Techdirt. Stories about "mattel"

It's Finally Over: 8 Years Of Mattel vs. Bratz And No One's Getting Paid But The Lawyers

Tim Cushing — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 03:27:13 PST

One of the more epic IP battles has come to an end. Mattel (Barbie) and MGA Entertainment (Bratz), have spent most of a decade in various courtrooms hashing out the ultra-serious question about which of these companies is entitled to the Bratz millions.

Long story short, a former Mattel employee left the company and crafted one of the first serious threats to Barbie's dominance, the Bratz dolls. Mattel, of course, was none too happy because the designer was still employed by Mattel when he came up with the idea. Mattel felt it owned the idea and sued the designer in an effort to make that a reality. From that point on it went from bad to worse to farcical. At one point, the court ordered MGA to turn over all future plans for the Bratz line... which was then reversed... which was reversed by a lower court... which was re-reversed by the original court. This led to counterclaims flying from both directions and the last we had heard, Mattel, which had originally filed the suit, was being hit with a judgment for $309 million in damages, including MGA's court fees. Adding that together with Mattel's legal expenses, and this fight over dolls put Mattel on the hook for nearly $700 million.

Now, it appears the fight is finally over. And, like many long legal battles, the lawyers are the only ones coming out ahead.

The long-running IP war between Mattel Inc. and MGA Entertainment Inc. over the Bratz line of dolls has ended — for now — with zero damages.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday laid waste to Bratz maker MGA's $170 million trade secret award — an award procured on retrial after the appeals court wiped out Barbie maker Mattel's $100 million copyright verdict and constructive trust.

But MGA gets the last laugh. The Ninth Circuit left untouched $137 million in attorney fees and costs awarded to MGA for defending against Mattel's copyright claims.

Yes, the old truism (that I made up right now) "The only true winner in our legal system is MGA's lawyers" is proven once again in this case specifically. MGA won't be collecting any damages but at least its legal team lives on to fight another day -- possibly tomorrow, from the sound of its sore winner statement:

CEO Isaac Larian promised to retry the company's trade secret claims to a new jury. "We are confident that when the second jury hears about Mattel's sneaking into our showrooms and egregious theft of scores of our secrets over the years, they will be even more appalled than the first jury and award MGA even greater damages," he said in the statement.

Mattel has fired back with about the only silver lining retort available after spending nearly 8 years in court: the statute of limitations. The court basically agrees with Mattel's half-defiant, half-white flag statement, ruling that MGA's counterclaim (the one that had originally awarded it $170 million in damages) was time-barred and by no means "compulsory."

This hasn't stopped MGA from proudly declaring this "windfall" (which will all be going right back in its lawyers' pockets) to be the "largest fee and cost award in a copyright infringement case in US history." True, it's better than coming out of the battle stuck with the legal bill, but this misplaced joie de vivre makes it seem as though MGA will be presenting the award to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in the form of an oversized novelty check in front of gathered members of the sympathetic press and assorted minor local politicians.

Mattel v Bratz (PDF)Mattel v Bratz (Text)

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Mattel's Lawsuit To Claim Ownership Of Bratz Comes Back To Bite Big Time: Told To Pay $309 Million

Mike Masnick — Fri, 5 Aug 2011 17:30:00 PDT

As Stephan Kinsella notes, "live by IP, die by IP." You may recall the infamous legal fight over who owns the Bratz dolls. I won't go through the full history, but basically Mattel claimed that it owned the rights to Bratz dolls, because the creator of those dolls worked at Mattel (though not in a doll designing job) at the time he developed the dolls (not during work time). That guy eventually went to competitor MGA who produced the Bratz line of dolls. Mattel racked up an early series of wins in the case. Those wins seemed far overreaching. Not only did they give Mattel the rights to the original Bratz dolls, but all future plans as well, despite none of that having anything to do with Mattel.

Thankfully, sanity was regained at the appelate level, and eventually things turned around to bite Mattel for bringing the lawsuit in the first place. That's because the lawsuit allowed MGA to countersue over trade secrets violations. In April, we noted that this might end up costing Mattel $88.5 million, as the court rejected all of Mattel's claims and sided with MGA on the trade secret claim.

