Slashdot Mirror
Lego and the IP Conundrum
Packetknife writes: "Business 2.0 has an article on Lego and the development and business issues surrounding the Mindstorms product line. The article concentrates on intellectual property issues and the role of hackers in the development of Mindstorms. The hook to the OSS movement is obvious in the article." Interesting piece about Lego trying not to bite the hand that feeds it, even though the temptation is strong.
Texas Instruments allowed assembly hacking on their TI line, notably -85 and higher. . .then in perhaps a wise move, in the updated line, allowed for an easier time to implement one's own assembly, editor and all. Why shouldn't Lego, the best 'toys' in my opinion, do the same?
On the one hand there's a "strong kinship" and on the other there's an assumption that hackers will immediately decide to turn on you by doing something extreme. Which is the feeling that Lego truly has about "hackers" who tinker with their products? Besides, shutting down a website implies a totally different type of hacking from that which involves modifying products. So once again, two different kinds of hacker get equated.
"My mother works for Microsoft now. A whole other cult."
LegOS _is_ rather close to LEGO, after all, and it is emphatically in the same market. So, I'd think that a name change on the part of Noga would not be amiss.
Other than that, I hope that LEGO leaves well alone (giving an official 'stamp of approval' to high quality projects are a good idea, though). As the article emphasizes several times, LEGOs business is selling kits, not software. Having a prominent wanring that messing with the OS will void your warranty should be enough.
/Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I don't understand why this should go to court. Someone took his own time and spent it to make Lego's hardware better. If Lego simply bought the modification for x dollars, wouldn't the problem be solved?
Look at game mods, for example. Game companies let people create modifications for their games and then they BUY the best ones, repackage them, test them, and ship them, therefore accepting responsibility for tech support. This would solve Lego's problem of "If it -- or any other third-party OS -- becomes widely used, Lego would have trouble vouching for the reliability of its product and providing tech support."
Okay, next. Lego offered the hackers a job. Why offer them a salary when you can simply pay them so much for the alternative OS and use it as the basis for your next robots, or offer it as a free, supported, "advanced users only" download?
The only problem I see with the above is what happens when the hackers continue to improve the OS. Do you keep paying them, or not? That would be something Lego would have to work out with them. However, I still see no reason for them to drag these people into court. These people believed in something and made it better -- they weren't trying to undercut Lego, and they are not selling alternative hardware (which Lego freely admits is its core business.) So what's the problem here?
This is of course standard US FUD about IP.
In the rest of the world we don't care.
The problem is quitte simple that there isn't a problem at all.
For LEGO this is a big plus and due to the fact that they aren't sueing the butts of those people is a VERY good thing.
That is also the reason why they are selling lots of kits.
If they started sueing everbody who hacks their OWN LEGO mindstorm kit, then they wouldn't have sold so many kits.
The thing is, that after you bought something it is yours.
And you can do with it whatever you like.
The problem with the DMCA and other stupid US laws is, that the government tries to (over)protect the people.
That doesn't work.
Ever seen a warning sign on an European cup of coffee that it's hot?
Of course not!!
It is known that a cup of coffee is hot, and if you burn yourself than that is your own stupid fault.
The only legitimate argument in the article was that Lego might get a few support calls from users of alternative software. The way to deal with this is the same exact way that Tivo deals with upgrades, AMD deals with overclocking, and Maxtor deals with tinkerers: void the warranty if the user tampers with the equipment and something breaks. Simple.
--sting3r
Can you order them to hang themselves?
Lego has always held close the belief that toys should be educational. Shouldn't this be another facet of that same idea? Noga and the people who "hack" mindstorms are simply taking it to a new level. Besides is they can make something works as well or better, why not encourage that level of developement by hiring them on as programmers/consultants for your products. Noga clearly has excellent ideas for mindstorm and with his insight, there may be a whole new area of developement to tap into, something Lego may not have considered.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" -- Red Green
Lego has spent many, many years building a reputation associated with their name. And that reputation is well-reserved; truly we can all appreciate how Lego brought MITs research into the hobbiest market. That was a gutsy move on Lego's part, and they should be rewarded for that courage.
Markus Noga is a bright guy, but (as the article states), he crossed the line by naming his product LegOS. He's being a silly ass by claiming he named it after himself, and that the name has nothing to do with "Lego". He's tweaking the nose of the company, even though they provided the basis for his work. There would be no LegOS without Mindstorms...
