backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 76 comment(s) - last by JonnyDough.. on Aug 1 at 4:00 AM


A Scrabulous game in progress.  (Source: Facebook)
War of the Word Games

Hasbro, makers of the popular 60-year-old Scrabble board game, has apparently had enough of Scrabulous, the popular Facebook application that looks, plays, and feels its old-school predecessor. The company is now striking back, invoking the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) to remove Scrabulous from Facebook and put a lock on the game’s web site and assets.

 “We view the Scrabulous application as clear and blatant infringement of our Scrabble intellectual property, said Hasbro general counsel Barry Nagler.  “We are pursuing this legal action in accordance with the interests of our shareholders, and the integrity of the Scrabble brand.”

A battle between Hasbro and the India-based Scrabulous owner RJ Softwares, named after company owners Rajat Agarwalla and Jayant Agarwalla, has loomed for some time. This is particularly the case since Hasbro and EA teamed up to create their own, official version of Scrabble for Facebook users.

The numbers for EA’s Scrabble have, thus far, not fared well. Approximately 8,000 Facebook users play the official application regularly, compared to the Scrabulous’ half a million -- Scrabulous is said to have around 2.3 million users total. EA’s Scrabble launched earlier this month, and numbers revealed in a previous DailyTech report reveal a gain of more than 3,000 active users in the past two weeks.

“Hasbro has always had the same two priorities,” said Hasbro Digital Media general manager Mark Blecher in an interview with the New York Times. “One is to offer a great playing authentic game for fans and the second is to protect our intellectual property. This was theft of I.P., plain and simple.”

“It's really no different from when the recording industry faced the issue of folks posting music on sites like Napster and letting them copy it for free,” said Blecher, speaking to CNet.

The Agarwalla brothers reportedly make $25,000 a month in advertisements. EA and Hasbro attempted to buy the game outright -- but those talks went nowhere.

Hasbro’s lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, accuses the brothers of “promoting and profiting from … the confusingly similar ‘Scrabulous’ name.”

While both games maintain an intense following, a “Save Scrabulous” group on Facebook acknowledges their game’s shortcomings. “The copyright infringement is obvious and, in retrospect, the developers of Scrabulous should have done more to create their own spin on it,” said one fan. Both Scrabble and Scrabulous share identical objectives, board layouts, color schemes, and point values.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Blatant copying, the Big Guys are right this time
By UzairH on 7/25/2008 10:01:11 AM , Rating: 5
I normally side with the small guy vs the large guys in cases like this, but Scrabulous is in so many ways a direct clone of the original Scrabble board game its not even funny. The exact same board scoring layout, colors, and rules mean it IS Scrabble, with only a slightly twisted name.

Don't get me wrong, I have played plenty of Scrabulous games and like it. The Agarwalla bros were astute, and Hasbro was not smart enough, to realize the potential of a Scrabble game on facebook. But that still not excuse the fact that Scrabulous' makers are making money off a cloned product.

I think the best solution would have been for Hasbro to purchase Scrabulous, and make its creators their employees who would be responsible for running it and bringing in the moolah. This way Hasbro gets the existing (excellent) facebook application with its large fan base, while the Agarwalla bros have official approval.




By UzairH on 7/25/2008 10:03:01 AM , Rating: 5
edit: just found out that Hasbro did try to purchase the app but were refused. In this case I have to say that Scrabulous to still exist is stealing from Hasbro, unless they _completely_ change Scrabulous' look and feel to make it different from Scrabble.


RE: Blatant copying, the Big Guys are right this time
By rudy on 7/25/2008 2:56:58 PM , Rating: 3
Why would you need to purchase what you already own? Like someone steals my car and puts it up for sale then I have to go buy it back?


By Some1ne on 7/25/2008 3:58:53 PM , Rating: 5
That's the point. Hasbro was being generous, and giving Scrabulous an opportunity to to quit willingly when they were still ahead. Then they could have avoided any protracted (and expensive) legal battle, and kept any profits they had made from their game. Now it seems like they're going to end up with nothing (game shut down, assets frozen and/or turned over to Hasbro, court and attorney fees, fines, etc.). It would have been much smarter for them to have just taken the purchase offer, even if it wasn't a particularly appealing one.