Turns out the result was even more damaging for Mattel. The court didn't just stick with the $88.5 million award the jury gave. Instead, while he "reduced" the jury award to $85 million, he then tacked on another $85 million in punitive damages and told Mattel to pay $137 million in legal fees to MGA. Total bill? Mattel has to fork over $309.8 million. All for a lawsuit Mattel brought in the first place. And that doesn't count the estimated $400 million that Mattel spent in legal fees during this fight. Add it all up and Mattel's decision to sue appears to have cost the company upwards of $700 million dollars.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Mattel's Attempt To Claim Ownership Of Bratz Comes Back To Bite Them: Now They May Owe $88.5 Million

Mike Masnick — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:02:23 PDT

Wow. For years, we've been following the legal battle between toy giant Mattel and toy upstart MGA concerning the ownership of Bratz dolls -- the first dolls in years to seriously compete with Mattel's classic Barbie doll. If you haven't been following it, a guy who worked for Mattel came up with the idea for the Bratz dolls. At Mattel he was not involved in designing dolls, and he claims that he did all the work in his spare time, not on company time. He then left and went to MGA, which agreed to make the Bratz dolls, which quickly became a huge success story. Mattel claimed that, under the guy's contractual agreement with Mattel, anything he invented belonged to them. The original district court ruling sided with Mattel and the judge (amazingly) ordered that Mattel should get all Bratz dolls including future plans for dolls. That made absolutely no sense to us. At best, if the determination was that the original designs were Mattel's, the company should get access to the original designs, and maybe some early dolls. But everything after that had nothing, whatsoever, to do with Mattel.

Thankfully, Judge Kozinski on the 9th Circuit came to the rescue and wrote a fantastic ruling explaining all of this to the district court, and sending the case back for a new trial. As part of that, MGA also filed some counterclaims against Mattel, including the claim that Mattel illegally spied on MGA and copied trade secrets from the company through questionable means. When these counterclaims were filed, I actually suggested that it was silly and distracting from the larger point... which I still stand by.

However, from a karmic perspective, it's interesting to see that the new jury has rejected nearly all of the claims against MGA, but sided with MGA on the trade secrets claim, and suggested an award of $88.5 million from Mattel to MGA -- an amount that MGA is going to ask the court to double for punitive reasons.

To summarize: in the course of a few short years, Mattel went from losing in the marketplace to MGA, to winning a court case that gave it total control over the competing product... to now not having control and having to pay MGA potentially millions.

Of course, this isn't over yet. Mattel has already asked the court for a brand new trial, and if that doesn't work, it says it's going to appeal the case, even if some "industry analysts" are apparently telling Mattel the company should just drop it. I have a feeling we haven't yet seen the end of this case, however.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judge Now Says That Mattel Doesn't Get To Own All Of Bratz

Mike Masnick — Tue, 4 Jan 2011 19:03:00 PST

We were somewhat horrified by a ruling a little over two years ago that said that because a guy employed by Mattel had created the idea for the "Bratz" doll line while employed at Mattel (but not in a doll-creating capacity), it meant that Mattel could own all of Bratz. The guy eventually took his idea to competitor MGA Entertainment, who developed and built up the Bratz line, which became the first serious challenger to Barbie's dominance in the doll world. What really troubled us was the fact that the court ruled not just that Mattel owned the rights to the original Bratz doll idea, but that it owned everything having to do with Bratz, even plans for future dolls. While the guy worked at Mattel, all he created was a prototype, not everything that came after that. Thankfully, Judge Kozinski slapped down the lower court in much of this thinking, explaining (once again) that copyright only covers the expression, not the idea.

Judge Kozinski sent the case back to the district court, noting that it probably would mean that the entire case would need to be retried. In the first step concerning that new trial, the district court judge has ruled that Mattel cannot seek damages on later versions of the dolls, limiting that part of the case to just two original dolls. The judge noted:

"Not only do the vast majority of the subsequent generations of Bratz dolls differ in their hairstyles and fashions … but they lack any meaningful similarities outside of ideas."

