Subject:
|
Re: Trademark defense doesn't work vs Mega Bloks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2004 21:07:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1783 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
That reminds me...
Years ago I purchased a Syquest EZ-Drive with 1GB storage discs. A friend
decried them as an unworthy product, saying that I could lose a ton of data
if I happened to drop or step on or otherwise damage the disc.
|
Heh. Most storage devices will lose you a bunch of data if you damage them, but
the question is how easy it is to do so. My favorite anecdote on that was how
about two years ago some company was running radio ads pushing their ZIP drives,
claiming that CDs were unsafe media storage devices because they can be easily
scratched. Now, I don’t know about you, but I think I’d have an easier time
tracking down a kit to repair a CD that’s been scuffed up a little than to
repair a ZIP disk that’s been set on a powerful magnet...
| |
I said “poo-poo.” The inability of the user to avoid damaging the device is
not the fault of the device. However, I can now see that, if I had put a
lot of important eggs in that magnetic storage basket, I could indeed have
lost a lot of important stuff. It still wouldn’t be the fault of the product,
exactly, but it would be an annoying (and possibly costly) inconvenience to
me.
|
Every buyer has to decide how much they value quality vs the cost of paying for
it. Some people always opt for quality, others always opt for economy, and the
rest of us pick and choose based on a case-by-case basis. If a buyer misguesses
how much abuse their chosen product will need to withstand, the buyer’s at fault
for choosing a low-quality product; if the product line fails to live up to
promised quality standards, the manufacturer is at fault for misrepresenting
their product; but the product is only really at fault if it fails to live up to
the standard level of quality exhibited by other copies of the same product, and
also fails to live up to promised quality levels (if they only promise 20 units
of protection on a device that generally managed to provide 50 units of
protection, you don’t have a legitimate gripe if yours only provides 21 units).
| |
I guess that’s similar to what you’re describing. If you’re worried about
what will happen to your half-completed model when you drop it, then don’t
drop it. (Doctor, my arm hurts when I do this...) Accidents happen, yes, but
that’s not the fault of MEGABLOKS. I don’t have a lot of LEGO sets that
would hold together mid-build if I dropped them to the floor, either.
|
I was actually referring to fully built models, on that one. If it’s not very
stable when it’s half-built, dropping it might cause those few key pieces that
make it “stable” to pop loose, and take the rest of the parts with them. Yeah,
most official LEGO models won’t take a table-height fall without at least a few
pieces popping off (and the larger they get, the more catastrophic the result
will probably be), but it’s nice if the bulk of the structure manages to stay in
large chunks so it doesn’t require a full rebuild.
| |
Not sure if I understand this one. Do mean that official models might
include some not-immediately-apparent keystone that a builder might not think
to include in a MOC?
|
That, or they might not know how to include one even if they want to. If you
can’t identify the keystone pieces in an official model, how can you tell if you
successfully included any in your own design?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