I can't imagine them winning any sort of court case, as their app is a pretty blatant ripoff of Scrabble. For once, the big evil company is right.


By typo101 on 7/25/2008 7:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
They would not be buying the IP, because they already have that. They would be buying the product these brothers created: a facebook application (that happens to be an implementation of their IP).


By gmw1082 on 7/25/2008 11:40:59 AM , Rating: 5
Actually chess and checkers have been around for centuries so I don't think anyone owns the IP for them. Scabulous is sort of like someone making an exact copy of a game like Monopoly. Everything about the game is the same except it's online instead of a board game.


By gmw1082 on 7/25/2008 11:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think there's a patent for board games. I believe they fall under trademark laws.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/2008 11:52:19 AM , Rating: 5
> "Why is it an easy to create fiction or childs game can be protected longer than an invention ..say a life saving drug can ??????????????"

Isn't it more important that a life-saving drug be in the public domain than a child's game?

More importantly, patents are viewed as discoveries, wherein had the inventor not filed that particular patent, someone else would have eventually. The same is not true of a copyright-- if Tolkien hadn't written Lord of the Rings, no one else would have done so the following year.

To correct your dates, patents last 20 years...but a copyright can last up to 120 years. Copyrights should last longer than a patent. But durations of over a century are total nonsense. About 50 years feels right to me.


By Spivonious on 7/25/2008 12:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
I think it should just be for the lifetime of the creator. If I invent something at age 26, I want to be able to profit off of it until I die. So probably about 60 years.

You bring up LOTR. I don't see any reason why this is not in the public domain; J.R.R. has been dead for 35 years.

Patents and copyrights should be the same IMO.


By Proteusza on 7/25/2008 12:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
50 years or the creators lifespan (from point of first publication onwards, only if the creator is an individual and not a corporation) sounds fair to me.

That way, if I write the best book ever written, and then drop dead tomorrow, my family can still benefit.


By hduser on 7/25/2008 1:00:50 PM , Rating: 4
So if you invent something and I hire a hit man... You get the picture. Actual lifetime of the inventor could be meaningless if the inventor is a corporate entity.


By Spivonious on 7/25/2008 2:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well, theoretically my family could sue for damages based on estimates of what my invention would have brought in during my life ;)

I do get the picture though. So lifetime or 10 years, whichever comes last. If it's a corporation, then 10 years only.

So Windows 95 would be fair game for copying. Does anyone buy it today anyway? This would also force companies to innovate rather than just sit on products that were once great but have gotten stale.


By wordsworm on 7/26/2008 1:02:12 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and what about your house? If you build a house, or a bridge, or a building, you figure the ownership should die when you kick up the daisies?

It took JRR longer to write those books than it would for you to build a house. That's likely including the research, development, and education it took for him to create the masterpiece. This is not to mention the fact that if not for Christopher Tolkien, we likely would have significantly less of JRR to appreciate.


By djc208 on 7/26/2008 8:46:55 AM , Rating: 2
I think Tolkein was/is in the public domain, his family might have been able to do something about that.

I think the original standard international (read: everyone but the US) was the author's life plus X number of years (think it was 10 or 15). The US had/has much tougher laws and you can essentially have it copyrited forever. This is why many books used to be printed in the US and a foreign country vice printing all of it here. It would allow you to gain US and International copyrite protection.

I think this is one of the reasons you have all these production companies (like at the end of TV shows). By copyrighting it to the company the material belongs to something that can't "die" and so isn't limited by the writer's death.


By wordsworm on 7/26/2008 10:25:47 AM , Rating: 2
No, his work is still copyrighted. You can renew a copyright for a certain number of years. I took a look around, and it's copyrighted 1965, which is only 43 years ago. I think it's likely got a lot of copyright protection left.

Apparently, Tolkien (not to be confused with the ancient Tolkein cards). US extended copyright to last for up to 125 years. This is actually a good thing for writers, even if they don't live that long, as it pushes its long term value and therefore its value as a copyright is increased.

Apparently, the US tried to get away with printing it years ago (when it first came out) without paying Tolkien for it. Apparently it was the fans of the series who forced the company, Acer, to stop publishing it without permission.


By phxfreddy on 7/26/2008 3:54:45 PM , Rating: 2
No because the money fed back to the developers develops MORE drugs. Number thingys ...they are tough to understand for socialists.