Of course, the district court could have saved a lot of time and effort if it had just made this basic point the first time around. There will still be a trial about the initial doll designs, as well as a trade secrets claim, but, unlike the original trial, it seems that Mattel won't end up with all of the Bratz line.

That said, the original ruling apparently did tons of damage already to MGA and Bratz. As the article notes, MGA seriously cut back on Bratz after the original ruling (why build toys that a competitor gets to own?) and many retailers stopped carrying the line as it wasn't clear what was going to happen. So even if Mattel loses the eventual lawsuit, it seems that it may have won in the long run by seriously curtailing a strong competitor that had tremendous momentum. Just like copyright law intended...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

MGA Claims Mattel Acted Like Bratz In Secretly Spying On MGA Plans

Mike Masnick — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:41:25 PDT

It looks like toymaker MGA has decided that if the momentum is turning in its ongoing legal fight with competitor Mattel, it might as well go all in. As you may recall, Mattel had sued MGA over its (extraordinarily successful) Bratz lines of dolls, because the designer who came up with the concept had done so while working at Mattel. This resulted in an amazingly broad ruling against MGA that required it to basically turn over everything having to do with Bratz dolls, including future plans, to Mattel. This made no sense. If Mattel was to get the rights to anything from MGA, it should have only been the original expression if they were actually produced under the Mattel employment contract (a point of dispute). Thankfully, the appeals court realized what a terrible ruling this was, and rejected most of it.

With momentum moving to MGA, the company has now filed headline-grabbing counterclaims against Mattel, concerning revelations, supposedly unearthed during depositions for the case, of widespread and potentially illegal corporate espionage done by Mattel on MGA and many other toy companies, including setting up fake personas so that people working for Mattel could get into toy showcases from competitors that were closely guarded secrets.

While it does make for a good story, it's not entirely clear what this really has to do with the case at hand. Corporate espionage happens all the time, as competitors try to get a leg up on one another. It seems like a bit of a tangent for MGA to even bother to bring this up now. Why not just focus on the key issue of retaining the rights to the lucrative Bratz dolls?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judge Says Barbie Doesn't Get To Own The Bratz

Mike Masnick — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:55:11 PDT

We've been following a lawsuit over Bratz dolls for a few years now. It involved a guy who worked at Mattel (not in a position designing dolls). While there, he had an idea for a new line of dolls, and eventually negotiated a deal to create those dolls for competitor MGA. The new dolls became The Bratz, one of the few super successful doll lines to challenge the success of Barbie dolls. Somewhere along the line, Mattel realized that the guy had worked at Mattel, and claimed that his employment agreement meant Mattel owned pretty much all rights to Bratz dolls, and that MGA owed Mattel a billion dollars. A court sided with Mattel and didn't just say that MGA and Bratz infringed, but effectively handed over all rights to Bratz dolls -- including future plans. This made absolutely no sense to us. At the very least, if the court found that Mattel owned the rights to the original design, at most Mattel should have only been able to get damages for those original designs. Giving them rights to later designs makes no sense at all. MGA appealed noting that giving Mattel all of its plans, as demanded, would result in "devastating and irreversible consequences." After sounding skeptical late last year, Judge Kozinski in the 9th circuit has now soundly rejected most of the lower court ruling (pdf).

The ruling itself is a really good read, especially if you're interested in the difference between ideas and expression, and making sure that copyright only covers the copyrightable part of an expression. A common misconception is that copyright covers an entire work. In some cases, that's not true. Only parts of a work may get copyright protection: Among the notable parts, the judge is troubled by the lower courts ruling that Bryant's design work that was done after hours automatically is given to Mattel. As he notes, the employment agreement says inventions that are developed while employed belong to Mattel -- and the definition of inventions does not include "ideas." And, since IP system defenders are always quick to point out that inventions and ideas are not the same thing, the judge notes that it's not at all clear that the employment agreement covers the idea of the Bratz dolls. At the very least, the court says the lower court shouldn't have ruled on summary judgment that the idea of Bratz dolls automatically belonged to Mattel. The court also noted that the terms of the employment agreement were ambiguous, such that it wasn't at all clear or obvious if things done on personal time were covered by the agreement.

