After the mess of the GSL, here comes the demise of Scrabulous.
For those not aware, Scrabulous is a popular, free to play word game available on social networking site like facebook. It has some obvious similarities with Scrabble, a brand owned by Hasbro who had until now no online equivalent.
Now, Hasbro stepped up pressure on Scrabulous last week, filing a copyright lawsuit following the recent release of its own beta Scrabble game for the social networking site. This has pushed the developper of Scrabulous to pull the plug.
Apparently, EA (yet another Ha$bro subsidiary) is coming with an "official version" of Scrabulous... except its player base is around 15k which is much much less than Scrabulous's. This also compares to the 50k ******-off players who've launched the "save Scrabulous petition"
Scrabulous was working perfectly for me and I was certainly not in need of an "official version" or "better version". I had a couple of games runing and I am seriously ******-off at having to start over again.
Seriously, Scrabulous was free to play. What can of revenue stream does Ha$bro expect to generate from its official Scrable version? Was it worth *******-off player all in the name of the sacro-saint protection of Ha$bro's IP?
And, what player base are they going to get with their for-pay version? More than they would have if they didn't publish it.
Also, if the application is far enough from Scrabble that it isn't covered by their copyright, why should they care about the players of Scrabulous? They're not Hasbro's customers.
One of the tricks of copyright law is that if you let people copy your stuff and don't sue, you don't get to complain about it. If the Scrabulous application is close enough to their own copyrighted material that it is possible for them to have it shut down, if they don't, they're in danger of losing their copyright.
That is completely and totally false. Yet again someone has confused trademarks with copyrights.
That is completely and totally false. Yet again someone has confused trademarks with copyrights.
"Scabble" is TMed. What the poster wrote applies to going after Scrabulous. They didn't really have a choice. I've seen the app. It was infringing. The developers did this on purpose to ride on the coattails of Scrabble. Now, they pay the price.
"Scabble" is TMed. What the poster wrote applies to going after Scrabulous. They didn't really have a choice. I've seen the app. It was infringing. The developers did this on purpose to ride on the coattails of Scrabble. Now, they pay the price.
Yeah so?
If you actually read what the poster I quoted said it was specifically about copyright law.
"Scabble" is TMed. What the poster wrote applies to going after Scrabulous. They didn't really have a choice. I've seen the app. It was infringing. The developers did this on purpose to ride on the coattails of Scrabble. Now, they pay the price.
I doubt that the developers were out to make a quick buck with their free Facebook app, but I don't know how profitable Facebook advertising is. At any rate, the Scrabulous app used a game board that was almost an exact copy of the Scrabble board, right down to the colors. They probably could have changed the colors, maybe even fiddled with the board layout a bit, and made it almost impossible for Hasbro or Mattel to sue (Mattel owns the rights to Scrabble outside of North America).
It doesn't really matter, though, because any form of online Scrabble sucks donkeys. There are so many "Scrabble word finder" applications online that it's ridiculously easy for people to cheat and impossible to prevent it.
Yeah so?
If you actually read what the poster I quoted said it was specifically about copyright law.
Okay, so I got the terms wrong. What about the intent, though?
If it is legally possible for them to shut this down, do they need to shut it down in order to retain whatever ownership they have? I believe so.
If it is not legally possible for them to do this, then Scrabulous doesn't infringe on any of their stuff, so what do they care? They might as well try and shut down bowling. Would that cost them any customers?
In any case, is anybody going to go to a Toys Backwards R Us, look at the games on the shelf, and think, "Boy, howdy, I'd sure love to buy this new game; it looks cool, but *gasp* it's published by Hasbro, which shut down the coolest Internet game evar, Scrabulous, so I must not buy it!!!"?
I mean, are you going to stop playing D&D because they're shutting down Scrabulous? Is anyone?
I can appreciate that you wanted to take advantage of it while it existed, but seriously? You're going to skewer Hasbro for suing someone that has essentially been flipping a middle finger at them for the past two years?
It just show how serious they are about their IP.
Wait, and is that supposed to be a BAD thing now?
