| |
<http://slumbering.lungfish.com/>, top story today.
Attention Lego fanatics: you are missing the point when you claim that
the word "Lego" can't be pluralized into "Legos," but should instead be
"Lego bricks." If your concern is trademark protection, then plurality
doesn't enter into it. In other words, if you can't say "Hand me some
Legos," you also can't say "Hand me that Lego."
I know that the Lego trademark page says to never say "Legos." That
doesn't mean that the plural of "Lego" is "Lego," it means that they
don't want you to use the term generically. Get it straight.
Also, for consistency's sake, you should also apply this rule to other
companies. If you don't always say "Hand me that Kleenex tissue" and "I
need a Band-Aid adhesive bandage," then you should keep quiet. If you do
always say "Kleenex tissue" and "Band-Aid bandage," you should keep quiet
for a different reason.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
> <http://slumbering.lungfish.com/>, top story today.
>
> Attention Lego fanatics: you are missing the point when you claim that
> the word "Lego" can't be pluralized into "Legos," but should instead be
> "Lego bricks." If your concern is trademark protection, then plurality
> doesn't enter into it. In other words, if you can't say "Hand me some
> Legos," you also can't say "Hand me that Lego."
>
> I know that the Lego trademark page says to never say "Legos." That
> doesn't mean that the plural of "Lego" is "Lego," it means that they
> don't want you to use the term generically. Get it straight.
>
> Also, for consistency's sake, you should also apply this rule to other
> companies. If you don't always say "Hand me that Kleenex tissue" and "I
> need a Band-Aid adhesive bandage," then you should keep quiet. If you do
> always say "Kleenex tissue" and "Band-Aid bandage," you should keep quiet
> for a different reason.
Good point, but I think TLG said the same thing 24 years ago.
http://www.robbking.com/GAH/LEGOplease.jpg <<-- notice bottom of ad.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
> <http://slumbering.lungfish.com/>, top story today.
>
> Attention Lego fanatics: you are missing the point when you claim that
> the word "Lego" can't be pluralized into "Legos," but should instead be
> "Lego bricks."
Huh? "LEGO bricks" is the standard preferred term. And who does he think he
is, going around and lecturing people on proper trademark protection when he's
typing "Lego" instead of "LEGO"? Just because someone says that "LEGO" can't be
pluralized into "LEGOS" doesn't mean that they're saying that "LEGO" is the
plural of "LEGO".
|
|
| |
Robb King <rk@KILLTHISrobbking.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > I know that the Lego trademark page says to never say "Legos." That
> > doesn't mean that the plural of "Lego" is "Lego," it means that they
> > don't want you to use the term generically. Get it straight. • [snip]
> Good point, but I think TLG said the same thing 24 years ago.
> http://www.robbking.com/GAH/LEGOplease.jpg <<-- notice bottom of ad.
Yes, that's the "Lego trademark page" referred to.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Purple Dave <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote:
> Huh? "LEGO bricks" is the standard preferred term. And who does he
> think he is, going around and lecturing people on proper trademark
> protection when he's typing "Lego" instead of "LEGO"? Just because
> someone says that "LEGO" can't be pluralized into "LEGOS" doesn't mean
> that they're saying that "LEGO" is the plural of "LEGO".
I think you need to read the last paragraph again. :)
As for the capitalization issue: that's a very long-standing conflict
between marketing/sales/companies and journalists. See:
<http://www.theslot.com/webnames.html>
Which includes the classic summary: "You want all caps? Go buy an ad!"
As that article points out, and as you'll see elsewhere, AP style (which
most newspapers follow) dictates that company names are printed in all
caps only if each letter is pronounced separately. El ee gee oh would be
LEGO; Lego is Lego.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Robb King <rk@KILLTHISrobbking.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > I know that the Lego trademark page says to never say "Legos." That
> > > doesn't mean that the plural of "Lego" is "Lego," it means that they
> > > don't want you to use the term generically. Get it straight. [snip]
> > Good point, but I think TLG said the same thing 24 years ago.
> > http://www.robbking.com/GAH/LEGOplease.jpg <<-- notice bottom of ad.
>
> Yes, that's the "Lego trademark page" referred to.
