First! Not bad...

third

Wordbiz does the same thing that scrabulous does. Online scrabble. Wheee.

third

Finally, real news. Sophist takes it so far.

Cute, snappy well written. I'm actually encouraged

Couldn't this have been about a legal topic from 8 years ago? Or maybe 300 paragraphs longer?

Good job.

Nice.

the death of scrabulous is killing me. Kudos to Sophist for posting about something I actually care about (instead of L-T law)

YES!! Relevant, succinct, and a send-off that references porn! Well done, sophist, well done.

I miss my Scrabulous.

Points to Sophist for reading these comments and poking fun at himself ("anime porn"). It shows that he actually cares what the readers think. He has my vote.

I miss my Scrabulous.

"the real problem is that Hasbro and Mattel must merge their rights."

What does that mean?

Not a bad post. But if we want to know what exactly the deal is with Mattel and Hasbro, we have to read the links, because the post doesn't really make it very clear.

Pretty good.
Was this supposed to be Sophist's "serious" post? If so, very good, because he/she managed to make it pretty amusing.

the photo credit should be for InfoMofo, not "Flickr"

Flickr doesn't take photos, people do.

Great post. Beats the rest of the field by a mile.

Anyone else notice the three different posts from Sophist actually show some range? It doesn't seem like I'd get bored if he were actually the editor

Great post.

First coverage I've seen that wasn't just
"I LOVE SCRABULOUS!!"

i like pizza

Wow. That was a .... great post! Good work, Sophist.

Sophist is the best so far.

I LOVE HASBRO

Can I vote for Lat? Cuz I want him to stay.

i liked this post.

Actually, I'd really like to see an IP attorney that can point to how in the world Hasbro has rights in a game! Copyright doesn't work because it's a useful article. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html. Patent doesn't work (for many reasons), but if it did, the patent would have expired long ago. Trademark could possibly work if any loser actually thought "Scrabulous" was the same company as "Scrabble."

So, just exactly what rights does Hasbro own, and exactly how was Scrabulous breaking the law?

Headline gets an A+

10

http://www.betanews.com/article/Scrabulous_returns_to_Facebook_as_Wordscraper_with_circular_board/1217529667

Actually, I'd really like to see an IP attorney that can point to how in the world Hasbro has rights in a game! Copyright doesn't work because it's a useful article. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html. Patent doesn't work (for many reasons), but if it did, the patent would have expired long ago. Trademark could possibly work, but it requires some loser to actually think "Scrabulous" was the same company as "Scrabble."

So, just exactly what rights does Hasbro own, and exactly how was Scrabulous breaking the law?

I can't believe the amount of positive feedback. This is the first time I have said THIS POST WAS TERRIBLE in this competition. There is no new news here. None. Sophist sucks.

Enough of this nonsense. Why isnt there a post about Akin Gump shutting down?

The post is fine - good topic, good length. The writing style needs work: "Hasbro's and EA's exclusively North American products can't compete, and that puts panties in a bunch" sounds like something the Ukrainian dude in Everything Is Illuminated Would Say or maybe even Borat.

Well done, except what is with that use of first person singular in the last paragraph ("I'm going to have to go back to anime porn . . . .")?
Correct ATL usage requires the royal "we."

What? No link for anime porn?
Oh well. even with that glaring omission it is still the best post today.

This guy went to Harvard? Makes me glad I turned down HLS.

/s/ Yale Guy.

Nice job sophist. I love the title and I love the picture. Well done. A minor criticism though. You assume that everyone understands the issue btwn Hasbro and Facebook and, therefore, provide no background. Other than that, very funny.

#31 -- have you read the previous 3 posts? this is the only post that is actually about a new item at all

Great topic, but I'm not sure this really explained the legal issue very clearly for those of us who aren't already fully familiar with scrabulous... Beef it up with some extra facts about how scrabulous works and it would be great.

Refreshing and slightly disturbing (anime reference). I LIKE!

Thumbs up. I actually care about this topic!

