|
|
 | | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
| (...) That's a great point, Dave, and it brings to mind two related issues: 1. Competition. I wonder what path LEGO would have chosen in the mid-90s if they didn't have a significant market competitor to deal with. Mega Bloks was just starting to (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
| | | | | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
| (...) Agreed. (...) I guess I am just an old dog stuck using that with which I've always known: LEGO. Even if another company were in fact able to do a better job than TLG, I doubt that I would convert. Yeah, yeah: capitalism. Though I would say (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Assembled parts, ~ and categories
|
| (...) Maybe you are trying to interpret too much from the naming convention. A composite part (*cNN.dat) isn't necessarily comprised of parts that can move relative to each other, It might just be made of two or more separately moulded elements that (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
| (...) While I agree with the morality, the legality is another issue. In essence, though, your point has already been addressed. Thanks to their patent, LEGO enjoyed an exclusive right to production for 20 or so years, allowing them to be the (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
| | | | | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
| (...) That's not going to happen. After their experience with Samsonite, I guarantee TLG will want nothing to do with that sort of arrangement, especially in a market where they're already selling their own products. (...) More significantly, stuff (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
|
