Subject:
|
Re: Trademark defense doesn't work vs Mega Bloks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Aug 2004 21:35:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
86 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > <http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2003/15/c2327.html This item>
> > has been mentioned previously on LUGNET, but it seems relevant to bring it up
> > again. The article points out that LEGO allowed the patent on the 2x4 brick,
> > (presumably including the tube/stud system) to expire in 1978, so they opened
> > the door for imitators. I can't imagine why they wouldn't have renewed the
> > patent, but now they're reaping what they've sown.
>
> Uh-- did they really 'allow' it to expire? I was under the impression that the
> patent lasted 20 years, then 'tough noogies'. 1958 was the patent year for the
> stud-and-tube system, so 1978 would fit the bill...
Hmm. My mistake. I thought you could renew patents, but I guess not.
> I was interested to see some of the other imitators from before 1978, though:
>
> http://www.personal.u-net.com/~lilleker/otherpics/lego-t6.jpg
>
> Kinda cool. But even before that, with Lego's predacessors like KiddieCraft,
> MiniBrix, etc, it seems like nobody could make the idea of interlocking bricks
> take off like Lego did. Seems like Godtfred and maybe even Kjeld were the ones
> responsible for making Lego a real hit.
Those are pretty neat!
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
