 | | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) That's a great point, Dave, and it brings to mind two related issues: 1. Competition. I wonder what path LEGO would have chosen in the mid-90s if they didn't have a significant market competitor to deal with. Mega Bloks was just starting to (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Agreed. (...) I guess I am just an old dog stuck using that with which I've always known: LEGO. Even if another company were in fact able to do a better job than TLG, I doubt that I would convert. Yeah, yeah: capitalism. Though I would say (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) While I agree with the morality, the legality is another issue. In essence, though, your point has already been addressed. Thanks to their patent, LEGO enjoyed an exclusive right to production for 20 or so years, allowing them to be the (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) That's not going to happen. After their experience with Samsonite, I guarantee TLG will want nothing to do with that sort of arrangement, especially in a market where they're already selling their own products. (...) More significantly, stuff (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) From what I recall, LEGO received KiddieCraft bricks in 1947 along with their first molding machine. The bricks were (if I infer correctly) presented to LEGO as examples of what can be done with plastic injection molding. LEGO probably didn't (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
