Subject:
|
Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:23:27 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
761 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> It *is* ages later (in Internet time); but whether you like it or I like it,
> there are still parts of the world that move in regular old analog clock time
> (actually, most of the world does).
Really. Well, those parts certainly moved fast enough to tell you to contact
Todd and ask him to remove it. Those parts also certainly moved fast enough to
tell you that there was absolutely legal reasoning behind the "request" when
Todd asked you about it. Why, then, could these same people not move quickly
enough to prepare something to be posted to Lugnet explaining the reasoning?
It makes no sense.
> Often, when the information we need to get is wholly internal, we can respond
> more quickly – and other times, when we require input from other sources, it
> can take longer – much longer. This was one of those latter cases.
Really? Let's see...
> 1) The information is, essentially, privileged (i.e. confidential
> corporate property) which is not – despite assertions to the contrary –
> available to the public. It contained information regarding product that has
> not been released – or even announced. The information is generally considered
> to be a “trade secret.”
Well, Lego seemed to know that internally, without having to speak to anyone
else.
> 2) As such, the release of the information was the result of a breach of
> confidentiality between LEGO and one of its trade partners, and failure to act
> could potentially increase the impact of the breach.
This, also, required no outside input. In fact, it was known at some point
before Todd was asked to remove the info.
> 3) Some of the information may be incorrect and it is unclear what
> liability may be attached to allowing such information to remain public.
Same as above.
> 4) The release of set information and – in particular – pricing
> information also has competitive considerations. As we are still some weeks
> away from finalizing our pricing, it is a paramount consideration that our
> business plans are not revealed publicly – to our competitors as well as our
> consumers – until the moment *we* feel is appropriate and best for our
> business.
Same as above. In fact, *all* of this was known, to Lego internally, before
you asked Todd to remove the post. What "outside input" was needed?
> Why the information
> was so easily available through the handheld device is a question for which we
> have not yet received an answer.
So, this one piece of information that *would* have come from an outside source
you still don't even have (not that I think you would or should be able to
share it if you did have it). What, then, is the reasoning behind posting now?
What happened that caused your post to come at this time? Certainly not, as
you indicate above, input from sources outside Lego.
> We would not make the request we made of LUGNET and the other sites without
> good cause –
We know this. So what was the holdup in explaining that good cause to the rest
of us?
> but we have certain business
> obligations that really required us to act in order to correct the most public
> of the leaks.
Ok. This is, at the heart of it all, the reason you had the posts removed.
Great! This is all you needed to say to make most of us happy. It certainly
satisfies me. I just wish you had come forward at said it immediately, as well
as clarifying that you had no desire to have us not discuss what we had seen.
Personally, I *was* discussing what I had seen with friends in real life, face
to face. I was avoiding doing it here as much as possible because I, like many
other people, care about Lugnet's good health- and part of that is Lugnet's
relationship with TLC. I wouldn't want to do something that harmed it, so I
avoided talking about the new sets.
> OK, so after all this, why are we allowing essentially similar information to
> be published now?
An excellent question.
> It is true that Tim Saupe wrote to me and requested
> permission; I wrote back to say that while we would not comment on the list,
> we had no objection if he wish to publish it. I told Philip Wise over at
> rebelscum.com the same thing.
Really? Was that in response to an email from Phillip?
> First, the list was regarding Star Wars product only (not anything we
> haven’t yet introduced). It’s no great secret that we’re making Star Wars
> sets; the chance of a competitor coming out with a Star Wars construction set
> is zip (we’ve got the license); and there was no pricing information included
> in this list.
If pricing was the main concern, why not ask Tim simply to remove the pricing
the first time around?
> But the second, and more important reason, is this: we’re getting it.
Aaaahhhh. Well. That is good news. Seriously.
> Hence the publication of the new material
> (we’re not commenting on it just yet… but keep your eyes open). We have to
> balance such announcements, of course, against competitive considerations and
> the need not to cannibalize sales of product currently in the market.
Och. Well, make better sets, and you won't have to worry about
cannibalisation. Seriously.
> And we do greatly appreciate the assistance of the LUGNET community and others
> in acting as trainers.
Hmm. Well, then, I hope you don't mind me whapping you with a rolled-up
newspaper, even if some others are saying "good boy".
> Some of that
> information was just plain wrong,
Be careful, here. This makes it sound as though your "no comment" on the newer
list should be taken as meaning that the new list is correct. After all, if it
was wrong, you'd have to ask them to remove it, right?
> We know that we manner in which we handled this whole episode was not perfect;
> we simply did the best we could. But if you have suggestions as to how we can
> handle such situations in the future, I would be happy to hear them.
All I'd say is, explain as much as you can as soon as you can. I certainly
have no beef with you asking for the info to be removed, or even the fact that
you asked Todd- but getting in touch sooner rather than later is better. Many
people view Lugnet as a real-time interface... the sooner you post even
something like "We're sorry, we had to, you can talk about what you saw, I'll
say more later" as soon as you possibly can would be better than waiting for as
long as you did.
> Finally, Tom – and others who have made the same observation – you’re
> absolutely correct that our participation here has not been as promised. The
> blame for this lies entirely with me, and I will make no excuses. I will
> simply have to let our actions going forward (from this moment on) demonstrate
> our commitment to you and all LEGO enthusiasts everywhere.
Excellent. I look forward to it.
> Here’s a promise: I’ll be posting by the end of this week. And it’ll be news
> that I think everyone is looking forward to.
Great! Man, when you say things like that, it's hard to stay mad at you.
Just make sure you actually post it, eh? :D
eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| (...) I hate to follow myself up, but I thought of something else in this vein: I've spent well over $250 in the past two weeks on Lego. Probably closer to $300. Lego will see none of that money, because it wasn't spent in a store. It was spent on (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| (...) Tom, you're right -- on all counts. It *is* ages later (in Internet time); but whether you like it or I like it, there are still parts of the world that move in regular old analog clock time (actually, most of the world does). We try not to be (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct) !!
|
22 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
|
|
|
|
