| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Sonnich Jensen wrote:
> > Funny, I bought and wrote this...
> >
> > Now I read this:
> > http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=pressdetail&contentid=13026&countrycode=2057&yearcode=&archive=false
> >
> > It is just across the waters, 80 km from here.
> >
> > 10 tons, 10000 sets :-)
> > That is a lot!
>
> It's not quite accurate for them to describe all of the sets as "blatant copies"
> of LEGO sets. Granted, many sets were direct copies, and Shifty certainly
> copied numerous patent-protected parts, but the Shifty castle set that I bought
> has no direct LEGO equivalent; neither does the one shown in the top picture,
> AFAIK.
>
> To recap:
>
> Cheers to LEGO for protecting its patent rights.
> Jeers to LEGO for over-simplifying the actual situation.
I am not sure what either "blatant" nor "jeers" mean, but when reading the
Danish and the English version, I would have translated this way:
....all are Slavic copies of Lego....
I asume blatant is something else.
Sonnich
>
> > PS: I will keep the set, in case I have to do a setup/show sometime again. It
> > will go under "bad bad bad copies"
>
> That's a good idea. An unfortunate side effect of this, which LEGO may or may
> not realize, is that they're actually helping out legitimate competitor brands
> by destroying a bogus brand. The removal of the poor-quality bootleg will
> protect the remaining clones from the "cheap knock-off" label.
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
11 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
