not innovative, its been done before, my kitty cat picture would be my unique creation, but its not a new invention. Now if I painted it onto the moon using an orbital cannon, that would be innovative, cos its a new way of painting a kitty cat.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, innovations is being encouraged; copying is being discouraged. Take a look at the game below which is beyond Hasbro's arm and is actually a significant improvement.

http://www.wildwords.us

It will be up on Facebook and other social networks soon.

Re:Copyright broken

[LargeWu]

Part of the problem of 'improving' the game, though, is that Scrabble has a very well known set of rules that people have become accustomed to, for example the placement of the bonus sqaures. And these have a profound effect on gameplay. Tweaking these rules makes the game unlike what people want and are used to, which is why Wordscraper adding quadruple letter squares, or whatever, makes me not want to play it. Because when I want to play Scrabble, I want to play Scrabble, and not some knockoff. So I would rather play real Scrabble with Hasbro's flawed client, than play a fake Scrabble with the new Wordscraper client.

Re:Copyright broken

[Oktober Sunset]

no no, if you apply the standard patent office standards, then scrabulous is totally and absolutely innovative, new and unprecedented, because it's exactly like something that's been around for 60 years, but it's on the internet!

Re:Copyright broken

[hewest]

I hate to say this but "Scrabulous" is not innovative. There was nothing new and was instead created as a direct copy of a successful product.

I am sorry to inform you but copying something is not innovation, remember our "friends" in Redmond have been improperly accused of innovation for the same thing.

Re:Copyright broken

[kesuki]

you've never played othello have you? round discs, no problems playing it ever.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright and trademark are about as related as boats and cars. Please put more effort into debate. It's really annoying for a debate about cars to have people keep saying "but the problem is the water level in the lake."

If you don't understand the difference between copyright/trademark, or between a product and a brand, you really need to stay out of discussions like this.

Thankfully, the car analogy should have given him all the information he needed.

Re:Copyright broken

[mdwh2]

Otherwise, all someone would have to do to duplicate my game would be to change the title.

I suspect that the work to create Scrabulous was more than simply running a Scrabble board through a photocopier and then changing the title...

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

And therein lies the problem: you cannot try to abstract "new" without attempting to document and differentiate between every "new" concept, device, and process in the entire inventory of human innovative creation, the differences being often separated by as thin a line as the "non-innovative" creations. It is a silly business. You may counter by saying that attribution would also be made impossible by this same problem (because you have to decide whether similar-but-different things belong to the original creator) but people are less likely to go after each others throats when money is not in middle of the the picture. That way, we leave it back to natural human reaction to blatant lies, as opposed to clever ways to make money by imposing things on the world.

Freedom is mostly a good thing.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

Just in case you missed it, here is the complaint. I draw your attention to the first paragraph of the Introduction:

'This is an action for trademark and copyright infringement against Rajat and Jayant Agarwalla and their company, RJ Softwares, for creating and publicly displaying an online game that copies the essential and original elements of Hasbro's venerable and famous SCRABBLE crossword board game and for promoting and profiting from it in the commerce of the United States under the confusingly similar "Scrabulous" name.'

Perhaps your comment

Scrabble was clonable the first day it was released. You just had to use a different name and color the board differently. This whole thing you're on about is completely mis-aimed.

would be more appropriate if directed at the folks at Hasbro.

I take no issue, by the way, with their trademark claim. I believe society benefits if we have assurance we are doing business with the party we think we are doing business with. If Hasbro thinks the name Scrabulous is too similar to Scrabble - and I agree that it is - they are absolutely right to take action on the trademark claim.

However, I stand by my previously stated opinion with regard to never-ending copyrights.

Re:Copyright broken

[gberke]

Scrabulous was not innovation. it was outright theft. It was nice, it was fun, but it certainly didn't belong to them.
If they had approached scrabble, if they had presented a reasonable plan, and that was ignored or dismissed out of hand, well, I'd be inclined to look much more kindly at scrabulous. Heck, I don't know, maybe that's what they did. I didn't see any on line "Scrabble" being offered.
Scrabble isn't "checkers", not yet.
I'm surprised they didn't just work to license the game from scrabble. Then again, maybe they did.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is that Scrabulous was a brand ripoff. Game clones are okay. Brand clones aren't.

Personally, I don't think it was. When I hear the word 'Scrabulous', I think "Oh - so it's like Scrabble, but by some different guys.". For me, at least, that's not an infringement of trademark at all.

Re:Copyright broken

[Number14]

Arg... this is both. The Trademark issue is over the name, and the Copyright issue is over the identical board. The look of the board, unlike the rules of the game, CAN be copyrighted.

Re:Copyright broken

[Kangburra]

How do you keep all the discs upright, you don't. Disc orientation is irrelevant, whereas in Scarabble it's critical. Words with upside down and slanted letters would inhibit the fun of the game. No making italic words isn't worth extra points! ;-)

Re:Copyright broken

[2nd Post!]

How about the artwork, colors, layout, and font?

Does the fact that they changed all of the above, as well as the name, indicate something about the issues at stake?

Re:Copyright broken

[Chaos Incarnate]

If they don't use it for a certain amount of time, it should be up for grabs for someone who does want to use it. Five, ten years? Otherwise, if it's in active use, I agree.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

They used a similar name, had the same board design, same board coloration, similar-looking tiles. Not only that, but they did in fact used the word Scrabble on their website to denote a version of their game.

The point is that you can use similar game play as someone else but you cannot, however, use someone's else trademarks or copyrighted works in order to promote your similar work. If the people who made Scrabulous were honest people, they would not have ripped off so much of the superficial image of Scrabble - they did rip it off so badly because they wanted the benefit of a confusion with Scrabble and the familiarity of the official Scrabble game.

Re:Copyright broken

[geekoid]

All those 'rules' are guidelines. That's all.

The fact that it indicates it's a scrabble like game is the problem.
Now it indicates its a tile turning word game. not related with scrabble.

Re:Copyright broken

[geekoid]

read the damn DMCA, it applies to more then Copyright.

In fact, if you don't know how it applies to boat hulls, then you don't understand it at all.

"Spend more time actually reading up on the subject we are commenting on"
oh, Irony.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

Clearly, Hasbro's lawyers do NOT feel Scrabulous violated trademark, but rather included copyrighted code from Hasbro.

If you read the complaint, it's both.

I'll quote some of section24,

Hasbro is the owner of the following valid and subsisting copyrights registered in the Copyright Office:

A. The Rules of Playing SCRABBLE were first registered for copyright protection under registration No. AA 104547, published on December 1, 1948 ...

B. The Gameboard for SCRABBLE ws first registered for copyright protection under gegistration No. K 18528 and published on December 1, 1948 ...

C. The Official SCRABBLE Players Dictionary ...

25. The SCRABBLE name is inherently distinctive and has been registered as a trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ...

I'll stop here but you get the idea. To the guy above who says he's a game designer, Hasbro's suit seems to imply that the rules of the game, as well as the layout of the board, can be copyrighted.

This contradicts your comment

Game designs and rules are unprotected. Titles, presentation, artwork and appearances are protected. This is ideal. No brokenness here.

I suppose they can allege whatever they want in their complaint, but they do quote registration numbers.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

read the damn DMCA, it applies to more then Copyright.

Read the damn complaint. It alleges trademark and copyright infringement.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

The look of the board, unlike the rules of the game, CAN be copyrighted.

According to the complaint, the rules can and have been copyrighted since 1948 under registration No. AA 104547.

Re:Copyright broken

[lgw]

... and that's how the law works: don't protect your trandemark and you lose it, as happened with "escalator" for example.

Or, you can make chemical weapons for the losing side in a war and lose your trademark to the victor, as happened to Bayer with "aspirin" and "heroin". ;)

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

"Spend more time actually reading up on the subject we are commenting on"
oh, Irony.

Indeed.

Re:Copyright broken

[Wildclaw]

Nobody, just like Shakespeare and The Odessey. A basic familiarity with the law might help you here. Nobody ever filed for or was granted protection on those items, and if they had been, they'd be several thousands of years expired by now.

That is just insane. What about the ancestors of those great authors and game creators. Why shouldn't they have the right to protect their forefathers creations and make sure that they aren't misused, not to mention profiteered on.

I hereby suggest a slight change to the copyright law. How does an even 10000 year retroactive copyright law sound. I think that is a nice and even number that should adequatly protect the rights of the creator and his progeny, while still being constitutional. Copyright ensures that the work of art stays in control of the family who actually created it, instead of being stolen by the lazy pricks in society.

Anyone who doesn't agree with me is obviously a thief and not worth debating with. Have a nice day.

- A righteous fighter for fairer (stronger) intellectual property rights

Disclaimer: The above doesn't represent my opinions. Any resemblance to common pro copyright arguments is likely intentional. I have no intention at devaluing the parent post, and it was only choosen because of the nice quote.

Re:Copyright broken

[Wildclaw]

99% of progress is improving already existing ideas.

The remaining 1% is progress from smart people with all the prerequisite societal knowledge who by chance stumble upon a good idea. Often around the same time as someone on the other side of the globe gets the almost exact same idea because he also have the same prerequisite knowledge to make the deduction needed.

Re:Copyright broken

[Endo13]

I know you're trying to be funny and/or sarcastic, but you're missing the GP's point - which isn't really that funny.

The innovation in this case is taking the game and creating a good working addon applet with it. Something which Hasbro has attempted and failed miserably. And so, because of ridiculous copyright duration, no one is allowed to make a good working version of the game for Facebook.

Re:Copyright broken

[PinkPanther]

WHAT MONEY?

Hasbro has an ancient game that they has spent zero time innovating on. A market demand opens for the game on the Intertubes and Hasbro failed to identify and fulfill that niche.

These other guys built it, made money off it, and likely sent money Hasbro's way that they would not have otherwise had (new players wanting an offline version). I highly doubt people avoided buying the game because they could play it online...they wouldn't have FOUND the game if it wasn't online.

Hasbro has been raking in cash on an idea that they have effectively let die. Along comes someone who does a great job in a market they aren't servicing ... and they whine all the way to the courts.

These guys did NOT "steal" money (copyright and trademark aren't theft, by the way). They serviced a market that Hasbro failed to find for the past 15 years or so.

Re:Copyright broken

[PinkPanther]

Copyright ensures that the work of art stays in control of the family who actually created it...

Just as the forefathers had intended

Re:Copyright broken

[kesuki]

there are plenty of way to keep discs oriented easily. not the least of which is to have a thick disc with a square back, and a round face. eg: ([ ])

Re:Copyright broken

[PinkPanther]

Laugh all you want, but there is no doubt that innovation has happened here. Hasbro has had 15+ years that the internet has become "popular" and yet they failed to move their game (and business model) to the Web. Most definitely there is a market for that, and someone else innovated exceedingly well (innovation is about executing on an idea, not necessarily inventing a new one).

Hasbro instead came late to the game with a mediocre competitor that simply won't win. So instead of becoming the better product and competing for mindshare (the free market way!), they went to court (whose way is that??).