Lego isn't going after all Mindstorms' hackers, or poeple who've created alternative programming languages. They're protecting their good name, as any of us would do.
And now back to playing with Mindstorms. I'm building a bot with two RCX modules, coordinating them to build a useful exploration rover... this is one damned fine toy, and Lego deserves all the credit in the world for bringing it to us.
All about me
Well, since news broke some years ago, I tried to get an hand on a Lego Mindstorms. And well I'm old enough to vote a few times. However it is hard to get hands on materials and try to get a robot out of it. With Lego voila. It is cute, it's a toy but it has all the basics. One can read megatons of books but never become an expert without having some life with the Real-Thing (TM).
:)
Back then we had 17th of August, salaries going down 6 times and a rumours about Russia gong nuts. Besides back then we had Lego already but it was impossible even to search for a Technics set.
Well two years passed. And in one shop I saw the damn bastard hanging. What to do? Get the money! Well, I was short of 20 dollars to get it, and my friends decided to protect me from this madness. So I thought I had lost my chance...
However, recently it was my birthday. And I thought I should get a real good gift for myself. Well I was sure that the robot was already gone, bought by some fattened father for his not less fattened son. And what I see? That same set hanging just behind dozens of other Legos. One could barely see it on the corner. I asked the shopper why that thing was hanging there. "Well no one buys it. It's too expensive and people fear kids break it..." Besides the price was lowered by... Just guess... 20 dollars!.. Well I just said : "Freeze up that thing there I'M GOING TO GET THE MONEY!!!!!" In less than half-hour, I had the box in my desk.
Right now the robot is here just facing my computer and waiting for another bunch of stupid commands that make him stuck the walls. I study NQC, LegOS and looking over some Forth and Ada realizations. On free time I read the processor specs and think on its potential uses. I'm thinking on how this stuff can be used to teach students some basics of robotics and AI. Besides, some people got quite interested on this stuff and think to buy a similar toy. Like me, they all vote for quite a long time...
This is a tale of a lost and lonely robot in the corner of the shop. If Lego will try to "recover" its market, then this and many other robots will just lay there, with no use. No one of us needs their "Bricks constructor". We all need specs, tools, firmwares and open source. Because this is the best of all robots to learn the basics of robotics. And it is a great and cute yellow pet. In fact Lego should have made its toy for "Ages 20+"
To Lego people if you see this. Keep it open source and help people to develope more soft for it. The reward will be much great than keeping it on the shelf for kids who their parents fear.
Get the moderators to mod up some stupid post, like "frost piss" or goatsex, and you can be proud of your control over them. Otherwise, shut up.
Lego though does have a good point. What stops Mattell from building a simliar toy, and use legOS as their OS? Think of how much development costs could be avoided.
I myself support the hacking, but maybe lego could require anybody that makes an alternative OS, to have a liscence that has a line saying that "This software may ONLY, with no exceptions, be used in LEGO products." And than they go after the people that don't put that in their OS liscence.
It's really cool - that mindstorms thing. I did somethign for a year called "First Lego League" as a sixth grader. We were the beta year, and it was a huge success. (except another group destroyed our robot) Mr. BIGGLESWORTH!!! (our robot name)
Now, I don't believe that open source is always the right tool for the job, but I think it is perfect for this sort of situation.
The standard business model of selling software simply isn't right for Lego. They're basically selling hardware.
Open source is the right business tool for this market. Lego should get together with some of the hackers and release a source code pack for anyone who wants to use it. If it gets modified into something better, all the more profits for Lego.
Let's see open source do what it has always promised to do: make some serious dough.
Lego has shown extraordinary tolerence in dealing with the hackers. Perhaps its time for people to realize it works both ways. By naming his os LegOS, Nego is clearly just trying to tweak Lego. Come on. He could be a little more reasonable and change the name, rather then trying to poke the tiger in a way that is only going to lead to confrontation.
Download my free songs!
What's up with supporting Oracle, are you in sales at Oracle? This is one strange way to boost sales. As far as your complaints about MySQL, why don't you do some research before pulling numbers like "50 connections" out of your butt. Start with reading about MySQL at yahoo finance. Or are you just a lame troll? By the way, I don't know why you think there's a problem with Slashdot, the site works great for me.
But still a thousand times better than all the Open Source "alternatives". And DB2 isn't pure gold, either. So, in many cases, Oracle is the least evil.
Once again, a "respectable" firm calls everyone, from the good guys to the bad hackers. So because I like lego mindstorm, I can shut down your website. Right.
