| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Andreas Stabno writes:
>
> > I'd say the simple answer is that the competition is watching also. If Sony,
> > Nintendo, Disney, and K-nex all catch wind of next year's release at an early
> > enough time, they can adjust their marketing strategies to combat TLC's
> > success.
>
> I think that's too simple an answer. The list didn't contain any really
> shocking information. It had some Star Wars sets, which are fairly
> recognisable by their names- and then it had some other set names which could,
> frankly, be just about anything. Certainly nothing earth-shattering, and
> nothing the competition couldn't have figured on Lego doing without the aid of
> a very non-specific[1] list.
I think that's too simple a dismissal. See my previous post about isolated
facts and how they can add up to Really Big Secrets. "this fact by itself
doesn't tell you much" is not a valid defense in and of itself. Besides,
unless we're in the penalty phase of a suit, evaluating damages, who cares
about value?
The information was secret because it is TLC information and because TLC said
it's secret. That's good enough for me. Either you respect property rights or
you don't, it's a matter of kind, not degree. If TLC says a gum wrapper is
theirs you don't get to nick it because it's not worth very much.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I think that's too simple an answer. The list didn't contain any really shocking information. It had some Star Wars sets, which are fairly recognisable by their names- and then it had some other set names which could, frankly, be just about (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
176 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
