Subject:
|
Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.mediawatch
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:26:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
12696 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, David Laswell wrote:
| |
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 duplication of designs not protected by patent is not “ripping off.”
| |
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.
|
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 market, not into “LEGO’s” market.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
| (...) 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 (...) (15 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
