Subject:
|
Re: Technic MOTM needs a new name.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:55:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
263 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford writes:
> > LDraw stands for 'LEGO Draw' and LUGNET stands for 'LEGO USers Group
> > Network', so you see both actually do use the word LEGO.
>
> No, they are names, one letter of which stands for LEGO. They do not contain
> the word LEGO. Why else do you think LEGO leaves them alone, while asking the
> developers to rename legOS?
If you mean to say that Lego has no legal foothold agaisnt Lugnet and Ldraw,
with all due respects, you are wrong. My intention is not to ridicule you or
debate for the sake of debating, but here are a few actions Lego could take
inmediately without a chance to lose in court:
- Kill all copyrighted material from the sites. That means pretty much all
pictures from the set database (not to mention Brickshelf scans). I don't
know how Ldraw parts would fare. Probably not good.
- Stop using Lego trademarks (Technic, Duplo) as main categories names in the
sites and/or programs - including partsref and Ldraw parts
- Include a much more prominent disclaimer warning these are not official sites.
- Kill the minifig generator
- Add a TM symbol to every Lego trademark ever mentioned on the sites
Etc, etc, etc.
Could they totally kill the sites/programs? Probably if they are bent on
doing it, since they have the money to pour into it. Easier to do would be
to kill most of the functionality to the point where resistance is futile.
Not that I would condone it, but they have every right to do it if they see
fit. I think Lego's fair play policy is fairly neat, and more flexible than
the LDRAW one, it seems.
In the legOs case, I think Lego's arguments are fairly reasonable: the name
was clearly piggybacking on TLC's core brand name. Too confusing for
non-insiders.
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