Re:Copyright broken

[PinkPanther]

Innovation is about doing something new, not necessarily about inventing a whole new thing.

These guys innovated by bringing a popular game to an entirely new format, and thereby to an entirely new audience.

What Hasbro hasn't done is innovate; They've remained with their 60 year old design.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

> In fairness, it probably should. Otherwise I could see it being encouragement for some people to try and make the copyright holder dead in order to better evade it.

I sincerely hope no one would go *that* far, but I suppose I couldn't put it past some corporations.

That said, IMHO, it should have a fixed term that's non-renewable and is set in stone when they register the copyright.

But Disney would hate that for obvious reasons.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

The broken part is that the game is 60 years old and still under copyright.

Re:Copyright broken

[mattack2]

Hasbro didn't make any applet. Gamehouse made one for Mattel, which owns the rights to Scrabble outside the US and Canada.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Well making an online version apparently was - it seems Hasbro's Facebook version is awful, in terms of UI, speed, & feature set.

Re:Copyright broken

[Durf]

I was under the impression that Scrabble remains in production to this day. What about this trademark was "not in use"?

Re:Copyright broken

[oracle128]

And because of the crazy long copyright terms now, innovation is being stifled.

A law that prevents people from ripping off existing products causes innovation to be stifled?

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

wait, so it was Hasbro's idea to put scrabble on the web integrated with a well known social network so that you could play against your friends without having to be in the same location as them? As it was Hasbro's idea to persist the games so that you could make a move at your leisure whenever you have time?

there is a hell of a lot of innovation going on with Scrabulous.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

It's spelled "advice", genius.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

It's spelled "advice", genius.

You close your quotes after the comma, Einstein.

Re:Copyright broken

[johannesg]

How long has Scrabble been out, 60 years? And because of the crazy long copyright terms now, innovation is being stifled.

If you define 'innovation' as copying someone else's idea in almost every detail.

The innovation here is that the game now plays on the internet.

Hey, it is good enough for patents...

Re:Copyright broken

[Cassius Corodes]

Well porting the game is not exactly innovation - and licensing is always an option.

Re:Copyright broken

[greenpanda]

But they do use it. It's available in every branch of WHSmith's and Woolworth's in the country. Just because they didn't have a Facebook app of it does that mean that they aren't using their trademark?

Does that mean they now need to create a mySpace app, a google widget etc just so they can stop this from happening further?

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Cowpat]

I never played it, so I can't comment on what the artwork looked like, but on the trademark issue, it was a similar name which looked like it had been deliberately contrived to be similar whilst not being exactly the same. I've not seen monopoly knockoffs which end in 'opoly' being victimised (at least not sucessfully) by whoever owns the rights to 'monopoly'. That sort of name says "hey, look, we deliberately contrived our name so that it isn't the same as the trademark, but is similar to give you an indication of what the game is actually like". I don't think it requires a great deal of intelligence to figure out that something name 'scrabulous' is probably not an official scrabble (or hasbro) product, maybe I'm wrong.

Re:Copyright broken

[Alistair Hutton]

The written rules can be copyrighted (like any written work) but the rule concepts are not copyrightable.

Re:Copyright broken

[KDR_11k]

It might not be actual copyright infringement but it must be alledged in the claim so the court can decide if it is. AFAIK all charges must be raised at the start of a lawsuit, once the suit gets going you cannot file additional charges in the same suit or something like that. Gotta aim high because you can't correct upwards, only down.

Re:Copyright broken

[KDR_11k]

Well, you can change the board layout and the previous story on the official client said they couldn't even get a game going. Either way this seems to be getting way more attention than it deserves.

Re:Copyright broken

[KDR_11k]

I think forcing people to get creative in their workaround is beneficial overall, I'd rather see e.g. new stories use their own characters (ecven if they share traits with existing ones) than use other people's characters. Especially since other writers often write other things so those "fan fics" would probably just annoy those who know a lot about the original characters.

Re:Copyright broken

[Chaos Incarnate]

Nothing that I'm aware of; I was replying to p0tat03's suggestion in the abstract.

Re:Copyright broken

[bit01]

In fairness, it probably should. Otherwise I could see it being encouragement for some people to try and make the copyright holder dead in order to better evade it.

Nonsense. Should we do away with inheritance laws because that "gives an incentive to the children to knock off their parents"?

It can be quite reasonably argued that copyright should end at the author's death, in fact before if the original purpose of copyright were ever to be fulfilled.

And that could/should apply even if the copyright is assigned to or created by a corporation. A corporation is just a collection of people and a corporation could/should lose the copyright as the individual authors/employees/share holders die.

Corporations are just a construct should have no rights at all other than those directly reflecting the individuals participating.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

If putting something like Scrabble on Facebook was such an obvious innovation, why didn't Hasbro do it years ago?

Besides, do you really think the Scrabble part of Scrabulous/Wordscraper really involves all that much code? I'm willing to bet that the networking and database (stat-tracking stuff) required a lot more work to create.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

It's spelled "advice", genius.

You close your quotes after the comma, Einstein.

Not when using quotes to isolate a single word, Brainiac

Re:Copyright broken

[mdwh2]

If you're going to be a grammar nazi, at least get it right.

Re:Copyright broken

[poot_rootbeer]

WHAT MONEY?

The money you mentioned three sentences later:

These other guys built it, made money off it

I can't believe the furor over this. The only way that it could have been more clear that the Scrabulous developers were profiting off of intellectual property that did not belong to them would be if the app had literally been named "Scrabble" and scanned in the artwork directly from Hasbro's product.

Whether you believe intellectual property, as a legal concept, is just or not is a different issue, but under the current law Scrabulous was a violation. Kudos for the Wordscraper devs for finding a way now to preserve the core mechanics of the game without abusing trademark or copyright, but quite frankly it should have been done six months ago.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

The written rules can be copyrighted (like any written work) but the rule concepts are not copyrightable.

The same could be said for a song, or a novel, and I never stated different. The GP said "The look of the board, unlike the rules of the game, CAN be copyrighted." That is not correct. The rules can be copyrighted just like any other written work.

Hasbro's complaint states that there are no official rules for Scrabulous. 'A user not already familiar with the rules of the SCRABBLE crossword game would not know how to play "scrabulous."

'On information and belief, until earlier this year, defendants included on their website hyperlinks to official SCRABBLE webpages, resources such as the official SCRABBLE rules ...' (emphasis mine)

I could keep typing this up for you, or you could read it yourself.

Hasbro is claiming infringement of their copyrights, including the copyrights they hold on the written rules of the game. They may be full of it, but that is what they are alleging.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

True, they tend to throw as much as possible at the wall to see what will stick. But if you read through the claim, infringement of their copyrights on the rules and the official game dictionaries is actually a very significant part of it. They are alleging the defendants linked to official Hasbro resources (like their rules), as they had not created their own like resources.

And I know that opens another can of worms (i.e. if you put it up on the web, how can linking to it be copyright infringement) but I think they are going to argue that these guys copied their game, and when players go looking for the rules, they are directed to Hasbro's rules. When they need a game dictionary, they are directed to Hasbro's dictionary. So they are using their written, copyrighted materials without permission.

I guess an analogy would be when an actor needs his lines, and you direct him to a copy of Citizen Kane, if he performs it line-for-line without permission you are violating the copyright of that work.

Re:Copyright broken

[clone53421]

Now that we're talking about tile shape, I'm actually starting to get a brainstorm (perhaps it's a bit offtopic, but forgive me).

Square discs make a lot of sense... they're traditional (crossword puzzles) and they fit together into a grid. There are only a few shapes that fit together like that: triangles, parallelograms (squares, rectangles, and diamonds), and hexagons. Triangles won't work well for word games, because every other triangle in the grid will be upside-down. However, squares and hexagons fit together upright.

I'm wondering if it would be possible to create a game with similar rules to Scrabble but using a hexagonal grid and tiles instead of square ones. It probably would be too novel an idea to make money, so it would probably be best launched as an alternative board/rules to a computer game. If enough people liked it, it might be profitable, but I don't really see that.

The rules would have to be a bit different: for instance you'd probably have to say that 2-letter words are not allowed (e.g. they are ignored). The reason for this is that two crossing words could also create one or two more 2-letter "words" going the third direction, and it would be too difficult if those two letters also had to create a word. They'd just be ignored. Also you'd need a rule that parallel words cannot share adjacent hexagons. In Scrabble, adjacent words have to create valid 2-letter words where they overlap, but this wouldn't allow 2-letter words so they just wouldn't be allowed to sit adjacent.

Like I said, it probably wouldn't be a money-maker, but it would probably be a fairly easy addition to a computer game, and it'd be novel enough that I'd actually like to try playing it.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

According to your link,

In American English, the comma (like most other punctuation marks) is included inside a quotation, no matter what the circumstances

Forgive my North American centric biases, but that is where I live.

As for being a grammar nazi, I was giving a troll a taste of his own medicine. He took the time to read a 275 word comment I had made on the facts of the case, then pointed out a spelling mistake I made on the last word (insulting me in the process). Way to add to the discussion.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really annoying for a debate about cars to have people keep saying "but the problem is the water level in the lake."

If your car stops running because you're driving in 10" of water, the problem probably IS the water level of the lake...

Re:Copyright broken

[tehcyder]

If scrabulous were a Hasbro product it would have been called 'Scrabble' or 'Scrabble online', it would not have been a deliberate portmanteau of 'scrabble' and 'fabulous'. Any reasonable person should come to the conclusion that they're not related except that the scrab- prefix indicates that it's a scrabble-like game. Thus; not a trademark infringement.

Let me guess, YouANAL.

Re:Copyright broken

[clone53421]

A. The Rules of Playing SCRABBLE were first registered for copyright protection under registration No. AA 104547, published on December 1, 1948 ...

The rules can't be copyrighted; they're intangible. The rulebook can. Unless Scrabulous substantially copied the text of the Scrabble rulebook, they didn't violate that copyright.

B. The Gameboard for SCRABBLE ws first registered for copyright protection under gegistration No. K 18528 and published on December 1, 1948 ...

The look of the gameboard was copyrightable, and Scrabulous was probably wrong in making their gameboard resemble the Scrabble board as much as it did.

C. The Official SCRABBLE Players Dictionary ...

Yes, that's copyrighted but I'll skip it because it's not relevant... you were just being thorough in listing the copyrights held by Hasbro. I understand that.

25. The SCRABBLE name is inherently distinctive and has been registered as a trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ...

I'm not really sure how well this holds up. "Scrabble" is a word. If it can be claimed that it's descriptive of the rules or play (which is debatable, I'll admit), its trademarkability is suspect. Reading the criteria for trademark distinctiveness, I'd say "Scrabble" is probably a suggestive trademark (although arbitrary and descriptive could both be argued, and probably would be in court by opposing parties - although I don't think arbitrary holds weight: the game consists of sliding tiles around, and the word scrabble could feasibly be used to describe those actions). If a name is descriptive, it has to also be distinctive in order to be trademarkable. I'd be willing to say that "Scrabble" is distinctive, but since it's also somewhat descriptive of the game, "Scrabulous" could be argued as also being descriptive and not necessarily a rip-off of Scrabble.

