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.


Can I call it or what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Can I call it or what?
By FDisk City on 7/25/2008 11:07:43 AM , Rating: 5
If by “call it” you mean stating what’s extremely obvious, then yup. You called it.


RE: Can I call it or what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/2008 11:56:42 AM , Rating: 2
If Nostradamus can get credit for such obvious predictions as "one day, two brothers will fight each other", why can't I?


RE: Can I call it or what?
By PhoenixKnight on 7/25/2008 1:13:27 PM , Rating: 5
The phrasing of your prediction wasn't ambiguous enough. You only get credit if the prediction's meaning can only be deciphered after the fact.


RE: Can I call it or what?
By Alias1431 on 7/25/2008 1:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
The cat will rue this day.


RE: Can I call it or what?
By OPR8R on 7/25/2008 6:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
"Rue my ass!"

"There's not enough rue..."


RE: Can I call it or what?
By Spivonious on 7/25/2008 2:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
The men of blue will be drowned by the life giver.


Copyright or patent?
By mattclary on 7/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Copyright or patent?
By DublinGunner on 7/25/2008 11:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, a patent would cover the board, the letter pieces, but the copyright covers the game itself.

I think I'll copyright 'Connect 5' and put it up on Facebook!


RE: Copyright or patent?
By mattclary on 7/25/2008 2:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
What if you have a game where you throw rings at a stick. Copyright?


RE: Copyright or patent?
By mattclary on 7/25/2008 3:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm proud to say I'm not the only one thinking along these lines. I hadn't read anyone else mention patent vs. copyright when that occurred to me...

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1359

quote:
The more controversial issue is whether the game Scrabulous, and not merely the word “Scrabulous,” infringes on some kind of copyright. This hinges on what elements of the game are “creative,” and which parts are “functional.” For the most part, copyright law protects expressions(creative), but not ideas(functional). Although the exact design of a board (the colors and artwork, for instance) might be copyrightable, the rules of a game, in the platonic sense, are protectable either by patent or not at all. In the case of Scrabble, an interesting question might be whether the layout of scoring tiles is merely arbitrary, or a functional part of the game itself. Anyone who has ever played a triple triple can tell you how much the exact placement of the scoring tiles can affect gameplay.


RE: Copyright or patent?
By WTFiSJuiCE on 7/26/2008 8:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
But if Chuck Norris can still win in 3 moves like he can in Connect 4, what's the point of playing Connect 5?


25000 a month?
By Larrymon2000 on 7/25/2008 9:55:39 AM , Rating: 3
Gives me some ideas...
Monopolicious, here I come!




RE: 25000 a month?
By phxfreddy on 7/25/2008 11:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
Priceless. Got a good belly laugh. You could have a cranking Fergie do a commercial for it.

When you can't sleep...play Monopolicious.


RE: 25000 a month?
By Spivonious on 7/25/2008 12:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
Fergie: m-o-n-o-p-o-l-i-...um...-o-....crap.


stupid
By omnicronx on 7/25/2008 10:02:44 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
EA and Hasbro attempted to purchase the game to buy the game outright went nowhere.
Anyone who would not take this deal when they blatantly stole the name should know when to cut their losses and get out. The way I see it, they are lucky enough to have made any money at all.




RE: stupid
By phxfreddy on 7/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: stupid
By walk2k on 7/25/2008 5:56:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yea I'm a little surprised that scrabble isn't public domain by now.


Typo
By Choppedliver on 7/25/2008 9:57:48 AM , Rating: 2
"The Agarwalla brothers reportedly make $25,000 a month in advertisements. EA and Hasbro attempted to purchase the game to buy the game outright went nowhere."




Scrable sues Scrabulous.
By greylica on 7/25/2008 10:33:24 AM , Rating: 2
Scrambulous !

:P




Anyone remember this game?
By WTFiSJuiCE on 7/26/2008 8:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
I blatantly ripped off ur game, sorrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyy!

Oh i'm sorry, wait....sorrylicious




Underhanded
By Inkjammer on 7/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Underhanded
By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/2008 10:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think nearly enough time has passed for Scrabulous to claim an estoppel by laches defense. The legal system moves on a much slower clock than Internet time.


RE: Underhanded
By tmouse on 7/25/2008 10:38:51 AM , Rating: 2
They probably were contacted very soon. Companies often take time to either offer chances at licenses or show a good faith effort before taking legal action, this also usually saves them money. If you do not defend your copyright you lose it plain and simple. For face book its what’s a 7 letter word for holding objects together using a fastener having a tapered shank with a helical thread or a slang term for sex (with a S,W,and D for triple points).


RE: Underhanded
By Spivonious on 7/25/2008 12:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
I was going to say "nailing" until the thread came into the picture.


