| |
In article <Fsnzz7.Mrp@lugnet.com>, "Suzanne D. Rich"
<suz@baseplate.com> wrote:
> What happened (apparently) is that LEGO now has their cake and eats it
> too. This
> makes me sick.
I assume Jonathan (and ORA) went through the same discussions my
publisher did with TLG regarding using "Mindstorms" in a book title.
Lego had no problem at all with people writing books...in fact I've
gotten a lot of encouraging feedback from people within TLG that
wholeheartedly endorse these efforts.
However, they are wary of people using (and possibly abusing) the Lego
brand. This is understandable...the brand has a lot of value and they
wouldn't want poor-quality products by third parties to in any way
compromise that brand. Furthermore, since the brand has such high
value, it is perfectly reasonable for them to expect payment for use of
their brand (i.e. licensing fees).
My impression was TLG was very happy with the fact that there were books
dealing with Lego sets and that obviously it should be clear from the
book's title *which* lego set it being discussed. Per their
recommendation, my book carries a label stating that it applies to the
Robotics Invention System 1.0 and 1.5 (so as to eliminate confusion
about the other Mindstorms sets).
At this point, both books are out, and TLG feels that the books may add
to the "Mindstorms" experience, thus they point to the books from their
web site. As an author, I find this helpful...it means more people may
read my book and enjoy it.
I guess what I'm saying is that I find it perfectly reasonable that they
are willing to point interested users to the books, but at the same time
don't want their name on them.
>
> I just discovered their page devoted to (quote) "some 'introductory'
> Books about
> LEGO MINDSTORMS." There I see two books, Jonathan's O'Reilly and Dave's
> NQC book
> with obvious links to Amazon.com for online purchasing. LEGO has
> shamelessly
> added an Amazon.com _associate_code_ to the URLs! Not only does this look
> "cheap" but I see no mention of where those dollars go. ...that's 15%
> taken from
> every direct sale. Is this "global company" _so_ in need of cash?
>
> If TLC is seriously sponging money through the needs of the adult
> robotics
> community (due to lacking in their own provisions and foresight), then I
> have
> only one word for it. Sleazy!
Personally, I'd much rather have them link from their site to the
publishers' sites for the books - in general these provide much better
information about the books and allow potential readers to make a more
informed decision.
However, linking to amazon.com and getting the associated revenue is
pretty common practice. I don't believe it takes any money from
buyers...the money comes from amazon.com's margins.
I didn't realize it was 15%...at that rate, TLG makes more off each sale
than I do! Perhaps I need to speak with them about a referral fee for
anyone who bought a Mindstorms set because of NQC :)
Dave Baum
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: O'Reilly book news
|
| (...) However, it seems extremely unreasonable in the case of books about a product. In fact, although I'm not a lawyer, this use of trademarks seems 100% within the precedent set for fair use: it's impossible to describe _without_ using the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: O'Reilly book news
|
| (...) What happened (apparently) is that LEGO now has their cake and eats it too. This makes me sick. I just discovered their page devoted to (quote) "some 'introductory' Books about LEGO MINDSTORMS." There I see two books, Jonathan's O'Reilly and (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.dear-lego) !
|
45 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
|
|
|
|
