The trial of LEGO
Wedge6756
Thus begins the trial of LEGO. The prosucution charges The LEGO group on
the basis of.
1. Giving two sets the same #, i.e. 6083, while there are plenty of numbers
left!!
2. Creating large wall pieces instead of using bricks, i.e. a BURP.
3. Creating "Jack" the LEGO Maniac to sell Legos because of the set.
4. Changing from the "Legos encourage creativity" to "Look at this cool set"
The prosucution rests. If anyone has anything in support or non-support of the
prosuction please stand, or forever hold your piece.
-Wedge
James Aldrich
I wanted to submit some legal briefs, but my lawyer wouldn't give me any
of hers.
Wedge6756
>forever hold your piece.<BR>
>><BR>
>> -Wedge<BR>
>><BR>
><BR>
>I hope that's a clever Lego pun, and not....
Yes I intended it as a lego pun, not what ever you where thinking. No one seems
to care about this trial enough yet though.
Jesse Long
Wedge6756 wrote in message
<199805310239...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
>Yes I intended it as a lego pun, not what ever you where thinking. No one
seems
>to care about this trial enough yet though.
That's because they're so guilty it's not even interesting. It'd be like
watching the Unabomber trial or something.
Jesse
Tony Kilaras
Wedge6756 <wedg...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199805301603...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Thus begins the trial of LEGO. The prosucution charges The LEGO
group on
> the basis of.
>
> 1. Giving two sets the same #, i.e. 6083, while there are plenty of
numbers
> left!!
> 2. Creating large wall pieces instead of using bricks, i.e. a BURP.
> 3. Creating "Jack" the LEGO Maniac to sell Legos because of the set.
> 4. Changing from the "Legos encourage creativity" to "Look at this cool
set"
>
> The prosucution rests. If anyone has anything in support or non-support
of the
> prosuction please stand, or forever hold your piece.
1. Time Cruisers
2. Paradisa
3. Belville
4. Scala
5. Theme rot - ie Town Jr., Cargo Railway
6. Pirates cancellation
7. Star Wars sellout
MAH4546
>1. Time Cruisers
I belive TIME CRUISERS created a gateway. Now, kids could actually buy a 6280
and have it fit in with their 6598. It basicly provided a "gateway" into kids
buying different sets from different themes, and combining them.
>2. Paradisa
I dont get why everyone hates PARADISA so much, just because they are pink? I
bet if Paradisa sets were blue EVERYONE would love them. They were great sets,
and I, peronsally, just love the idea of a resort for minifigs.
>3. Belville
>4. Scala
LEGO is the #2 selling toy in America, Barbie is #1, now see how SCALA can
help?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mah...@aol.com<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mark Herzberg<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
astromann
Wedge6756 wrote:
>
> Thus begins the trial of LEGO. The prosucution charges The LEGO group on
> the basis of.
>
> 1. Giving two sets the same #, i.e. 6083, while there are plenty of numbers
> left!!
> 2. Creating large wall pieces instead of using bricks, i.e. a BURP.
> 3. Creating "Jack" the LEGO Maniac to sell Legos because of the set.
> 4. Changing from the "Legos encourage creativity" to "Look at this cool set"
>
> The prosucution rests. If anyone has anything in support or non-support of the
> prosuction please stand, or forever hold your piece.
>
Lego used to be cool 'cause it promoted creativity, now with the kits
you have Lego for Dummies.
astromann
VERRACO458
>LEGO is the #2 selling toy in America, Barbie is #1, now see how SCALA can
help?
HaHaHa.....Have you checked out the ridiculously archaic hair"don'ts" on some
of those lady dolls......not a chance until they get a little more hip with the
hairdo. No way girls are going to flock to Scala...... Of course it won't
stop me buying them though, ugly or not..
SChristo
>>5. Theme rot - ie Town Jr., Cargo Railway<<
That's a good one.
Chris Weagel
Tony Kilaras
> >1. Time Cruisers
> I belive TIME CRUISERS created a gateway. Now, kids could actually buy a
6280
> and have it fit in with their 6598. It basicly provided a "gateway" into
kids
> buying different sets from different themes, and combining them.
