 | | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) 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. :) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Well, sure. But the original article was *days* ago--my mayfly attention span hardly let's get to the end of (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) 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. (...) Eeek! Good (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Yes, that's a very well-grounded opinion. :) (20 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