Oh, yeah, I forgot, there is a contingent of people who think that Hasbro/WotC/Etc should just give out everything for free, or let anyone do anything with their IP, because it's "good for the game". What if you made a game, and then every beggining level programmer hack started making replicas of your game? I bet you'd be thrilled! Hurrah! Now no one will buy the product I made/own, because they can get it for free!
Me? I'd be ticked off that some yahoo thinks he can get away with passing off MY game as his own work. That's lazy and disrespectful.
Why exactly are you up in arms that they want to defend their IP? So, they are an evil corperation because they caused you the inconvinance of having to actually purchase a legal version of a game? That is a very warped veiw.
What's the deal with people thinking that intellectual property is free for the taking? Go out and be productive and create something yourself. Now when people steal what you do I bet your opinions change. Some people have a terrible immature sense of entitlement.
Agreed. That sense of entitlement seems to permiate much of the D&D "community". They think they have some divine right to have everything they want, for free if possible.
The EA version will be free to play hopefully
[color=red]HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA[/color]
omg! (breathes)
[color=red]HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA[/color]
(wipes tear) funniest thing I have heard in a while!
Oh, yeah, I forgot, there is a contingent of people who think that Hasbro/WotC/Etc should just give out everything for free, or let anyone do anything with their IP, because it's "good for the game". What if you made a game, and then every beggining level programmer hack started making replicas of your game? I bet you'd be thrilled! Hurrah! Now no one will buy the product I made/own, because they can get it for free!
Kinda like this?
http://www.atarihq.com/tsr/special/tetrishist.html
I worked with Alexey (at Microsoft, in the games group). Didn't speak much with him (I guess I was too dazzled by my geek-worship) but he was a pretty interesting guy.
Tabularasa, let me understand what you're saying, here... Somebody put together a game that's clearly a ripoff of Scrabble, and the owners of Scrabble are putting a stop to having their property used... And you're upset about this? Why? Because you were playing the free version of their game, generating revenue for them through their ads?
Sorry, I'm a little more worked up about other things than about a corporation exercising their legal rights.
Companies have to enforce their copyrights. if they do not, they lose the copyright and another company can swoop it up and then sue them for making the item in question.
That is so wrong I hardly know where to begin.
Copyrights do not have to be enforced to remain valid. Trademarks have to be enforced to remain valid, but even with trademarks another company cannot just "swoop it up" - if a trademark is not defended it can become generic and go into the public domain (see asprin, nylon, thermos, escalator - all were once trademarks)
Apparently, EA (yet another Ha$bro subsidiary) ...
Huh? How is it a subsidiary?
Now, Hasbro stepped up pressure on Scrabulous last week, filing a copyright lawsuit following the recent release of its own beta Scrabble game for the social networking site.
So you're saying that Scrabulous has been treading on and profiting off of their copyright for years and Hasbro has only made it an issue now that it's actually in their way rather than nipping it in the bud from the get-go? The fiends!
Hasbro is in the right, the people who made the knock-off were in the wrong, and there's no justification for what the Scrabulous people did.
Complaining about that means that you think thievery is justified.
I'll be by to take all your stuff tommorrow, then.
Posit: you own a popular property. You discover that there is a niche market that you aren't filling. You discover, by the by, that someone else has filled that niche market using a knockoff of your product.
Options: You can (a) sue them into oblivion, incurring legal costs, plus the development and marketing costs of adapting your own product which you intend to insert into that niche, and possibly gaining the ill-will of your potential customer base, or (b) buy them out, achieving the same effect for approximately the same initial expenditure, but ultimately saving because you don't have to develop the thing yourself (or at least, not as much of it) and you don't have to market it as aggressively.
Conclusion: (b) will probably result in a greater net profit.
For those not aware, Scrabulous is a popular, free to play word game available on social networking site like facebook. It has some obvious similarities with Scrabble, a brand owned by Hasbro who had until now no online equivalent.
Is this game Public Domain?
Now, Hasbro stepped up pressure on Scrabulous last week, filing a copyright lawsuit following the recent release of its own beta Scrabble game for the social networking site. This has pushed the developper of Scrabulous to pull the plug.
Too bad. They should have let the court decide. It would set a precedent for future court cases. I'm disappointed in the developer of Scabulous, who may or may not deliberately know they may or may not infringe on someone else's IP.