I don't think kids needed a gateway. Lego was by its nature a toy meant to
spark imagination, so it was perfectly ok to mix themes.
> >2. Paradisa
> I dont get why everyone hates PARADISA so much, just because they are
pink? I
> bet if Paradisa sets were blue EVERYONE would love them. They were great
sets,
> and I, peronsally, just love the idea of a resort for minifigs.
I agree. I think Paradisa would have been great if it was in normal colors.
All that pink makes your eyes hurt.
> >3. Belville
> >4. Scala
> LEGO is the #2 selling toy in America, Barbie is #1, now see how SCALA
can
> help?
Lego is not Barbie.
rdu...@hotmail.com
astromann wrote:
>
> Lego used to be cool 'cause it promoted creativity, now with the kits
> you have Lego for Dummies.
>
Here we go again. If you look back, you'll discover that old lego
sets had around the same number of pieces and had around the same
level of complexity.
I can build most of my older sets from memory (even after a 10 year dark
ages) including some of the larger from the mid 70's - 354 Police heliport,
347 Emergency station, 376 truck with bulldozer et al. So they weren't all
that more complex.
Lego for dummies? The range gets *larger* not smaller. You can still get
2x4 bricks, but you can also get diver's domes, arches, doors and so on..
Richie
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Fredrik Glöckner
Matthew...@Wichita.BOEING.com writes:
| Sure, you can still get a 2x4, but you can't get as many. About 50%
| (in my opinion) of all sets these days - and that is an at least
| figure - are specialized pieces.
I like to think of this in this way: Consider a person who has been
collecting LEGO for some time. She will probably have some sets from
the various themes along the time, with a decent amount of regular
bricks and plates in her collection, and some specialized pieces
belonging to the themes. Now, if she wants to get some sets from a
theme, say Castle, rather than buying a box of regular bricks, then I
suppose this is to get the special pieces belonging to the Castle theme.
She wouldn't buy the sets to get regular bricks, since she had a lot of
them already. This way, I think it's only fair of The LEGO Group to
include a large amount of special pieces in the sets, to satisfy this
group of customers. If the customer wanted basic bricks in the first
place, the customer would probably ignore the themes, and get a box of
regular bricks anyway.
Fredrik
Talcott Starr
MAH4546 (mah...@aol.com) wrote:
: >1. Time Cruisers
: I belive TIME CRUISERS created a gateway. Now, kids could actually buy a 6280
: and have it fit in with their 6598. It basicly provided a "gateway" into kids
: buying different sets from different themes, and combining them.
that without LEGO giving them a gateway. My space people were always time
traveling to fight the midevil cities when I was younger (who am I kidding
they still do)
--
/_________/| "I can't pretend to be, someone
|___ ___|/ who pretends to be, someone else.
| || Or so my pretend friend tells me"
|___|/ALCOTT STARR -The Rutles- "Unfinished Words"
Wedge6756
>They are making pieces to fit the sets, instead of sets to fit
>the pieces
Actually that is a good thing. I would hate to see LEGO make a set revolve
around a BURP or Hydrolator Crystal. (not that i have anything against
hydrolator crystals)
-Wedge
Anders Gabrielsson
Tony Kilaras wrote:
>
> > >1. Time Cruisers
> > I belive TIME CRUISERS created a gateway. Now, kids could actually buy a
> 6280
> > and have it fit in with their 6598. It basicly provided a "gateway" into
> kids
> > buying different sets from different themes, and combining them.
>
> spark imagination, so it was perfectly ok to mix themes.
True, but I liked the idea. I really like mixin time periods, and I'm
especially fond of steam-punk stuff. Unfortunately, none of the Time
Cruisers sets that I've seen (Are there any smaller sets? I've only seen
big ones. :-/) have grabbed me. Plus the minifigs are mostly just silly.
--
Anders Gabrielsson
and...@stp.ling.uu.se
The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there!
Geography is just therapy for imperialists.
