| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Jeffery wrote:
| |
The other problem I see here has little relation to the Megabloks issue and
a lot to do with the media (hence the x-posting) This website is supposedly
a news site, i.e, an impartial participant here to deliver news. This report
seems extremely biased to me - and not because of the content, it is simply
because of the blatant advertising at the bottom of the page for Megabloks.
I see no mention of Lego, and no links so that comparisons can be made by
the consumer. Hmmmmmmmm...
|
Now that is a little weird. I guess it can be justified because the
“about MEGABLOKS” info came from the website, and perhaps no one at LEGO.com
wanted to go on record regarding the article. Further, the article isn’t
intended as a compare-for-yourself admonition.
Still, a link to the two parties’ websites would probably have seemed more
even-handed.
|
PR Newswire is a service that distributes raw press releases from myriad
companies, for a fee. The release (above) is straight from MB, hence it’s not
intended to be a fair and balanced news article... rather, it’s that company’s
own raw propoganda, meant to spin the issue their way.
As far as I can tell, LEGO doesn’t use these types of services, at least they
didn’t this time. However, as is usually the case in these types of legal
wrangles, a competing release is available from
LEGO’s press room, which spins the issue to its own advantage - paraphrased as,
“It’s a technicality, and we’ll appeal.”
Personally, I hope LEGO prevails since I’m convinced the brick design truly is
synonymous with the LEGO brand, and that function can’t be separated from brand
recognition. But I’m not a lawyer so my opinions count for zilch. :)
Kelly
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
