Subject:
|
Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.mediawatch
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:22:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
12872 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
I suggest that LEGO design a new brick to achieve the same “technical
solution.”
|
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
blatantly rip off the design to achieve a similar “technical solution”. The
only legitimate reason for copying the LEGO design is so you can horn in on
their market with a product that looks like their own and is more or less
compatible with it as well.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