Javier Teulon
I agree with that point, it doesn't make sense for the idea of LEGO
making a only-piece ladder, while you could have 20-30 pieces to build
it, but it must be cheaper for them. As much as I like shields, swords
and other accesories, I dislike big and specific pieces.
Javier
Javier Teulon
Fredrik Glöckner
Matthew...@Wichita.BOEING.com writes:
| Even technic is getting over specialized. They are making pieces to
| fit the sets, instead of sets to fit the pieces. Know what I mean?
Not really. Which Technic pieces are you refering to?
Of course, the 8880 Supercar from 1994 has some pieces specially built
for the set. I'm talking about the gear stick and plate, and the
suspension system.
And ok, I can see that the new engine blocks are very specialized. They
probably can't be used for anything else than engine blocks. (Has
anybody used them for something innovative, by the way?) Also the 8
stud wide steering system used in eg. 8216, 8225, 8414 is pretty
specialized. But other than that, I can't see any more specialized
pieces than before.
I used to think that the new technic pieces were useless, like the one
and two bend beams, but now I tend to use them all the time.
Fredrik
Moz (Chris Moseley)
Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik....@bio.uio.no> wrote
> Of course, the 8880 Supercar from 1994 has some pieces
> specially built for the set. I'm talking about the gear
> stick and plate, and the suspension system.
Suspension is an evolution from the earlier car chassis, and the sea
king helicopter parts also fit the wheel ring parts. The gear lever
is a one-use I think.
> And ok, I can see that the new engine blocks are very
> specialized.
Pea-shooters :-)
> Also the 8 stud wide steering system used in eg. 8216,
> 8225, 8414 is pretty specialized.
Apparently someone is using the rubber parts as leaf springs in
suspension. Full marks to that person if I could remember who it was.
> But other than that, I can't see any more specialized
> pieces than before.
"Lego - there's a new part every day"?
> I used to think that the new technic pieces were useless,
> like the one and two bend beams, but now I tend to use
> them all the time.
Me too. I'm buying some sets just to get certain new parts - those 8248
forklifts that you couldn't understand, for instance, have bulk 5-long
half width beams (as I said). Stuff like that. And my 'Giants' soccer
team that uses Technic figures :-)
But green Lego? I mentally requote my Dr Seuss rant about "green beams
are spam".
Moz
Fredrik Glöckner
"Moz (Chris Moseley)" <mo...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
| Apparently someone is using the rubber parts as leaf springs in
| suspension.
Wow, I'd like to see that. :-)
| Me too. I'm buying some sets just to get certain new parts - those 8248
| forklifts that you couldn't understand, for instance, have bulk 5-long
| half width beams (as I said).
And they also have a lot of one and two bend beams in black. I just
might some 8248's soon.
| But green Lego? I mentally requote my Dr Seuss rant about "green beams
| are spam".
While I don't know my Dr Seuss, I still like and use green LEGO some
time. I like to have a nice assortement of colors, so that I can make
models with different parts in different colors. For instance, I've
made a dump truck with yellow cabin, grey interior, black chassis and
green/grey dump.
Fredrik
HRCpins4us
I don't get why everyone is so down on the star wars sets.
We haven't seen them yet! For all we know they'll be the best thing since
sliced bread.
Nicholas
yeah!, and my sister liked the PARADISA!!!!!!
Todd Lehman
Matthew Hanson <Matthew...@Wichita.BOEING.com> writes:
> Actually, the point that I was trying to make, is that the "specialized"
> pieces (like BURPS) are being added, rather than making better use of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> elements that are already out there. It's getting to the point that some Lego
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> sets look like Fisher Price or something....
Are they mutually exclusive? Both are happening.
--Todd
Larry Pieniazek
Can someone restate the contention this subthread is making and who has
taken what position? I confess I don't get it.
Near as I can tell there are a lot more specialized pieces now than
before, some are larger (there is at least one in Stone Tower Bridge I
don't care for at ALL, I'd rather have gotten the slopes). Also, near as
I can tell, Town Jr is migrating in the direction of prebuilt.
Is the contention that both of these are happening? I think they are.
Or is it something more subtle. Apologies for missing the point.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
<this space for rent>
Don't blame me, I vote Libertarian!
