Clone Brands : 2396


Off-Topic / Clone Brands / 2396	2395 \| 2397

Subject:	Re: Lego Company chooses poorly? (was re: Shifty set)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 02:31:42 GMT
Viewed:	4388 times

In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Richard Parsons wrote:

In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Sonnich Jensen wrote:

Now I read this: http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=pressdetail&contentid=13026&countrycode=2057&yearcode=&archive=false

I see that Lego paid for the destruction rather than have them given to a 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 play and cut children. This has not been my experience of any clones, not even the shifty Shifty.

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

Message is in Reply To:

		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)

11 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search