Subject:
|
Re: Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:50:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9246 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> I'd like to mention that legitimate competitors such as BTR and MegaBloks do
> not engage in the illegal duplication of TLC's protected intellectual
> property, so these two companies (at least) should be considered separate
> from those less reputable corporations that *do* copy TLC's stuff.
That's generally accurate, although IIRC there have been lawsuits eating up time
and money from both TLC and MB. And I expect this is primarily "Comapny X"
against Lego, like the Lego against the China knock-off, or Lego against
Best-Lock. I admit I probably wouldn't know about it if it was happening, but I
don't think there are as many suits between, say, MegaBloks and Best-Lock.
Hence, my guess is that it really IS hurting Lego moreso than other competing
brands, but that also comes with the territory of being the best known in the
building block market.
> It was my impression that TLC has recently decided to manufacture some of its
> stock in China--am I incorrect in this regard? If they have decided to do
> so, then one can't really criticize TLC's competition for likewise
> manufacturing in China. Or, at least, they can't be criticized any more
> strongly than TLC can be.
I don't think Dave K (dang, I'm going to need to start differentiating Dave's
here) was getting at the fact that others should be criticized for their
production in China so much as the fact that it's another negative contributer
to Lego's financial situation. But admittedly, the fact that Lego wasn't already
producing sets in China could possibly be regarded as "poor decision making".
> It was also my impression that a victorious plantiff in an intellectual
> property dispute can seek compensation from the defendant including the costs
> of litigation. Is this incorrect?
I thought that wasn't true, but I could be wrong as well. Certainly I expect
that differs country-to-country. And possibly case-by-case or even
state-to-state in the US.
Certainly I've always been an advocate of it being true, since you'd think that
you shouldn't have to PAY to defend your intellectual property. But on the other
hand, I guess if I don't pay my insurance and my Lego gets stolen and destroyed,
I might not get compensated.
Given how often this "IANAL" bit comes up in o-t, I think we should all sponsor
an AFOL to go to law school, just so we can have someone who can answer this
stuff for us...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
257 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
