Some weeks ago, we had reported on the Indian-owned gaming website Scrabulous and infringement allegations by Hasbro, the rights-holders of the legendary board game Scrabble. Imminent closure of the site was predicted, and mourned in advance with much fanfare.
There were hints at a possible buyout by Electronic Arts (EA), which owns the online rights for the board game, but nothing was verified. Reports now suggest that rumours of the death of Scrabulous might indeed be exaggerated, and that not EA, but RealNetworks might be a possible buyer.
Om Malik at the technology news portal GigaOm set the rumour mill a-grinding with reports of an email from the Corporate Communications VP at RealNetworks that said:
Real is not part of any legal action against Scrabulous, and since they have licenses from both Hasbro and Mattel, “we are in a unique position to bring all the parties together in an effort to preserve the Scrabble experience for millions of Scrabulous fans.”
Elsewhere, the Alley Insider, another tech news site, suggests that the Kolkata-based Aggarwala brothers might have placed too high a price on the buyout, of well over USD 10 million, which all four companies involved in the tussle believe to be unrealistic.
The article adds:
Do the corporations have a vested interest in portraying the brothers as greedy IP pirates? You bet. Could the brothers make a claim that they’ve got the right to sell a game that uses the same rules as Scrabble, but under a different name? Maybe. On the other hand, if they fight this and lose, they could end up with nothing. So we’d bet this stand-off resolves sooner than later.
This got me thinking about some things (What follows is a very subjective analysis, and perhaps slightly off-topic): Some form of closure is inevitable, either through substitution by an “official” casual gaming version of Scrabble, or through a buyout. Now, notwithstanding the alleged illegality of Scrabulous, are we beholden in any way to the Aggarwala brothers to defend their price-claim? The ‘we’ refers not only to the casual gaming community (which is already up in arms over the issue), but also other actors such as the media (and within that sub-group, the domestic variety more than any other)…
On the face of it, the brothers have added considerable value to the game, not only in introducing it into the virtual Web 2.0 sphere (they spotted a market vacuum and jumped in), but also in renewing interest in the real game itself (which has not gone unnoticed).
In remaining silent, are ‘we’ allowing ourselves to be co-opted in neo-realist power play to believe that their innovation was wrong; or even if one admits that their contribution is of some relevance, that they deserve compensation equivalent only to an extrapolation of the revenues they have generated thus far.
Discussing only monetary compensation might be reductionist to some, but I believe this impinges also on how sacral we deem property rights to be, what kind of innovation is deemed appropriate, and how we believe innovation ought to be rewarded.
As we understand IP today, it is all about encouraging innovation and creativity. Necessity may have been the mother of invention but money has become the incentive for creativity and innovation.
Scrabble was and still is a very popular board game. With the increase in online gaming activities, I often wondered why scrabble has not yet encashd this online gaming market. It was but obvious and logical for the Aggarwala brothers to fill this gap.
The question that now arises for consideration is that EA owned the rights but they hav not yet bothered to enforce/utilise them. So can they ask the Aggarwala brothers to pay (not monetarily but figuratively)?
Keeping aside the monetary gain to the brothers, the level of recognition and popularity that scrabble has achieved due to scrbulous is immense. Enthusiasts who had given up the hope of ever making this game popular are now successfully spreading its tentacles all over. Such immense popularity/brand name cannot be valued monetarily.
In my opinion, keeping a fixed amount of compensation is letting this issue settle for too little. I would rather prefer a Royalty/percentage of commission arrangement!
Thanks for your comment, Sneha.
You’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head at what I was getting at in a convoluted sort of way.
But I am not sure your suggestion of royalty payment would be met with much cheer!, given the companies’ apparent reluctance to humour the present price on the table.
There is the argument that the code the Aggarwalas have developed around Scrabulous is protectable… But I think the companies (Hasbro, Mattel, EA or Real) would prefer to buy out the rights entirely, rather than attempt a royalty agreement with the brothers, which would amount to a condonation of the alleged infringement. And any such endorsement would be very unhealthy for all concerned… Or so the argument goes.