Business 2.0 is an american firm, and hence they are trying to invoke the "sue sue sue" response that the country is in right now... I must say I've lost some respect for them now.
I do have one question though - I can understand a trademark infringement case ("LegOs") but intellectual property? That just isn't flying. Do I have to sign a license agreement when I buy mindstorm? Is there a shrinkwrap agreement saying I can't toy with the hardware? As far as I'm concerned (granted, IANAL), Noga is doing nothing wrong, and Business 2.0 is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Paul Keegan, go do some more research.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
This artical is weird. Asside from the name, I can't see what lego could possibly sue for. Since when has it been against the law to develop and market software for Computers you buy?
I mean, how could it possibly be against the law to write software for a computer you own!?
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Do you think the web would be as interesting if everyone used Oracle. Do you know what they charge? You could forget about Slashdot and all the other sites we enjoy every day for free.
Interesting. For once we hear a story about a company, a decent sized one at that, doing Good Things for a change, but it's a non-US company. Maybe the American Greed isn't such a good thing after all? Please correct me though? Are there any "good" US companies? (Or should I just get my passport fired up...)
For hobbyist websites, MySQL is fine. The Slashdot guys seem not to realize they don't fall in this category anymore.
It's the same thing with Killustrator awhile back. While I'm not a fan of IP laws, trademarks are necessary and Lego should protect thier brand name.
But I hope he backs down, it would suck if they had to sue him.
The Lego Reverse Engineering Site.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
My niece and nephew's dog is named Lego, but nobody has tried (to the best of my knowledge) to snap a Lego block on him, only to have this not work, then call customer support at Lego to complain and request a new set of Lego blocks.
However, imagine this scenerio... a parent and child download LegOS because it has "Lego" in it, so it must be a Lego product. Okay, there's warnings all over the place about LegOS not being affiliated or supported by Lego or whatever, but we know how useful this is. So the child now has a LegOS powered Mindstorm and it does something Lego-unapproved, dangerous, pornographic, becomes inoperable, or whatever (pick a Simpsons episode like the one where the talking Krusty doll tries to kill Homer or the Funby toy that destroys products made by its manufacture's competitors). Now Lego has a big problem on their hands.
Maybe it's not just popularity, but popularity combined with a functionality reasonably relevant to the product.
Along with your dog named LegOS issue, I wonder if the reason the dog becomes popular is part of the equation. If you name the dog LegOS and it becomes popular because it saves a drowning family, there's probably no lawsuit issue. But if LegOS mauls someone... hmmmm. I wonder if something like this has ever happened, like someone has named a racehorse after a product, and the horse is a pathetic on the racetrack, so the company tells the owner to change the horse's name or risk a lawsuit?
"My mother works for Microsoft now. A whole other cult."
That also happens to be the approach to learning championed by the Lego Co. of Billund, Denmark, the fourth-largest toy company in the world.
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
MySQL is not for hobbyist websites, it's used by real websites, especially in the financial services industry.
Poll: Should Lego Sue?
No: -------------------%95
Don't Know ---------%3.7
Yes ------------------%1.3
Slashdotted for sure 8)
Lego is a toy where kids get to explore their creativity, not be dictated to about their imagination. The source code should be open and done under a license that both helps encourage the exploration of creativity while protecting the company interest in not having it end up being something they regret, something being used competitively against them.
Lego sells the hardware, the physical stuff, the imagination is what their customers supply.
There is very little imagination in a customer naming his Lego robotics OS LegOS. He should better express good will here, then by way of imitation.
Perhaps the computer industry might take a hint from this "hardware" toy company. In realizing a whole hell of a lot more would get done that benefits everyone, by avoiding greed of imagination and imagination potential dictation.
http://www.noga.de/legOS/
http://legos.sourceforge.net/
Their trademark and IP are not 'at stake'.
They provide software so joe average can USE the stuff, not to 'control' it. They are not in the mindstorm software business, per-se, they are in business to sell legos.
Of course they don't care if someone hacks it; it's our right to reverse engineer it and publish information about it. After all.. it doesn't hurt them one little bit.
So far, the only industry thats' managed to prevent reverse-engineering to a degree is the publishing industry in general, via the DMCA, and then, only with regards to copy protection mechanisms.
who is running after me screaming
It's GNU
It's GNU
It's GNU
"...it sold a staggering 100,000 kits, far beyond the 12,000 units the company had projected. To Lego's surprise, some 70 percent of Mindstorms customers in the heady early months following its launch were old enough to vote..."
