Scrabulous Is Dead, Hasbro's Version Brain-Dead 395
eldavojohn writes "Sometime this morning, Facebook shut down Scrabulous to American and Canadian users. Scrabulous, we hardly knew ye." This is sadly unsurprising, now that Hasbro's finally taken legal action against the developers, after quite a few months of letting it go unmolested. Seems like they waited until there was an official Scrabble client available (also on Facebook), while the snappy and fuller-featured Scrabulous kept people interested in a 60-year-old board game. The official client, which is at least labeled a beta, is a disappointment. This is not a Google-style beta release, note: it's slow to load, confusing, and doesn't even offer the SOWPODS word list as an option, only the Tournament Word List and a list based on the Merriam-Webster dictionary. (Too bad that SOWPODS is the word list used in most of the world's English-speaking countries.) It also took several minutes to open a game, rather than the few seconds (at most) that Scrabulous took — it's pretty impressive, but not in a good way, that the programmers could extract that sort of performance from the combination of Facebook's servers and my dual-core, 2GHz+ laptop. The new Scrabble client has doodads like 3D flipping-tile animations, too, but no clear way to actually initiate the sample game that jamie and I have attempted to start. I hope that once we get past that obvious hurdle, we'll find there's a chat interface and game notebook as in Scrabulous, but my hopes are low.
If the Scrabulous people have any pride... (Score:5, Insightful)
same old story (Score:4, Insightful)
Just another sad day when an entity demands and is granted the right to continue to profit exclusivly on an idea that is decades old.
Re:Why didn't they just buy scrablous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why didn't they just buy scrablous? (Score:3, Insightful)
They probably didn't want to reward the people who ripped off their game.
Re:Why didn't they just buy scrablous? (Score:2, Insightful)
uhhh, yeah that isn't exactly a new business strategy.
Older than me! (Score:5, Insightful)
We really REALLY need copyright reform. I'm 56 years old. Nothing ever created in my lifetime will reach the public domain while I still breathe, and no matter how young you are nothing created in your lifetime will reach the public domain either. And as this Scabble thing shows, it stifles creativity. When Newton said "if I see farther than other men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants" (and he wasn't the first to say that), the same could be said of art.
Where would engineering be if patents were endless, like copyrights are? Endless copyrights stifle creativity. Where would Disney be without the Brothers Grimm? And how can we convince our governments that they are hindering artistic progress?
Re:If the Scrabulous people have any pride... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hasbro would have done a lot better to do something like this:
"We'll give you an endorsement and let you use the Scrabble logo and *not take legal action* if you will maintain certain standards and give us a cut of your advertising profits as a licensing fee."
And then negotiate as fair a deal as both parties can agree upon.
This is where modern copyright litigation really fails these companies: they're so quick to shut down anyone who might potentially be stepping into their IP, they're passing up really amazing opportunities at making use of their innovation. If these guys can do Scrabble so well, why not encourage them to do other Hasbro games in a way that makes Hasbro money?
Re:Why didn't they just buy scrablous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? Isn't that how most small-time inventors get noticed by big companies...either developing a new product or improving an existing one?
A couple of college student can't approach Hasbro and say "We've got a great idea for an online version of Scrabble...will you let us make it?" Hasbro will laugh them out the doors. But when they execute it well and have a massive fan base, why would Hasbro NOT want to cash in on what is already there and developed?
Re:same old story (Score:5, Insightful)
How does this not matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are still plenty of us who care about myspace / facebook. Most people on the Internet are on one (or both) of those. I see why this article justifies front-page status.
Or how about I bitch about all the articles about C and Ruby and a whole load of other programming languages I don't know? Or websites that I personally don't care about? Should the front-page only have articles that we all care about? I'm guessing that would be quite a short list.
Re:let's see (Score:4, Insightful)
It means he thinks that there aren't millions of non-US facebook users because he hasn't bothered to look.
/Mikael
Re:How does this matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see a single article on the front page that affects everyone.
Your post strikes me as a lame excuse for trumpeting your awesome coolness for not using Facebook or Myspace. Consider your awesome coolness recognized, now leave us alone to talk about things that affect many thousands of people.
Re:Older than me! (Score:1, Insightful)
When Newton said "if I see farther than other men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants" (and he wasn't the first to say that)
People really shouldn't quote Newton on that. When he said that to his rival, Robert Hooke, he was being an ass, as Newton generally always was. Hooke had a short stature and had scoliosis, which caused him to stoop.
And, like you said, Newton wasn't the first to use the phrase.
Re:If the Scrabulous people have any pride... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So countersue! (Score:2, Insightful)
Explain what's trademarked, merci? (Score:2, Insightful)
If it was simply a matter of Trademark then Scrabulous and Niggle would have no more problem than MAD Magazine.
Re:If the Scrabulous people have any pride... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is where modern copyright litigation really fails these companies: they're so quick to shut down anyone who might potentially be stepping into their IP, they're passing up really amazing opportunities at making use of their innovation.
