| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Richard Parsons wrote:
> 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.
Are you willing to vouch for the safety of each of those fake sets? Were LEGO
to have given the o.k. to give away the illegal sets they (the LEGO company)
would have, at least in principle, been giving their assurance that the sets are
safe to kids. But LEGO cannot do that since there is absolutely no guarantee
that they have undergone the extensive safety testing that genuine LEGO products
must endure. From a moral perspective (much less a legal one) I think it was
absolutely the right decision. Better that all of that cheap low-grade plastic
go to waste than to have even a single child injured by an inferior clone.
> 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,
Again, I can't assume that these products were safe. Neither could LEGO.
Businesses are obliged to fight copyright, trademark and patent infringement at
every opportunity. If they don't, then what's to stop hundreds of other
companies from producing complete rip off's of LEGO products?
> 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.
See above. Better to have all those kids go without than to risk hurting even a
few of them.
> 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).
Richard, while I think your sentiments are sincere and noble I don't think they
are a good course of action for LEGO to follow. Whether you or I like it or
not, LEGO is a company in business to make money. The fact that they are still
in business after all these years (despite tremendous technological, cultural
and economic changes) is a testament to just what a strong business they are
running. They must be doing something right to have lasted this long. I trust
they made the best overall decision in this case.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