Basically, Hasbro did have a case, but a lot of the charges are not nearly as strong as they'd like us to believe. They're being greedy, IMO.

Re:Copyright broken

[metaphorever]

Part of the confusion comes from Hasbro themselves. Here is the auto response I got back when I email their customer service about the litigation. As you can see in the bolded section they are intentionall framing this as equivallent to the RIAA action which makes it very easy for someone to miss the point where the never direct invoke copywrite but merely refer to 'infringement'.

We understand your passion for the SCRABBLE brand. In fact, we have been hard at work creating a variety of great new ways to enjoy SCRABBLE, from the classic board game, to playing in the digital space on the iPod, iPhone, pogo.com online game site, and now, social networking on Facebook. Some people have asked us why we couldn't coexist with Scrabulous, and compete head-to-head. In the toy and game business, we have many legitimate competitors, and we welcome healthy competition as our industry strives to provide the best entertainment value for consumers everywhere. Scrabulous did not represent legitimate competition. Scrabulous was an infringement, it was unlawful, and we took the necessary action, similar to what the recording industry did when kids were posting music to illegal sites and allowing their friends to copy the music for free. As you know, Hasbro filed suit on July 24 to protect our intellectual property rights. However, in deference to SCRABBLE fans like you, we waited to take this action until we had an authentic alternative to offer players. We know that many of you are closely scrutinizing the new SCRABBLE application developed by Electronic Arts. Please note that this application remains in a beta stage on Facebook, and both EA and Hasbro are monitoring feedback from fans, which will help us as we continue to improve the experience leading up to the official launch scheduled for the first half of August. In closing, we want you to know that SCRABBLE is a very important game and brand for Hasbro. We value the passion of our fans, and we promise that we will continue to innovate in providing the best SCRABBLE experiences possible.

Re:Copyright broken

[clone53421]

By your logic, the automobile wasn't innovative because they just added an "internal combustion engine" to the horse-drawn buggy. Think about it: the "rules" of driving were the same, the "interface" was virtually the same (automobiles started off looking basically like horse-drawn carriages, just without the horses) and the only real difference was the engine.

Wait, did I just use another car analogy? Ahh, dang it...

Re:Copyright broken

[clone53421]

a direct copy of a successful product.

I wasn't aware that Scrabble ever produced a successful internet-based version of their game.

Re:Copyright broken

[2nd Post!]

What improvement to Scrabble did Scrabulous bring to the table? That you can play it over the internet? Your point doesn't address my question.

Re:Copyright broken

[2nd Post!]

Except for the fact that the ICE was itself an innovation.

Unless you're going to claim that Scrabulous somehow helped popularize and develop the internet, it's merely Scrabble over a network... and they would still need to license Scrabble in order to do what they did; that they did not license Scrabble means they violated trademark and copyright (at least) IP laws.

Re:Copyright broken

[clone53421]

Except for the fact that the ICE was itself an innovation.

Um, not really. It was existent technology.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

The rules can't be copyrighted; they're intangible. The rulebook can.

I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation or opinion, but I'll just remind you I was quoting from the complaint. So, you're objection to the phrase "The Rules of Playing SCRABBLE were first registered for copyright protection ..." really should be directed at Hasbro.

Unless Scrabulous substantially copied the text of the Scrabble rulebook, they didn't violate that copyright.

That is exactly what Hasbro is alleging, that there are no official rules to the game Scrabulous, and - in the past - when players clicked the link for the rules, they are redirected to the official rules of Scrabble, for which Hasbro holds the copyright. Same with the official game dictionary.

It's all in their complaint. If you have not already read it, I encourage you to do so. It isn't very long. (Probably shorter than all of the comments in this thread insisting Hasbro is not claiming copyright infringement, which it is).

Yes, that's copyrighted but I'll skip it because it's not relevant... you were just being thorough in listing the copyrights held by Hasbro. I understand that.

No, I was quoting directly from the complaint. I've quoted further elsewhere in this thread the reason Hasbro considers this relevant, so I will simply encourage you to read my other comments or the complaint itself.

Again, Hasbro is claiming infringement on the copyrights they hold on the text of the rules to the game of Scrabble, the text of the game dictionary and violation of their trademark. All three are part of their complaint.

I'm not really sure how well this holds up. "Scrabble" is a word.

So is apple. So is windows. But Apple and Windows are registered trademarks.

The complaint claims that Scrabble has been registered as a trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office since the 1950s for things ranging from "equipment and accessories for playing a board game," scoring devices, accessories such as dice cups, cubes and timers and - notably - "computer game programs" (registered November 26, 2002 under registration number 2,654,348).

I have no idea whether or not any of these trademarks have been challenged, but there they are. Hasbro is saying they are the only ones who can use the word Scrabble to describe a board game, or its electronic counterpart, and that "Scrabulous" is confusingly similar.

I have to say I would tend to agree. My girlfriend was/is addicted to the game and I had assumed, since they were using such a similar name, they must have worked out a licensing agreement with the trademark holder.

If I had gone so far as to click on the link for the rules or dictionary, and been redirected to Hasbros official, copyrighted documents, I would have been convinced this was a Hasbro product. It's this kind of confusion trademark law is designed to prevent.

As for their allegations of copyright infringement, I agree that is not so cut and dried. Especially considering the can of worms you open by claiming that linking to a publicly available document on the web can be construed as copyright infringement.

But Hasbro is saying the defendants directed the players to the official, copyrighted Hasbro rules when looking for the rules to Scrabulous, so I guess they are saying it was no different than copying the rulebook and calling it the Rules of Scrabulous.

I don't know, IANAL and all that, but it should be interesting to see how that part plays out.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

Yeah, they may as well have just gone ahead and used a car analogy.

Thanks for posting that, I hadn't seen it.

Re:Copyright broken

[clone53421]

You make good points. I'm not really going to try to argue against any of them.

Looking through the Hasbro complaint, though, I notice a few statements:

30. On information and belief, until earlier this year, defendants embedded "meta tags" in their website software to attract individuals searching the internet for keywords such as "SCRABBLE online", "play SCRABBLE online," and "free online SCRABBLE."

IANAL, but isn't that comparable to a common practice of generic cereal brands of using advertising that says things like "If you like Captain Crunch®, try this!"?

33. On information and belief, until earlier this year, defendants included on their website a confusing and inaccurate disclaimer that read "Scrabulous is a registered trademark of J.W. Spear & Son PLC and Hasbro Inc. Any and all uses of the word "Scrabulous" on these pages refers to this trademark. This webpage in no way is an attempt to confuse the visitor that it is the web page of Mattel or Hasbro brand Scrabulous...You have come to the wrong place if you are looking for the official Scrabulous, Mattel or Hasbro website."

That's actually pretty funny... it looks like they did a global search-and-replace after they wrote the disclaimer. I don't think it's especially damning, though. Whatever else Hasbro might have to hit them with, "they tried to confuse people into thinking they were us" doesn't hold water by me.

Re:Copyright broken

[orgelspieler]

Titles are not protected by copyright. That's a common misconception. If I write a book and call it Harry Potter and the Copyright Infringement Case that went Nowhere, copyright law doesn't give anybody the right to stop me.

Re:Copyright broken

[Sigma 7]

Most definitely there is a market for that, and someone else innovated exceedingly well (innovation is about executing on an idea, not necessarily inventing a new one).

How is Scrabulous more innovative than Yahoo's version of Literati? I haven't played wither game, but as far as I know, Literati was first.

Hasbro instead came late to the game with a mediocre competitor that simply won't win. So instead of becoming the better product and competing for mindshare (the free market way!), they went to court (whose way is that??).

It is the way of a publically traded company. Shareholders want to see the bottom line maxed out whenever possible, which means the following:
- Hasbro must defend their trademarks to prevent dilution. If they don't, consumers will get confused on what is a "canon" game of Scrabble from Hasbro, causing Hasbro to lose profit. In fact, they are actively expected to defend their trademarks when other people of making a profit from it.
- Since they aren't a software company, they can't justify hiring a programming team. However, they can contract or license the Scrabble trademark to EA or other interested parties. They may have a barrier to entry to prevent an infinite number of requests pouring in, which does prevent rapid deployment but also ensures the value of the trademark.
- Releasing an online version does require a bit of discussion. As you know, releasing a game for free on Facebook provides no direct profit and relies on ad revenue instead, which is something shareholders aren't necessarily comfortable with.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

That part seemed bazaar to me too. I had to read it two or three times, and I'm still not sure I understand it.

Hasbro seems to be saying the defendants were claiming that "Scrabulous" is a registered trademark of Hasbro. For what purpose I don't know, other than to confuse the player in to thinking it is an official Hasbro game.

This is one of the reasons I believe Hasbro has (or rather had) a legitimate trademark claim.

The meta tags part is problematic. The name of the city I live in has been trademarked, as is the name of a very high profile event we will be hosting in a couple of years. But I use these trademarked words in the meta tags of web page I've made featuring photos I've taken of the city and venues being constructed for the event. What else am I supposed to do? If people are looking for photos of the city, or the buildings being constructed for the event, I want them to be able to find mine.

At the same time, I can understand why I should be prevented from registering a domain featuring these trademarked words, if the domain and the site itself confuse the visitor in to thinking that my site is officially connected to the event or the city.

So I guess my opinion - for what it's worth (which isn't much) - is that there is nothing wrong with using trademarked words in the meta tags of your website, provided your site does not confuse the people visiting it in to thinking you are officially connected to the entity that owns the trademark. In this case, I really think Hasbro has a reasonable trademark claim, especially given the defendants were linking to official, copyrighted Hasbro materials like the rule book and dictionaries, the bazaar statement that "Scrabulous" is a registered trademark belonging to Hasbro and the name Scrabulous itself.

Since they have changed the name and (apparently) removed the links to Hasbro's copyrighted materials, that leaves Hasbro with a claim of copyright infringement for linking to those materials in the past.

It will be interesting to see if this ends it or if they continue to pursue litigation.

 

Re:Copyright broken

[clone53421]

That part seemed bazaar to me too. I had to read it two or three times, and I'm still not sure I understand it.

Hasbro seems to be saying the defendants were claiming that "Scrabulous" is a registered trademark of Hasbro. For what purpose I don't know, other than to confuse the player in to thinking it is an official Hasbro game.

This is one of the reasons I believe Hasbro has (or rather had) a legitimate trademark claim.

Try this:

Scrabble is a registered trademark of J.W. Spear & Son PLC and Hasbro Inc. Any and all uses of the word "Scrabble" on these pages refers to this trademark. This webpage in no way is an attempt to confuse the visitor that it is the web page of Mattel or Hasbro brand Scrabble...You have come to the wrong place if you are looking for the official Scrabble, Mattel or Hasbro website.