Yeah, but within that trademark blurb, the LEGO Group asks you to refer to their
product as LEGO bricks or toys, in the plural. People can read that a couple of
ways: from the "brand name protection" angle, or from the "settle this plural
hash" angle. Considering I was 6 when I first read that and I still understand
it today, I'm trying to figure out why the rest of the world can't make sauce of
it.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Purple Dave <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote:
> > Huh? "LEGO bricks" is the standard preferred term. And who does he
> > think he is, going around and lecturing people on proper trademark
> > protection when he's typing "Lego" instead of "LEGO"? Just because
> > someone says that "LEGO" can't be pluralized into "LEGOS" doesn't mean
> > that they're saying that "LEGO" is the plural of "LEGO".
>
> I think you need to read the last paragraph again. :)
>
>
> As for the capitalization issue: that's a very long-standing conflict
> between marketing/sales/companies and journalists. See:
>
> <http://www.theslot.com/webnames.html>
>
> Which includes the classic summary: "You want all caps? Go buy an ad!"
>
> As that article points out, and as you'll see elsewhere, AP style (which
> most newspapers follow) dictates that company names are printed in all
> caps only if each letter is pronounced separately. El ee gee oh would be
> LEGO; Lego is Lego.
Does that mean we should henceforth say El You Gee Enn Ee Tee instead of LUGNET?
Dave!
(not purple, though my prose can be purple when it's red (well, "read"), and my
language can be blue)
|
|
| |
Dave Schuler <orrex@excite.com> wrote:
> Does that mean we should henceforth say El You Gee Enn Ee Tee instead of
> LUGNET?
:) If you want. But I usually write "Lugnet" or "LUGnet".
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
| |
Purple Dave purpledave@maskofdestiny.com wrote:
| |
Huh? “LEGO bricks” is the standard preferred term. And who does he
think he is, going around and lecturing people on proper trademark
protection when he’s typing “Lego” instead of “LEGO”? Just because
someone says that “LEGO” can’t be pluralized into “LEGOS” doesn’t mean
that they’re saying that “LEGO” is the plural of “LEGO”.
|
I think you need to read the last paragraph again. :)
|
I’m not sure what pains me more: the fact that this issue seems to come up again
and again or the fact that we are now spotlighting ‘news’ articles from blogs.
| |
As for the capitalization issue: that’s a very long-standing conflict
between marketing/sales/companies and journalists. See:
http://www.theslot.com/webnames.html
Which includes the classic summary: “You want all caps? Go buy an ad!”
As that article points out, and as you’ll see elsewhere, AP style (which
most newspapers follow) dictates that company names are printed in all
caps only if each letter is pronounced separately. El ee gee oh would be
LEGO; Lego is Lego.
|
Which is all well and good except for two things:
1) Many of us around here are not accredited journalists.
2) Many of us around here are respectful of the company and its wishes for
the way that its logo gets used. If LEGO wants their name spelled in caps then
so be it. I ask people everyday to spell my name correctly, why shouldn’t I
give that same measure of consideration to a company that I feel has earned it?
Regards,
Allan
• Not ‘Alan’ or ‘Allen’ or ‘Al’, but Allan. Thanks!
Setting follow-up to .general since there is no .blog group and this is not a
.mediawatch worthy thread.
|
|
| |
Whoever wrote that totally rules. That little article makes so much sense that
it hurts...but it's a good kinda hurt.
|
|
| |
Somebody needs a nap.
Mike
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
> <http://slumbering.lungfish.com/>, top story today.
>
> Attention Lego fanatics: you are missing the point when you claim that
> the word "Lego" can't be pluralized into "Legos," but should instead be
> "Lego bricks." If your concern is trademark protection, then plurality
> doesn't enter into it. In other words, if you can't say "Hand me some
> Legos," you also can't say "Hand me that Lego."
>
> I know that the Lego trademark page says to never say "Legos." That
> doesn't mean that the plural of "Lego" is "Lego," it means that they
> don't want you to use the term generically. Get it straight.
>
> Also, for consistency's sake, you should also apply this rule to other
> companies. If you don't always say "Hand me that Kleenex tissue" and "I
> need a Band-Aid adhesive bandage," then you should keep quiet. If you do
> always say "Kleenex tissue" and "Band-Aid bandage," you should keep quiet
> for a different reason.
<sigh> I'm going to play with my legos.
|
|
| |
Allan Bedford <ExpertBuilder-DELETE-TO-REPLY@apotome.com> wrote:
> > I think you need to read the last paragraph again. :)
> I'm not sure what pains me more: the fact that this issue seems to come
> up again and again or the fact that we are now spotlighting 'news'
> articles from blogs.