RE: Underhanded
By Spivonious on 7/25/2008 12:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I'm an idiot. I got it now. I was thinking thread like a piece of string.


RE: Underhanded
By 1prophet on 7/25/2008 10:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
You can lose your copyright and then get it back using legal trickery like they did with "It's a Wonderful Life ", depends how big and powerful you are.


RE: Underhanded
By Some1ne on 7/25/2008 4:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why else would they wait so bloody long to defend their IP?


Um, because they tried to purchase Scrabulous prior to their lawsuit, and only filed the suit after the purchasing process fell through? I think it's clear that they would have preferred to purchase Scrabulous instead of having to take it down through legal action. The former option is fast and simple, and would put them in immediate control of the Scrabulous app and all of its users. All they'd have to do is change who recieves the payout from the ads. The latter option is much more costly and time-consuming, and also has the potential of creating negative PR for Hasbro. It was therefore in Hasbro's best interests to make a genuine effort to come to a mutual agreement to purchase the game, and to only initiate legal action after the purchase process failed.

That makes a lot more sense to me than your conspiracy theory about how they waited intentionally so that they could have an official version out in order to scoop up the users when Scrabulous goes down. That's just not the fastest way to get the users. The fastest way to get the users is to acquire ownership of Scrabulous, leave it running, and just change where the money that comes out of it goes. You get all the users instantly, and without having to worry about any negative PR related to having shut down a popular Facebook app that millions of people use.


GROSS!
By JonnyDough on 7/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: GROSS!
By wordsworm on 7/26/2008 1:09:25 AM , Rating: 3
And why is it that every time I hear you harping on them, you make some bone headed mistake in your own post?

quote:
Why is it that every DT article has an major error within the first 30 seconds of my reading?


Did you neglect to study articles in grammar class? You, sir, live in a glass house, and you're casting stones. I make mistakes. They make mistakes. You make mistakes. That's enough of the stone throwing. Go sit in the corner already.


RE: GROSS!
By JonnyDough on 7/26/2008 1:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, except I'm a reader, not an author. My errors are acceptable, as it would be pointless and unnecessary for me to edit my comments. =)

My comments are rated. The article is not. I am not a well-known article writer here. They are. I lack the power and online pals to largely sway opinion and rate down posters I do not like. They do. They might be paid for these articles. I clearly am not paid for posting comments.

Do you see the difference yet or is it just beyond you?


RE: GROSS!
By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 12:07:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you see the difference yet or is it just beyond you?


DT is basically some folks who came together to post some articles about things that many people are interested in, and to promote the discussion of said articles. This is not an academic paper or some magazine that can easily hire 5-10 editors to go through what they write (yes, 5-10 editors is standard for a magazine, book, or even newspaper, and that's not even mentioning the proofreaders). Ironically, I can often pick up on mistakes despite the precautions and serious expense that these types of media put in place to prevent mistakes. DT mostly has blogs written by amateurs and hobbyists. I'm not trying to put down what they do here, I'm sure they'd agree with what I said. I make mistakes sometimes, even though I'm an English teacher and I make a serious attempt not to do so. I edit about 200 pages, 10,000 words or so, of text every week. I can't catch all the mistakes, but I try to take care of the major ones. Even if they hired an editor, mistakes would still get through. These are facts. They might get paid for their articles, but surely if they hired an editor (a good one goes for about 80k/year) or just a good proofreader (30k+/year), they would get a lot less money than they do now.

Now, can you see the difference yet, or is it just beyond you?

Now, why don't you share with us why a pretentious bugger like you figures that you have the right, in your mind, to disparage DT's writers when you yourself have a poor command over the language? You have the power to make sure that you don't make stupid mistakes, and yet you do not exercise that power. I try to ferret out my mistakes as a matter of pride and practice (if I always try my best, then when it matters, ie a test - though I don't take those anymore - I will already naturally write well and not make stupid mistakes borne of habit). Yet, I still make them; especially when it's late at night and I'm not as careful.

I'm curious, did you have an English teacher for a father? Did he always berate you for your mistakes, and then die before he could tell you that he loved you? So, now you go around berating others for the petty mistakes that they make? Go see a therapist, because no editor or proofreader at DT can solve your serious emotional and psychological problems.

Now, this has been a fun little rant JonnyDough. Go back to your corner.


RE: GROSS!
By JonnyDough on 7/28/2008 5:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
You've got issues bud. You're way too serious and trying way too hard to one up yourself. Thank God I didn't have you as an English prof. Most of them ARE indeed pricks, but I think you might top them all.