But more interesting is the discussion of how much of the IP would belong to Mattel even if it's determined that MGA infringed. Kozinski clearly has problems with the decision to assign all current and future plans to Mattel, pointing out that this seems to be based on a misreading of the case law. He notes that the law does allow appreciation in value to go to the rightful owner, but mainly if that appreciation in value is due to external factors. He finds it quite troubling that Mattel should be given all of the value created through MGA's hard work:

Even assuming that MGA took some ideas wrongfully, it added tremendous value by turning the ideas into products and, eventually, a popular and highly profitable brand. The value added by MGA's hard work and creativity dwarfs the value of the original ideas Bryant brought with him, even recognizing the significance of those ideas....

It is not equitable to transfer this billion dollar brand-- the value of which is overwhelmingly the result of MGA's legitimate efforts--because it may have started with two misappropriated names. The district court's imposition of a constructive trust forcing MGA to hand over its sweat equity was an abuse of discretion and must be vacated.

The next part highlights that just because there were similarities between the original ideas and the Bratz dolls, it doesn't mean Mattel should get all ownership. If it is determined that Mattel holds the copyright (again, still somewhat in dispute), it should only be limited to the parts of the dolls that are covered by the copyright. Here's where the narrow protections of copyright law come into play:

In order to determine the scope of protection for the sculpt, we must first filter out any unprotectable elements. Producing small plastic dolls that resemble young females is a staple of the fashion doll market. To this basic concept, the Bratz dolls add exaggerated features, such as an oversized head and feet. But many fashion dolls have exaggerated features--take the oversized heads of the Blythe dolls and My Scene Barbies as examples. Moreover, women have often been depicted with exaggerated proportions similar to those of the Bratz dolls--from Betty Boop to characters in Japanese anime and Steve Madden ads. The concept of depicting a young, fashion-forward female with exaggerated features, including an oversized head and feet, is therefore unoriginal as well as an unprotectable idea....

It's true that there's a broad range of expression for bodies with exaggerated features: One could make a fashion doll with a large nose instead of a small one, or a potbelly instead of a narrow waist. But there's not a big market for fashion dolls that look like Patty and Selma Bouvier. Little girls buy fashion dolls with idealized proportions --which means slightly larger heads, eyes and lips; slightly smaller noses and waists; and slightly longer limbs than those that appear routinely in nature. But these features can be exaggerated only so much: Make the head too large or the waist too small and the doll becomes freakish, not idealized.

....

The only unprotectable elements the district court identified were: (1) the dolls' resemblance to humans; (2) the presence of hair, head, two eyes and other human features; (3) human clothes, shoes and accessories; (4) age, race, ethnicity and "urban" or "rural" appearances; (5) standard features relative to others (like a thin body); and (6) other standard treatments of the subject matter. And it reasoned that the doll's "[p]articularized, synergistic compilation and expression of the human form and anatomy that expresses a unique style and conveys a distinct look or attitude" is protectable, along with the doll fashions that expressed an "aggressive, contemporary, youthful style." But Mattel can't claim a monopoly over fashion dolls with a bratty look or attitude, or dolls sporting trendy clothing--these are all unprotectable ideas....

This error was significant. Although substantial similarity was the appropriate standard, a finding of substantial similarity between two works can't be based on similarities in unprotectable elements. When works of art share an idea, they'll often be "similar" in the layman's sense of the term. For example, the stuffed, cuddly dinosaurs... were similar in that they were all stuffed, cuddly dinosaurs--but that's not the sort of similarity we look for in copyright law....

MGA's Bratz dolls can't be considered substantially similar to Bryant's preliminary sketches simply because the dolls and sketches depict young, stylish girls with big heads and an attitude. Yet this appears to be how the district court reasoned

When we wrote about this case earlier, it kicked off quite a discussion. Many people insisted that because Bryant designed the dolls while employed by Mattel, Mattel easily deserved all of the benefits accrued by MGA. It's great to see Kozinski point out that this is not true, and recognize that there's a big difference between ideas, expression and execution, as well as highlighting the difference between copyright covering an entire product and just the protectable parts of a product. While one would hope all judges would understand this, clearly, many do not.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judges May Reconsider Handing All Bratz Dolls Over To Mattel

