| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Sonnich Jensen wrote:
> Now I read this:
> http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=pressdetail&contentid=13026&countrycode=2057&yearcode=&archive=false
I see that Lego paid for the destruction rather than have them given to a
charity, presumeably for distribution to the poor.
I read between the lines that this is Finnish law, that siezed illegal goods can
be destroyed or given to charity.
The article claimed that the clones were dangerous and could break in normal
play and cut children. This has not been my experience of any clones, not even
the shifty Shifty.
The courts obviously did not accept the safety of children argument, otherwise
they would not have considered giving them to charity, and Lego would not have
had to pay for the destruction.
If we assume that this safety thingie is just happy rubbish for Lego to put
about in an effort to take the focus off their sensible (if entirely selfishly
motivated) attempts to close out clones, then paying to destroy 54 thousand sets
rather than see them given to some charity for use in with children in some
country where Lego has no presence is an interesting call.
It casts Lego's priorities in rather sharp relief. Not that Lego shouldn't be
focussed on its own profitability, but this would look like focus on its own
profitability to the overall detriment of children (particularly the poorer
children in some country where Lego has not reached and could probably not be
afforded, who might have gotten considerable joy out of some free toys, even if
they were not Lego standard).
No?
Richard
Still baldly going...
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
11 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
|
|
|
|