This has nothing to do with litigation or the law. That's a business decision of shooting themselves in the foot.
However, in a free country, a business is entitled to shoot themselves in the foot. They can even choose which foot.
Re:Why didn't they just buy scrablous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I back Hasbro, but purchasing the alleged "illegal copy" of their game would have sent the message "Copy our game and do a better job than us, and we will pay you for it rather than prosecuting you"
Also known as "Do our R & D for us for free, and we'll give you money if you come up with something really good." That's I message I wouldn't just send, I'd broadcast it at top volume.
Re:If the Scrabulous people have any pride... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't Scrabble still under copyright? If it isn't in the public domain, and Scrabulous is a clone of Scrabble (which it is AFAICT), they have every right in the world to sue. They even took advantage of Scrabble's popularity by giving it a name that was similar. This appears to be no different than selling Leevi Jeens with the classic rivets.
This has NOTHING to do with trademark (Score:2, Insightful)
Legallly, this claim has nothing to do with trademark. Please, stop spreading FUD.
This game was pulled under the DMCA. The DMCA only protects against copyright infringement, it has NO PROVISIONS AT ALL for trademark infringement.
If this game had (in Scrabble's opinion) simply violated trademark, they could NOT have leveraged the DMCA.
Now, if Scrabble has, in fact, perjured itself (DMCAing without cause *is* perjury), scrabulous must file a DMCA counter-claim. They will win, and should win big, if, in fact, Scrabble has perjured itself.
I expect Scrabble actually has committed perjury, because I highly doubt any code or instructions (the copyrighted parts of Scrabble, the board/name are TRADEMARKS, totally different) in Scrabulous are non-original.
Go Rajat and Jaynat, go!
Re:Why didn't they just buy scrablous? (Score:3, Insightful)
So instead they chose to punish people who played their game. That's brilliant!
Re:Why didn't they just buy scrablous? (Score:5, Insightful)
[P]urchasing the alleged "illegal copy" of their game would have sent the message "Copy our game and do a better job than us, and we will pay you for it rather than prosecuting you"
Well, consider that the US Constitution says that patent and copyright laws are to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", and doing a better job than Hasbro would certainly satisfy the "promote the Progress" part, I'd think that's what the Constitution's authors intended.
Of course, you could question the "useful" part when the issue is a game like Scrabble. But that would be petty, wouldn't it?
Still, I'd think that if someone copies a commercial product and improves on it, the laws should support the people who did the improving. Maybe impose some sort of "mechanical license" between the two parties, as is done with with some performances of music, giving both parties a standard portion of the profits.
We've had a problem from the very beginning of patent and copyright, that the owner can (and usually does) use the law to block further progress. If we really want that Progress that the Constitution promised us, we need laws that prevent things like what Hasbro has just done, and what many others have done before them.
Of course, in this case it's primarily a trademark issue. So it'll be interesting to see how Hasbro reacts to a re-release of Scrabulous under another name that doesn't sound like a derivative of Scrabble.
Re:How does this not matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't seen slashdot.org load as "Slashdot: social networking site reviews for nerds", which is what this article would be better classified as.
That's bull. This has exactly zero to do with Facebook, if you pay attention. This is about a cool game getting shut down by an overzealous trademark holder... in other words, exactly sort of thing /. likes to discuss.
Re:Why didn't they just buy scrablous? (Score:1, Insightful)
"But when they execute it well and have a massive fan base, why would Hasbro NOT want to cash in on what is already there and developed?"
Hubris.
Re:Older than me! (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet that darn pesky article seems to think otherwise.
Hasbro also asked Facebook to remove the game for violating copyright law under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. [nytimes.com]
Which is it? If it is a trademark then the DMCA does not apply [eff.org]. The 'C' doesn't stand for 'Trademark'. And if they are claiming that this is a copyright violation then they are on pretty thin legal ice [thelegality.com] as there isn't a lot about the game which is copyrightable.
So which is it? Copyright or trademark? Has Hasbro engaged in perjury by issuing a DMCA takedown notice over a trademark dispute, or are they pursuing an unwinnable copyright case?
Re:How does this matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to see Slashdot return to actually discussing important technical news
Then find some and submit it.
Re:dumb idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, well that's because the Trademark still has value. Why should the Scrabulous guys leech off the marketing millions that Hasbro pumped in over the years. If Scrabulous was good enough on its own terms to succeed without trademark leeching, they should have just called it something else: they would have succeeded irrespective.
Re:And is that INNOVATIVE? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:india has thumbed its nose at western ip before (Score:0, Insightful)
Centuries ago games like Chess and Snakes & Ladders were invented/ discovered in india. but the west came along and simply said "look, we're going to copy these games"
Re:If the Scrabulous people have any pride... (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty sure the board is copyrighted (though, hell, the game is so old oughtn't that to have expired by now?)