Obviously, they wrote up their disclaimer, then they decided to make sure they hadn't accidentally used the trademark to refer to their clone. So they did a global search-and-replace for Scrabble->Scrabulous, forgetting about the disclaimer... whoops!

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

Ah, yes. Now I get it. That makes perfect sense.

Thank you.

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

they didn't claim to be 'scrabble'. They claimed to be 'scrabulous'.

Yeah, and Mike Rowe Soft didn't claim to be Microsoft. Trademarks are subject to nearness, and it's well defined. Scrabulous is just as in the wrong as I would be if I made Cocara Cola.

Because I see all sorts of problems for microstar and anyone who sells a generic microwave.

Why, which manufacturer's trademark do you believe Microstar is violating? Or is it just that you believe random words are trademarks too?

Any reasonable person should come to the conclusion that

Any reasonable person should come to the conclusion that their opinion does not guide the law. Prefix haunting is a well established set of precedent. Spend less time theorizing what the law ought to be and more time learning what it actually is.

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

Copyright has nothing to do with innovation

I'm pretty sure intellectual property, or indeed *anything* that falls under copyright law is "innovated" in some manner.

Innovation is actually clearly defined with regards to intellectual property, and applies only to methods and mechanics for achieving work goals. The difference between patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret is that the first deals with innovative work, the second with creative work, the third with branding work and the fourth with methodology.

That's why a new kind of engine is only subject to patent, and not the other three: because it's innovation, and not artistic, branding or methodological.

That's why a book is only subject to copyright, and not the other three: it's a creative work, and not innovative, branding or methodological.

That's why a company name and advertising style are subject only to trademark, and not the other three: it's branding, and not creative, innovative or methodological.

That's why the colonel's secret blend of 11 herbs and spices is subject only to trade secret, and not the other three: it's methodological, not creative, innovative or branding.

The governing body of law must by needs make very explicit which category something falls into, so that it is clear which set of laws govern its protection, and as such the costs, duration and responsibility of the creator in regards to protecting it. Could those products be described with the other terms? Sure, the engine might be very artistically designed; it could have a really well sculpted engine block and a nice surface texture and whatever. But, from the perspective of the law, it is described as "a work of innovation". It doesn't matter if you can use the other words legitimately in a literate context; in the legal sense the words are far, far more narrowly defined.

But information is no less innovated. They are all the product of human intellect.

The law is not subject to semantic games. The word "innovation" in the context of legal protection for work has an extremely specific context which you are not applying. In context, that simply is not the case.

Legal terms != general words. Attempting to use legal terminology in a descriptive or proscriptive fashion is Guaranteed Fail (tm).

Hope that clears things up for you.

Imposed limitations on anything other than that are artificial, and silly.

Artificial? Sure, all law - and indeed all language, from one point of view - is artificial.

Silly? Speaking as someone enjoying those protections, I strongly disagree.

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

This may be the single greatest explanation of the difference between copyright and patent I've ever seen. That it happens to be correct is mere icing on the cake.

You, sir, have earned a friend flag.

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

Yes, except in the case of the font. Those things are being changed because this is a trademark issue, and trademark is about presentation.

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

And therein lies the problem: you cannot try to abstract "new" without attempting to document and differentiate between every "new" concept, device, and process in the entire inventory of human innovative creation

Sure you can. Just because you don't know how the law does it doesn't mean the law doesn't do it. Try reading the law, instead of insisting it cannot exist due to your not being able to imagine how it might work. This is silly. There are dozens of such systems globally, even after the Berne conventions.

Stop confusing your ignorance with impossibility. It's genuinely embarrassing to watch. Learn the phrase "I don't know".

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

Sorry, I meant to say "this is really about protecting the Scrabble trademark", which is why I hinged the argument I made on active protection. You're right to point out my error. As you probably know, a copyright is a copyright, but trademarks have to be vigorously defended or they disappear, even if they're not yet expired.

You are correct, I misspoke. I find it amusing that only one person noticed, when so many people were desperately trying to prove me wrong.

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

But, hey, some random stranger on Slasdot assures me this has nothing to do with copyright, so I guess I'll just go with that.

Well, as long as you're too lazy to go through the post tree, to the places where I cite the US government sites which write out, clear as day, what copyright protects, then I guess I can't fault you for assuming that non-legally-trained staff writers make small mistakes in reporting. I do, however, find it amusing that you've managed to miss that all lawsuits for either copyright or trademark are filed as "copyright and trademark." Since it's a trademark issue, yes, this was filed as copyright and trademark. If you bother to look into the lawsuit, there are no copyright claims.

Incidentally, Scrabble is from 1938. That's a bit more than 60 years. If this were about copyright, it would apply to the work. The reason they cite 60 years is that the brand Scrabble was introduced in 1948; previously the game was known as Lexico. The reason they're focussing on the age of the brand, instead of the game, is because this is a trademark issue.

And yes, many companies abuse the DMCA because of its draconian policies regarding online content. Do you also believe that when the DMCA is invoked to shut down a porn site, it's a copyright issue? Welcome to America: laws are applicable in places other than where their titles might suggest.

As an intelligent human being

Straw man (and debatable). No amount of intelligence grants you magical education, and this is clearly a field with which you are no more familiar than anyone reading what other slashdotters told them. You haven't even sorted out yet that an A+B suit might be only about B. You don't even know how to read the titles of lawsuits.

who has actually looked around and noticed what happens in the real worl

What you may or may not have noticed in the real world, and attached misapprehensions to, has essentially nothing to do with your familiarity with the law. If you had noticed what happened in court, in terms of precedent, that would matter, but since precedent says you're wrong, I don't need to ask whether or not you've been paying attention. It's a little obvious. Go look up the history of Teeko.

Spend more time actually reading up on the subject we are commenting on

I don't need to. As a professional game developer, I've spent dozens of hours talking about this with lawyers. Don't get haughty just because you think you're right, as your citation count is zero and mine is not.

and less dispensing unsolicited advise to people who didn't ask for it.

Oh, I see, you live in a fantasy world where you may incorrectly tell someone they are wrong, and if they show you why, they're dispensing to you unwanted advice. I'd say Tu Quoque, but I doubt you'd understand it.

I would like to remind you that a can of Campbell's soup can be art.

Yeah, maybe you should go look up the ramifications of the lawsuit filed by the Campbell's Soup Company against Andy Warhol, where they argued literally the exact same thing to prevent their inclusion in his famous pop art. The courts said they were wrong.

Andy Warhol's painting of soup cans is art. The soup cans themselves are branding, and therefore trademark. That's why they're subject to fair use, when paintings are not. Your own example shoots you down, kid. Try doing the reading you plaintively nag from others.

Art is not a thing, it is the act of creation and appreciation.

Not under the law, it isn't. The law isn't worried about definitions you draw from personal experience. Otherwise, I'd be claiming what I said to you was art, in order to prevent you from replying to it to waste my time.

If you want to salve your own ego by saying "nuh uh" a lot w

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

I suspect that the work to create Scrabulous was more than simply running a Scrabble board through a photocopier and then changing the title...

Yep. And that's why when they change the board's appearance and the game's title, they're off of the hook. The work involved in making the implementation is not protected. Behavior and rule clones are legal. Name clones and appearance clones aren't.

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

Correct. That is why I keep saying this is not an issue of copyright, but rather of trademark. (It's not clear to me whether you're agreeing and trying to support me, or misunderstanding the claims I made. If I'm repeating myself about something you already understand, my apologies; I do not mean to condescend. At least, not to you.)

Incidentally, whereas copyright would not protect the book's author there, trademark would. Feel free to consult a lawyer on the point.

Re:Copyright broken

[stonecypher]

Well, except that it isn't, which was kind of my point. This is a trademark claim. Trademarks do not, and should not, expire. The game itself is entirely clonable.

Copyright is not a factor here. What's really being protected here is the title "Scrabble" - under the law, "scrabulous" is too similar for a competing product - as well as elements of its visual design, such as the choice of colors and visual representation for special squares (the little triangles at the edge of the boxes, etc).

The board's layout, incidentally, is not actually protected, just what it looks like. You can have exactly the same layout of exactly the same upgrade squares, and they can have exactly the same function; you just can't use the scrabble colors, the arrow edges, et cetera.

If you were to use animal pictures to indicate those cells (which is in fact what several kids' scrabble clones do), you'd be home free.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

Wow, you put a lot of effort in to that response. It's really too bad you didn't put that effort in to reading the actual complaint, as I suggested you do in another comment.

Well, as long as you're too lazy to go through the post tree, to the places where I cite the US government sites which write out, clear as day, what copyright protects, then I guess I can't fault you for assuming that non-legally-trained staff writers make small mistakes in reporting.

I read the complaint instead. I figured it had more relevance.

If you bother to look into the lawsuit, there are no copyright claims.

You really need to read that complaint. Here, I'll whet your appetite:

FIRST CLAIM (FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT) ...

44. Defendants have infringed Hasbro's copyrights in the SCRABBLE crossword game and The Official SCRABBLE Players Dictionary by copying and publicly displaying and/or preparing or authorizing the preparation of a derivative work of copyrightable matter in Hasbro's SCRABBLE crossword game and The official SCRABBLE Players Dictionary, without Hasbro's consent or authorization.

They sure throw that word "copyright" around a lot for a lawsuit that has nothing to do with copyright.

You see, they are saying that

1. There are no official rules to the game Scrabulous
2. "A user not already familiar with the rules of the SCRABBLE crossword game would not know how to play "Scrabulous."
3. "Until earlier this year, defendants included on their website hyperlinks to official SCRABBLE webpages, resources such as the official SCRABBLE rules, and also other websites offering unauthorized and infringing versions of SCRABBLE.

You may completely disagree with their claim that their copyrights were infringed, but your assertion that they are not claiming copyright infringement is simply wrong.

Re:Copyright broken

[evilRhino]

If this was not a copyright issue, then why did HASBRO file a DMCA complaint?

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Ok, the Mike Rowe Soft thing; he, a student, fought an enormous corporation and didn't lose. They settled out of court, and MR got several hundred dollars worth of stuff in exchange for the domain name. M$ did not win anything w.r.t protecting their trademark. MR was also hampered by broken ICANN regulations which labelled him as having acted in bad faith by asking to be paid hansomely for handing over a domain name that M$ was not entitled to.

I was giving an example of why a name used by one organisation which starts with a string of slightly over half of another trademark is not automatically infringing. MICROsoft - MICROstar; eh? eh? Not buying it? So why are you buying SCRABble - SCRABulous?

From the wiki: "The test is always whether a consumer of the goods or services will be confused as to the identity of the source or origin."
Maybe I wrongfully inserted the word 'reasonable', but I doubt it means 'absolutely any consumer, anywhere, no matter how stupid' either. Will a consumer think "ah, 'scrabulous', must be an official scrabble product", or "ah, 'scrabulous', that looks like someone is trying to advertise a scrabble-like game without portraying themselves as the owners of scrabble"?
Not even google knows about 'prefix haunting', I will therefore say that you are talking out of your ass, unless you can provide some references.
Would you care to explain how knowlege of the present state of the law would in any way be beneficial in constructing an argument as to why a decision based (presumably) soundly upon the law as it stand is wrong?