It's not just any blog.
> 2) Many of us around here _are_ respectful of the company and its
> wishes for the way that its logo gets used. If LEGO wants their name
> spelled in caps then so be it. I ask people everyday to spell my name
> correctly, why shouldn't I give that same measure of consideration to a
> company that I feel has earned it?
Sure, I'll *spell* it right. :)
> Setting follow-up to .general since there is no .blog group and this is
> not a mediawatch worthy thread.
Setting it back, because What-Ever.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
<snip>
>
> <sigh> I'm going to play with my legos.
Enjoy playing with your mindstorms alternate software program....
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
| |
Dave Schuler orrex@excite.com wrote:
| |
Does that mean we should henceforth say El You Gee Enn Ee Tee instead of
LUGNET?
|
:) If you want. But I usually write “Lugnet” or “LUGnet”.
|
I think the correct way is “LUGNet” - because it refers to LEGO Users
Group Network.
And re: Kleenex and Band-Aids - I dont like those companies. I like TLG - and I
try to do what TLG asks me to because I hope they do what I ask them to (good
castle sets ;) ).
-lah
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
| |
Dave Schuler orrex@excite.com wrote:
| |
Does that mean we should henceforth say El You Gee Enn Ee Tee instead of
LUGNET?
|
:) If you want. But I usually write “Lugnet” or “LUGnet”.
|
I think the correct way is “LUGNet” - because it refers to LEGO Users
Group Network.
|
True, but the title page shows LUGNET in all caps. Hmm...
Admins, I demand transparency on this pressing issue--why so secretive all of a
sudden? 8^)
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Allan Bedford <ExpertBuilder-DELETE-TO-REPLY@apotome.com> wrote:
> > > I think you need to read the last paragraph again. :)
> > I'm not sure what pains me more: the fact that this issue seems to come
> > up again and again or the fact that we are now spotlighting 'news'
> > articles from blogs.
>
> It's not just any blog.
Then I will sincerely ask.... what kind of blog is it?
> > 2) Many of us around here _are_ respectful of the company and its
> > wishes for the way that its logo gets used. If LEGO wants their name
> > spelled in caps then so be it. I ask people everyday to spell my name
> > correctly, why shouldn't I give that same measure of consideration to a
> > company that I feel has earned it?
>
> Sure, I'll *spell* it right. :)
And then why not just use it the way the company has asked? I honestly don't
see why people put up such a fuss over this. When speaking with friends, or
just in your own head while thinking about this topic I think we can use
whatever terms we want. But in any type of civil conversation or written
communication I don't see it as a very big effort to just call them LEGO bricks,
LEGO products, LEGO sets, LEGO elements etc. And I'm now so used to typing the
company name in all caps that I find it difficult to type it any other way. :)
> > Setting follow-up to .general since there is no .blog group and this is
> > not a mediawatch worthy thread.
>
> Setting it back, because What-Ever.
And perhaps you are right on this one. I reread the charter for .mediawatch and
it seems pretty open as to where these references can appear. However, it does
worry me that we would put too much faith in a blog or a web journal or a
personal website of any kind on something that is already clearly defined
elsewhere and with good reason.
Best regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
Allan Bedford <ExpertBuilder-DELETE-TO-REPLY@apotome.com> wrote:
> > It's not just any blog.
> Then I will sincerely ask.... what kind of blog is it?
It's part of what remains of the former Brunching Shuttlecocks, which was
one of the funniest humor sites on the web before its recent demise.
Probably not coincidentally, today's Book of Ratings (another fragment of
said site) also refers to Lego. Although somewhat negatively. :)
<http://www.bookofratings.com/>
> > Sure, I'll *spell* it right. :)
> And then why not just use it the way the company has asked? I honestly
Because using it as an adjective rather than a noun is stilted and clumsy
-- like saying Kleenex tissue. I like Lego, but it's general principle
that for-profit companies don't get to control the English language.
In more-formal writing, sure, I'll call the product "Lego bricks" instead
of Lego or Legos. I'll use most trademarks that way, in fact. But I'll
stick to the correct/standard capitalization. Just about every company
asks for special treatment of their trademarks, and I don't see why I
shouldn't be consistent. What's next: asking for the trademark to always
be [bold]? Or <BLINK>blinking</BLINKING>? Or written five lines tall in
fancy letters? Or always followed by the phrase "is the best thing ever
buy buy buy!!!"?
