Posted by David, Denver, CO on February 27, 2009:

Oh, goody! We haven't hassled Hasbro in simply AGES! :-) Yes, I realize they're hassling you, Randy, but that table turns quickly. I look forward to tracking this one and will definitely ReTweet your bulletin about it. You need some sort of instant Tweet-maker on this blog page.

Up the mindless, Borg-like corporate legal department's pretty pink rosebud!

---

Well yeah the tables turn quickly! That's what this update is all about. :-D

As for an instant Tweet-maker, good idea. Done! -rc

Posted by Mike from Dallas on February 27, 2009:

I'm plainly amazed at their laziness. Calculate the monetary part, so we can then demand it all from you. As I recall, isn't the burden of proof upon the PLAINTIFF? These guys rank right in there with the spam artists and phishing sites.

Posted by Colleen,Bound Brook, NJ on February 27, 2009:

No, don't bother hassling Hasbro - they're actually pretty nice guys for a Corporate Giant. (I lost game pieces from one of their products when I was teaching, contacted them to BUY replacements, and they mailed me replacements and coupons for free games later the same week.) The people in need of a thrashing are lawyers on a "fishing expedition". Some of them seem to think folks will be intimidated by getting a letter with a law office return address and/or letterhead into doing whatever they're told. (Some collection agencies try the same tactics, by the way...) I have personally gotten two attempts to collect on credit accounts which were canceled over 15 years before.

So, some JDs don't need to get law licenses, they need fishing permits. Fishing permits expire annually, and they're easier to revoke...

---

I agree that it's the lawyers doing this; Hasbro may not even be aware of this particular hassle. That said, they have been very aggressive in the past with no leg to stand on, such as their fight with Clue Computing (who is also based in Colorado) over that company's audacity to register Clue.com for their web site. Hasbro lost that fight. -rc

Posted by John in Baltimore, MD on February 27, 2009:

Have you considered the possibility that this might just be a scam? From the postage due mailing to the typos in the letter, to asking *you* to calculate damage, this smacks of some lazy scammer trying to get money from you--not a legitimate law firm.

---

Interesting thought, but I'm pretty confident that it's real. -rc

Posted by Bonnie, Plymouth, MN on February 27, 2009:

Years ago my son told me there are a lot of really stupid people in this world. I really didn't believe that and felt my family of average intelligence and common sense. The older I get the more I believe. It is obvious that getting a law degree does not necessarily mean you have intelligence AND common sense. I am feeling smarter by the year!!!

Posted by Geoffrey, Hollywood, California on February 27, 2009:

At first I thought it odd that Hasbro's lawyer's letter/s referred to MR. MONOPOLY(r), considering throughout my entire life I was under the impression the character's name was Rich Uncle Pennybags, but apparently Hasbro did change his name to Mr. Monopoly in 1999. Interesting timing, considering their initial C&D attempt came around the same time as the name shift.

Posted by Gary, Oakland, CA on February 27, 2009:

Some decades ago (I should probably Google this but it's late and I'm lazy), somebody produced a pseudo-product called "Road Kill Helper." (It may have been connected with a joint in a town in Colorado called the Road Kill Cafe, but that's conjecture -- and a digression.) They were successfully sued by General Mills, makers of Hamburger Helper and other mouth-watering delicacies.

What baffles me is: Satire has long been recognized as fair use of copyrighted works. Is it the case, then, that that does not apply to trademarks? Same USG office...

---

Totally different government office. Copyrights are administered by the Library of Congress, Trademarks by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. But indeed parody is a recognized defense against both copyright and trademark infringement on First Amendment grounds. -rc

Posted by Christie, Rainsville, AL on February 27, 2009:

Are you absolutely certain this is the same law firm and not someone posing as Hasbro attorneys? It really seems sketchy to me some of the wording of the letter.

---

Absolutely certain, no. Reasonably sure, yes. -rc

Posted by Rob, Nottinghma UK on February 28, 2009:

Surely a case of "I refer you to the answer given in the case of Arkell Vs. Pressdram"?

---

The case -- from Britain -- doesn't reply, but the case citation generally itself means "fuck off" among those in the know in the UK. (more info) -rc

Posted by Casey, Kutztown,Pa. on February 28, 2009:

It seems to me that these lawyers are actually hoping that you will post these proceedings online. Remember the old hollywood adage--"there's no such thing as bad publicity"? I may not be the most up to date person on popular culture, but with Playstation3 and Wii being the hottest thing game-wise, perhaps they are craving public attention for their company?

Just a side note--how about sending a "void" version to all the members of congress for the 'lovely' job they are doing?