 | | Lego Company chooses poorly? (was re: Shifty set)
|
| (...) charity, presumeably for distribution to the poor. I read between the lines that this is Finnish law, that siezed illegal goods can be destroyed or given to charity. The article claimed that the clones were dangerous and could break in normal (...) (20 years ago, 25-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
| | | | | Re: Lego Company chooses poorly? (was re: Shifty set)
|
| (...) Are you willing to vouch for the safety of each of those fake sets? Were LEGO to have given the o.k. to give away the illegal sets they (the LEGO company) would have, at least in principle, been giving their assurance that the sets are safe to (...) (20 years ago, 25-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
| | | | | Re: Lego Company chooses poorly? (was re: Shifty set)
|
| (...) Indeed. Although a headline like "Rich Multinational Toy Company Gives Poor Finnish Children Second Rate Building Bricks for Christmas" could hardly appeal to Lego... Cheers Richie Dulin (20 years ago, 25-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
| |