You might say, those examples are ridiculous, and all-caps is such a
trivial little thing. And you'd be partly right, but it's all degrees of
the same thing. I just draw the line sooner than you might.
I'll gladly spell your name "Allan" (just as I prefer that people call me
'Matthew'), but if you ask that I always write aLlAn I'll probably
politely decline. :)
> And perhaps you are right on this one. I reread the charter for
> .mediawatch and it seems pretty open as to where these references can
> appear. However, it does worry me that we would put too much faith in a
> blog or a web journal or a personal website of any kind on something
> that is already clearly defined elsewhere and with good reason.
I wasn't really putting any 'faith' in it; I just thought it was funny to
see the little rant there. I happen to agree, but that's another story. :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
> <http://slumbering.lungfish.com/>, top story today.
>
> Attention Lego fanatics: you are missing the point when you claim that
> the word "Lego" can't be pluralized into "Legos," but should instead be
> "Lego bricks." If your concern is trademark protection, then plurality
> doesn't enter into it. In other words, if you can't say "Hand me some
> Legos," you also can't say "Hand me that Lego."
>
> I know that the Lego trademark page says to never say "Legos." That
> doesn't mean that the plural of "Lego" is "Lego," it means that they
> don't want you to use the term generically. Get it straight.
>
> Also, for consistency's sake, you should also apply this rule to other
> companies. If you don't always say "Hand me that Kleenex tissue" and "I
> need a Band-Aid adhesive bandage," then you should keep quiet. If you do
> always say "Kleenex tissue" and "Band-Aid bandage," you should keep quiet
> for a different reason.
The problem with legos, as I see it, is there really isn't any other term for
them besides "legos". Sure the company would like you to call them Lego bricks
or Lego toys, and I try to do so in formal writing--only because I am a fan.
But no average consumer of legos will care.
"Bricks" doesn't work because the word refers to much more than the unique toy
that Lego created. When I think of "bricks", I think of masonry.
Also "toys" doesn't work. I know Lego wants to be a "toy" company, and that is
great, but it doesn't help what I call the bits. "Toy" covers everything you
can play with, so is far too generic for this. In fact the only descriptive
name that I have ever heard is the origianl "automatic binding bricks" which,
frankly, is too cumbersome.
So, what Lego needs to do if it really cares strongly about the issue (and
really feels threatened) is to come up with a very generic descriptive name that
can catch on. They need to come up with the name that we call the whole class
of these "construction toys" - Megablocks, Legos, Built-to-rule.. whatever.
Then we can distinguish the Lego ones from the rest.
In fact, no other manufaturer seems to have been able to come up with a general
term. Even stores don't always know what to call the section that has legos in
it. I continually hear parents pick up boxes of megablocks, and call them
legos. It makes me sad, but what can I do. There really isn't another more
appropriate word.
Its really the only solution. Xerox and Hoover both had severe problems in this
area, but it seems to be solved. "Xerography" is no longer a common word, as we
prefer to say "photocopy." I read once that "Hoovering" was a popular word, and
that Hoover (maybe?) lost their trademark status because of it. But who says
"Hoovering" now? Noone. We say, "vaccuming." and these terms are much better
for the language for being descriptive of what is going on. Of course, maybe we
will never find such a term, because legos are really quite unique. Vaseline
never really found a popular one, thoa "petroleum jelly" at least works for the
competitors.
Every drug company comes up with the brand name _and_ the generic name of the
drugs they are making. Sure the generic name is based on chemical compounds,
but not entirely. Sometimes they are shortened, and the inventor usually gets
to decide.
So, Lego, tell me what to say. I'll say it. If it makes sense, and it is easy
to say.
-Alfred
|
|
| |
I want to know why I visit lugnet.com instead of lug.net.
--
Best regards,
/Tobbe
http://www.lotek.nu
(remove SPAM when e-mailing)
|
|
| |
The word "Legos" really grates on me. It's not that lego is like sheep where the
plural is also sheep, it's that lego is like sand: it doesn't have a plural.
"Pass me those legos" is completely ambiguous: do you mean parts, sets, models,
boxes or what? The natural measure of lego is the "heap" (because however
carefully you sort it, it still ends up in a heap when you build) so the natural
thing to say is "Pass me that lego" if you want the lot, or "Pass me that
bit/brick/gear/2x4 plate" if you want a particular piece. There is no such thing
as "one lego".