16, what's not to understand? (S)He says that Hasbro has North American rights, and Mattel has ex-N.A. rights. They have to merge them in order for people in- and outside North America to play each other online. You don't have to click outside to get that.

BREAKING NEWS:
AKIN GUMP SHUTTING DOWN

Yes, the positive feedback is completely unwarrented.

Decent topic, but TERRIBLE legal analysis. Are we sure Sophist went to Harvard? It's clear wherever he attended, he did not take (or pass) an IP class.

31-- at least this post is about something that happend this week... Marin's story was played out months ago, Alex's was just an fyi about black letter law and F&D's was from 8 years ago.... Sophist clearly takes this round

The headline was classic. Sophist wins for today. I'm starting to like Sophist more because he is clearly learning from his mistakes in earlier posts.

Great title, great finish

Another vote for Sophist. I've been enjoying his posts.

Guys in my high school used to write about anime porn all the time; it was no big deal.

I was not a Sophist fan before, but he seems to be the only one showing range at this point. Definitely moving up my scale.

I liked the content and style, but Sophist needs to learn how to use a comma correctly.

#44 Appears he also didn't pass a "Conflict of Laws" class either.

Great post. Poor scrabbing, though -- 17 pts, seriously? No multipliers, no bingo? Weak.

kudos for getting the point total right. shows some creativity beyond just reporting the facts.

Yeah, and "Scrabble Beta" sucks too.

finally a good post!!!

This is not timely.
Scrabulous is already back on Facebook...they changed the name to Wordscraper and made a few minor touches.

Hey look, a post about something I actually want to read about! What a concept.

i'm bored

Best written post today among the ALT Idol 5.

Too overtly preachy for ATL.

Write in KASH.

Kash rocks.

It's a copyright claim. Just because it's a useful article doesn't mean that you can copy the gameplay exactly and have the exact same rules, point values, board sizes, etc. They have still exactly copied elements fixed in a tangible medium.

There is probably also trademark infringement. If they have called it SquareyTiles instead of Scrabulous, they wouldn't have trademark issues, and if they had altered some of the point values, shapes of the board, etc., they might have had a better defense to a copyright claim. As it is, they don't have much of a defense at all. No matter that the ex-US rights are held by a different party - that's an enforcement hassle but doesn't alter the strength of the underlying claim.

His "commentary" on this case is weak.

"Hasbro's open contempt for the consumer..."???

I'm sorry if Sophist feels so incredibly disoriented because he hasn't been able to dick around on facebook the last 48 hours. He has definitely cornered the ATL dork crowd.

While 4:13 is correct in encouraging a Kash write-in, this is the only decent ATL Idol post so far.

52 -- but isn't that kind of the point? This isn't a law review article summing up the law (we already heard about landlord-tenant), it's a report that some people in the real world (like the guy from RealNetworks...bad pun) think the status quo legal framework that you're talking about is bad. I thought it was interesting that this article actually talked about the North America/Rest of the World issue that a lot of coverage glosses over.

Decent...but not so timely. Scrabulous is already back on Facebook as "Wordscraper"...they made a few minor touches.

I've thought that Sophist's earlier post were light on the legal analysis, but catching the split IP rights was good. And s/he wasn't didactic like Alex. Score for Sophist.

This was a great post, the best of any of the contestants up to this point. Sophist just jumped to the top of the list in my view.

For those keeping score, here is the current ranking:

1. Sophist
2. Alex (tie)
2. Exley (tie)
4. Anyone else
5. Marin
6. F&D

45 is an idiot and smells bad

-31

65-- I hate the wordscraper board though, its kinda awkward looking

Nice post! Good analysis and a funny title to boot. Well played, Sophist, well played.

Wordscraper...kind of sucks. I may get used to it but getting 2 double word scores on the first move is going to really mess with my head for awhile

This was a great post, the best of any of the contestants up to this point. Sophist just jumped to the top of the list in my view.

For those keeping score, here is the current ranking:

1. Sophist
2. Alex (tie)
2. Exley (tie)
4. Anyone else
5. Marin
6. F&D

#65 - doubtful that Wordscraper was up in time to change the post. they have to submit these things in advance...