Milking their cash ponies (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of Hasbro's board is so old they probably have to have oxygen tents built into the boardroom.
That made me laugh out loud.
And it's so true. Hasbro is living in the 1980s, still trying to make money off GIJoe and My Little Pony.
They don't have enough tiles to make the word "innovate."
Re:Explain what's trademarked, merci? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:india has thumbed its nose at western ip before (Score:1, Insightful)
Making drugs for people who can't afford to pay is much better than patenting rice and traditional medicine!
Re:Facebook is not the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
My daughter is in college and is an avid Facebook user.
She also has been playing Scrabble, or is it Scrabulous, for months now. She typically has 2 or 3 games going at once with different friends. If she has an idle minute or two, she'll get online and check how her games are going, whether it's her turn yet, etc.
Most of her Scrabble/Scrabulous activity is of the instant sort, the got-a-free-minute type. If the game doesn't come up in seconds, if it takes minutes to start, what's the point. She didn't have that much time right then, anyway.
Sometimes speed really is of the essence, even in a non-FPS.
Re:If the Scrabulous people have any pride... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, in a free country, a business is entitled to shoot themselves in the foot. They can even choose which foot.
And, in a free country, a business is allowed to decide whether it wants to use a dainty .22 pistol, a .45 semi-auto, or a M-79 40mm grenade launcher. of course, the US isn't exactly a free country any longer, but that's another topic.
Re:Slashdot filters need revision! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just Change the name (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:same old story (Score:4, Insightful)
Should I fax it to you, or is a simple scan and email enough?
I was actually going for insightful, rather than funny. A ton of people have HIV but nobody really talks about it. Just like Scrabble.
Re:Slashdot filters need revision! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hasbro seems to be rejecting the idea that anyone would want to just play the damn game. Clearly people would rather see 3d tiles float around than be able to place them quickly and easily in order to enjoy the game itself.
Re:Why didn't they just buy scrablous? (Score:1, Insightful)
Try TRUANT [google.com]?
Re:Why didn't they just buy scrablous? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would only be of limited PR value to pay the developers to keep their code and it would encourage other people to make programs based off of Hasbro's games.
It's not about PR. It's about buying large, established user-bases.
Why would they put all the time and effort into building facebook versions of their games without knowing which ones will take off, when developers can do it for them?
They can just sit back and pick off the most successful ones for guaranteed profit.
Re:House-Hold Name? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is.
Xerox? Generic name for any photocopier. Kleenex? Generic name for any paper handkerchief. Aspirin? Generic name for any painkiller with acetylsalicylic acid as its active ingredient.
Scrabble? Um, highly specific name for a single board game made exclusively by two companies. The average person wouldn't refer to any other board game as "a scrabble", even if it involved making words with tiles.
Re:Why didn't they just buy scrablous? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except...Hasbro had nothing to do with the development of Scrabble. Neither did Selchow & Richter, who owned the assets before they were bought by Hasbro.
That's irrelevant. I didn't build my house. Neither did the family I bought it from. Nor did the people they bought it from. But we transferred the rightful ownership of such through various transactions.
Same with Scrabble. Capitalism would fall apart if all of a sudden we could say "ahhhh, you weren't the original owner/creator/inventor/builder of that, give up your ownership now!" Why would anyone bother to acquire rights of a property such as Scrabble, knowing they were worthless. They wouldn't. Those rights were bought for what both parties agreed was a fair price at the time, and there's no reason to invalidate that ongoing ownership today. Each of the companies involved speculated on the value of scrabble, up until Hasbro today, and is rightfully benefiting from it.
Re:If the Scrabulous people have any pride... (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, but it's my layman's understanding that copyright violations only apply to verbatim copying. Sorry.
The name "Scrabulous" may actually be actionable from a trademark standpoint, but changing the name will fix that problem.
What else specifically is in violation?
I'm very curious if the Scrabulous folks choose to fight this in court. I think they have a very good chance of winning. Maybe this case is something to ask sites like Groklaw about?
Scrabulous.com (Score:1, Insightful)
Scrabulous is not dead.
It is merely shut down on Facebook.
It still works perfectly well on Scrabulous.com, so everyone can just stop freaking out, and go play the game on their own website.
Also, while I personally think Hasbro is completely within their rights here (nobody stopped the Scrabulous guys from rearranging the bonus tile layout, and calling it "the amazing Indian word-making tile game"), they'd have a hard time stopping scrabulous.co.in or just for kicks, scrabulous.ru
Re:Facebook is not the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
I talked with my daughter after she got home from work, today. She lost 2 in-progress games, one with her boyfriend and one with a friend from high school. She's more upset about losing her game statistics, though. Her boyfriend was over for dinner tonight, and he's tried the official Scrabble. It didn't get very far before it crashed. She's downstairs playing dead-tree Scrabble with my wife, now.
Don't know what will fill the niche Scrabulous used to occupy.