Charles B. Naumann
Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik....@bio.uio.no> wrote:
: I like to think of this in this way: Consider a person who has been
: collecting LEGO for some time. She will probably have some sets from
: the various themes along the time, with a decent amount of regular
: bricks and plates in her collection, and some specialized pieces
: belonging to the themes. Now, if she wants to get some sets from a
: theme, say Castle, rather than buying a box of regular bricks, then I
: suppose this is to get the special pieces belonging to the Castle theme.
: She wouldn't buy the sets to get regular bricks, since she had a lot of
: them already. This way, I think it's only fair of The LEGO Group to
: include a large amount of special pieces in the sets, to satisfy this
: group of customers. If the customer wanted basic bricks in the first
: place, the customer would probably ignore the themes, and get a box of
: regular bricks anyway.
: Fredrik
My gripe is not with the 'specialized' pieces, so much as it is with
the semi-standard pieces that I cannot get in large quantity. I like
to build large buildings out of mostly standard bricks. However,
I need a few arches, like 20-30 of the same color. I can't get them.
Now if thoes stupid castle wall pieces had not existed, (i.e. the
'yellow castle') I would be able to get plenty of arches. Now,
in some ways I really like the castle wall pieces, but those windows
just do not look right on a sky scraper...
To me, a piece has real value only if I can get it in large quantity.
I used to have an entire drawer full of those Technic axle end
pieces. It thought I had too many. Then I discovered I could build
a really cool phased-array antenna from about 30 of them...
Charles Naumann
Wedge6756
>Or is it something more subtle. Apologies for missing the point
Apologies are not needed I am to blame for this monstrosity of a thread.
Basically this is where everyone says what is wrong with LEGO, or defends LEGO.
Myself, I dislike CRAPPs and other raised plates. I liked much more when you
had to build for the ground. I also dislike very large pieces, not long pieces
though they are useful. I personally don't have anything wrong with the Star
Wars sets. I am going to wait to make any judgements. One more thing that
reallt ticks me off, the soccer sets only available in Europe. (I myself
being a USA citizen) If lego wants to increase profits I say rerelease some of
the old sets. (eg. Blacktron, the original castles, town etc.)
Todd Lehman
Matthew Hanson <Matthew...@Wichita.BOEING.com> writes:
> I think the problem with the Star Wars set, at least in my own mind, is not
> the sets themselves (they could be any old space sets for all I care) but
> rather the principle of the thing. Lego has been ignoring their customers for
> years -that is to say, that they "claim" that they only take ideas from their
> own designers, and now.....
I don't think they ever claimed that. What they don't do is take/borrow/
steal/use ideas from fans/maniacs/enthusiasts. For legal protection reasons,
they need a paper trail on all of their ideas, whether developed in-house or
licensed.
> I don't think any of their own designers thought
> up any of the Star Wars stuff. They could have made plenty of money if they
> would have just taken a few suggestions from builders like many of us here. I
> would have settled for the satisfaction of having one of my designs in a Lego
> box. They wouldn't have had to pay me a licensing fee, and I'm sure that
> others will agree.
It's not that simple. Even if you thought of something and sold them the
idea and waived rights to royalties and indemnified them against issues
of ownership, you'd still have to prove somehow that you "owned" the idea --
that you thought of it yourself -- that it was original -- and that you
didn't steal it from someone else. That's why they hire people to do things
in-house, and they have to keep meticulous records in design notebooks.
Almost no ideas in the world are ever original, so paper trails are very
important.
> Do you see now why many people are so down on Star Wars sets?
Because they don't understand business?
--Todd
Todd Lehman
Larry Pieniazek <lp...@ctp.IWANTNOSPAM.com> writes:
> Can someone restate the contention this subthread is making and who has
> taken what position? I confess I don't get it.
>
> Near as I can tell there are a lot more specialized pieces now than
> before, some are larger (there is at least one in Stone Tower Bridge I
> don't care for at ALL, I'd rather have gotten the slopes). Also, near as
> I can tell, Town Jr is migrating in the direction of prebuilt.