Mike Masnick — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:23:00 PST

We were pretty shocked when a judge ordered doll maker MGA to hand over pretty much everything having to do with Bratz dolls to Mattel, the maker of Barbie -- one of the key products Bratz competes against. While some of the facts are disputed by various parties, it does seem pretty clear that a Mattel designer was working on the concept of Bratz and then went to MGA to make the dolls instead. Mattel claims that it owns the entire concept because its contract with the designer included all rights to things he worked on while under their employ. Even if you accept all that, it seemed to go too far to not just provide monetary payments and/or an injunction, but to tell MGA to hand over the entire line of dolls including future plans for the dolls. That seems to go well beyond the scope of what's reasonable -- and it seems like the appeals court might agree. It has lifted the original deadline for when MGA had to transfer stuff over to Mattel and seems to be considering whether itself goes too far, saying that handing all of that over to Mattel seemed "draconian."

Even if we grant that the designer created the dolls while he worked at Mattel, it takes more than just an idea to be successful. Yet this ruling seems to put the entire value of not just the Bratz line of dolls, but every forward thinking innovation in the Bratz line, into that single idea. That's going way too far. Sure, perhaps there should be some sort of sanctions or punishment, but MGA did a lot more than just see this idea, snap its fingers and have a success on its hands. The execution was what made it work, and it seems silly to ignore all of that and assume that the entire value is in the idea -- and everything else needs to be handed over because the guy had the idea while still at Mattel.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Mattel Now Using Song In Commercial... Which It Once Sued Over Copyright Infringement

Mike Masnick — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:33:23 PDT

Back in 1997, the band Aqua released a song called "Barbie Girl," that was actually somewhat critical of "Barbie doll" culture. Mattel, famous for its rather aggressive intellectual property stance, wasted little time in suing the band, claiming the song infringed on the company's rights. In 2002, everyone's favorite appeals court judge (seriously, the guy never fails to entertain) Alex Kozinski told Mattel too bad, parody songs are a part of what you get for being a cultural icon -- and included the classic line: "The parties are advised to chill."

It took seven years since that decision, but apparently Mattel had decided to heed Judge Kozinski's suggestion. Reader Sallo alerts us to the news that Mattel has actually licensed the song for a commercial -- though, they "adjusted" some of the lyrics to make it a little more pro-Barbie, rather than mocking-Barbie. Still, that's quite a jump: from suing the band for infringement to actually licensing and using the song in just a few years.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Why Should Mattel Get Future Plans For New Bratz Dolls?

Mike Masnick — Fri, 29 May 2009 06:58:52 PDT

Last year, we wrote about a somewhat horrific court ruling against MGA Entertainment, the makers of Bratz dolls, after getting sued by Mattel. If you don't follow the doll business, Bratz is really the first doll to successfully compete against the massively successful Barbie franchise in ages. However, the guy who came up with Bratz had worked at Mattel prior to going off on his own. Of course, this is the history of many different innovative companies. If you come up with a better idea while working at one company, it's a good thing that you can go off and build your own company. As we pointed out at the time, this is the story of plenty of successful tech companies. Steve Wozniak was at HP when he built the first Apple computer (and continued to work there for some time after Apple was moving forward). Robert Noyce helped found Fairchild (and later Intel) after growing frustrated at Shockley Transistor. Hell, William Shockley founded Shockley Transistor after feeling he didn't get enough respect at Bell Labs. Yet, here's a toy designer at Mattel who's entire operation is getting shut down because he came up with the idea while still employed at Mattel?

Even if you grant the somewhat troubling premise that the concept for the dolls was created at Mattel, at best you could make an argument that Mattel had some rights to an injunction and profits from the first generation of those dolls. Yet, the judge not only ruled that, but also that MGA had to give up all such dolls, and hand over all sorts of confidential info, including "all related products, designs, customer information and 'know-how' for a planned 2010 Bratz line." It's difficult to see any justification at all for forcing them to hand over future plans that had nothing to do with what the guy created while still at Mattel. MGA has now filed an emergency appeal, noting that if it does hand over such info and assets, it would have "devastating and irreversible consequences," which seems quite accurate. All in all, this seems like Mattel simply trying to stop competition, and it's a shame that the US court system seems to be helping.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How Hasbro And Mattel Killed Interest In Online Scrabble