Apparently, EA (yet another Ha$bro subsidiary)...
Since when is Electronics Arts a Hasbro subsidiary? I question this statement, and in doing so, may question the rest of your post.
Seriously, Scrabulous was free to play. What can of revenue stream does Ha$bro expect to generate from its official Scrable version? Was it worth *******-off player all in the name of the sacro-saint protection of Ha$bro's IP?
Revenue from software sales.
One more thing: What does this have to do with WotC and the GSL?
The makers of Scrabulous got what was coming to them.
Hasbro is in the right, the people who made the knock-off were in the wrong, and there's no justification for what the Scrabulous people did.
Complaining about that means that you think thievery is justified.
I'll be by to take all your stuff tommorrow, then.
Not if I get there 1st. ;)
While Hasbro is perfectly in the right to defend its own trademarks, it seems to me that there's a substantially more profitable way to handle a matter such as this than litigation.
Posit: you own a popular property. You discover that there is a niche market that you aren't filling. You discover, by the by, that someone else has filled that niche market using a knockoff of your product.
Options: You can (a) sue them into oblivion, incurring legal costs, plus the development and marketing costs of adapting your own product which you intend to insert into that niche, and possibly gaining the ill-will of your potential customer base, or (b) buy them out, achieving the same effect for approximately the same initial expenditure, but ultimately saving because you don't have to develop the thing yourself (or at least, not as much of it) and you don't have to market it as aggressively.
Conclusion: (b) will probably result in a greater net profit.
Not if buying out an infringing property gives the impression that the consequence of infringement is getting paid off by the one you are stealing from.
You only have to sue once to send a warning to everyone.
Not if buying out an infringing property gives the impression that the consequence of infringement is getting paid off by the one you are stealing from.
If the infringing property has something you can use, it's more cost-effective to acquire it than to go through all the development costs of filling the niche you're forcing them to vacate: remember, you might own the rights to the property, but they own the rights to the coding. If you can acquire a program that only requires minor tweaks to be made presentable, why not do so? (Especially since you can practically dictate your own price to them by suggesting that you could quite easily turn around and sue them if they don't agree... there's nothing preventing strongarm tactics in the cutthroat world of business).
If they've got nothing worthwhile to offer, of course, go ahead and nuke 'em. If your product turns out to be better, nobody'll care in the long run.
This has to be one of the most pathetic stabs at a corporation that I have ever seen. It's sad, and reflects very poorly on the cognitive thinking skills of the OP, let alone the legal and judicial know-how he/she might possess.
Request being made that this thread either be moved to the Community Business forum, or closed entirely. It has absolutely nothing to do with Wizards of the Coast, the GSL, or Dungeons and Dragons, and as such does not belong here.
QFT.
(b) buy them out, achieving the same effect for approximately the same initial expenditure, but ultimately saving because you don't have to develop the thing yourself (or at least, not as much of it) and you don't have to market it as aggressively.
Conclusion: (b) will probably result in a greater net profit.
Sorry, I can not quote my source, it was a while back. I read in an article talks between both parties indicated that the amount that was being discussed would have broke a few settlement records. I suspect that pushing the legal argument was the cheaper/inexpensive option.
Cheers!!
Just thought I'd give a heads-up. I haven't quite figured out if this is a case of "Big Bad Scary Corporation" or "Lazy Programmers that can't do anything creative."
And why is this in the GSL forum?....
I read in an article talks between both parties indicated that the amount that was being discussed would have broke a few settlement records. I suspect that pushing the legal argument was the cheaper/inexpensive option.
Ah. Well, in that case, never mind. If they already tried that route and it didn't work out, then this would be the logical next step.
Hasbro may be required by the licensing deal with EA to defend the rights that they've contracted.
That actually seems a little bit bizarre to me: wouldn't it be more sensible if the right to defend an adapted property against infringement went along with the right to produce the adaptation? Shouldn't the party whose dollar is most directly on the line be the one principally responsible for defending that line?
I would have to respectfully disagree. For example, if a developer hires a contractor to build some houses; the houses are still property of the developer. Therefore the developer would be the one to take action.
So in this case, it would be Hasbro that would need to do the protecting. At least, as far as I understand things.