What would you do if your a product found and unexpected successful market? I think Lego knows they've stumbled into an opportunity, but they're unsure of how to execute.
Instead of focusing on "Should Lego sue?", focus on "How should Lego leverage this opportunity?" The simple answer IMHO: co-opt the individual efforts; make an "adult" product version or addons. Make Mindstorm *real* plug-and-play software/hardware.
Apple sued companies (particularly Franklin Computer Corp.) that violated it's patents. IBM *encouraged* people to hack and clone their BIOS.
No, the lawsuits were not about patents but about copyrights. The Apple II ROM didn't have a syscall interface like PC BIOS did; A2 syscalls were merely jsr instructions to the entry point in ROM of the function. Because this restricted the possible length of each function's binary code, it was almost impossible to make a 100% Apple compatible ROM without making it byte-identical to Apple's.
But the real reason Apple sued is because their contract with Microsoft required them to do so. Microsoft owned the copyright on the Basic interpreter in Apple II Plus and later computers.
Guess which type of computer became the most successful?
The one with the more extensible API. IBM designed its BIOS syscalls around a realization that it would eventually have to change the internal structure of its BIOS in later revisions to the PC (e.g. XT and AT).
However, the LEGO case isn't about patents or copyrights; it's about trademarks, as the name "LegOS" gives a false appearance of a LEGO product. LEGO doesn't want to tech-support third-party software that could potentially damage expensive sensors and motors.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This is the first article I've read in Buisness 2.0. I hope they're not all this bad.
..."
Lego isn't walking some 'fine line' between two extremes. They know full well that hackers messing about with Mindstorms will help their sales and market penetration, and are hence doing nothing about it. End of story. The trademark infringement issue is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT, and there's no reason for tying the two together, except for the sake of sensationalism.
Then there's the writing style.
"Using it, a propellerhead of moderate nerdulence could build a tic-tac-toe-playing robot
Ye Gods, I'd be embarassed to sign my name to such an ugly phrase. There are others just as bad.
So a badly written article that tries to create a tempest in a teapot. Whee! I did notice that most of the articles in the magazine are titled: ": To sue or not to sue." All of these things make very unanxious to read any more B2.0 articles.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
But [Oracle is] still a thousand times better than all the Open Source "alternatives".
All? There are only two things you need out of a DBMS: ACID and speed. (Yes, I know they're both also names of recreational drugs.) Oracle (proprietary license with expen$ive royalties and an NDA on performance measurement) supports ACID. So does PostgreSQL (BSD license). So does SAP DB (GPL/LGPL).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Yep, they certainly do have a point. While I think that hacking their hardware/software is great (and I bet LEGO thinks so too), there's no point in poking their lawyers with a stick. IP and trademark are protect it or lose it type stuff.
There are any number of ex-trademarks that were lost because the company didn't defend the trademark (or botched it): Aspirin, linolium, yo-yo, thermos, cellophane, milk of magnesia, lanolin, celluloid, dry ice, escalator, shredded wheat and zipper. (Source: "Made in America", Bill Bryson) While these names are now public domain, some company once created and owned them. Those companies lost big when their trademark became generic.
I'm sure that the LEGO people would rather shoot their own feet off than have to sue someone, but you have to defend a trademark or lose it! They can't afford to lose the LEGO trademark, otherwise anyone can call their product LEGO.
I hope Noga will understand (NogaOS?), and LEGO could give him a few bulk cases of LEGO. And then everyone could go have a cream soda with ice cream float.
LEGO are White Hat Good Guys, Noga is White Hat Good Guy. This problem is stupid, and is just attracting the suits and lawyers.
Now if only LEGO would make steel blocks so that I could build the perfect BattleBot!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Okay Mr. SmartGuy, shut up and fix it!
I found it odd that this story, rather than getting classed under the Lego icon, got the Almighty Buck icon, especially because there was a "Lego" story only a couple stories down. I think that the Management should start using multiple little icons to denote their stories, though of course Mr. Katz would always need the Almighty Buck, and the US flag, etc etc.
--hongpong.com
What basis would they have for a lawsuit? The hackers haven't done anything illegal.....they've simply reverse enginered a product they bought. Am I missing something? (yes, I did read the article.)
When did they get the patent? Patents don't last forever after all.
