 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) Well of course they wouldn't, but so what? The question isn't whether or not clones could thrive in the absence of the original; it's whether the original still retains exclusive rights to the studs-n-tubes design, and many courts have already (...) (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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