Cheers!!
However, if that's not the way it generally works, just chalk it up to one more thing that confuses me about business.
- Scrabble is a trademarked name (name only)
- AFAIK you cannot patent game mechanics. For example, tiles with letters on a board cannot be patented. Why do you think so many games have similar mechanics?
- Scrabble was invented so many years ago that, even if you could patent game mechanics, it would have expired long ago
The most Scrablulous would have to do is possibly change their name. This is similar to why some companies are considering breaking the GSL. You can legally produce material compatible with Dungeons and Dragons as long as you don't mention any trademarked terms in the book. But then online articles could be wrong. ;)
I read a few articles on this and most of them suggest that this case will not work. Mainly because:
- Scrabble is a trademarked name (name only)
- AFAIK you cannot patent game mechanics. For example, tiles with letters on a board cannot be patented. Why do you think so many games have similar mechanics?
- Scrabble was invented so many years ago that, even if you could patent game mechanics, it would have expired long ago
The most Scrablulous would have to do is possibly change their name. This is similar to why some companies are considering breaking the GSL. You can legally produce material compatible with Dungeons and Dragons as long as you don't mention any trademarked terms in the book. But then online articles could be wrong. ;)
Interesting analysis. It looks like the developers behind Scrabulous are coming back with a different product called “Wordscraper”. It is basically another word game except it is the players that set the rules... of course nothing prevents you as a player to chose the same letter distribution, board layout, point value as Scrabble.
I actually find this development around Scrabulous quite topical for the GSL discussion because it shows ways in which IP rights can be circumvented
- AFAIK you cannot patent game mechanics. For example, tiles with letters on a board cannot be patented. Why do you think so many games have similar mechanics?
You can patent a game mechanic, but doing so is difficult. Basically, you have to be able to demonstrate that your mechanic is both new and innovative. For example, WotC has a patent on "tapping" in Magic: the Gathering. They would, however, probably be unable to gain a patent on "roll a d20 and add a modifier."
Interesting analysis. It looks like the developers behind Scrabulous are coming back with a different product called “Wordscraper”. It is basically another word game except it is the players that set the rules... of course nothing prevents you as a player to chose the same letter distribution, board layout, point value as Scrabble.
I actually find this development around Scrabulous quite topical for the GSL discussion because it shows ways in which IP rights can be circumvented
Is that a good thing? To circumvents one's right to IP ownership and control of it? If that's the case, every artists and authors should keep their creative body of works to themselves.
- AFAIK you cannot patent game mechanics. For example, tiles with letters on a board cannot be patented. Why do you think so many games have similar mechanics?
This is actually incorrect. You indeed can patent game mechanics; you cannot copyright them.
However, your understanding of the situation is incorrect.
1) Scrabble is a trademarked name, which of course means that the name is bad. That wouldn't be so bad if not...
2) They were violating their copyright as well.
You see, the game board is a copy of a Scrabble game board, or near enough that it doesn't matter. The upshot of this is that while the rules themselves may not be under copyright, the look and feel of the game are.
Moreover, trademark law doesn't require confusion to prove dilution.
Hardly a perfect analogy, since in a licensing deal the licensee generally retains a significant interest in the property (while once a contractor is done with and paid for the project, their interest is terminated), but I see where you're coming from. In a case where there's a clear distinction between general property (the overall game concept) and specific property (the electronic application of such), I would think that the responsibility for maintaining control over the specific property should be in the hands of the people in charge of and most directly benefitting from it.
However, if that's not the way it generally works, just chalk it up to one more thing that confuses me about business.
Perhaps you and me both..LOL....
I am no expert by far. This is just based on what little I do know and have read...
It never hurts to jump in, ya just might learned something.
As for my analogy, it was the only I could think of that was reasonably close. Thanks for understanding my point of view.
- AFAIK you cannot patent game mechanics. For example, tiles with letters on a board cannot be patented. Why do you think so many games have similar mechanics?
Hasbro won't be able to claim patent protection on the game mechanics, but they can argue that the board design for Scrabble is copyrighted. They will probably also argue that the board design itself constitutes a trademark.
one- No matter who loses, the lawyers win.
two- Hasbro's legal department contains lawyers.