TI's first graphing calculators, the TI-85 and TI-82, were "hacked" so that assembly-language programs could be written and access the calculator hardware directly. The article here seems to imply that LegOS and other independent "hacks" could somehow damage LEGO Mindstorms' reputation if they don't function properly -- with the TI calculators, it also took very little effort to install these programs (mostly games), and they crashed the calculator _very_ often.
So what did TI do? Rather than trying to patch up the holes that allowed ASM programs to be run, they added full ASM program support to their next calculators, the TI-86 and TI-83. And they even documented the systems to encourage ASM programming -- and I know many, many people who bought calculators only to play games in class. This earned them a bundle.
Now, years later, this is paying off even more. I, a 17-year-old "hacker" (at least under the definition given in the article), and several others have been hired to write programs for them, and although I can't give details I'm certain that these will also make them a good deal more money.
So what's the moral of the story? As another poster suggested, LEGO should _embrace_ these "hackers" and hire them to improve their products. It seems that whatever "danger" these independent projects have on LEGO's reputation is greatly exaggerated -- people who understand enough to send their RCX a new OS are smart enough that they won't be blaming LEGO for any flaws in it (and as far as I know, there really aren't any flaws in LegOS). Almost no harm done, but great benefits for LEGO.
Even Businessweek's article says that these have helped sell tens of thousands more units. That is not in doubt. This is a case of corporate types fearing anything they don't understand, and instantly suing it. Instead they should consider the situation here and realize how much they can benefit from it!
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
1) This exact article was done by Forbes 2 years ago. At that time, Lego was very happy to have Markus and other folks hacking on legOS. If anyone can find a 'free' link to that article, I'd appreciate it, but the Forbes archives are not open so I can't link to it. Sources of amusement: that Business 2.0 feels that this is original or interesting writing.
2) The article (and Lego, apparently) act as if Markus still maintains legOS. He hasn't committed to legOS CVS or spoken to the mailing lists in over 18 months (last post to lugnet was in March 2000.) He also doesn't maintain the 'official' website anymore- the one on noga.de hasn't been updated in a similar length of time and has been supplanted as the canonical reference for legOS by legOS.sourceforge.net.
3) Lego has known about legOS since at least Feb. of 1999, when their PR people told Wired that "'People have also done stuff [created programming tools and components like LegOS] on their own as well, and that's fine,' Dion said." For them to change their minds now, more than 30 months later, is pretty low. I can't afford to fight it (I'm the defacto maintainer of legOS and coordinated the last release) but I'm fairly certain that a decent copyright lawyer could demonstrate that 30 months of knowledge and lack of action over a supposed violation makes the violation non-actionable.
Anyway... I'm not Markus, so I can't really answer questions about this. But I can say that this whole episode is pretty disgusting. I hope Lego will come forward and clear the air, and soon.
IAAL,BIANLY
Eben Moglen's Opinion
Mike Dooley's Opinion
Ronald Johnston's Opinion
The main article, by Paul Keegan
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
They've known about legOS for at least 30 months (go search for 'Noga' and 'Lego' on Wired) and haven't breathed a peep about infringement until now. So... I'm not sure what the equivalent of a statute of limitations would be for something like this but they've already let it go for a long time.
IAAL,BIANLY
Lego sells a $200 collection of hardware that happens to come with some software. Confusing a set of plastic bricks from Tyco with Lego products (if they were called legOS) would be easy. Confusing software written in C with motors, bricks and gears is pretty fucking hard. If Lego sold Mindstorms software separate and apart from the hardware, they'd have a very strong case for confusion. But they don't sell robotics software and have never indicated any intent to, so it is really hard to see where the confusion comes in.
IAAL,BIANLY
Hack away ! give Lego the access to the source code and have them give it away as experimental
,about a month ago i put on my christmas list a new lego set for the kid.
.This way for advanced users hacked code is the way.
software or advanced software.
I can see it from here.On the install CD
multiple levels of install with the different
codes available.
I dont think that if the product had not been hacked and revamped and given real power that they would have sold as much of their kits.
Intellectual property ? Lego is Lego and when i want a construction set for the kid it's a Lego.I was playing with them 35 years ago and i never got anything else.When they realise that only Lego is a Lego and there is nothing that can replace it,the twinkle in the eye of a kid getting the real thing is something the parents who buy the stuff just wont get them anything else.
Intellectual property ? I beleive they can safely go to sleep.All along they had and still have the only real thing.
Mechanised toys have been around for long
This is better kids love to play with it.
And though i cant say i tried it
But i know how's gonna be doing the hacking and the playing here...lol
The software is safe, those who want the hacked code can get it
For kids that know nothing about hacking and programming their software is there.