Another lame-o crappy Sophist article. You are a deplorable writer. What do you expect from a 2xHarvard dbag?

Lawyer ripping is cliche. The lawyers did not kill scrabulous. This article isn't even timely, and hence irrelevant.

Please return to dreaming about a date with Ben Affleck and STFU forever.

Last place is yours.

OK THX

Everyone except for Sophist < TTT.

74/4:34 = TTT.

Sophist

Nice. Clear winner today.

I don't want to like Sophist. But this is by far the best post of the day.

I may have to change my name, since you are clearly the new 5th place contestant.

Lasty McLasterson

66- you're right, it was nice to see some relevant legal analysis and it actually sparked some conversation about the topic instead of just a string of comments bashing all the contestants... Sophist seems like the only one who has the chops to handle this day in, day out.

Not bad. It would have been nice to put a little context at the beginning of the post rather than just linking to an old ATL post. Like, "As reported earlier..."

27--Clearly you have never taken a copyright class.
Board games fall within the definition of the following category of copyrightable subject matter:
"Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."
See the legislative history of 17 U.S.C. 102: "Categories of copyrightable works. The second sentence of section 102 lists seven broad categories which the concept of "works" of authorship" is said to "include." The use of the word "include," as defined in section 101, makes clear that the listing is "illustrative and not limitative," and that the seven categories do not necessarily exhaust the scope of "original works of authorship" that the bill is intended to protect. Rather, the list sets out the general area of copyrightable subject matter, but with sufficient flexibility to free the courts from rigid or outmoded concepts of the scope of particular categories."

Moreover, the issue you raise has already been hashed out on previous Scrabulous thread, on which the most relevant comment states as follows:

Board games are copyrightable, and copyright claims brought by plaintiff manufactuers of board games have gone forward. See, e.g.:
HORN ABBOT LTD. v. SARSAPARILLA LTD., 601 F. Supp. 360; (N.D. Ill. 1984)
CASE SUMMARYPROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against defendant in its copyright and trademark infringement case.
OVERVIEW: Defendant published a book using information from a popular game created by plaintiff. As a result, plaintiff brought a copyright infringement action and asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction against defendant. The court found that plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the merits due to the amount of confusion that existed in the product. In so finding, the court stated that defendant used plaintiff's game questions and answers, used plaintiff's trademark, would not succeed on the fair use defense, and did not adequately disclaim connection to plaintiff. Furthermore, the court found that plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm from the infringement, and that the public had an interest in protecting copyrights. Even though an injunction might put defendant out of business, defendant's hardship did not outweigh that of plaintiff. Consequently, the court granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.

OUTCOME: The court granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because plaintiff showed likely success on the merits, had no adequate remedy at law and would suffer irreparable harm, the injunction served the public interest, and defendant's hardship did not warrant a withholding of equitable relief.

But see
WAITE v. PATCH PRODUCTS, INC. 12 Fed. Appx. 330 (6th Cir. 2001)
CASE SUMMARYPROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff copyright owner for a word game sued defendant manufacturer, owner, and creators of a separate commercially distributed word game. Plaintiff claimed copyright infringement, and state-law claims of unfair competition, and conversion. The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted defendants' summary judgment motion. Copyright owner appealed, and defendants cross-appealed.

OVERVIEW: Copyright owner argued on appeal that she presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. Manufacturer, owner, and creators of the other word game claimed that the district court erred in denying their request for attorney fees and costs. The court held that the copyright owner's idea of creating a game that tests players' ability to divine a relationship between words was not subject to protection under the copyright laws. Also, while the games both involved the exercise of identifying common characteristics between words, the goals and strategies of the games were substantially different. Furthermore, copyright owner did not produce any evidence that the manufacturer, owner, and creators of the other word game had access to copyright owner's word game. Attorney's fees and costs were not granted because the court did not find that the district court abused its discretion in declining to award them.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

erm...wow 82...was about to say that this was the best post so far, but now feeling kinda queasy

82, look at what you wrote: "Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned;"

Each of those squares on that board has utilitarian aspects. That's what makes the board *concept* not subject to copyright. If there were artwork on the board, that would be copyrightable. The pattern of the pink and blue tiles is not "artistic expression" within the realm of copyright for that reason.

