| |
In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Erik Olson writes:
> Richard is certainly wrong to invoke the public domain. He does not
> recognize the trademark issue (for one) that is probably going to get Lego
> an appeal in Canada. I think Richard also protests too loudly.
I think this whole discussion hits hard upon a public interest issue --
works that may or not be in the public domain depending on what laws one
follows (and as highlighted by the case of Eldred V. Ashcroft).
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html
(or you can go here: http://www.findlaw.com/ and just type in "Eldred V.
Ashcroft" -- various links will provide much reading material)
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17327,00.html
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/01/14/0932236.shtml
What Canada (mentioned above) and France (mentioned below) may choose do has
nothing to do with what may happen in the U.S. -- and I am mainly concerned
with the way the law operates in the U.S.
My point is merely that patent, copyright, and trademark laws prior to the
1990s were good enough for many corporations to make plenty of money working
under those legal protections. There's no reason to continue extending or
expanding any such protections as if that would somehow benefit the public
interest. The Copyright Term Extension Act and all of these legal cases that
seek to expand upon the limits of existing protections, or somehow
circumvent them, seem very wrong to me.
> Lego may be losing the case over 2x4 bricks and mechanical compatibility
> with long-expired utility patents, but they received judgment in their favor
> in France over the minifig. Probably they still have protection in law there
> (beyond the design patent term.)
When is enough, enough? Why should there be any expansion upon the patent
term? When the patent expires, legal protection should vanish.
> Finally, I ask why? Some may see Bram's effort as homage. Another motive for
> related efforts might be frustration combined with opportunity. But how much
> better to create something original?
Hasn't Bram actually created something original? The clutching mechanism is
different enough to pass a legal test in my layman's opinion. And if the
mechanics of the tubes and studs are not in the public domain, how can
anyone create a compatible yet original product?
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Solid Aluminum 2x4 Bricks!
|
| Darrell, I offered my views on this issue, with references. [1] I did not specifically defend the practice and I don't have a final answer either. My conclusion is that Lego construe their proprietary rights to be much broader than patent law (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jun-02, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
