Comments on: TechCrunch Gets It Wrong on Creative Rights http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html Redfin Corporate Blog Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:09:04 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: The Only Things You Probably Don’t Know About Michael Arrington | Redfin Corporate Blog http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html/comment-page-1#comment-6168 The Only Things You Probably Don’t Know About Michael Arrington | Redfin Corporate Blog Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:18:35 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html#comment-6168 [...] technology company in Seattle. I’ve complained that his official sanctioning of music theft is adolescent and even  immoral. I’ve argued that his enthusiasm for free software services has led an [...] [...] technology company in Seattle. I’ve complained that his official sanctioning of music theft is adolescent and even  immoral. I’ve argued that his enthusiasm for free software services has led an [...]

]]> By: Mini MSFT, now @whodapunk | Erik Bowman http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html/comment-page-1#comment-5617 Mini MSFT, now @whodapunk | Erik Bowman Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:17:48 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html#comment-5617 [...] Why can’t we face the truth? Distribution technology has far outpaced the business models of many of the folks who create all the stuff on the Internet, and that newspapers are probably just the first of many victims, closely followed by books, music and televis.... [...] [...] Why can’t we face the truth? Distribution technology has far outpaced the business models of many of the folks who create all the stuff on the Internet, and that newspapers are probably just the first of many victims, closely followed by books, music and televis…. [...]

]]> By: Mini MSFT, now @whodapunk « Erik Bowman’s Blog http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html/comment-page-1#comment-5616 Mini MSFT, now @whodapunk « Erik Bowman’s Blog Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:21:42 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html#comment-5616 [...] Why can’t we face the truth? Distribution technology has far outpaced the business models of many of the folks who create all the stuff on the Internet, and that newspapers are probably just the first of many victims, closely followed by books, music and televis.... [...] [...] Why can’t we face the truth? Distribution technology has far outpaced the business models of many of the folks who create all the stuff on the Internet, and that newspapers are probably just the first of many victims, closely followed by books, music and televis…. [...]

]]> By: After the Great Recession: What The Internet Will Look Like | Redfin Corporate Blog http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html/comment-page-1#comment-5352 After the Great Recession: What The Internet Will Look Like | Redfin Corporate Blog Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:44:09 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html#comment-5352 [...] that we are glad to see startups consider business models beyond free ad-supported sites. In July last year, we had complained that free software had become “Silicon Valley’s new religion,” [...] [...] that we are glad to see startups consider business models beyond free ad-supported sites. In July last year, we had complained that free software had become “Silicon Valley’s new religion,” [...]

]]> By: Anthony Alexander http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html/comment-page-1#comment-3922 Anthony Alexander Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:59:38 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html#comment-3922 I hate copying. Generic ideas such as playing with words is another thing. Hasbro should be happy no one ever contested the validity of such a basic concept beforehand. Shame on those guys for calling it scrabulous anyways. The point of copyrights has been totally perverted, but then again, that's human, that's what makes us so interesting to watch from space I hate copying. Generic ideas such as playing with words is another thing. Hasbro should be happy no one ever contested the validity of such a basic concept beforehand. Shame on those guys for calling it scrabulous anyways. The point of copyrights has been totally perverted, but then again, that’s human, that’s what makes us so interesting to watch from space

]]> By: Miguel http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html/comment-page-1#comment-3504 Miguel Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:49:08 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html#comment-3504 eh, who cares if they try to copy you. You have the prescence and the codebase. If they can't get to that then, they will always be following. eh eh, who cares if they try to copy you. You have the prescence and the codebase. If they can’t get to that then, they will always be following.

eh

]]> By: Glenn Kelman Gets It Wrong On Creative Rights | Redfin Corporate Blog http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html/comment-page-1#comment-3463 Glenn Kelman Gets It Wrong On Creative Rights | Redfin Corporate Blog Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:46:34 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html#comment-3463 [...] Kelman recently observed that Silicon Valley pundits have gone off the deep end arguing that intellectual property should be [...] [...] Kelman recently observed that Silicon Valley pundits have gone off the deep end arguing that intellectual property should be [...]

]]> By: Anon http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html/comment-page-1#comment-3460 Anon Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:17:03 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html#comment-3460 @David "As for Hasbro licensing the name to make Scrabulous official, they don't own the International rights to Scrabble..." I suspect that you don't actually understand what a trademark is, or you wouldn't have written that. In any event, the U.S. Patent & Trademark office thinks differently, see below which is copied from the USPTO trademark database (in fact, Hasbro owns several registered trademarks on Scrabble, including for electronic/online versions of the game): Typed Drawing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Word Mark SCRABBLE Goods and Services IC 028. US 022. G & S: APPARATUS FOR PLAYING AN ELECTRONIC WORD GAME. FIRST USE: 19781130. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19781130 Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING Serial Number 73199812 Filing Date January 12, 1979 Current Filing Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A Registration Number 1136336 Registration Date May 27, 1980 Owner (REGISTRANT) SELCHOW & RIGHTER COMPANY CORPORATION NEW YORK 2215 UNION BLVD. BAY SHORE NEW YORK 11706 (LAST LISTED OWNER) HASBRO, INC. CORPORATION BY ASSIGNMENT, BY MERGER RHODE ISLAND 1027 NEWPORT AVENUE PAWTUCKET RHODE ISLAND 02862 Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED Attorney of Record PAUL N. VANASSE Prior Registrations 0524505 Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20001208. Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20001208 Live/Dead Indicator LIVE @David

“As for Hasbro licensing the name to make Scrabulous official, they don’t own the International rights to Scrabble…”

I suspect that you don’t actually understand what a trademark is, or you wouldn’t have written that.