How could it be better for them ?
The TI home computer you speak of (TI-994a, specifically) used cartridges for programs and games. One such program was "TI LOGO", which is mentioned in the Business 2.0 article.
LOGO came with a huge instructions binder- it was fun to try out- more powerful (and more complicated) than BASIC. And of course, you could save things to your 5 1/4" double density floppy w/ the holepunch in it....
related link- 99er.net
That is such a weird article. I would be really suprised if anyone at Lego (Denmark) agrees with it.
Unfortunately it demonstrates so much that is wrong with the American corporate mentality these days. You've gotten moral right and wrongs confused with what's good and bad for companies' profits.
Imagine if Henry Ford started his automobile company with confused 'intellecutal property' mentality that is currently infecting the software industry. He would patent the style of threats on the nuts and bolts, so that if you set up a company producing any kind of accessory for his cars he could sue you for infringing his IP. He would add a chemical formula to petrol so that only Ford petrol would work with his cars. He would claim that it made the cars run better, keep the formula secret and sue anyone who tried to find out what it was. And if the government tried to intervene, he would claim his right to innovate and make his cars better was being infringed. And if people painted their cars a different colour but didn't use Ford paint, they would claim that the warranty had been invalidated and that Ford was no longer responsible for the car's performance or safety.
Play and using toys such as Lego is an important part of a childs intellectual development. I expect the company that produces the toys I give to my children to have a high intellectual and moral standing. And I expect a lot of people in Denmark would agree with me, fine upstanding people that they are. So Lego, please ignore any advice you get from American lawyers and business consultants, and do what you think is the right thing to do.
IANAL.
Aside from the obvious issue with the name, it could very well depend on what patents they've been issued. For instance if they have a patent on "user programmable systems for manipulating interlocking toy blocks" then no one else can do this without permission of Lego even if they design their system without any knowledge of the software Lego is using.
DMCA aside, historically it's legal to reverse engineer things you buy, but you can't use that knowledge to create things that would violate patents unless you get permission from the patent holder.
Lego certainly holds patents on the hardware, but it's entirely possible that they have some that cover part or all of the software as well. After all it's not really a computer in the sense we typically expect and the patent office people may have decided it's sufficiently different to have different rules. I remember a while ago the patent expired on the RSA cryptosystem and that was just an algorithm.
It's their right to do so, still.
Remember when Fox 'foxxed' the AliensTC on Quake?
Then did you notice them releasing Aliens vs Predator, AvP gold, and AvP2?
So Lego is being fairly nice about this, because it gives them the opportunity to release a robatics software kit, now that they know the amount of interest that exists.
So it isn't about where the confusion comes in; it's about Lego's legal right to the name legOS and how the law works.
GPL Deconstructed
I've discussed this elsewhere, but Lego knew this was slightly more than a 'little tinkering project' 30 months ago when Wired wrote their first article on legOS, and Wired quoted a Lego spokesperson calling legOS 'great.' Flip through some of my other comments to find a link to the article.
IAAL,BIANLY
If it -- or any other third-party OS -- becomes widely used, Lego would have trouble vouching for the reliability of its product and providing tech support. More worrisome, another company could use Noga's LegOS to create a competing product.
One of the things that saddens me is the way Lego has gone into reverse with their robotics system toy line. The orriginal Mindstorm kit had supperior hardware to the present kits. The orriginal RCX 1.0 brick had a 9V power jack which allowed you to power the brick w/o batteries. Starting with 1.5 and now 2.0 the bricks have no external power source.
The newer kits comming out of Lego are really dissapointing. The Scout, toughted as the future of RCX on some Lego pages, has only two inputs, two outputs and the light input is hardwired into the brick so it is less usefull. The Scout is a representation of the first labotomized RCX.
The newer micro-Scout is less usefull as it has one output and input and they are both internalized. It is also not programmable the way the Scout and RCX are.
If someone competes with Lego maybe we will see an improvement in the technology rather than the cheapening we have been witnessing. I would love to purchase an RCX brick with 6 or more inputs and outputs. Especially if it can run LegOS.
It is a shame that the Handy Boards are so darn expensive.
Could you elaborate on that?
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
You don't understand. Failing to defend their LEGO trademark would cause them to lose it. Then anyone could call their product LEGO.
Noga's OS is not an interlocking toy block, so his using 'lego' does not cause the trademark on toys to become more of a regular word.
