In these kinds of situations, the plaintiff should have to either a) already have their own alternative product in place, or b) be legally required to create such an alternative product within a year of the judgment or else it’s rendered null.
Specifically in this situation, if Hasbro forces RJ Softwares to take down Scrabulous, Hasbro should then be legally required to create a Facebook widget that performs the same function, even if it’s something they charge for. And if they don’t have one available within a year, RJ Softwares can legally put Scrabulous back up.
Of course, to expect the law to actually be sensible, or to give even the tiniest amount of a shit about the consumers during inter-business disputes instead of exclusively the businesses, is definitely asking way too much.
And it’s not like I could just “vote with my dollars” or whatever and not buy Hasbro products, because, well, I don’t exactly tend to buy all that much from Hasbro to begin with. I’d have to actually steal something from Hasbro in order to financially demonstrate to them that I was angry with what they were doing. Just what is the Libertarian “Invisible Hand” solution for helping the Market “balance out” with regard to a company you already don’t buy anything from, anyway? I guess you could say “well, buy from their competitors”, but what if I don’t purchase the type of thing Hasbro has to offer in the first place? Should I just go out and spend an arbitrary amount of money with their competitors for no reason but to spite them? And how do poor people get to “vote”, then, in these situations? Or do they just not count because egalitarianism of any sort is for saps and fuckwads? I know this is a really dumb little example, boo hoo people on Facebook can’t Scrabble with each other, but extrapolating this, what would happen if Hasbro (or any other company) was doing something genuinely shitty and the only economic philosophy we had to work with was “oh, the Market will correct itself, we don’t need any government regulations or laws that make any kind of sense”?
Addendum: It’s been pointed out that Hasbro has a Scrabble Facebook widget, but a) It was only released this month, according to the article, and they’ve been pressuring the Scrabulous people for the last year or so trying to get them to take theirs down (and I remember they were actually forced to take it down or make changes to it at one point or another many months ago and it was unavailable for a while, but they were able to get it back up again); b) Yeah, I guess I kinda fucked up with the way I used Scrabulous vs Scrabble as an example, here, and it’s kind of unclear, but the real point I was trying to make (aside from my fuckup with the specificity here) is a more generalized ire about the fact that this actually happens a lot, where larger companies hold a patent or trademark or copyright or whatever else, and end up suing people who make variants on that product without themselves (the plaintiffs) offering any kind of alternative to consumers.
Additionally, consideration should be given when a competing company takes the initiative and gets a product out a substantial amount of time before whatever entity holds the copyright, trademark, etc. It’s hard to be competitive when someone can trademark a bunch of shit a long time ago and not really do much about it for years, and then you end up getting immensely fucked hard in the face after you fill the niche and suddenly the entrenched juggernaut comes along and tells you to fuck off because they finally got around to creating the same product you made (which itself probably made them aware of the demand in that particular area).
Anyway, sorry, I wrote this kind of poorly and didn’t make it clear where this particular example ended and my jumping off into generalities began (or where this case became more of a hypothetical example that was supposed to represent other situations), but hopefully this addendum will clarify.