In any event, the U.S. Patent & Trademark office thinks differently, see below which is copied from the USPTO trademark database (in fact, Hasbro owns several registered trademarks on Scrabble, including for electronic/online versions of the game):

Typed Drawing

——————————————————————————–
Word Mark SCRABBLE
Goods and Services IC 028. US 022. G & S: APPARATUS FOR PLAYING AN ELECTRONIC WORD GAME. FIRST USE: 19781130. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19781130
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 73199812
Filing Date January 12, 1979
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Registration Number 1136336
Registration Date May 27, 1980
Owner (REGISTRANT) SELCHOW & RIGHTER COMPANY CORPORATION NEW YORK 2215 UNION BLVD. BAY SHORE NEW YORK 11706
(LAST LISTED OWNER) HASBRO, INC. CORPORATION BY ASSIGNMENT, BY MERGER RHODE ISLAND 1027 NEWPORT AVENUE PAWTUCKET RHODE ISLAND 02862

Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record PAUL N. VANASSE
Prior Registrations 0524505
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20001208.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20001208
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

]]> By: David Mullings http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html/comment-page-1#comment-3459 David Mullings Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:40:55 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html#comment-3459 Excellent post. Most bloggers conveniently do not mention that Hasbro DID try to buy Scrabulous as one of the comments points out. These brothers tried to be greedy when they were legally in the wrong. A new generation is growing up thinking that trademarks and copyrights do not need to be respected and it is wreaking havoc for rights owners. Hasbro played nice and the brothers behaved like idiots so Hasbro brought out the sledge hammer and the brothers turned off North American access. Hasbro just needs to show how much money the brothers were making, that they made an offer and the cheats tried to stiff them. I understand the brothers were pulling in over US$25k a month! As for Hasbro licensing the name to make Scrabulous official, they don't own the International rights to Scrabble or to create games online. Finally, the Scrabulous users who complain are nothing more than "fans" and not even true ones at that. Whatever happened to respecting laws? Excellent post.

Most bloggers conveniently do not mention that Hasbro DID try to buy Scrabulous as one of the comments points out. These brothers tried to be greedy when they were legally in the wrong.

A new generation is growing up thinking that trademarks and copyrights do not need to be respected and it is wreaking havoc for rights owners.

Hasbro played nice and the brothers behaved like idiots so Hasbro brought out the sledge hammer and the brothers turned off North American access.

Hasbro just needs to show how much money the brothers were making, that they made an offer and the cheats tried to stiff them. I understand the brothers were pulling in over US$25k a month!

As for Hasbro licensing the name to make Scrabulous official, they don’t own the International rights to Scrabble or to create games online.

Finally, the Scrabulous users who complain are nothing more than “fans” and not even true ones at that. Whatever happened to respecting laws?

]]> By: Nils Gilman http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html/comment-page-1#comment-3457 Nils Gilman Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:09:47 +0000 http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/07/techcrunch_gets_it_righteously_hypocritically_wrong_on_creative_rights.html#comment-3457 Well, the Agarwalla brothers may well be getting bad or unrealistic legal/financial advice. Not taking $10m (if in fact that was the amount offered) is unpardonably, idiotically greedy. At the same time, let's recognize the legal injunction by Hasbro for what it is: it's not some noble moral stand against IP theft, but rather more prosaically a negotiating tactic designed to lower the price that Hasbro will eventually pay to the brothers. (In other words, it's a smaller scale version of the $1B dollar nuke that Viacom dropped on Google over Yahoo -- merely a hardball tactic in a larger negotiating strategy, which ultimately entailed We're-Not-Evil Google handing over YouTube user information to We're-Not-Stupid Viacom.) I still think that whatever the sleaziness of the Agarwalla brothers, Hasbro is doing itself a tremendous amount of damage by not reaching an amicable settlement. They actually have more to lose than the Agarwallas -- which, of course, the Agarwallas know full well. The Agarwallas know they are winning in the court of public opinion, and that time is on their side. In the end, the two sides will probably settle somewhere in the middle, having succeeded only in pissing off their users and thus devaluing the asset they are fighting about. Well, the Agarwalla brothers may well be getting bad or unrealistic legal/financial advice. Not taking $10m (if in fact that was the amount offered) is unpardonably, idiotically greedy.

At the same time, let’s recognize the legal injunction by Hasbro for what it is: it’s not some noble moral stand against IP theft, but rather more prosaically a negotiating tactic designed to lower the price that Hasbro will eventually pay to the brothers. (In other words, it’s a smaller scale version of the $1B dollar nuke that Viacom dropped on Google over Yahoo — merely a hardball tactic in a larger negotiating strategy, which ultimately entailed We’re-Not-Evil Google handing over YouTube user information to We’re-Not-Stupid Viacom.)

I still think that whatever the sleaziness of the Agarwalla brothers, Hasbro is doing itself a tremendous amount of damage by not reaching an amicable settlement. They actually have more to lose than the Agarwallas — which, of course, the Agarwallas know full well. The Agarwallas know they are winning in the court of public opinion, and that time is on their side.

In the end, the two sides will probably settle somewhere in the middle, having succeeded only in pissing off their users and thus devaluing the asset they are fighting about.

]]>