 | | Re: More POOPs and licenses (was Re: 2002 catalog scans at FBTB) —Kevin Johnston
|
| | | (...) Yep, I remember that as well. Guess all the critics that this was the thin edge of a wedge were right after all. (...) Completely agreed on the risk. What a crock. I think the Bob sets will be a failure (or passable success) for the simple (...) (23 years ago, 1-Nov-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: More POOPs and licenses (Galidor) —Jim Green
|
| | | | (...) I don't know if this answers the issue as for Galidor, but here is a little more info... (URL) the article: "As merchandising rights owner, Lego holds master toy and software licenses and is currently negotiating with licensing agents. The (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: More POOPs and licenses (Galidor) —Kevin Johnston
|
| | | | | (...) I think this means they have most major toy categories locked up (including the "action figure" segment). On the one hand, it means they will be able to stand out better (unlike the Bob the Builder sets, as I mentioned previously), but on the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: More POOPs and licenses (Galidor) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) I think more important is the first bit from the quote, which says that LEGO owns all merchandising rights. Any company that wants to make Galidor toys, has to get a license from Lego. Which means that Lego is on the upstream side of any (...) (23 years ago, 6-Nov-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
| | | | |
