 | | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Why should they? There are plenty of other companies that have already done so. You've got K'Nex, Lincoln Logs, Erector, and several other construction toy systems that have no resemblance to LEGO bricks, proving that you don't need to (...) (15 years ago, 17-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Not a valid analogy I believe. LEGO didn't clone Kiddiecraft; it took the idea and ran with it. Since their improvements were superior to the original, the original died off. Clones today exist because of their compatibility with LEGO, not (...) (15 years ago, 17-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) The answer to your question is obvious. Enlighten and others manufacture for a market that never could afford to buy Lego bricks. The success of Lego's clone of the Kiddiecraft brick has had very little influence on the success of later (...) (15 years ago, 17-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) I wonder if the clones would have enjoyed the success that they've had were they to have created a brick system that didn't replicate the dimensions of LEGO bricks. Clearly a case of wanting your brick and repeating it, too. JOHN (15 years ago, 15-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) I suggest that LEGO design a new brick to achieve the same "technical solution." Otherwise, this sounds like another in a long string of fairly open-and-shut cases along these lines. Dave! (15 years ago, 14-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