I know this is a personal view, and many people (especially in the US) disagree,
but no-one in this thread had said it, so I felt I had to. If it means that I
hear or read "legos" once less often it will have achieved something.
Barney.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Barney Hilken wrote:
> The word "Legos" really grates on me.
When the subject/word comes up that is the best way I can describe it as well...
the fact that it 'grates' on me.
> It's not that lego is like sheep where the
> plural is also sheep, it's that lego is like sand: it doesn't have a plural.
Excellent analogy!
And part of why the plural version grates on me is that it sounds like someone
is saying the equivalent of 'sheeps'.
> "Pass me those legos" is completely ambiguous: do you mean parts, sets, models,
> boxes or what? The natural measure of lego is the "heap" (because however
> carefully you sort it, it still ends up in a heap when you build) so the natural
> thing to say is "Pass me that lego" if you want the lot, or "Pass me that
> bit/brick/gear/2x4 plate" if you want a particular piece. There is no such thing
> as "one lego".
For whatever reason I would tend to say 'pile' of LEGO but I think the intent is
the same. And for those looking to use the word in a plural sense your
paragraph speaks volumes. You could look at a sculpture and say, "look at what
you can do with just LEGO bricks!" Or, you might look at a set on the shelf of
a store and say, "wow, I can't wait to get home and build with all these LEGO
bricks, plates and wheels." You're right, there is no such thing as "one LEGO".
> I know this is a personal view, and many people (especially in the US) disagree,
It is personal, but is also what the company has set out for usage guidelines.
I would suggest that unless you have some overwhelming reason to not follow
these rules (such as your editor has threatened to fire you from your job on the
newspaper) then why not just use them as asked? It's not that tough.
And for what it's worth Barney, you are not alone. There are many who agree
with you.
> but no-one in this thread had said it, so I felt I had to. If it means that I
> hear or read "legos" once less often it will have achieved something.
Well said. :)
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
Allan Bedford wrote:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Barney Hilken wrote:
>
> > The word "Legos" really grates on me.
...
>
> > It's not that lego is like sheep where the
> > plural is also sheep, it's that lego is like sand: it doesn't have a plural.
>
>
> Excellent analogy!
>
> And part of why the plural version grates on me is that it sounds like someone
> is saying the equivalent of 'sheeps'.
...
Ok... I *have* to jump in at this point. Since when does 'sand' NOT have
a plural? It has been pluralized throughout the sands of time.
Merriam-Webster, and every other reputable dictionary will back me up on
this.
Eric Harshbarger
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Allan Bedford wrote:
> And part of why the plural version grates on me is that it sounds like someone
> is saying the equivalent of 'sheeps'.
If "Legos" grates on you the way "nukuler" grates on me, then you have my
sympathy! Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without causing an
uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames, however
incorrectly it might apply to LEGO.
Maybe the fatal flaw in the "LEGO is correct" viewpoint is this: Is there
anyone who wouldn't know what is meant when someone says "Legos" in context? As
long as the corrupted pseudo-plural can retain any traction in popular usage,
then TLG's efforts to maintain the brandname's purity are doomed!
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Eric Harshbarger wrote:
> > > It's not that lego is like sheep where the
> > > plural is also sheep, it's that lego is like sand: it doesn't have a plural.
> Ok... I *have* to jump in at this point. Since when does 'sand' NOT have
> a plural? It has been pluralized throughout the sands of time.
>
> Merriam-Webster, and every other reputable dictionary will back me up on
> this.
Excellent observation! I submit "food" as a likewise flexible singular/plural
form.
Dave!
|
|
| |
Dave Schuler <orrex@excite.com> wrote:
> If "Legos" grates on you the way "nukuler" grates on me, then you have
> my sympathy! Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without
> causing an uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames,
> however incorrectly it might apply to LEGO.
There's the exact same technical/legalistic rule against saying "Fords" or
"Toyotas" or "Burger Kings" or "Pentiums" or "Dells" or "Dumpsters". Or
"Kleenexes" or "Band-Aids". Again as the original article pointed out. :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Dave Schuler <orrex@excite.com> wrote:
> > If "Legos" grates on you the way "nukuler" grates on me, then you have
> > my sympathy! Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without
> > causing an uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames,
> > however incorrectly it might apply to LEGO.