>
> Is the contention that both of these are happening? I think they are.
>
> <this space for rent>
The contention is that you don't have EITHER lots of new specialized
pieces OR new uses for existing pieces. They are not mutually exclusive.
Both are happening to varying degrees.
Here is one very small example: 2x4 round-top Belville chair arm:
Shows up in the soccer sets as a stadium light.
--Todd
MAH4546
>Here is one very small example: 2x4 round-top Belville chair arm:
>Shows up in the soccer sets as a stadium light.
And in some LC sets in the rear of the space shuttles.
>>>>>>>>mah...@aol.com
>>>>>>>Mark Herzberg
>>>>>>Miami, FL:
NOTE: WILL NOT RESPOND TO E-MAIL BETWEEN
18/6 and 5/7, WILL BE ON VACATION
Larry Pieniazek
Thanks for the clarification, Todd. I agree with you when you say:
> Both are happening to varying degrees.
> Here is one very small example: 2x4 round-top Belville chair arm:
> Shows up in the soccer sets as a stadium light.
I had always thought of this as a LC specific piece, which just shows
that I don't know Belville pieces well at all. What colors did it come
in as a Belville piece?
SRC
Todd Lehman wrote
>Matthew Hanson writes:
>> I would have settled for the satisfaction of having one of my
>> designs in a Lego box. They wouldn't have had to pay me a
>> licensing fee, and I'm sure that others will agree.
I know I would.
> It's not that simple. <snip>
>Almost no ideas in the world are ever original, so paper
> trails are very important.
If these paper trails are so important, how come other companies can make
knock-offs of LEGO sets and sell them without a problem?
Steve
S...@LEGOV-Wave.com
(remove the bricks to reply)
mth...@my-dejanews.com
In article <Ch_d1.1107$On1.4...@ptah.visi.com>,
leh...@visi.com (Todd Lehman) wrote:
>
> Matthew Hanson <Matthew...@Wichita.BOEING.com> writes:
> > I think the problem with the Star Wars set, at least in my own mind, is not
> > the sets themselves (they could be any old space sets for all I care) but
> > rather the principle of the thing. Lego has been ignoring their customers
for
> > years -that is to say, that they "claim" that they only take ideas from
their
> > own designers, and now.....
>
> I don't think they ever claimed that. What they don't do is take/borrow/
> steal/use ideas from fans/maniacs/enthusiasts. For legal protection reasons,
> they need a paper trail on all of their ideas, whether developed in-house or
> licensed.
I realize that, but do you honestly think that a good (outside)design would
be any more trouble than licensing a major theme like Star Wars? It's really
the same concept: Someone may someday come forth and question the origins of
Star Wars. (hey, you never can tell.) In my mind, the money issue is the
only thing that complicates it.
>
> > I don't think any of their own designers thought
> > up any of the Star Wars stuff. They could have made plenty of money if they
> > would have just taken a few suggestions from builders like many of us here.
I
> > would have settled for the satisfaction of having one of my designs in a
Lego
> > box. They wouldn't have had to pay me a licensing fee, and I'm sure that
> > others will agree.
>
> It's not that simple. Even if you thought of something and sold them the
> idea and waived rights to royalties and indemnified them against issues
> of ownership, you'd still have to prove somehow that you "owned" the idea --
> that you thought of it yourself -- that it was original -- and that you
> didn't steal it from someone else. That's why they hire people to do things
> in-house, and they have to keep meticulous records in design notebooks.
> Almost no ideas in the world are ever original, so paper trails are very
> important.
>
>
Good point, but I'm not sure how applicable it may be in the Lego case. (I
may not know what I am talking about here, but what the heck) I know paper
trails are necessary, but in a case where you have an orignal (or not) idea,
like a new Lego set, how do you prove or disprove that? The only thing you
can really do is sign a waiver, stating that it is, indeed your own design.
If we let that kind of legality get in our way, we would never see any new
innovative products. In a case like Lego, the possibilities are so vast,
that you would almost have to consider any design as an original, provided
that it weren't a take on another licensed product.
> Do you see now why many people are so down on Star Wars sets?
