|
|
|
 |
|
|
 RSS Feed
| › Most Recent Postings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Post:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Why not inject legal facts into Scrabulous debate? |
|
| The New York Times |
|
| Wed, July 30, 2008 |
|
This Heather Timmons story in today's Times is about outrage across the Internet, and among Facebook users in particular, over the demise of the game Scrabulous in the face of Hasbro's copyright infringement claims. So would it have killed Timmons and her editors to spend a graf or two explaining what exactly are Hasbro's claims, and whether experts think it's a slam-dunk case? What features of a game can be protected? What are the usual remedies? Does the name Scrabulous itself pose a trademark problem, or is this really all about copyright, as the story seems to imply? Those of us who haven't read the pleadings and scouted out more in-depth treatment of the case -- and who aren't already IP-law aficionados -- are left in the dark. And those who simply want to vent about boycotting Hasbro and about Scrabble's lame technology versus Scrabulous' superior technology are left to vent in a law-free vacuum.
|
|
Posted at 05:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is 1 comment to this post:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pauly commented: |
|
| fair enough |
|
|
Hasbro is well within their rights ethically to block scrabulous who are basically using the same game, same rules and a different name to make a profit.
Pauly Green lasers rulz
|
|
|
Posted Wed, July 30, 2008 at 11:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