Mike Masnick — Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:20:17 PST

We've been chronicling just how badly both Hasbro and Mattel screwed up in responding to the massive success of Scrabulous on Facebook. The ridiculously popular application was attracting over 500,000 users every day and (amazingly) making Scrabble cool again, pumping up sales of the physical board game. But, of course, the intellectual property lawyers freaked out and said "this must stop." The resulting legal threats and lawsuits created quite a lot of backlash and anger (and a boycott of Hasbro games). Venturebeat is now looking at the aftermath, and shows that the fight effectively killed all momentum for Scrabble on Facebook. Part of the problem may be that the game is now fragmented, with a Hasbro version serving some countries, a Mattel version serving others and the Scrabulous makers' "modified" Wordscraper on the market as well. The end result is that each has significantly fewer users than Scrabulous had. In fact, the monthly number of users pales in comparison to the daily number of users that Scrabulous had. Great way to kill a wonderful (free) promotion that was attracting thousands of new fans to the game.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

If You Worked At Mattel And Thought About Making A Non-Barbie Doll, You Can't

Mike Masnick — Thu, 4 Dec 2008 20:20:00 PST

A bunch of folks have sent in the story that the ultra-popular "Bratz" dolls have been banned by a judge following a long court case. The case revolved around a former employee of Mattel (makers of Barbie), who apparently developed the concept of the Bratz dolls while working there. However, he ended up going out on his own to produce them -- which is the history of an awful lot of American success stories over the years. Steve Wozniak developed the Apple computer while he was working at HP, but the company wasn't interested in making the machines. Robert Noyce (founder of both Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel) felt underappreciated at Shockley Transistor. There are plenty of stories of folks working at one company realizing that they could do a better job on their own -- and that leads to competition and innovation. There was also some evidence in the case suggesting the guy had actually developed the basic idea of Bratz well before he was even employed by Mattel, though it does sound like he continued to work on the idea on the side while employed there -- though only in designing the idea, not actually making the dolls. It was only after he had left Mattel that he actually moved forward with implementing the idea. To stop him from ever going to market with a doll concept he was thinking about for years just because he worked at Mattel seems ridiculous and very anti-competitive.

However, even if you grant that Mattel has some sort "ownership" over the ideas in this guy's head while he worked at Mattel, it should only apply to the first generation of Bratz dolls. However, the court has gone even further, barring everything having to do with the Bratz dolls. Mattel, of course, is thrilled. Bratz had been the first really successful competitor to the Barbie franchise, and getting a court to shut it down completely is a huge win for Mattel. There will be an appeal, of course. The judge at least allowed the products to stay on the shelves through the holiday season, and it's quite likely that the appeals court will put a stay on the injunction until it hears the case. Even if it's eventually decided at higher courts that Bratz somehow infringe on Barbie intellectual property, it seems like a fine, rather than a complete injunction is a much more reasonable punishment.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Looks Like Someone Learned From The Scrabulous/Hasbro Mess

Mike Masnick — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:14:00 PDT

We've talked about how both Hasbro and Mattel seriously screwed up in dealing with Scrabulous, the online version of Scrabble written by two brothers in India and placed in Facebook where it became a huge hit. While the companies did make overtures to working with the brothers, eventually they sued to shut down the game, pissing off plenty of legitimate fans, leading to widespread boycotts of Hasbro and Mattel games, and allowing the brothers to create their own new game that has also won fantastic reviews.

It appears that not every game company is so short-sighted. Reader Doug Schneider writes in to let us know about a guy who created a virtual copy of the popular casual game Bejewled inside the virtual world World of Warcraft. Yet, rather than shut the guy down or threaten to sue him, the makers of Bejewled, Popcap Games, hired the guy to create an official version for World of Warcraft, saying that the original version lacked polish, so they figured it made sense to just hire him to clean it up and make an official version. What a concept.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Mattel Apparently Learned Nothing From Hasbro's Scrabulous Disaster

Mike Masnick — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:46:17 PDT

As you recall, Hasbro's decisions on how to deal with upstart Scrabulous backfired badly. The company first threatened Scrabulous, then tried to do a deal with them. When that failed it (finally!) built its own Facebook Scrabble and then sued Scrabulous. Rather than working to Hasbro's advantage, this backfired in a huge way -- pissing off plenty of people who swore never to use Hasbro's version of the game. And then it was just a matter of days until the Scrabulous guys came out with a new game that was close to Scrabble, but different enough to likely avoid all copyright and trademark claims.

