Subject:
|
Re: Castle Accesseries for Knight's Kingdom
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:30:44 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mtimm@usinternet.com%saynotospam%
|
Viewed:
|
587 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:19:20 GMT, "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com>
wrote:
> In lugnet.castle, Richard Sperber writes:
>
> > Well, if TLC wants to bring legos into the realm of collectors (ie. the chrome
> > and ninja sets, along with the Minifigs Collections) then they appear to be
> > targeting the older consumer also.
Agreed, if they want us older folks to buy more, they have to target
us more, and also don't jack the price on us just because we are
older(we CAN do the math).
>
> We've all heard the cautions from TLC that "LEGO" is a term of intellectual
> property and should be preserved intact, rather than becoming diluted through
> such terms as "LEGOs," "lego," or "legos." Strictly speaking, I respect that,
> but in reality and in practice I've never heard anyone actually refer to the
> bricks in the "correct" way. Everyone in my workplace who knows of my Lego
> habit speaks of "Legos," and workers at retail outlets likewise refer to them
> in the incorrect plural. For that matter, sale circulars and even electronic
> media advertise "Legos 10% off" and the like.
Actually I *DO* use LEGO as both a singular and plural, have for a
while now, legos just SOUNDS silly to me.
> My question is this: at what point does TLC's request for product name
> sovereignty lapse before the pressures of common usage? Is it enough for them
> simply to assert LEGO as the correct form? Does this assertion protect their
> copyright from dilution? Don't get me wrong; I'm not disputing their right to
> name their product whatever they want, nor their right to protect the identity
> of their intellectual property.
> I know the convention here on LUGNet is to use LEGO as both singular and
> plural, and that's certainly polite. I wonder, though, how widespread that
> consideration truly is outside of the LUGNet community.
> By the way, I'm absolutely not picking on Richard for using the term, since
> it may easily have been a typo. The usage is overwhelmingly common in my
> experience, for whatever reason.
> I think part of the problem is that, right or wrong, LEGO is identified both
> as a brand name and a single product, as opposed to Hasbro, for instance,
> which also makes action figures. When I was younger, it never occurred to me
> to say that I was playing with Hasbros instead of GI Joe figures, but the very
> nature of LEGO--and its myriad bricks--sort of implied a plural term to me.
> And, apparently, the public in general.
> Just some idle thoughts. I know this has been discussed at length
> previously, but it stirred in my brain and I thought I'd share.
>
> Dave!
The only thing I'd do is move further discussion out of .castle...
other than that why not discuss it more? Its not like its a closed
topic or anything.
Mike
--
All other themes are just spare parts for Castle!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Castle Accesseries for Knight's Kingdom
|
| (...) Fair enough, but this *is* a LEGO-based discussion group, and the demographic here might reasonably be expected to make a more thoughtful effort to adhere to the "correct" form. In my experience, though, this simply doesn't pan-out to the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Castle Accesseries for Knight's Kingdom
|
| (...) We've all heard the cautions from TLC that "LEGO" is a term of intellectual property and should be preserved intact, rather than becoming diluted through such terms as "LEGOs," "lego," or "legos." Strictly speaking, I respect that, but in (...) (24 years ago, 12-Oct-00, to lugnet.castle)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