>
> Because they don't understand business?
>
> --Todd
>
I still don't like them for plenty of other reasons, though. Maybe you're
right. I'm an engineer, not a patent lawyer....
Todd Lehman
Matthew Hanson <mth...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
> I realize that, but do you honestly think that a good (outside)design would
> be any more trouble than licensing a major theme like Star Wars? It's really
> the same concept: Someone may someday come forth and question the origins of
> Star Wars. (hey, you never can tell.) In my mind, the money issue is the
> only thing that complicates it.
Well, hopefully, someday, they'll change and set up an infrastructure for
soliciting ideas from fans. It would require many levels of filtering, a
huge staff to review all the ideas and research the backgrounds on candidate
designs, and a cutting-edge legal network.
> Good point, but I'm not sure how applicable it may be in the Lego case. (I
> may not know what I am talking about here, but what the heck) I know paper
> trails are necessary, but in a case where you have an orignal (or not) idea,
> like a new Lego set, how do you prove or disprove that? The only thing you
> can really do is sign a waiver, stating that it is, indeed your own design.
Compared to a short, sworn statement from someone, it's much safer if there
is a documented history of the whole thought process -- the refinement of
ideas over time -- a notebook chronicling an idea's development from its
initial brainstorms and background material on through to its eventual
marketable forms. Sketches on napkins. Printouts from simulations. Concept
illustrations. Prototypes. Whiteboard screen dumps from design session
meetings. Lists of books checked out from the library during the research
phases. That's the kind of stuff that really ends up mattering in head-to-
head battles over intellectual property.
And then there's the whole issue of how can they guarantee that you'll keep
quiet about your hot, new design (assuming they decided to bring it to market)
while it spends the requisite months in their productization pipeline? They
certainly can't have you publishing it on the Internet -- any attention to it
would tip off the competition as to what was expected to be a hot seller next
year. What do they do if you are in breach of silence? Or what if you design
a new and different model and publish it on the net, and the design is very
different to you, but re-uses many of the critical design ingenuities present
in the first model? (Things that you take for granted because you're
brilliant, but things that other people haven't seen yet.) How do they make
sure that you see eye to eye with them on all the subtleties? Do they make
you sign something agreeing not to publish anything else in the meantime?
Do they exhaustively define what parts of your design are OK for you to
re-use and what parts are off-limits to you?
I don't run their company (obviously :-) so I don't know what makes them
tick. I do know that they value paper trails very highly (as most large
companies do), and that they have been well served by them in the past.
And that, even though they like to stick to winning formulas (as most large
companies do), they do have some very bright and open-minded people in
influential positions in the internal legal and research departments.
I believe the biggest barrier to LEGO accepting ideas from fans today is not
a legal barrier, but a data management barrier. If the flow of ideas coming
from their legions of designers today were compared to, say, a drippy faucet,
then the flow of ideas coming from the legions of LEGO maniacs out there in
the world would be like a million fire-hoses going full blast. Twenty-four
hours a day. How do you manage all of that incoming data? It clearly has to
be funneled upward in some kind of massive ever-ongoing competition,
leveraging intimate participation by the masses. A fortuitous by-product of
that sort of thing, BTW, is that it conveniently eliminates any need to send
out polite rejection notices to the owners of 99.99999% of the submissions.
(Only about 1 in 10 million models could be chosen for retail productization,
right?) And the notices are actually the easy part -- the hard part is
politely answering all the rebuttals.
Another huge barrier for them is the feeling that they need to tightly control
every aspect of their product line. If they accepted ideas from fans, they
would really intevitably have to relinquish judging to the fan community at
large -- it's the only way they could afford to consider all the submissions.
But if you interpret the Mindstorms thing as I do, then they're already
starting to move in the right direction. Perhaps the right direction
isn't for them to accept ideas from fans and publish them as sets, but to
facilitate the direct and free exchange of ideas among fans, acting as
catalyst rather than middle-man. That's what the Community part of their
upcoming Mindstorms web site is all about (if you ignore the fact that it
is actually a very clever marketing tool).
> If we let that kind of legality get in our way, we would never see any new
> innovative products.