>
> There's the exact same technical/legalistic rule against saying "Fords" or
> "Toyotas" or "Burger Kings" or "Pentiums" or "Dells" or "Dumpsters". Or
> "Kleenexes" or "Band-Aids". Again as the original article pointed out. :)
Well, sure. But the original article was *days* ago--my mayfly attention span
hardly let's get to the end of
|
|
| |
I'm going to chalk this one up to human nature. As far as I can tell, people
like to shorten names. Instead of saying "LEGO brand building bricks", they say
"LEGOs". Call it a nick-name, or even an abbreviation .I could walk around all
day saying "Pentium 4 Processor", but I don't. I abbreviate it to "P4". People
insist on calling me "El" even though my name, and what I prefer to be called,
is "Elroy".
If you focus too much on the individual words that people are using, there's a
good chance that you'll miss what they are actually saying. Missing the forest
for the trees sort of thing.
So, yeah, I agree that it's "LEGO brand building bricks" (or parts or whatever),
but I'm going to abbreviate it to LEGOs. If someone doesn't understand my
abbreviation, then I'll gladly explain to them what it means if they ask, just
like I would any other abbreviation that they might not have come across before.
-Elroy (a.k.a, El)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Dave Schuler wrote:
> Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without causing an
> uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames, however
> incorrectly it might apply to LEGO.
Can you tell me the one automobile brand name that is generically equated with
all automobiles? That's right, there isn't one. Most auto companies refer to
their own vehicles in that style, even as part of their own jingos. This is the
other side of the street, where companies who don't have to worry about their
trademarks being diluted actually want you to think "Widget(tm)" instead of
"gear" because it means you're more likely to buy brand Widget over brand Gizmo.
> Maybe the fatal flaw in the "LEGO is correct" viewpoint is this: Is there
> anyone who wouldn't know what is meant when someone says "Legos" in
> context?
Clearly there are, as many parents see all LEGO-style bricks as being "legos",
regardless of manufacturer. And in this case, unlike with automobiles, it
actually hurts the name-brand company to have a bunch of other companies
mooching off their reputation.
> As long as the corrupted pseudo-plural can retain any traction in popular
> usage, then TLG's efforts to maintain the brandname's purity are doomed!
They don't need to utterly eliminate incorrect usage of their trademark to have
made the effort worthwhile. Victory is often measured in drops rather than
oceans.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without causing an
> > uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames, however
> > incorrectly it might apply to LEGO.
>
> Can you tell me the one automobile brand name that is generically equated with
> all automobiles? That's right, there isn't one. Most auto companies refer to
> their own vehicles in that style, even as part of their own jingos. This is the
> other side of the street, where companies who don't have to worry about their
> trademarks being diluted actually want you to think "Widget(tm)" instead of
> "gear" because it means you're more likely to buy brand Widget over brand Gizmo.
Still, I've heard people say "I'd never buy a Ford" or "Fords suck" or that kind
of thing, so at some level it is true that people can equate a brand with all
subsets of the brand. Nevertheless, your point is well taken.
> > Maybe the fatal flaw in the "LEGO is correct" viewpoint is this: Is there
> > anyone who wouldn't know what is meant when someone says "Legos" in
> > context?
>
> Clearly there are, as many parents see all LEGO-style bricks as being "legos",
> regardless of manufacturer. And in this case, unlike with automobiles, it
> actually hurts the name-brand company to have a bunch of other companies
> mooching off their reputation.
Eeek! Good answer! And I, the clone-guy, didn't even think of that. Oh, well.
They're all Legos anyway, right? 8^P
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Elroy Davis wrote:
> I'm going to chalk this one up to human nature. As far as I can tell, people
> like to shorten names. Instead of saying "LEGO brand building bricks", they say
> "LEGOs". Call it a nick-name, or even an abbreviation .I could walk around all
> day saying "Pentium 4 Processor", but I don't. I abbreviate it to "P4". People
> insist on calling me "El" even though my name, and what I prefer to be called,
> is "Elroy".
>
> If you focus too much on the individual words that people are using, there's a
> good chance that you'll miss what they are actually saying. Missing the forest
> for the trees sort of thing.
>
> So, yeah, I agree that it's "LEGO brand building bricks" (or parts or whatever),
> but I'm going to abbreviate it to LEGOs. If someone doesn't understand my
> abbreviation, then I'll gladly explain to them what it means if they ask, just
> like I would any other abbreviation that they might not have come across before.
