DISQUS

dtobias · 1 year ago

I can remember when the original Apple II computer came out in the 1970s, and one of the program cassettes (the medium of distribution for software before disk drives caught on) that came with it was labeled "Star Trek" on one side and "Star Wars" on the other, consisting of simple low-res graphic games involving defeating Klingons and blowing up the Death Star. I don't think Apple (then a tiny geeky company) had permission from either of those intellectual property holders.

sarterus · 1 year ago

Hasbro chose one of the worst options both from a business and PR perspective.

Hasbro is punishing innovators that created a market online and likely increased the popularity of the game both online and offline. The innovators did extremely valuable market research while creating a community for Hasbro, and Hasbro is repaying them by quash them in the process of monopolizing the market.

In a Web 2.0 world, one filled with fans that help you, you need to reward them not fight them for creating communities and new markets.

Here are my thoughts on the options:

If the Agarwalla Brothers had approached Hasbro two years ago with a proposal for a FB version of Scrabble, what likely result?

Hasbro would have ignored them and possibly taken the idea while never giving them any credit. Have you tried sending Apple an idea, they send you back a lawyer drafted letter that looks like it comes from the mob.

If Hasbro were to pay the Agarwalla Brothers millions, what likely result?
This is the right move hands down. You offer a buy out at a reasonable price. and only if the infringing innovator is not reasonable then you use the law as a last resort.

If Hasbro had brought this action in January, 7 months prior to having its own version up and running, what likely result?
Hasbro would have lost a lot of user, but by waiting Hasbro is clearly trying to free ride off the innovators. This double standard of using fans then stepping on them: the actions taken angers fans.

Brian Rowe
3L Seattle University

Mike · 1 year ago

I totally disagree with Mr. Rowe:

"If Hasbro were to pay the Agarwalla Brothers millions, what likely result?
This is the right move hands down. You offer a buy out at a reasonable price. and only if the infringing innovator is not reasonable then you use the law as a last resort."

This sort of behavior rewards infringement and definitely does not deter later would-be infringers. It would probably create an INCENTIVE for more people to bet they'll get an offer rather than a lawsuit. This is the sort of mentality that would compound the situation-what if they paid out and then someone else later develops a really cool version of another of their properties.

Moreover, it's not even clear (as we're not privy to all of the facts) that Hasbro could have even done this because of the following:

"If the Agarwalla Brothers had approached Hasbro two years ago with a proposal for a FB version of Scrabble, what likely result?"

Result: ignored. Presumably, Hasbro has a license agreement (exclusive?) with EA for their properties. They probably don't have permission.

Moreover, the brothers are probably not of the type that Hasbro would license anyway. The brothers would almost certainly fail to meet the licensing standards I'm sure that Hasbro has in place: insurance, inspection, control, and audit requirements, among others.

"If Hasbro had brought this action in January, 7 months prior to having its own version up and running, what likely result?"

Result: annoyed fans of Scabulous. On the flip side, it would look a lot more like standard trademark protection act rather than an attempt to shift users to their own version.

The correct action: ACT WAY SOONER!

Assuming that that wasn't possible, put pressure on FACEBOOK (as compared to the brothers) to remove it for copyright and trademark infringement in violation of Facebook's terms of use. Facebook's lawyers would probably be better situated to respond more customarily: oh yeah, you're right.

Finally, assuming that that wasn't possible, DEVELOP A BETTER, AUTHENTIC alternative. When the knock-off is better than the authentic product, the property owner has some real issues. Market directly to those people with scrabulous application installed. Destroy the scabulous market and move on.