Subject:
|
Re: "If it were my toy company..."
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:38:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2416 times
|
| |
|
|
Nephilim <jthompson@esker.com> wrote in article <FMpE99.Jos@lugnet.com>...
> One reason that LEGO is constantly inventing new pieces is to make
> sure that as many elements in a LEGO set are patent-protected. The
> re-released old sets would not have that advantage.
But correct me if I'm wrong...
If LEGO not longer holds patents on the old parts, then that means that no
one else does either.
And yet....
We don't see Megablocks releasing the Yellow Castle.
A question to the patent lawyers in the audience. Isn't LEGO protected by
other copyrights (such as on the instructions themselves) that would allow
them to safely rerelease these old sets?
Or, ask yourself this question... Where is the patent protection on a
Freeestyle or Classic bucket? They contain no new parts to make them
'protectable'.
> I wouldn't mind if they modified the sets to make them take
> advantage of new elements, as long as the spirit of the original
> set was preserved. They could offer a Guarded Inn II that was
> at least as nifty and neat as the original. It might even have
> more tudor-castle-wall pieces, if LEGO figures out that's one
> of the things people like about that set.
Now this is not a bad idea. Sequels are terribly popular in the movie
business.
Regards,
Allan
--
Expert Builder Website - The Megaproject Showcase
http://www.execulink.com/~apotome/expert.htm
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "If it were my toy company..."
|
| (...) One reason that LEGO is constantly inventing new pieces is to make sure that as many elements in a LEGO set are patent-protected. The re-released old sets would not have that advantage. I wouldn't mind if they modified the sets to make them (...) (25 years ago, 13-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