A proofreader would indeed have kept many people on this website. The people here DO make money, maybe you failed to notice all of the ads. 30K and even 80K for a website of this caliber (this many hits, not this quality) is NOTHING. Maybe you didn't notice the 90's internet billionaire trends, or the richest men in America list...

Popular websites rake in a FORTUNE. Now, quit acting like you know everything Mr. Teacher. You most obviously think you do, but you do not.


RE: GROSS!
By wordsworm on 7/29/2008 3:15:03 AM , Rating: 2
I never pretended to know everything. I'm not going around dissing DT because of some issues with grammar, spelling, and syntax. I only do research to verify if I'm right or to get corrected. Since I'm a good reader, as most writers are, it's usually pretty easy for me to come off like an expert when in fact I'm just using studies, logic, and facts found from reading. Case in point to follow.

I'm sure DT makes some money, and a good portion of that goes to the staff, some to the owners. Nonetheless, 30k for a proofreader and 80k for another editor (I believe Kristopher is the editor here) is not chump change.

Check out this list of top bloggers: http://paulamooney.blogspot.com/2007/05/paulas-lis...

You might notice that the top earners are into millions of dollars. http://www.bloggersforhire.com/what-is-happening-w...

Bloggers don't make a lot of money unless you're one of those lucky few. I don't know what the statistics for this website is. I don't know how much money they're 'raking in.'

Back to me 'acting like I know everything.' I read a lot. I'm addicted to reading. I'm also autodidactic - I never had the money for formal training. Oh, I have a degree in English literature with a minor in professional writing, but that hardly makes me an expert on it. I have no interest in becoming an expert in that subject.

Maybe some of the writers at DT can disclose their approximate yearly earnings from blogging. I'm willing to bet donuts to dollars that the only person really making money off of all this is the editor, webmaster, owner, and sales. If you have a good breakdown of how an amateur rig like this makes its money and how it divides the proceeds, I'd be interested in finding out. However, it might prove to be too challenging of a task for you. You get too easily chaffed by Miss. Spelling and Miss. Understanding.

On the other hand, it is lucky for you that I wasn't your English prof. I give out a load of homework every week that would make most teachers blush. A lot of kids quit my classes because of that reason. The ones who stuck around, however, are doing extremely well in the subject. Many of them get excited over the homework that I give. Others, however, just sit and complain. Fortunately, they usually quit before too long.

Anyways, not that it matters much. Most of my classes are full. You probably couldn't get in anyways.


RE: GROSS!
By JonnyDough on 7/29/2008 9:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
Technically, it's "anyway." Not "anyways." =) So much for taking your class. I'd rather take a college course where I can learn something other than how to be an prick.


RE: GROSS!
By wordsworm on 7/30/2008 7:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
Has nothing to do with 'technically.' Try 'nonstandard' and I'll accept that. Seriously, though, you need to brush up on your articles if you're going to go around criticizing other folks.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/anyways.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anyways
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anyways

As I said before, I'm not an expert, anymore than you are. As such, how about having a little bit more respect for the writers at DT?


RE: GROSS!
By JonnyDough on 8/1/2008 4:00:26 AM , Rating: 2
Anyways is not a word, those online dictionaries are not a be all end all. The English language has taken a downturn, those that write the dictionary of the living language today will allow any slang to penetrate the good book. They are just not as strict as their predecessors.

Anyways, that's like saying anyhows or anywises. You can't have a plural of how, nor can how have ownership. The same goes for way. You can't have any ways. You can have several ways, or many ways, but not any ways.

I'm sorry but for an English teacher you sure have a long way to go in your education. On your MySpace you probably have a caption that says "Me and my boyfriend." I'm sure that the proper way today is still "My boyfriend and I." I believe the reason for making it that way long ago had to do with something called respect.

You talk about me respecting the DT writers, however their lack of care when it comes to editing shows a lack of respect for the readers.

Enough said. You obviously just want to be fastidious and show everyone up with your superb English skills. Go teach a 4th grader and leave the big boy stuff to those that can.


RE: GROSS!
By Chocobollz on 7/31/2008 1:57:27 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, you're correcting other's sentences but you yourself making mistakes :) You said "an prick", don't it should be "a prick"? :)


RE: GROSS!
By JonnyDough on 8/1/2008 3:51:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. It should be "a" prick. Thing about it was that I was going to put a three letter word for "jack-donkey" instead of prick, but changed it so I wouldn't automatically be down rated. In my hurry I forgot to change it to an "a." Now if only DT had editors, then I could see about hiring one for myself. But since this is a "professional news site" and I'm just a "commenter" I suppose they should probably be first.


I'm confused
By Proteusza on 7/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm confused
By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/2008 10:05:07 AM , Rating: 3
If your friend recorded versions of those tunes on a CD for sale, he would have been liable for copyright infringement.

