Comments on: Scrabulous and IP Wars http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/08/26/scrabulous-and-ip-wars/ "crass, boorish and more a bruiser than blogger" - Alex Wilcock Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:33:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Quaequam Blog! » Crisis on Multiple Tweets http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/08/26/scrabulous-and-ip-wars/#comment-208251 Quaequam Blog! » Crisis on Multiple Tweets Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:09:52 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/?p=1515#comment-208251 [...] of them) were upbraiding me for my “pompous” invasion of poor Rory’s privacy by quoting one of his tweets on my blog. Yet last week, Rory himself thought nothing about “invading the privacy” of Stephen [...] [...] of them) were upbraiding me for my “pompous” invasion of poor Rory’s privacy by quoting one of his tweets on my blog. Yet last week, Rory himself thought nothing about “invading the privacy” of Stephen [...]

]]> By: Quaequam Blog! » Blog Archive » The day I murdered British journalism http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/08/26/scrabulous-and-ip-wars/#comment-199572 Quaequam Blog! » Blog Archive » The day I murdered British journalism Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:06:36 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/?p=1515#comment-199572 [...] God’s sake, doesn’t any journalist have a sense of humour. First a public rebuke on the BBC for being “pompous” now journalism.co.uk [...] [...] God’s sake, doesn’t any journalist have a sense of humour. First a public rebuke on the BBC for being “pompous” now journalism.co.uk [...]

]]> By: Journalism.co.uk Editors’ Blog » Blog Archive » Strictly professional - what’s public and what’s private for journalists on Twitter? http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/08/26/scrabulous-and-ip-wars/#comment-199571 Journalism.co.uk Editors’ Blog » Blog Archive » Strictly professional - what’s public and what’s private for journalists on Twitter? Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:39:53 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/?p=1515#comment-199571 [...] on the topic of Scrabulous led to an equally light-hearted message to a Twitter follower, which was then quoted on another website in a more serious [...] [...] on the topic of Scrabulous led to an equally light-hearted message to a Twitter follower, which was then quoted on another website in a more serious [...]

]]> By: James Graham http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/08/26/scrabulous-and-ip-wars/#comment-199538 James Graham Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:18:46 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/?p=1515#comment-199538 Rory, I was going to let this lie, but since you didn't... I don't think I was being pompous since I wasn't being exactly serious. Either way, it wasn't exactly the most constructive answer I've ever received - some might even say pompous - and I'm frankly flabbergasted that you assumed that Twitter was as private a medium as you appear to have done. Rory, I was going to let this lie, but since you didn’t…

I don’t think I was being pompous since I wasn’t being exactly serious. Either way, it wasn’t exactly the most constructive answer I’ve ever received - some might even say pompous - and I’m frankly flabbergasted that you assumed that Twitter was as private a medium as you appear to have done.

]]> By: A question of Netiquette… | 24NewsMedia.com International Online News http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/08/26/scrabulous-and-ip-wars/#comment-199387 A question of Netiquette… | 24NewsMedia.com International Online News Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:00:37 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/?p=1515#comment-199387 [...] Anyway, I head nothing more after that reply, until this turned up on something called “The Quaequam Blog“: [...] [...] Anyway, I head nothing more after that reply, until this turned up on something called “The Quaequam Blog“: [...]

]]> By: Rory Cellan-Jones http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/08/26/scrabulous-and-ip-wars/#comment-198934 Rory Cellan-Jones Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:08:57 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/?p=1515#comment-198934 Hey - you tweeted me after I'd written a light-hearted blog, I replied in a light-hearted way. Wordscraper was not the heart of the story (though your message encouraged me to mention it in a later post) and I think that suggesting my words in a throwaway tweet are somehow an indictment of the state of British journalism are - how shall I put this - just a little pompous.... By the way, enjoyed the thoughtful analysis of IP in this post. Rory Hey - you tweeted me after I’d written a light-hearted blog, I replied in a light-hearted way. Wordscraper was not the heart of the story (though your message encouraged me to mention it in a later post) and I think that suggesting my words in a throwaway tweet are somehow an indictment of the state of British journalism are - how shall I put this - just a little pompous….

By the way, enjoyed the thoughtful analysis of IP in this post.