>
> -Elroy (a.k.a, El)
This is pretty much my position. The purpose of language is to communicate
ideas. It doesn't really matter what words are used, as long as the idea behind
them is understood. If using 'legos' or 'lego' communicates the idea as well as
using 'lego bricks' or 'lego brand building bricks', and I would argue that it
does, even to those that it grates on ;), then I for one am going to use the
shorter version. This is on a purely conversational level though (including
online conversations such as these), which I really don't think can or should be
policed for something as tedious as trademark violations. In more formal
communications eg. any website I might create to display my models, I will play
by the rules, if only to save me from hassles with overly pedantic lawyer types
(is there any other kind?)
Cheers,
Allister
ps. speaking of language that grates, my pet peeve is when people use 'my MOC',
and signs on trucks that say 'Caution. Vehicle Constantly Stopping'.
|
|
| |
> Excellent observation! I submit "food" as a likewise flexible singular/plural
> form.
But "food" and "foods" are not interchangeable. "Foods" means different types of
food. You can say "Some foods give me heartburn" meaning cheese and pastries,
but not "Let me eat those foods" even if there's a whole buffet of different
things on offer. It's always "Let me eat that food".
"Sands" is similar. "The sands of time" is a poetic phrase, and it's not clear
what the "sands" are. Normally "sands" means beaches, deserts etc. but not
individual grains.
This is exactly my point about "legos": it isn't clear what is plural. It could
be pieces, or types of piece, or models, or sets, or piles, or collections, or
themes, or even brands (though TLC wouldn't like that usage!). Personally, I
think there are three legos in the world: duplo, standard lego, and that mini
stuff used by architects.
Barney.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Allister McLaren wrote:
> This is on a purely conversational level though (including online
> conversations such as these), which I really don't think can or should be
> policed for something as tedious as trademark violations.
They can, but not for stuff like this. Ignoring the trademark-owner's wish on
usage does not actually constitute a legal trademark violation. Improper usage,
yes, but legal violations are only when one person is using and/or claiming as
his own a trademark that belongs to someone else.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
| |
Dave Schuler orrex@excite.com wrote:
| |
If “Legos” grates on you the way “nukuler” grates on me, then you have
my sympathy! Still, someone can refer to “Fords” or “Toyotas” without
causing an uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames,
however incorrectly it might apply to LEGO.
|
There’s the exact same technical/legalistic rule against saying “Fords” or
“Toyotas” or “Burger Kings” or “Pentiums” or “Dells” or “Dumpsters”. Or
“Kleenexes” or “Band-Aids”. Again as the original article pointed out. :)
|
Well, there are two things a play here... what people(1) *want* to do, and what
companies *have* to do if they want to preserve their property.
It is my opinion that The LEGO Company *has* to ask people to use the word
“LEGO” as an adjective or else they are at risk of losing their trademark.
I bookmarked this site a long time ago, during one of the previous discussions
on this topic.
http://www.ggmark.com/guide.html
See point 2 in particular. See also
http://www.ggmark.com/protect.html
and in particular
‘A mark may be abandoned “unintentionally,” when the trademark owner fails to
use it properly, or fails to monitor its use by others. “Improper use” is use
which places the mark in danger of becoming generic. Thus, marks should be used
consistently, and distinctively, to enhance their source-identifying function.’
So based on that, TLC have to ask people(1) to use it correctly. (that is, as an
adjective, and distinguished somehow, for example in all caps) What the
people(1) they ask actually DO is a different story, but TLC can’t, in my view,
stop asking.
If you like the company, or if you like the capitalist system in general (2),
you’ll respect the request. Disrespecting it suggests that you dislike at least
one of the two. At least to me it does... YMMV.
It’s just one lawyer’s opinion of course, but it squares with the other research
I’ve done into this, including some caselaw I’m not going to cite at the moment.
And while I am no expert, I do have a trademark of my own that I’d like to
protect(3) so the topic is of some interest.
++Lar
1 - and journalists! Not to say they’re not people.
2 - and with it the notion that it’s legitimate for companies to market, have
a brand identity, advertise, care about their image, want to be distinguishable
from their competition, etc.
3 - Milton Train Works™, a proud member of the
Guild of Bricksmiths™ (4)
4 - Bolding is an acceptable mechanism of
highlighting. So is underlining
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote:
> It is my opinion that The LEGO Company *has* to ask people to use the word
> "LEGO" as an adjective or else they are at risk of losing their trademark.
Yes, that's a very well-grounded opinion. :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
|