BTW, the amount of utility required to void copyright is not very high.

84, whatever law school you go to or wherever you work, that place sucks.

82 and 84 - please leap out a window

this is the best effort yet by a mediocre candidate in a crappy pool of candidates. wahoo. time to find a new time kill instead of atl.

I have to say - I'm the one who commented on day one that you spend Saturday nights watching "anime porn" - good job on the shout out and plagarism. I didn't realize I was so on the mark. Ha!

84--wrong. The colors used in Scrabble, the patterns made by them, and the shape of the tiles are aritrary. Trademark law has an aesthetic functionality doctrine, such that a color would be functional if it were necessary to competition in those goods.

Also, if one were to follow your logic, litearary works wouldn't be copyrightable because they are useful in educating people (although apparently not you).

Tthe "aesthetic functionality" doctrine is not universally recognized.

Hasbro's complaint includes trademark infringement of board's design, and the tiles. Paragraph 8:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4083968/hasbro-v-scrabulous

Kash is king.

So, Sophist - any connection to the PWLTCD series on the Stuff Biglaw Associates Like blog, or did you just rip term?

For those of you that are unfamiliar with the site - it's hilarious:

http://stuffbiglawassociateslike.wordpress.com

excuse me - rip the term

well freaking done!

"Hasbro's open contempt for the consumer does nothing to change the fact that they have a solid case."

Editorializing a bit, are we? Getting a little personal? Would you rather have Hasbro ignore a potential serious infringement of its IP rights? How does this equate to "contempt for the consumer"? That comment was inappropriate and disappointing to read. (Although I imagine it is fully supported by all of the whining Facebook kiddies who "miss their Scrabulous!!")

The post was very good. Sophist is da man! (or da anime man)

This is more like it. Sophist has the best post of the day and so far in Idol.

+1 cute
+1 snappy
+1 short
+10 for the avatar (that is clearly infringing copyright itself, hah!)

-10,000 for being a day behind the times
-50,000 for being totally fucking wrong

In case any of you actually play Scrabulous instead of just bitching about it at ATL, you might care that it's back up on Facebook. Looks like Hasbro needs to learn not to bring a knife to a gunfight.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/31/scrabulous_reborn_as_wordscraper/

And, despite what known copyright law expert Robert Glaser (?! seriously? that's the best authority you could find?!) says, this has fuck-all to do with "merging rights." Hasbro/Mattel has no copyright claim, but should win a trademark case. Here's a link to an analysis from JANUARY that describes why... with, you know, stuff like citations to cases that might make a difference to people who are trying to talk shit about the law without doing any research first.

http://thelegality.com/archives/11

This post was awful, except for the title. The legal analysis was wrong, retarded and whiny. Sophist sounds like an adeniodal 1L defending downloading music and pr0n.

Stick to tabloid stuff, Idol-ers. Taking a stand on an issue when you know little about the law is embarrassing.

Sophist,

This was solid. Just never do that seven-point list thing again. It's just looks lazy.

Sophist, title was effing great - but you trail off towards the end- what the hell is your point? This piece reflects mental laziness - while web blogs in general might be a first draft universe, we come to ATL to read well-written, edited articles about the absurd lives of lawyers.

97: Good article/analysis, but wtf is

"A trademark dilution claim will surely score a bingo"

Steve Glista should have stuck to trademark law.

A strong comeback.

"Facebook had no choice but to remove Scrabulous once Hasbro smacked them around with a DMCA notification."

Not true. Facebook is trying to maintain a neutral platform so probably would have fought such an action. The Argarwallas took it down voluntarily.

http://mashable.com/2008/07/29/scrabulous-voluntary-shutdown/