Finally, hammer it home.
Nearness only applies broadly once you've been ruled against before.
Scrabble is by now a genericized trademark - if I offer to play a game with you using a 15x15 board and some tiles with letters on them, you're going to say "ah! scrabble", not "ah, a tile-turning word game". To then use only part of that mark to identify what your product actually is; is (or ought to be) protected.

And to put the cherry on the top; some ad-hominem:
You're letting your opinion be guided by the law - this makes you a feable-minded moron.
Here's a clue; the law is not right because it's the law. In this case, as a result of 'the law', a wrong decision has been made. Therefore the law is wrong.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

Yep. And that's why when they change the board's appearance and the game's title, they're off of the hook.

They are off the hook for the claim of trademark infringement. There is still the matter of Hasbro's claim that they infringed on the copyrights they hold on the text of the rules of the game Scrabble, as well as the text of their Official Scrabble Player's Dictionary.

Re:Copyright broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Games are not subject to copyright. (The binaries of computer games are, but that's a seperate issue.) This is a trademark issue, and no amount of trademarking their title will make any difference to Hasbro.

Games may not be subject to copyright, but the text of the Scrabble rule book and their player dictionary are. It is the copyrights one these items that Hasbro is claiming were infringed.

None of this has anything to do with copyright.

Actually, since the trademark claim has essentially been nullified by the name change, copyright infringement is the only remaining issue.

Re:Copyright broken

[TekPolitik]

so, who owns chess, and who owns shogi?

Since the designers have been dead for (at least) centuries, they are public domain. However the shape of a particular design of chess pieces may be copyright as sculptures or as a preceding drawing.

if all you have to do is change the design, why isn't there a boardgame out there at wal-mart for $5 made in china that has alphabetical discs, instead of tiles, with the same basic rules as scrabble

The use of circles rather than squares is not the thing that saves this new version. The changed layout is. When I first looked at Wordscraper I thought the changes might be borderline - there is a grey area between taking inspiration from a prior work and creating a derivative work. On closer inspection it looks like they may have gone further than they needed to and taken away any doubt that there could be copyright infringement.

To answer your question though, the reasons there haven't been competitive cheap crossword style games in stores is because of some combination of: (a) nobody ever thought of it; and (b) Scrabble's market mindshare was too formidable to overcome with a competitor.

It may be apparent from the above that Wordscraper changes both of these. It is conceivable that it could overtake Scrabble in market mindshare, leading to a real world version could seriously attack Scrabble sales. Sometimes it's just better to leave a copyright infringement alone.

Re:Copyright broken

[croddy]

United States Patent 4190255

Re:Copyright broken

[TekPolitik]

I direct you to paragraph 24, sub-paragraph B, paragraph 36, paragraphs 43-46 in relation to a copyright claim on the game board layout.

The have also included facts setting up a passing off claim (often loosely referred to as a common law trademark claim), and for this see paragraph 27, paragraph 36, paragraph 37, and paragraphs 56-59 (which describe the "passing off" action in the terminology common in some places where it is part of a collection of torts known as "unfair competition").

There is a lot of stuff in there that is being thrown at the wall to see what sticks, but the copyright claim on the game board is not one of them. In fact the passing off claim is, in my opinion, weaker than the copyright claim, because the defendants appear to have gone to some lengths to ensure people are not misled into believing there is a connection. The trademark claim is not overly strong either since it is not merely a question of whether the names are similar, but whether they are deceptively similar so that people are likely to be misled into believing there is a connection between the makers of "Scrabulous" and the makers of "SCRABBLE".

Re:Copyright broken

[TekPolitik]

Well, as long as you're too lazy to go through the post tree, to the places where I cite the US government sites which write out, clear as day, what copyright protects, then I guess I can't fault you for assuming that non-legally-trained staff writers make small mistakes in reporting.

Leaving aside the fact that Governments get the law wrong and misstate it often (which is what is dealt with in the whole branches of administrative law and constitutional law), secondary sources such as this almost always give a misleading impression of the true state of the law, which is why first year law students are clearly urged to confirm legal principles from secondary sources by going back to primary sources (that is, going back to the wording of the statute and the principles expounded in case law

I do, however, find it amusing that you've managed to miss that all lawsuits for either copyright or trademark are filed as "copyright and trademark."

What? Perhaps you are referring to a division of the Federal Court, but a suit in copyright alone is not going to claim to be in trademark, and since the Exxon case it would be a brave (in the "Yes, Minister" sense) lawyer who filed a purely trademark suit claiming it to also be in copyright.

If you bother to look into the lawsuit, there are no copyright claims.

I have looked at the claims, and the copyright claims are actually the first ones they make.

Go look up the history of Teeko.

It is quite dangerous to attempt to derive principles of law from an outcome without looking at the stated reasons (the "ratio decidendi") in a case (assuming there is a case). In the case of Teeko it is difficult to identify any protected elements - this is quite different to the case of Scrabble.

As a professional game developer, I've spent dozens of hours talking about this with lawyers.

Ah. Not a lawyer. IAAL. Please don't assume that just because you have discussed these things with lawyers you have a full understanding of the law (or the chance of even evaluating whether your lawyer is any good - this is a huge problem for people seeking legal advice). Any legal advice you are given is going to be strictly confined to the particular facts that have been provided. Usually the legal advice will restate the questions you asked and information you provided, together with any assumptions the lawyer has made, as a CYA move by the lawyer since a change in any one of these things may radically alter the advice given.

Yeah, maybe you should go look up the ramifications of the lawsuit filed by the Campbell's Soup Company against Andy Warhol, where they argued literally the exact same thing to prevent their inclusion in his famous pop art. The courts said they were wrong.

Again you're looking at the outcome, not the reasons for the decision (in fact in that case there were no reasons for the decision since the suit was dropped on the back of bad publicity for the plaintiff). Warhol might (or might not) have succeeded in a defence on the grounds of "fair use", however. The makers of Scrabulous are going to have a hard time making out a defence of "fair use".

The soup cans themselves are branding, and therefore trademark. That's why they're subject to fair use, when paintings are not.

That's not correct. Firstly, the soup cans are protected by both copyright and trademark. Secondly, fair use is a very important part of US copyright law. In the case of the Warhol paintings, the question of fair use does not arise on the trademark side because there was no overlap in the field of use.

Re:Copyright broken

[TekPolitik]

The same could be said for a song, or a novel, and I never stated different. The GP said "The look of the board, unlike the rules of the game, CAN be copyrighted." That is not correct. The rules can be copyrighted just like any other written work.

You may well be aware of this (and I am assuming you are since your comments are a lot more accurate than some of the other garbage being uttered in this thread) but it is important to be clear: the text of the rules of the game is protected by copyright, but the ideas described by that text are not. If the rules are expressed in new text that is not derivative of the words in the original rules, then they are protected. Most people will have an idea of the rules of SCRABBLE without looking and could write down a new set of rules without even looking at the original, and such rules would be free of being treated as a derivative work.

Re:Copyright broken

[TekPolitik]

On information and belief, until earlier this year, defendants embedded "meta tags" in their website software to attract individuals searching the internet for keywords such as "SCRABBLE online", "play SCRABBLE online," and "free online SCRABBLE."

IANAL, but isn't that comparable to a common practice of generic cereal brands of using advertising that says things like "If you like Captain Crunch®, try this!"?

Perhaps. There are meta tag cases going both ways and the success a plaintiff has in making this claim will depend on which circuit of the Federal Court the case is filed in.

Re:Copyright broken

[TekPolitik]

What improvement to Scrabble did Scrabulous bring to the table? That you can play it over the internet? Your point doesn't address my question

Whoosh. The OP was making a joke about the state of the Patent system and software and business method patents in particular. It wasn't intended to address your question.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

There is a lot of stuff in there that is being thrown at the wall to see what sticks, but the copyright claim on the game board is not one of them.

I'm sorry, I do not recall saying that in any of the messages I have posted in this thread. If you can point me at a comment of mine where I suggested that Hasbro is claiming copyright infringement on the game board, please do so and I will post a comment correcting that mis-statement.

In the comment you replied to, I discussed "infringement of their copyrights on the rules and the official game dictionaries." That is a copy/paste. That is the copyright infringement Hasbro is alleging. Sorry for the confusion.

The trademark claim is not overly strong either since it is not merely a question of whether the names are similar, but whether they are deceptively similar so that people are likely to be misled into believing there is a connection between the makers of "Scrabulous" and the makers of "SCRABBLE".

I think that is exactly what Hasbro will argue, and I have to say in my unlearned opinion they have a good case. I mentioned in another comment that my impression - based on the similarity of the name and the game itself - was that they had sought and secured the necessary licensing. If I had come across those links on the Scrabulous site to Hasbro's rules and official Player Dictionary, I would have been further convinced that it was an official Hasbro product.

Just my opinion, but the trademark claim is the one part of this I think they have a strong case for.

Re:Copyright broken

[multisync]

it is important to be clear: the text of the rules of the game is protected by copyright, but the ideas described by that text are not

Thank you. It is extremely important to be clear about what is copyrightable, as well as what Hasbro is alleging.

Some of the people in this thread who were arguing that copyright was not relevant seemed to base that belief on the fact that - as you said - the ideas described by the copyrighted text are not copyrightable themselves. This is correct, but they had not bothered to look at the facts of this particular case, and see that Hasbro is claiming infringement on the copyrights they hold on the text of the rules and their players dictionary.

So, while their points may have been correct, they were not applicable to this particular case.

DIY boards = infinite cleverness

[Sockatume]

So if Hasbro takes them to court for infringing the board design (which IIRC is far shakier than the misuse of the trademark) then they can just delete that. The immediately available user-created boards which look like original Scrabble are, of course, not Wordscraper's fault.

Re:DIY boards = infinite cleverness

[felipekk]

Meh, now Hasbro is going to be mad. Not only you get more points for making Scrabulous when compared to making Scrabble, now you can get even more by making Wordscraper!

Re:DIY boards = infinite cleverness

[musth]

Wordscraper allows users to arbitrarily construct a board because the sole purpose of Wordscraper is to allow people to play Scrabble while at the same time getting around the copyright problem with copying a standard Scrabble game board/rules/whatever.

I hate Hasbro and its heavy-handedness, but come on. If you're going to participate in law-skirting antics, be honest about what you're doing and why you're doing it. But doh! Can't be honest or else you're defeating your law-evading purpose.

Not that I want to see Hasbro and their lawyers dominate, but I think a sensible legal argument could be put together that, yes of course, the huge 95+% predominance of Scrabble board clones that will be on evidence on Wordscraper in a month or two months will be entirely Wordscraper's fault - it's its very purpose!

Re:DIY boards = infinite cleverness

[g1zmo]

It's the Streisabulous Effect!

