| |
In lugnet.lego, Andrew Lipson writes:
> No doubt I'll be corrected, but Lego's basic patents have expired.
> This is why we are now seeing so many compatible (?) clones on
> the market.
Actually, I thought that back in the late 80's, when Tyco Super Blocks first
appeared. However, I've been told that the patent hadn't expired, and the
TLC entered into a big lawsuit against Tyco for patent infringement, with
Tyco winning in the end. However, that doesn't mean their patents haven't
expired by now...
> But every special-purpose piece (particularly those
> which let you do something you can't do with previous pieces) is
> potentially the source of a new patent - and hence provides some
> measure of market protection against TLG's competitors.
Huh-- didn't know that... Anyone out there know anything about the details
of TLC's patenting?
> So if we want to persuade TLG not to produce whopping great big
> special purpose pieces in Juniorized sets, it might help if we
> could suggest alternative new (and preferably more general-purpose)
> pieces which do not currently exist, which we would rather
> see than the current offerings, and which TLG can get patented
> before the cloners do (which might mean not producing them in this
> public forum).
>
> Comments anyone?
Good point... if Lego whips out a patent for each new piece, does MB, etc do
the same for their unique parts?
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Juniorization Manifesto
|
| (...) There's another reason for Juniorization (and other manifestations of special-purpose pieces) that doesn't seem to have got much airtime in this debate. No doubt I'll be corrected, but Lego's basic patents have expired. This is why we are now (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
