Subject:
|
Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.mediawatch
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:59:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
13824 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, David Eaton wrote:
| |
The tragedy would be if they were expressly allowed to maintain a monopoly.
If some other company can do a better job, they should be allowed to do so.
That’s capitalism, as immoral as it may be at times.
|
That’s a great point, Dave, and it brings to mind two related issues:
1. Competition. I wonder what path LEGO would have chosen in the mid-90s if they
didn’t have a significant market competitor to deal with. Mega Bloks was just
starting to reach its stride when LEGO was mired in juniorization, clothing
lines, and dubious software ventures. A good many of Mega Bloks’ sets, in
fact, were basically bulk-brick delivery systems, while LEGO was still moving
into its “some assembly required” phase. Sure, the LEGO pendulum has swung very
nicely back toward cool designs that require actual building, but it was
touch-and-go there for a while. I’m also quite sure that Star Wars gave LEGO a
big boost, but I don’t believe that it was sufficient in itself to turn LEGO
away from the juniorization Dark Side.
2. I would characterize Mega Bloks, Best-Lock, and K’NEX as legitimate
competitors in the LEGO-compatible construction business, because each has
staked out its own section of the marketplace, and each produces sets that are
distinct from anything that LEGO has ever put out. But there are many
questionable brands that routinely defy patents and intellectual property
rights, copying LEGO sets outright and even copying current or recent Mega
Bloks sets (“cloning the clones,” as Larry Marak has coined it). These latter
brands are acting unethically and (in some cases) illegally, and they contribute
to the overall negative opinion of “clone” brands.
Competition is key to protect us from the likes of Galidor, but legal standards
must still be maintained so that proprietary rights aren’t violated.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
| (...) You're assuming that TLC actually took cues from MB in terms of how to fix their business model. In terms of the AFOL market, all it meant to TLC was that their customers stopped buying as much stuff, not that they started buying the (...) (15 years ago, 22-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
| (...) While I agree with the morality, the legality is another issue. In essence, though, your point has already been addressed. Thanks to their patent, LEGO enjoyed an exclusive right to production for 20 or so years, allowing them to be the (...) (15 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