Re:DIY boards = infinite cleverness

[belg4mit]

They could claim that the applet should prevent the creation of the Scrabble board e.g; "making available"

Re:DIY boards = infinite cleverness

[Sockatume]

I'm not saying it was particularly moral, just very clever. The precident on trademark infringement by user-created game content is very clear.

Re:DIY boards = infinite cleverness

[Spazntwich]

Well they've had some major players from which to take their cues.

EA, publisher of the NCAA series of sports games, is (or was?) barred by NCAA rules from putting the real players in their games.

From what I remember, they simply offered an extremely powerful custom player creator, and people who purchased the game were given the option of getting a free 'custom player pack' copied to their memory card which contained the entire college rosters of that year.

Re:DIY boards = infinite cleverness

[TekPolitik]

So if Hasbro takes them to court for infringing the board design (which IIRC is far shakier than the misuse of the trademark) then they can just delete that.

They don't have to delete anything. They are claiming an account of profits for past infringement, and they'll get it too. Collecting from India may be another question entirely.

Oh yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see the CEASE AND DESIST / DMCA Takedown notice from here, without even squinting

Sad news ... Stephen King, dead at 60

[Anonymous Coward]

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Sad news ... Stephen King, dead at 60

[Anonymous Coward]

gotta love old trolls ... considering he'd be 61 now ...

Re:Sad news ... Stephen King, dead at 60

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll-lies.

Re:Sad news ... Stephen King, dead at 60

[unfunnyguy]

D
      WRITER
              A
      FOUND

20 points! But not enough to beat the lameness filter!

Re:Sad news ... Stephen King, dead at 60

[unfunnyguy]

And sucks ass that it previewed perfectly :(.

hexagonal scrabble?

[peter303]

I googled this and saw at least five different software versions. I presume you could also play on a 3D tesselation, should you be able design a convenient user-interface. (I guess it wounld start to look like sparse building girders.) I wonder if Hasbro has gone after any of these.

Re:hexagonal scrabble?

[Sockatume]

If you threw in some pentagons, you could play Scrabble on the outside of a buckyball.

Re:hexagonal scrabble?

[Oh no, it's Dixie]

I doubt that any of these have reached the popularity or notoriety necessary to trigger the Hasbro Lawyer Machine. Scrabulous was an extremely popular Facebook app, hence why the litigation was directed at that rather than the less important clones.

Re:hexagonal scrabble?

[Sockatume]

Let's not forget that Hasbro hasn't so much as a patent on Scrabble itself, just a vague claim to copyright on the rules (which may not apply) and a trademark (Scrabble name, and perhaps the appearance of the board and tiles). If there's no risk of mistakenly assuming that the Scrabble-likes are actually Scrabble, then there's no trademark infringement to answer for.

Re:hexagonal scrabble?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

ooh. that's an idea & a half. You get the buckyball, I'll get the tiles.

Re:hexagonal scrabble?

[iamhassi]

"Scrabulous was an extremely popular Facebook app"

Yes, to the tune of $25,000+ a month

Also the english pronunciation of Scrabulous is very similar to Scrabble. No one questioned why Lindows was sued by Microsoft for sounding like Windows, so why are we shocked when Scrabulous gets sued?

Re:hexagonal scrabble?

[Red Flayer]

I presume you could also play on a 3D tesselation, should you be able design a convenient user-interface.

As long as they don't do it like Upwards. That, my friends, was a game that sucked. Unfortunately, since it somewhat leveled the playing field for the vocabularily challenged, it was the word game of choice in my house.

Re:hexagonal scrabble?

[mdwh2]

No one questioned why Lindows was sued by Microsoft for sounding like Windows

But people did question the validity of that action. And in fact, so did the Judge: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Lindows-Wins-a-Big-One-in-Windows-Trademark-Suit/ . In the end, Microsoft decided to settle instead of risk losing their trademark.

Re:hexagonal scrabble?

[mattack2]

BTW, Upwords is published by Hasbro.

F- Hasbro

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had a facebook account, I would play Wordscraper just to send a big FU to Hasbro and its team of lovely lawyers. I know what toy company I won't be buying from this Christmas. ;)

confused

[SirShmoopie]

Scrabulous is stil available for me, I'm in the UK.

Re:confused

[bigfatdeal]

Yes, because it was only blocked in the US and Canada.

Re:confused

[Kimos]

Hasbro owns the rights to Scrabble in the US and Canada and it was them that took legal action against Scrabulous. When last I tried to play my Scrabulous games I was greeted with a message telling me that the application was no longer available to users in US and Canada. Presumably, until Mattel takes legal action in the UK, Scrabulous can stay active.

Re:confused

[Kugrian]

It died earlier sometime this morning (had the facebook app version of a 404), then reappeared this afternoon. I tried out the Wordscaper app, but really can't get used to the circular tiles. Surely just changing the special placements (double words and such) around would fix any issues with Scrabble - square tiles on.. well, squares surely wouldn't get them in more troubles.

Re:confused

[the_weasel]

I don't know specifically what the wording of the scrabble trademarks are. If they specify square tiles with numeric score values, then I can easily see why the current wordscraper tiles are circles without score values.

Re:confused

[raju1kabir]

Nevertheless I wish they would do something to indicate the point values. I memorized them years ago but still find it distracting that they're not shown in Wordscraper. And it will be downright confusing to people who are not so experienced at Scrabble.

There are plenty of ways they could do this. e.g., little dots around the outside of the circle, or colors that varied from white for 1 point to intense for the 10-point letters.

Re:confused

[clone53421]

Square tiles are too similar to crossword puzzles to be trademarkable IMO. Point values might be, though.

Conundrum

[omnicron13]

Now, do I invite my friends to add an application I know they'll want (as former Scrabulous fans)?

Do the ends justify the means?

It could have gone a lot better....

[the_weasel]

So far, I like it. The custom boards are going to take some getting used to. I am in one game where every tile appears to be a double word score or more, and we are seeing scores of 4000 in some places.

I much prefer the sparse tile versions, where it takes a LOT of planning to get a good score.

Right now, i don't like it as much as scrabble, but I am willing to keep playing until things start to settle.

In my personal opinion, scrabulous was always in clear violation of the law (I am not interested in discussing the ethics of that), and the takedown was inevitable.

If Hasbro had learned from scrabulous instead of acting like spazzes, I would have switched to playing their client.

They needed to release a client equal in speed, slickness and functionality. Then they should have negotiated a wrap up period of several days with the makers of scrabulous, where no new games could be created, but existing games could be wrapped up.

They did neither, and you won't see me switching to play their version as a result.

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[bigtoy]

In my personal opinion, scrabulous was always in clear violation of the law (I am not interested in discussing the ethics of that), and the takedown was inevitable.

If it was your personal opinion that scrbulous was in clear violation then why do you play?

I know that you do not want to discuss the ethics of what scrabulous is doing. How about we discuss the behavior of the folks that even while they personally believe that the program is in the wrong decide to continue playing it regardless.

Maybe I am too much of a goody-goody, but I have a hard time seeing how someone that knows something is possibly ethically gray would put themselves in a position to then support those ethics.

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[SirShmoopie]

Acknowledgement that a thing breaks the law is not the same as saying that you agree with the law that was broken.

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[the_weasel]

I also park illegally on occasion, and sometimes drive a few miles above the speed limit. I have been known file my taxes late, and have stolen music by downloading it. Sometimes I accidentally throw away paper without recycling it.

Scrabulous was a popular, well implemented version of a game I own no less than 4 boards for. i probably have purchased anywhere from 10 -15 boards over the past 20 years.

I enjoyed it, so I played it. Now that wordscraper is available, I will play that.

Those are all illegal, getting caught has penalties, and I know that. I may not agree with the laws, but when I get caught I pay the consequences, without whining or trying to come up with some sort of convoluted justification for my actions.

Not all laws are equal in my books. Murder is not a law I break with the same equanimity as a local parking ordinance.

If you have managed to live your life ethically pure, then I applaud you.

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[hobbit]

If you fail to be able to distinguish between "in clear violation of the law" and "in the wrong", then yes, you are too much of a goody-goody.

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[Jerry Beasters]

Just because you agree with the laws and still break them doesn't mean others have to. What you basically said is that nobody has the right to disagree with a law that you don't disagree with. They can break it, but GOD FORBID they actually disagree with the existence of said law. Something's wrong with your reasoning, and it shouldn't be too hard for you to figure out what.

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[Anonymous Coward]

I much prefer the sparse tile versions, where it takes a LOT of planning to get a good score.

Right now, i don't like it as much as scrabble, but I am willing to keep playing until things start to settle.

Here's a tip: create a custom board that has the exact same tilings as Scrabble! I believe this was likely the intent of the designers all along...

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[the_weasel]

How you read that from what I wrote completely escapes me. I can't respond effectively, because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Where did I restrict the behavior or rights of anyone else by describing my own actions?

Perhaps you should read it again.
 

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[nine-times]

If Hasbro had learned from scrabulous instead of acting like spazzes, I would have switched to playing their client.

I'm still wondering-- does anyone know?-- did Hasbro ever consider coming up with some kind of licensing deal with the makers of Scrabulous? Either for Hasbro to publish the game as their own, or for Scrabulous to license the rights to use the trademarked materials?

It just seems like if I owned the rights to Scrabble and someone came up with a really great version of the game that was wildly popular, I'd be looking to join forces with that guy so I could make some money from the wildly popular version.

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[Lehk228]

hasbro should have "learned" from scrabulus by sending a medium sized pile of money to the creators to buy them out, then added a little hasbro logo to the app.

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[mdwh2]

I believe this was likely the intent of the designers all along...

Indeed. Hey, I thought of this first - I claim copyright infringement!

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[eddieboston]

> Not all laws are equal in my books. Murder is not a law I break with the same equanimity as a local parking ordinance.

I think you're getting at the difference between a moral law and a civil law. Now "moral" can be a loaded word, so you can maybe think of it as the difference between an *intrinsic* human law and a law imposed by the government for the purposes of maintaining order or commerce. Both are important, but usually breaking moral laws are considered more severe.

It is *wrong* to murder somebody. It is just *illegal* to run a stop sign. That's a big distinction.

Of course, it's not always so clear cut. What if you run a stop sign and hit somebody? Is it immoral to download a song illegally? How about a terabyte of songs? Does that cross the line? Is there a difference between downloading a Beatles song and one by the local struggling artist? The law of the government cannot and should not make such distinctions, but we as thinking individuals must do so on a daily basis. That's what a conscience is for.

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[mr_matticus]

For certain values of 'wrong'. You (N.B.-any use of 'you' in this post is collective, not directed at parent) can't simply assume that something that is wrong refers to morality.

Breaking the law is wrong. Violating one's morals is wrong. One is a legal wrong, one is a moral wrong. I see people try to make this distinction periodically and insisting that it's not "wrong" to break a law. It absolutely is wrong; if it weren't, then you would not be violating anything. Just because something is morally sound doesn't mean it's not also wrong.