Microsoft LEGO, DELL LEGO, Mattel LEGO, LEGO LEGO, Bob's LEGO, Toy'R'Us LEGO, Jell-O LEGO...
LEGO my EGGO!(tm)
All of those would be fine under US law as long as they didn't compete in the same domain.
Don't forget, trademarks only work in certain 'classes'. Of course, Lego may have gotten trademarks in all international classes if they wanted to. Like "LINUX" the operating system and "LINUX" the soap.
On the other hand, what might happen here is that people might mistake LegOS as a LEGO product. If it sucked, it could dilute LEGO's brand name. So LEGO does have legal resource to sue, if they wanted to. But nothing bad would happen to them if they didn't.
Also, 'defending' the trademark doesn't mean not letting people use it. LEGO could 'license' the name to Noga, if they wanted to.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
That's a bit diffrent. Fox had trademarks for the games.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Heroin
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I think it would be great for Lego to embrace the Open-Source model as I agree that they are not primarily a software company. However, Noga is taking things too far by pushing them and sticking with the name LegOS. Why fuck with a GOOD company and force their hand?
How is it doing that? As the article notes, users of LegOS represent a miniscule fraction of Mindstorm users. There is no mention of any attempt by LEGO to discourage any 'hacking' that has been done, only the very legitimate issue of trademark dilution. Quite frankly, the matter should be entirely resolvable by the first step LEGO is planning: the friendly letter/phone call. If it is not, it will only be due to the ego of yet another pain-in-the-ass hacker, biting the hand that feeds him -- not the other way around.
I'm part of the legOS project on Sourceforge (though certainly not amongst the more active members). This is the first time I've heard of anybody suing anyone over the name legOS. I'm sure I would have seen something on our mail list by now, if the corporation had a problem.
The Lego Mindstorms Robotics Invention set is the coolest toy ever created. Th legOS project has no intention of diluting the trademark of the Lego corporation. Our documents clearly state we are not part of, nor sanctioned by the Lego corporation.
All we want to do is take a fun toy, and have a hell of a lot of fun with it. Being hackers (not crackers), fun involves reverse engineering and coding in C and assembly language.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Who else ;)
My advice to the makers of Lego is to do likwise.
Intel is in no way responsable or liable for the quality of the software that runs on it.
Lego is in exactly the same position. Let LegOS thrive the same way Linux is thriving and for exactly the same reasons. It serves different needs.
Its not even necessary to provide interoperability but it would be the smart thing to do. If Intel had done that from the start, its customers might have saved a trillion dollars and a billion person-hours lost to the malevalent M$ monopoly.
A model of cooperation instead of beligerence and bullying might serve to inspire future industrial empires.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
If I buy a ford truck, and jack it up, put a light bar on it, custom paint it, tweek the motor and do all sorts of wacky stuff Ford doesn't sue me for violating their "IP". They don't ask me to take the name off of it. In fact, if I make kits to modify the vehicles they are happy as a clam, as it sells more cars.
If I buy a house, add an addition, change the colors on the walls, swap out the heater, and then tell people it's a "Toll Bothers Hose" they don't sue me for violating their IP. I can rip the walls down and 'reverse engineer' it all I want.
Now, if I buy a mindstorms kit and write better software for it, that's grounds to sue?
This is all way out of hand.
I'm putting up a boycott page on my web site. Let's shut these fucking Lego pricks down! We need to teach these evil, greedy corporations once and for all what happens when they let their lawyers get involved.
My goal for 2001 has just become, "To see Lego Corporation go out of business".
Hackers unite!
I would like to congratulate the author of this bit on a highly successfull troll.
You win the Gordon's Fisherman Award for Quality Trolling. Congratulations on your achievment!
The thing is, he's lumping all hackers together. While Mindstorms may appeal to a wide array of hacker types, among others, not all hackers would react the same to provocation by Lego. The thing about such situations is that it only takes one hacker to shut down their website and get all hackers painted with the same brush.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I think maybe guys like Noga just don't know when to quit. OK, he wrote an OS. Great, but then he has to name it LegOS; just to see how far he can take it. It seems like that's what it's all about with hackers sometimes: "how much can I tease the lion before it will break the bars on its cage, come out and bite me".
So, is it really all about curiosity and fun, or does the same "because it's there" mentality also cover the area of corporate lawyers. Yeah, let's tweak the corporate lawyers "because they're there". That's not smart, it's not constructive, it's not even nice.