People find ways to work within the system. If people don't, then their
company doesn't stay in business long. Those companies that play by the
rules (and know when and how to bend them to their advantage) are the ones
which propser. But it's very true that many great, innovative products
have been stopped dead in their tracks for bad as well as good legal reasons.
It's not a perfect system.
> In a case like Lego, the possibilities are so vast,
> that you would almost have to consider any design as an original, provided
> that it weren't a take on another licensed product.
Well, there are quite a few ways that companies can get upset at one
another. For example, if LEGO brings out a new concept that, say, Hasbro
or Rokenbok is developing, and LEGO brings it to market first, but their
competitor actually happened to think of it first, and they have a nice
fat paper trail proving that they thought of it first, the legal system
gives both of them the right to put up a big fuss over the ownership --
and to try to prevent the other party from further cashing in on the idea.
And they don't have to be "right" either -- they just have to be willing
and able to argue their position more effectively. In any case, it's much
less expensive to keep a good paper trail than it is to go into a fight with
without one.
--Todd
mth...@my-dejanews.com
In article <gbte1.134$bj2.7...@ptah.visi.com>,
leh...@visi.com (Todd Lehman) wrote:
> Compared to a short, sworn statement from someone, it's much safer if there
> is a documented history of the whole thought process -- the refinement of
> ideas over time -- a notebook chronicling an idea's development from its
> initial brainstorms and background material on through to its eventual
> marketable forms. Sketches on napkins. Printouts from simulations. Concept
> illustrations. Prototypes. Whiteboard screen dumps from design session
> meetings. Lists of books checked out from the library during the research
> phases. That's the kind of stuff that really ends up mattering in head-to-
> head battles over intellectual property.
>
it conveniently eliminates any need to send
> out polite rejection notices to the owners of 99.99999% of the submissions.
> (Only about 1 in 10 million models could be chosen for retail productization,
> right?) And the notices are actually the easy part -- the hard part is
> politely answering all the rebuttals.
>
Actually, I think the when I first stated this whole thing, I may not have
stated what I really wanted to say. I guess, I know better than to think
that a company like Lego would just accept an idea for an individual set,
(although I did say I would be happy with my name on one of their boxes) but
when I say ignoring the customer, I am talking about things like themes, more
so than sets themselves. One of the ways that I have always wanted to
influence Lego, was simply to give a theme idea, or make suggestions, and,
unfortunately, even that is not considered. I don't know about the
mindstorms thing. It doesn't especially interest me, but you might be right.
(see next paragraph)
> Ano
>
> But if you interpret the Mindstorms thing as I do, then they're already
> starting to move in the right direction. Perhaps the right direction
> isn't for them to accept ideas from fans and publish them as sets, but to
> facilitate the direct and free exchange of ideas among fans, acting as
> catalyst rather than middle-man. That's what the Community part of their
> upcoming Mindstorms web site is all about (if you ignore the fact that it
> is actually a very clever marketing tool).
>
> >
Steve Bliss
In <3579AD7B...@voyager.net>, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>Thanks for the clarification, Todd. I agree with you when you say:
>> Both are happening to varying degrees.
>
>> Here is one very small example: 2x4 round-top Belville chair arm:
>> Shows up in the soccer sets as a stadium light.
>
>I had always thought of this as a LC specific piece, which just shows
>that I don't know Belville pieces well at all. What colors did it come
>in as a Belville piece?
Blue and white, at least. Probably pink and yellow as well. Maybe even other
colors.
Also, there is the 1x4 version of this piece -- take the 2x4 piece and cut it
down the middle. Pretty cool decorative piece, also used in a lot of Belville
furniture.
Steve
Todd Lehman
Steve Chapple <S...@LEGOV-Wave.com> writes:
> If these paper trails are so important, how come other companies can make
> knock-offs of LEGO sets and sell them without a problem?
They can be as much an offense thing as a defense thing, right? But do they
create an obligation to litigate? What if both sides have good paper trails
and the products are similar but not really similar enough to be considered
infringement? What if the LEGO sets being knocked off weren't really all
that original in the first place? Which is better for LEGO: to let their
competitors get away with cheesy knock-offs or to bludgeon them into
trying something original?