The basic problem is that morality is an individual matter, and people vary. People must have the moral integrity to obey and respect the law; society doesn't function otherwise. However, that does not mean that in some circumstances some other moral imperative won't clash. Moral conflicts are inevitable. Life is about choices--if you feel that the weight of the situation requires breaking a law, own it. Be prepared for society, which passes judgment on its members, to disagree and act accordingly. The social contract requires the application of law; disagreeing with the law is not an excuse to evade consequences.

Accept the consequences of the action you take like a responsible adult. It really is that simple. Sometimes morality is inconvenient. C'est la vie.

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh... If it gives you a frisson, fine, but I'm afraid you're not doing or abetting anything illegal.

You need to understand what Hasbro have a legal right to protect - which in this case comes down to trademarks and copyright (and, no, I'm not a lawyer, but the broad sweep of this stuff isn't rocket-science). "Scrabble" is a trademark, and Hasbro are entitled to protect it from dilution - stop other people using it, or overly-close, confusable variations, without permission. "Scrabulous" was too close for comfort, so the name had to go. But when it comes to the game itself, they're on shakier ground, because games aren't subject to copyright - only the creative works involved in producing a particular version. So Hasbro can have a copyright over the way they word the rules they publish, but *not* over the concepts those rules express, for example. They have copyright over their board art, but *not* about elements of the board layout essential to the playing of the game. Hasbro could probably argue in front of a court that the precise board layout of the commercially-available game is a creative work too, but whether they'd succeed or not I have no idea - the layout has characteristics that dictate game-play that are neither random nor artistic. Either way, though, that's almost certainly been addressed by not tying people down to a single layout.

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also worth noting that legal and ethical are two different concepts. If you've managed to live your life without breaking any law whatsoever, either you are living on the open sea, or you are a dictator in some small republic. In the second case, just wait until you are deposed and there will be a plethora of laws made up that you have broken.

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[clone53421]

and have stolen music by downloading it

You haven't stolen the music, you've copied it*.

You haven't stolen the money, because they never had it**.

The only thing you've stolen is happiness: you're happier to be listening to the music, and they've become unhappy because you got it for free.

* It's illegal, yeah. I'm not arguing that... it just isn't stealing.
** I'll admit that you've prevented them from getting money that they might have otherwise gained. It's still not stealing.

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[Krishnoid]

Scrabulous was a popular, well implemented version of a game I own no less than 4 boards for. i probably have purchased anywhere from 10 -15 boards over the past 20 years.

Not just popular, it was a fabulous, crabulous version!

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[NotmyNick]

The only thing you've stolen is happiness: you're happier to be listening to the music, and they've become unhappy because you got it for free.

Only if they learn about it. They only lose happiness if they go out of their way to make themselves unhappy.

Re:It could have gone a lot better....

[Anonymous Coward]

Goodness gracious... if they're so determined to be unhappy, I'm just glad I was able to help!

I actually registered on FaceBook

[dkone]

I am not a big fan of social anything, but I actually registered on face book and downloaded the wordscraper client. I did this in my way of protest to Hasbro and their heavy handed stupidity. With that being said, the wordscraper client is buggy (it is in beta to be fair) but it sure is fun.

How could a company like Hasbro, hiring a company like EA mess up something that should be relatively easy to convert into a program. I am not a programmer, but I would think that a game like Scrabble would be easy to make into an online game. Certainly easier then something like Age of Conan.

DK

Re:I actually registered on FaceBook

[prostoalex]

"downloaded the wordscraper client" - not sure what you're describing here. There's no client, and there's no download.

Re:I actually registered on FaceBook

[poslfit]

"How could a company like Hasbro, hiring a company like EA mess up something that should be relatively easy to convert into a program."

Hasbro did not hire EA to do anything: Hasbro monetized some of the goodwill in its Scrabble brand by selling a long-term licence for electronic Scrabble products to EA.

If decision-makers at EA were clever, they would have just licensed Scrabulous, which was the first Scrabble server to manage to get it right, and appeal to expert and everyday players alike.

"I am not a programmer, but I would think that a game like Scrabble would be easy to make into an online game."

I am a programmer, and ran my own, um, generic crossword game server for many years, and can assure you that doing a good job of writing a Scrabble server is not at all easy, as evidenced by the fact that many have tried and so far only one has succeeded.

Re:I actually registered on FaceBook

[lucas teh geek]

"downloaded the wordscraper client" - not sure what you're describing here. There's no client, and there's no download.

isn't that being a bit pedantic? someone admits they've just signed up for facebook today and used wordscraper but gets the jargon wrong and you go acting like a complete tosser. are you really so thick you're unable to tell that they meant they added the application to their wall?

Re:I actually registered on FaceBook

[FunkSoulBrother]

What is wrong with the ISC? That's 10 times better than scrabulous, and the oppenents don't suck or cheat as much, either.

Re:I actually registered on FaceBook

[clone53421]

How do posts get modded "informative" when they're so wrong? It is most definitely a client, and (like everything else on the internet) it is accessed by downloading it. Just because it doesn't require downloading an installation package that installs a separate client doesn't mean it isn't downloaded or a client. Parent clearly doesn't know much about computers or computer terminology.

It is a client: it runs on your computer and communicates with a server.

It is also downloaded: the code (whether it's Java, Flash, or javascript/HTML is irrelevant: all of them have some kind of code) must be downloaded in order to play the game.

Re:I actually registered on FaceBook

[prostoalex]

Yeah, it is a bit. However, on the site with the subheading "news for nerds" the expectations are a bit raised.

Re:I actually registered on FaceBook

[Anonymous Coward]

since when was knowledge of facebook a prerequisite for being a nerd? perhaps if it was "news for angsty pre-pubescent teens" I could follow the reasoning

Would fruit of the poisonous tree play into this?

[nexuspal]

In the same way an officer/DA can't use evidence that was obtained illegally, would scrabulous (former name) legally be allowed to reap benefits sown from their illegal use of tradmark/copyright? Something tells me there will be another lawsuit coming...

single player

[Bootle]

Is there a 1-player only version? I'd like to try it without embarrassing myself (at least not any more than usual!)

Re:single player

[ShadowRangerRIT]

The nature of a Scrabble like game would make computer opponents far too difficult. At an admittedly high memory cost, computers could basically keep the whole dictionary indexed to allow them to always find optimal moves. Granted, there would be some minor quirks in finding places to *put* those words, but optimal is fairly easy to do. And if they didn't go for optimal, you'd win only on the basis of the computer spending more resources to handicap itself. Not exactly an achievement to be proud of.

I think you'd be a lot more embarrassed playing a computer than you would a friend.

Re:single player

[Ragzouken]

You could play single player with only one player. No computer player or anything. You can play that in some official scrabble game my mum has.

Re:single player

[Kugrian]

The Scrabulous site has a practice version available which allows you to play by yourself or against a computer. I'm guessing Wordscaper will have the same thing once they fix themselves up.

Re:single player

[Anonymous Coward]

And if they didn't go for optimal, you'd win only on the basis of the computer spending more resources to handicap itself. Not exactly an achievement to be proud of.

This works perfectly well for computer chess etc. In that case people readily accept that they can't beat the machine without it being handicapped in some way, and there's no reason this should be any different for Scrabble. You just need a system of levels, say 1 for beginner up to 10 for expert; you get satisfaction from trying to beat the program at the highest possible level, and by moving up levels as you improve.

Re:single player

[clone53421]

At an admittedly high memory cost, computers could basically keep the whole dictionary indexed to allow them to always find optimal moves. Granted, there would be some minor quirks in finding places to *put* those words, but optimal is fairly easy to do. And if they didn't go for optimal, you'd win only on the basis of the computer spending more resources to handicap itself. Not exactly an achievement to be proud of.

Then what's the point of playing chess against a computer opponent (unless, of course, you're a Grand Master and you can beat the computer when the program isn't dumbed-down)?

Re:single player

[ShadowRangerRIT]

It's actually simpler to design a weak (but competent) chess player than a weak (but competent) Scrabble player. With a chess player, you simply trim the number of moves you search ahead through. With Scrabble, what do you do? Intentionally provide it with a really sucky dictionary? Not check to see if you can attach a word at half the locations on the board? Every move in chess has a predictable impact on the board and your opponent's moves. Aside from denying access to triple word score tiles, there isn't a whole lot of long term strategy in Scrabble, there aren't any obvious ways to adjust the skill of a computer opponent without cheesy handicaps.

Re:single player

[clone53421]

Cheesy, chess-y... what's the difference? Either way it's just a dumbed-down AI. :p

Yeah!

[davidwr]

A
B
O
U
TIME

Woot!

[minhlish]

I can finally go back to wasting my office hours... :)

Good Exposure

[Wiarumas]

I'm sure the creators loved all the press attention they have been recieving lately... additionally, I bet Hasbro regrets not giving these guys job offers rather than legal complaints.

Re:Good Exposure

[bonehead]

The flaw in your logic is that if Hasbro was intelligent enough to regret the path they've chosen, they would have done just as you suggest in the first place.

So, yeah, I doubt they regret it a bit.

Re:Good Exposure

[oahazmatt]

I'm sure the creators loved all the press attention they have been recieving lately... additionally, I bet Hasbro regrets not giving these guys job offers rather than legal complaints.

I had read a report just the other day (wish I could find the URL. I think it was Betanews.) that said Hasbro did offer to buy the product, and the programmers refused.

Re:Good Exposure

[iamhassi]

"bet Hasbro regrets not giving these guys job offers rather than legal complaints."

prolly hard since they've already said they made $25,000+ a month from Scrabulous. I think if I were the guys I'd be begging Hasbro to buy the game from them for a few bucks rather than lose a lawsuit and lose all the money they've made and the game itself.

Re:Good Exposure

[maxume]

Did you intentionally imply that no one ever learns or changes?

Re:Good Exposure

[clone53421]

I think he intentionally implied that some people are too stupid to. ;)

Wordscraper also wins the word score!

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Scrabulous = 14
Wordscraper = 19

A better choice of letters in more than one way.

Re:Wordscraper also wins the word score!

[steelfood]

Unfortunately, you can't actually play any of the two, as they are proper nouns. However, you can play "Scrabble," and get a scrabble if you do manage to make the word.

Re:Wordscraper also wins the word score!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no way that you would use the "s" by itself - it would be used as a hook off another word. Also, considering you only have 7 letters to begin with, neither word (except possibly Word-scraper) is legal.

Re:Wordscraper also wins the word score!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually both get a +50 for being longer than 7 letters

Re:Wordscraper also wins the word score!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no way that you would use the "s" by itself - it would be used as a hook off another word.

Have you actually played Scrabble? You still get points for the letter.

considering you only have 7 letters to begin with, neither word (except possibly Word-scraper) is legal.

No, neither word is legal, but it's a joke. Take it easy.

Dropped the ball

[Joebert]

Hasboro really dropped the ball on this one.