Rory

]]> By: Richard http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/08/26/scrabulous-and-ip-wars/#comment-198577 Richard Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:59:28 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/?p=1515#comment-198577 The proper form of protection for an idea, such as a set of game rules, is not copyright, but patent. And patents only apply if it's innovative, and only last 19 years. Copyright applies to the expression of the idea, ie the words of the rules, but not the concepts, the actual physical board, not the logical meaning of the board (so you could make a circular Monopoly board that played the same as the real one). The rights-holder can also trademark the name; scrabulous is definitely infringing there: there cannot be any doubt that it's seeking to trade on Scrabble (TM)'s reputation. The proper form of protection for an idea, such as a set of game rules, is not copyright, but patent. And patents only apply if it’s innovative, and only last 19 years.

Copyright applies to the expression of the idea, ie the words of the rules, but not the concepts, the actual physical board, not the logical meaning of the board (so you could make a circular Monopoly board that played the same as the real one).

The rights-holder can also trademark the name; scrabulous is definitely infringing there: there cannot be any doubt that it’s seeking to trade on Scrabble (TM)’s reputation.

]]> By: James Graham http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/08/26/scrabulous-and-ip-wars/#comment-198570 James Graham Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:11:48 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/?p=1515#comment-198570 <blockquote>do not understand how you can claim that “you can’t copyright an idea” - what?!?! Of course you can!</blockquote> El Fat - do you just comment here with the sole purpose of allowing me to make you look stupid. Let me quote you from the <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/whatis/whatis-copy.htm" rel="nofollow">UK Intellectual Property Office website</a>: <blockquote>Copyright does not protect ideas for a work.</blockquote> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Scope" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> has a neat explanation that delineates where copyright does and does not apply: <blockquote>Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed. For example, the copyright to a Mickey Mouse cartoon restricts others from making copies of the cartoon or creating derivative works based on Disney's particular anthropomorphic mouse, but doesn't prohibit the creation of other works about anthropomorphic mice in general, so long as they're different enough to not be judged copies of Disney's.</blockquote> I explicitly state above the Scrabulous crossed the line; Wordscraper on the other hand probably does not. And the point is that Scrabulous didn't hurt the manufacturers of Scrabble - no one is suggesting it did. If anything it boosted their sales.

do not understand how you can claim that “you can’t copyright an idea” - what?!?! Of course you can!

El Fat - do you just comment here with the sole purpose of allowing me to make you look stupid. Let me quote you from the UK Intellectual Property Office website:

Copyright does not protect ideas for a work.

Wikipedia has a neat explanation that delineates where copyright does and does not apply:

Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed. For example, the copyright to a Mickey Mouse cartoon restricts others from making copies of the cartoon or creating derivative works based on Disney’s particular anthropomorphic mouse, but doesn’t prohibit the creation of other works about anthropomorphic mice in general, so long as they’re different enough to not be judged copies of Disney’s.

I explicitly state above the Scrabulous crossed the line; Wordscraper on the other hand probably does not. And the point is that Scrabulous didn’t hurt the manufacturers of Scrabble - no one is suggesting it did. If anything it boosted their sales.

]]> By: Letters From A Tory http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/08/26/scrabulous-and-ip-wars/#comment-198562 Letters From A Tory Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:09:43 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/?p=1515#comment-198562 I totally stand by the Scrabble manufacturers on this one. I do not understand how you can claim that "you can’t copyright an idea" - what?!?! Of course you can! Claiming that intellectual property is a 'murky' area is all well and good, but Scrabulous is a blatant copy and a breach of copyright and deserves to be hammered. If that ultimately hurts the original Scrabble manufacturers, that is their problem. I totally stand by the Scrabble manufacturers on this one. I do not understand how you can claim that “you can’t copyright an idea” - what?!?! Of course you can! Claiming that intellectual property is a ‘murky’ area is all well and good, but Scrabulous is a blatant copy and a breach of copyright and deserves to be hammered. If that ultimately hurts the original Scrabble manufacturers, that is their problem.

]]> By: Jennie http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/08/26/scrabulous-and-ip-wars/#comment-198457 Jennie Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:42:27 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/?p=1515#comment-198457 Two thumbs fresh for this post. Especially the first paragraph. Still, it's not the first time Rory has spectacularly missed a point, and I'm sure it won't be the last. After all, he's only human; just like the rest of us. Two thumbs fresh for this post. Especially the first paragraph. Still, it’s not the first time Rory has spectacularly missed a point, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. After all, he’s only human; just like the rest of us.

]]>