|
|
 | | Re: IBM chooses Mega-Blocks over Lego
|
| (...) When the patent falls to public domain, the right of exclusion is over. That's the law. The protection of IP rights was never intended to extend into infinity -- not even theoretically, esp. not theoretically! That some are being given the (...) (22 years ago, 22-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
| | | | | Re: IBM chooses Mega-Blocks over Lego
|
| (...) Exactly what are the "LEGO ideals" that you feel they've diverged from? (22 years ago, 22-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
| | | | | Re: IBM chooses Mega-Blocks over Lego
|
| (...) This is the group designated for clone discussion, pro or con. It should stay polite, just as with any group, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't have the right to make negative statements about clones here. They should, however, be aware (...) (22 years ago, 21-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
| | | | | Re: IBM chooses Mega-Blocks over Lego
|
| (...) A certain group of non-clone users may fall into that group, but I suspect it's less an issue than you seem to suspect. Some people avoid clones because they feel that they're violating TLC's patent rights, others avoid them because they (...) (22 years ago, 21-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
| | | | | Re: IBM chooses Mega-Blocks over Lego
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) Dave!! Nicely said! Dave K (22 years ago, 21-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
|
|
