| |
In lugnet.castle, Richard Sperber writes:
> Well, if TLC wants to bring legos into the realm of collectors (ie. the chrome
> and ninja sets, along with the Minifigs Collections) then they appear to be
> targeting the older consumer also.
We've all heard the cautions from TLC that "LEGO" is a term of intellectual
property and should be preserved intact, rather than becoming diluted through
such terms as "LEGOs," "lego," or "legos." Strictly speaking, I respect that,
but in reality and in practice I've never heard anyone actually refer to the
bricks in the "correct" way. Everyone in my workplace who knows of my Lego
habit speaks of "Legos," and workers at retail outlets likewise refer to them
in the incorrect plural. For that matter, sale circulars and even electronic
media advertise "Legos 10% off" and the like.
My question is this: at what point does TLC's request for product name
sovereignty lapse before the pressures of common usage? Is it enough for them
simply to assert LEGO as the correct form? Does this assertion protect their
copyright from dilution? Don't get me wrong; I'm not disputing their right to
name their product whatever they want, nor their right to protect the identity
of their intellectual property.
I know the convention here on LUGNet is to use LEGO as both singular and
plural, and that's certainly polite. I wonder, though, how widespread that
consideration truly is outside of the LUGNet community.
By the way, I'm absolutely not picking on Richard for using the term, since
it may easily have been a typo. The usage is overwhelmingly common in my
experience, for whatever reason.
I think part of the problem is that, right or wrong, LEGO is identified both
as a brand name and a single product, as opposed to Hasbro, for instance,
which also makes action figures. When I was younger, it never occurred to me
to say that I was playing with Hasbros instead of GI Joe figures, but the very
nature of LEGO--and its myriad bricks--sort of implied a plural term to me.
And, apparently, the public in general.
Just some idle thoughts. I know this has been discussed at length
previously, but it stirred in my brain and I thought I'd share.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Castle Accesseries for Knight's Kingdom
|
| (...) You are right in that I made a mistake. I should have refered to them as LEGO products instead of Legos. However, I presented my posting as a casual musing over the direction I would like the Castle theme to progress, and my slip was an honest (...) (24 years ago, 12-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Castle Accesseries for Knight's Kingdom
|
| (...) Agreed, if they want us older folks to buy more, they have to target us more, and also don't jack the price on us just because we are older(we CAN do the math). (...) Actually I *DO* use LEGO as both a singular and plural, have for a while (...) (24 years ago, 13-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Castle Accesseries for Knight's Kingdom
|
| (...) Is this a US only usage? In Australia AFAIK "Lego" is "Lego", a collective noun for the toy system, and the bricks are "Lego bricks". Maybe it's because we're used to sheep and wheat, or maybe we're just smarter ;^)(hey, this is o- t-d!). (...) (24 years ago, 14-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Castle Accesseries for Knight's Kingdom
|
| (...) Well, if TLC wants to bring legos into the realm of collectors (ie. the chrome and ninja sets, along with the Minifigs Collections) then they appear to be targeting the older consumer also. As one of these, I can say that some sort of Fantasy (...) (24 years ago, 12-Oct-00, to lugnet.castle)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
