 | | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) I completely agree with all of what you are saying, Dave. What I am saying is that it doesn't seem right for a company to sponge off of another without providing compensation or something. Licensing, for example. It is little wonder why clones (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Doesn't work that way. Without a core of standard basic elements, the best they'd be able to hope for is a business model similar to what you see with BrickForge/BrickArms/Little Armory etc. If all you can make are elements that enhance the (...) (15 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Parasites, Dave! >:-P (15 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Why can't they do both? Mega Bloks has a huge number of unique elements that are LEGO-compatible, in addition to the more basic and conventional pieces. If they were only to produce unusual elements and no basic pieces, then they'd almost (...) (15 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Well, then, my question is WRT the dimensions of the studs-n-tube design. Shouldn't TLG's dimensions be propriety? I mean, yeah, copy the design, but don't rip-off the dimensions. JOHN (15 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