I don't know if there are good answers to these questions...
--Todd
David Lawrence
In article <6ld5bg$649$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mth...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <Ch_d1.1107$On1.4...@ptah.visi.com>,
> leh...@visi.com (Todd Lehman) wrote:
>>
>> Matthew Hanson <Matthew...@Wichita.BOEING.com> writes:
>> > I think the problem with the Star Wars set, at least in my own mind, is
not
>> > the sets themselves (they could be any old space sets for all I care)
but
>> > rather the principle of the thing. Lego has been ignoring their
customers
>for
>> > years -that is to say, that they "claim" that they only take ideas from
>their
>> > own designers, and now.....
>>
>> I don't think they ever claimed that. What they don't do is take/borrow/
>> steal/use ideas from fans/maniacs/enthusiasts. For legal protection
reasons,
>> they need a paper trail on all of their ideas, whether developed in-house
or
>> licensed.
>
>I realize that, but do you honestly think that a good (outside)design would
>be any more trouble than licensing a major theme like Star Wars? It's
really
>the same concept: Someone may someday come forth and question the origins
of
>Star Wars. (hey, you never can tell.) In my mind, the money issue is the
>only thing that complicates it.
>
>>
>> > I don't think any of their own designers thought
>> > up any of the Star Wars stuff. They could have made plenty of money if
they
>> > would have just taken a few suggestions from builders like many of us
here.
>I
>> > would have settled for the satisfaction of having one of my designs in
a
>Lego
>> > box. They wouldn't have had to pay me a licensing fee, and I'm sure
that
>> > others will agree.
>>
>> It's not that simple. Even if you thought of something and sold them the
>> idea and waived rights to royalties and indemnified them against issues
>> of ownership, you'd still have to prove somehow that you "owned" the idea
--
>> that you thought of it yourself -- that it was original -- and that you
>> didn't steal it from someone else. That's why they hire people to do
things
>> in-house, and they have to keep meticulous records in design notebooks.
>> Almost no ideas in the world are ever original, so paper trails are very
>> important.
>>
>>
>
>Good point, but I'm not sure how applicable it may be in the Lego case. (I
>may not know what I am talking about here, but what the heck) I know paper
>trails are necessary, but in a case where you have an orignal (or not)
idea,
>like a new Lego set, how do you prove or disprove that? The only thing you
>can really do is sign a waiver, stating that it is, indeed your own design.
>If we let that kind of legality get in our way, we would never see any new
>innovative products. In a case like Lego, the possibilities are so vast,
>that you would almost have to consider any design as an original, provided
>that it weren't a take on another licensed product.
>
>> Do you see now why many people are so down on Star Wars sets?
>>
>> Because they don't understand business?
>>
>> --Todd
>>
>I still don't like them for plenty of other reasons, though. Maybe you're
>right. I'm an engineer, not a patent lawyer....
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
I just don't like the licensing idea because it takes away from the purity
of the product. then lego becomes like everything else--a tie-in to movies,
tv shows, whatever. there are not many independent products out there
anymore.
Heidi.
Wedge6756
>I'm afraid the television has become the major<BR>
>media for most imaginations. What did people ever do without them?
They played with legos. (lol)
-Wedge
rdu...@hotmail.com
Matthew...@Wichita.BOEING.com wrote:
>
> Sure enough, someone else always says it better than I. That's pretty much
> the point that I tried to make, and in several other posts as well. I agree
> with you 150%. Unfortuntely, that seems to be what this world wants, is
that
> tie-in to the tube. I'm not saying people are terrible for wanting that,
> it's just unfortunate....
But could it be that this time, TLG is actually listening to what their
customers want? Try a surf of Lego sites on the net, and see how many
X-Wings, Ties, et al have been made by fans.
> I'm afraid the television has become the major
> media for most imaginations. What did people ever do without them?
They worked. Lots of leisure time is a phenomenon of the late 20th century.
(I'm not complaining).
Richie
Sydney, Australia