> "Methinks 60 years is plenty of time to profit from something. "

Agreed. Copyright projection has gotten overly long, thanks to the efforts of Sonny Bono, of all people.


RE: I'm confused
By Alexstarfire on 7/25/2008 11:06:12 AM , Rating: 5
According to the RIAA it does not matter. The simple fact that the song was played and others listened, and no one paid for it, means you stole from them.


RE: I'm confused
By MrSmurf on 7/25/2008 11:52:11 AM , Rating: 2
Have you ever read those warnings at the beginning of movies? You can't profit off copyrighted material or use it for commerical use (ie. do not make money off of it).

Your facts are wrong.


RE: I'm confused
By iamezza7 on 7/26/2008 5:52:54 AM , Rating: 3
He said according to the RIAA not according to copyright law...


RE: I'm confused
By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 12:10:56 AM , Rating: 2
Usually venues are automatically required to pay fees to artists' groups. You could have a band playing nothing but their own tunes at a bar one night, and the bar owner must pay the artists' groups the same fee. Similar fees from concerts must be paid. Is it not the same in the US?


RE: I'm confused
By Spivonious on 7/25/2008 10:30:34 AM , Rating: 2
The venue where your friends played the covers is responsible for paying the performance fees.

As far as "Scrabulous" goes, it is a blatant copy of Scrabble, even in the name. Hasbro is completely in the right here. It's no different than if someone came out with a car called the Lord Fission which looked and operated exactly the same as a Ford Fusion. Do you really think that Ford shouldn't be upset by that?


RE: I'm confused
By phxfreddy on 7/25/2008 11:32:39 AM , Rating: 2
Upset yes. Righteous? NO. One should not be able to rights protect against appearance items. They are my eyes and my mind. These are the things that determine my aestetics. To me its like trying to get royalties from the word "THE" or trying to copyright a sliver of my DNA. Its my friggin DNA


RE: I'm confused
By Spivonious on 7/25/2008 12:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
But in this case it's not just appearance; it's also functionality and concept. If I invent something, I should be protected from others using my idea without my permission. Anything else is communism.


RE: I'm confused
By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/2008 12:28:35 PM , Rating: 4
To correct several mistakes, one cannot copyright appearance. One can trademark it. One cannot copyright DNA....though you can patent a particular application of it.

One cannot copyright or patent a word in the dictionary. One can copyright a particular sequence of words, if it is distinctive. Short phrases cannot be copyrighted.

Finally, one can trademark a single word or short phrase under particular cases. It has to be a very distinctive use, for a particular market in which that word has no special meaning. For instance, "Apple" can be trademarked to sell computers, but not fruit. And, once trademarked for computers, it doesn't imply protection in other areas, such as music (see the Beatles/Apple Inc suit for details).


RE: I'm confused
By themadmilkman on 7/25/2008 1:16:04 PM , Rating: 3
Masher, stop being reasonable and accurate.


RE: I'm confused
By Sazar on 7/25/2008 3:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
Those are 2 excellent words for a beginner while playing Scrabble/Scrabulous/Scrabalicious/Scrabalabadingdon g


RE: I'm confused
By JonnyDough on 7/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: I'm confused
By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/2008 5:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
You have me confused with someone else. This isn't my article, nor are there any such spelling or grammatical errors in my last article.


RE: I'm confused
By JonnyDough on 7/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: I'm confused
By JonnyDough on 7/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: I'm confused
By Keeir on 7/26/2008 9:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
You just don't get it.

For a very significant chunk of DT readers, grammar is the least important aspect of an article or a comment.

What is important is Content, Analysis, Sourcing, and Presentation.

Your reply posts tend to lack significantly in Content, Analysis, Sourcing, and Presentation. Therefore, they tend to get rated down.


RE: I'm confused
By TomCorelis (blog) on 7/27/2008 12:33:15 AM , Rating: 3
I do not downrate people who insult me, find errors in my writing, or point out my flaws. DT policy specifically states that we are to avoid downrating members, in fact. I am not aware of any writer here who downrates people out of spite, despite constant accusations to the contrary.

Anyone who hasn't posted a comment has the ability to downrate you -- you are at the mercy of our readership as a whole. Further, their ratings are negated the moment they make a comment.

Also, if you have issues with anyone's writing, I think we would all prefer that you voiced them via e-mail. Oftentimes it's much faster.


RE: I'm confused
By JonnyDough on 7/29/2008 9:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am not aware of any writer here who downrates people out of spite, despite constant accusations to the contrary.


I can assure you that there are authors here who either have several accounts or have a few "followers" that they are able to contact to do their evil bidding. :-P


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki