 | | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) But it is their system. What the clones should be doing is creating unique bricks that work within the LEGO system, not recreating them. JOHN (15 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) The duplication of designs not protected by patent is not "ripping off." (...) But it's not "their" market, and it hasn't been "their" market since the patent expired. What we've seen for several decades is competitor brands moving into the (...) (15 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Lego did not license the Kiddicraft design. They took it and *slightly* modified it. The Kiddicraft design, although patented in the UK, was not protected in Denmark. They bought all of the residual rights to the brick (in the early 1980s) (...) (15 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Well of course they wouldn't, but so what? The question isn't whether or not clones could thrive in the absence of the original; it's whether the original still retains exclusive rights to the studs-n-tubes design, and many courts have already (...) (15 years ago, 17-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) The LEGO Company did not clone the Kiddiecraft brick. They licensed the design, then bought the rights to it outright, and then improved upon it with the addition of the tubes inside the bricks that prevent cross-stacked parts from sliding (...) (15 years ago, 17-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