Now, Hasbro only owns the rights to Scrabble in the US and Canada. Mattel owns the rights elsewhere. Now, seeing that Mattel had the distinct advantage of seeing how much backlash there was against Hasbro for its actions, and how poorly Hasbro's own Facebook Scrabble was received, you might think that Mattel would try a different path. Nope. Mattel has now forced Scrabulous offline outside of the US as well. To be fair, the guys from Scrabulous overplay their reaction as well. It's not that shocking. After all, this is how companies react these days. Rather than going with the faux outrage, why not just release WordScraper and get people to sign up for that, rather than any "licensed" version of Scrabble?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Way To Beat Scrabulous Is Not With Lawsuits Or Crappy Versions Of Scrabble

Mike Masnick — Mon, 7 Apr 2008 16:21:00 PDT

In the ongoing saga of Scrabulous, the unauthorized online version of Scrabble that has found many fans on Facebook but has upset Mattel and Hasbro (who own the rights to Scrabble), it appears that RealNetworks and Mattel have finally put out an official version of Scrabble for Facebook -- but the problem is that it's terrible. As the NY Times reports, "Facebook Scrabble takes a long time to load, does not always quickly update to show recent moves, and the words the game will accept do not reflect standard Scrabble dictionaries, or even the English language." While it's nice to see that Scrabulous still hasn't been forced offline, it seems odd that the authorized version is so terrible. It still probably would have made the most sense to just do a deal with the brothers who created Scrabulous (and there are still rumors that a deal has been discussed, but without a decent resolution), but if that doesn't work, the way to compete is with a better product. Putting out a product that's not very good isn't likely to win over many fans.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How Could A Game That Has Made Scrabble Popular Again Be A 'Bad Precedent' For Mattel?

Mike Masnick — Mon, 3 Mar 2008 06:34:00 PST

Back in January, we explored the news that both Hasbro and Mattel (who own the rights to the board game Scrabble in different regions) were upset and threatening to sue about the incredibly popular knockoff version Scrabulous on Facebook. As we pointed out at the time, shutting down the game would quickly piss off 2.3 million Scrabble fans -- many of whom were interested in the game for the first time, most likely leading to real sales of the board game. While the situation still has not been resolved (and Scrabulous remains online), the New York Times has the latest details that suggest that Real Networks is negotiating with Scrabulous' creators. Since Real has a deal to produce an online version of Scrabble (the article first says the deal is with Hasbro, and later says it's with Mattel, so it's not clear who the deal is with), perhaps this will all be worked out for the best. However, the article does mention that executives from Mattel are against the idea of settling with the creators of Scrabulous, fearing that it "would set a bad precedent."

That's lawyers speaking, not marketers. How could a fun online game that has rejuvenated interest in what was seen as a rather dull board game among many folks today, be considered a "bad precedent?" How could having millions of new fans of your game and treating them right, rather than depriving them of what they want be considered a "bad precedent?" Some may answer that the "bad precedent" would be that it would encourage others to create similar knockoffs of other Mattel games, but, again, if they drove as much interest in the originals as Scrabulous did, isn't that a good thing? Some may claim that it would deprive Mattel the opportunity to license the games for lots of money, but again looking at Scrabble as an example, the bigger fear for Mattel should have been the fact that many people didn't care about the game at all. By letting random people create the games for it, it can quickly determine which games work well online and then work with the creators of those games to put an official stamp on it. The Agarwalla brothers created this game at no cost to Mattel, who otherwise would have spent a ton of money to create it after which it might not have caught on in the same way Scrabulous did. This way the game has been created, tested and even built up an audience at no cost to Mattel. Shouldn't they consider that to be a good thing?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story