If they spent all of that money they wasted on lawyers instead on developers they could have released the version that lets you define your own board layout & stole the thunder back. Instead they're going to become the assholes that don't want anyone to have fun & a company a serious lack of innovation as far as Scrabble is concerned.

Way to go Hasboro !

ABBCELRS

[nedlohs]

or ABCFHKORSU would be far superior names...

This is over.

[stonecypher]

Scrabulous was taken down because the name and visual presentation were too similar. Game mechanics are explicitly not protected by any branch of law. (In fact, I warned them in email six months ago that this was coming, and that they should rename/reskin their app.)

Hasbro may try to sue again, but from here, if they do, it's barratry. Wordscraper is now safe.

Wordscrapper??

[olddotter]

I'm not creative, but it seems that either a) Wordulous or b) Wordmaker would be better names than Wordscrapper.

Re:Wordscrapper??

[Anonymous Coward]

That's wordSCRAPER, not wordSCRAPPER (nor wordsCRAPPER). Slight difference there.

Screenshots?

[Spy der Mann]

I googled for wordscraper, but couldn't get any image results. And since I don't have a Facebook account, I can't see how it looks like.

Re:Screenshots?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's right there in TFA:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080731-scrabulous-goes-for-bonus-points-relaunches-as-wordscraper.html

Re:Screenshots?

[porcupine8]

You might try clicking the second of the three links I provided.

Re:Would fruit of the poisonous tree play into thi

[stonecypher]

You watch too much law and order. The fruit of the poisonous tree applies only to evidence gathering by law enforcement officials. Read a book.

Found one :)

[Spy der Mann]

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/31/wordscraper-hurts-my-eyes/

Unfortunately, it looks not just ugly, but HIDEOUS! :(

Re:Found one :)

[Pincus]

I hope they get sued for being ugly! Imagine that precedent.

Re:Found one :)

[Kugrian]

It's damned ugly at the moment. The announcement on the front page of the app currently states:

We're putting finishing touches to Wordscraper, it will only get better!

Look/feel will be updated tomorrow as there are minor issues that we are working on.

From all the press they've been getting about it, I'm guessing the makers are getting a lot of feedback about the UI, and will only be a matter of time 'til they prettify it.

Use this original Scrabble layout then...

[drcagn]

I've just recreated the Scrabble layout. You can play a original Scrabble game on facebook by clicking this link:

http://apps.facebook.com/wordscraper/?action=newgame&similarto=54248

I know I'd rather play a real Scrabble layout on Wordscraper than to use anything else. Enjoy.

Re:Use this original Scrabble layout then...

[the_weasel]

Nice. Saves me the effort of doing so. Thanks!

I am kinda looking forward to experimenting with a few layouts of my own as well.

Re:Use this original Scrabble layout then...

[Radish03]

One thing you forgot is that the middle tile needs to be a double word score. Went ahead and fixed that: http://apps.new.facebook.com/wordscraper/?action=newgame&similarto=56609

Re:Use this original Scrabble layout then...

[fm6]

Expect a cease-and-desist letter soon. Creating a Scrabble clone based on Wordscraper is just as bad as creating one from scratch. You'll have to find a more discreet way to distribute your template

In a way, this is actually a positive thing. In order to get round the Hasbro lawyers, people will be forced to be creative with with Wordscraper templates. Some of these creations are bound to be improvements on the original.

No, Wordscraper

[DigitalReverend]

The name only has one 'p' and it's from the word scrape, as in "I need to scrape this Hasbro from the bottom of my shoes.", not scrap, as in "Hasbro has always been the bottom of the scrap heap."

Re:No, Wordscraper

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's Indian Ass Scraper..

Re:No, Wordscraper

[Burning1]

I prefer the interpretation: WordsCrapper.

Re:No, Wordscraper

[olddotter]

Really that doesn't change my opinion. Of course they are getting enough free publicity they don't need to explain the name to folks. But wordscraper or wordscrapper, both seem about something totally different.

is it just me...

[WwWonka]

...or am I the only one, this far down in the comments, to initially see "words craper" as the name of this app? Reminds me of the guy who named Titslinger who invented the bra.

Re:is it just me...

[hellwig]

I created a typing tutorial game similar to Typing of the Dead called ThePenIsMightier, but for some reason, whenever I contact people about investing in my idea they never get my emails.

Re:is it just me...

[KPexEA]

How about TheRapist Locator :-) http://www.therapistlocator.net/

Re:is it just me...

[kazumi]

...or am I the only one, this far down in the comments, to initially see "words craper" as the name of this app? Reminds me of the guy who named Titslinger who invented the bra.

I think it's just you. What the hell is a "craper"?

Re:is it just me...

[eccenthink]

It's Otto Titzling, and it's an urban legend at least according to snopes.com... http://www.snopes.com/business/origins/bra.asp

Why didn't they make it WordScraper to begin with?

[LoverOfJoy]

Oh, that's right. They wanted to capitalize on the similarity to the Scrabble name. Of course now that it's already gotten a following as well as additional press they can feel free to change their name.

Also, for all those that say hasbro should have bought them out or hired them or whatever, how do you know they didn't make offers first? I'm sure those kinds of things they'd like to keep under wraps and not publicly disclose them.

3D scrabble

[peter303]

2D is 15^2 with 100 tiles (55.5% empty).

Perhaps 3D is 15^3 with 1000 tiles (66.6% empty) with same letter frequencies, but ten'ed. Or should we make it 1500 tiles, so the same empty fraction is preserved?

It would take ten (or 15) times longer to play since the words themselves don't change. Or maybe I'd shrink the overall palying cube to 10^3 or 12^3 to keep playing time more reasonable.

The bottle neck is adequate visualisation. I'd like a convex holograph with high transparency. If you selected any edge in any of the three coordinates, it would nighlight that playing surface. And maybe you'd want a pipe view too: Each letter is really a six-sided cube with the same letter on it. They would grow out of each other like branches on a tree.

Re:Would fruit of the poisonous tree play into thi

[nexuspal]

Of course it only applies to law enforcement. My post was pointing out the fact that the designers of the game used Scrabbles notoriety to attain the position that they are now in. Not that I think it would be a good thing, but my gut tells me the civil system will work in that matter...

keep Hasbro's lawyers at bay?

[nurb432]

Nothing keeps a lawyer at bay, when they smell blood.

The real question is will the changes be enough to keep them on the correct side of the legal judgement that will eventually be passed.

Too bad they cant countersue afterwards.

Slow news week?

[seanonymous]

How many stories are we going to have to read about this game? It's a board game adapted to work in Facebook. Why should I care? Christ, you'd think it was Duke Nukem Forever or something.

Re:Would fruit of the poisonous tree play into thi

[91degrees]

Yeah. That's not a problem. The law isn't to prevent the infringer from gaining, but to prevent the copyright/trademark holder from losing. They still owe the copyright holder for damages done (assuming they're found to be infringing).

Re:Would fruit of the poisonous tree play into thi

[stonecypher]

Of course it only applies to law enforcement.

So, let me get this straight. You want to know if the fruit of the poisonous tree is a factor here, and you know that that only applies to law enforcement. Does that mean that you believe that the publishers of Scrabulous are a law enforcement entity?

but my gut tells me the civil system will work in that matter...

Thankfully, your gut is not a judge. The law doesn't work that way, and civil court never applies to two corporations acting on federal licensure. Please stop pretending to understand the law.

sticky alphabet blocks

[peter303]

I was thinking if you make some sort of sticky/locking children's blocks, then you could physically build some wormy-branchy play-object by locking the cubes together into words. Then each player could rotate the play-object with their hands to look for good attachment points for future word bars.

The only difficulty is implementing bonus squares (cubes) visualization this way. Thats an important, but not absolutely essential part of the 2D game. Maybe the playing board could be simulataneously physical blocks and a computer graphics representation. The computer graphics represnetation would depict the pink and blue bonus squares. Maybe the physical letter blocks could show the bonus colors when they they occupied the bonus locations.

Re:Copyright broken Maybe these guys will

[davidsyes]

create a SCRABE, umm, SCRAPP and SCRAPE of Scrabble...

Re:Would fruit of the poisonous tree play into thi

[nexuspal]

You forgot to add the crux of my arguement in your little rebuttal...

My post was pointing out the fact that the designers of the game used Scrabbles notoriety to attain the position that they are now in.

Did you read that part at all?

Re:Would fruit of the poisonous tree play into thi

[nexuspal]

Yeah. That's not a problem. The law isn't to prevent the infringer from gaining, but to prevent the copyright/trademark holder from losing. They still owe the copyright holder for damages done (assuming they're found to be infringing).

Right, and the current number of users they have are using their program, instead of something made by the original copyright holder, because they (may have) violated copyright. It could be argued that all past, and future, income was derived because of their copyright violation... Also, in civil court, you only need to prove the possibility that this is the case.

That may not, but people can keep them at bay

[unity100]

dont forget that it will be MEGA bad publicity for hasbro to follow the course they are following now.

internet events affect real world sales. dont forget that.

Just my opinion ... about the game

[Michael101]

Every thing has loop hole's now a days...I don't think there is a product out there that hasn't been copied.whether its a game or something as simple as toothpaste... In my opinion copyright laws only protect for the time it takes for someone to bootleg your product.

Only 5 points?

[Anonymous Coward]

That should be at least 12!

Theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you all supporting this theft? Clearly they are taking someone else's idea and profiting. I hope they get sued, lose all their profits and most of their own savings to teach these thieves a lesson. They're from where? India? or is it China? Two countries great at theft but not so great a prosecuting. In fact I'd go do far as to cay the Chinese gov promotes thieving.

Copyright!=Trademark

[tehcyder]

How come people on /. go on and on about how copyright infringement is a totally different thing from theft, and you have to be a fascist/communist/paedophile not to appreciate the difference, but 90% of the posts on this thread show an inability to distinguish between copyright and trademark law?

Oooooops,

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still clearly a derivative work. Wordscraper owes everything it is to Scrabble. Just because they changed the graphics now, they get to keep going? I hope Hasbro still sues them into nothingness, because nothing is exactly what they would be if they didn't start by poaching someone else's game.

Re:Would fruit of the poisonous tree play into thi

[clone53421]

Not relevant: it's only relevant to evidence gathered by law enforcement. It's not at all relevant to resources or market share gathered by a company which gained them by violated trademark/copyright (assuming the courts decide they did).

Re:Would fruit of the poisonous tree play into thi

[stonecypher]

Oh, I'm sorry, if the basis (not crux) of your argument is something you can put in bold, then I can't point out the ridiculous stupidity of something else you said?

I guess they changed the rules of the internet. My bad. Anyway, if I'm not allowed to point out stupid things you said, then I pretty much can't reply to you for lack of things to say. Have a nice day.

What nonsense.

[jotaeleemeese]

There are many situations in which the death of somebody would benefit third parties, but that is no reason to enact stupid laws to protect the rights of dead people.

Under the same assumption, old people should be able to continue owning property after they kicked the bucket....