 | | 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
|
|
(...) 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 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