It's probably Legos fault for not drawing the line sooner. That's what happens sometimes when you try to be a "nice guy". People walk all over you, tweak your nose, spill milk on you, take your lunch money--just because they can. Hmmm... maybe hackers are taking *revenge* for their childhood struggles. At any rate, If I were Lego I'd order a cease and desist on the trademark infringement, and make sure people knew that using a 3rd party OS voided the warranty. I wouldn't knock myself out to maintain backward compatability for the next release, but at the same time I wouldn't knock myself out trying to encrypt the code or enforce some DMCA-style anti-cracking law. In other words, I'd walk that "fine line" like they were talking about.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
They get free labour, thats the ultimate workforce for any company.
But then again, Linus did not name his operating system intelOS...
karma capped
Now you need an OS if you want your computer to be more useful than a door stop, so Macrohard sells the OS and PC as a package deal ($1200 bucks).
Everyone loves this deal except for one guy who loves the flightless emus and is named Cledus. He wants better software and his favorite color is not blue! So Cledus writes some code and turns it into a kick-ass OS and people love it AND he gives it away for free. He calls his OS... Cledix (cool name). Cledix becomes very popular with other people who love emus, thus bring in a whole new market for Macrohard's products.
So now Macrohard is, instead of giving him a pail of cash for giving them all this new bisness, they threaten to sick the lawyers on poor Cledus. Macrohard says that they own the copyrights on all the functions and calls that allow the OS to talk to the hardware, and they do, but that's not the point. "The point is", quoth the founder of Macrohard, Mr. Law Fence, "Cledix is a terrible threat to our company, it alters the way our hardware preforms [forgetting to mention that it works better running Cledix!], makes people think that we endorse this 'Cledus dude' and his OS [also forgetting to say that the PCs are not shipped with Cledix and that you need to spend some extra time to install the other OS]". But "most of all", says Fence, "it cuts into our profits, and we will not tolerate [fair] competition! [again forgetting that Cledus has increased thair profits by drawing in a whole new sector of PC consumers] Oh, I almost forgot to remind you that Macrohard does't sell it's PC ($1000) separately with it's software ($200). This means that you HAVE to pay for a copy of the Doors operating system when you buy a computer! The upshot of all this it that Macrohard does NOT lose money, thaie brand name is NOT diluted because if you are using Cledix it is quite obvious, you had to install it yourself or coax a geek out of the server room with promises of highly caffeinated soda to do it for you. They can easily ignore the issue of tech support, if they want to, by reminding users that changing the OS voids the warranty.
I hope the above gave you something to think about. My bet is that the Mindstorms people will talk/beat some sense into the corporate goons and get them to back off. They should be praising people like Dave Brum and Markus Noga!
If they want you to change the name - and I'd not rely wholly on the word of this article - then I think you have a moral duty to change it. I know who I think is biting the hand that feeds them here.
--
Nic
Maybe this is something that needs to be made clear- Business 2.0 was trying to stir up controversy, pure and simple, when they said Markus was trying to 'rub Lego's nose in it' when he chose legOS. That's simply not true- the article is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. legOS was always an obvious choice for an OS name, and that's why he went with it. Lego representatives (at the time) assured him that it was fine. Their public denial that they ever made those private assurances (which they did make) is part of what irritates me about this piece- sounds like they were trolled into it by the Business 2.0 people, not by anything Markus actually did (esp. since he hasn't done anything public with legOS in ages.)
IAAL,BIANLY
[Declaration of interest: I run LegOS on my robots].
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Well, if this article has done one thing, it has made me want to go out and buy me some legos.
Now to wrangle up some extra cash for them, after I spent it all on building up my computer.
Great story.
It shows that when you invest in R&D then by applying the right level of protection and not just mindlessly subscribe to subintelligent statements like "Why should companies invest in R&D, if the secrets they spend years and millions of dollars to develop are shared freely over the Net?" (which I find just as antiquated as dino's and the USSR), then you will be a success
LEGO made the right choice here in protecting only to the extend of the reasonable, by refusing to make unresonable decisions. Maybe new companies like MS should learn a bit from some of the old companies?
Would Lego make more money by restricting use, or access to their product? I think not.
I can't understand why the post by Above is currently rated +4, Insightful and the much more intelligent response is only +1.
Lasers Controlled Games!
However, writing that they could sue the guy because he wrote code that runs on their hardware is rediculous.
Clarification from the LEGO(R) MINDSTORMStm team
Those of you who have read or heard about the recent article on LEGO MINDSTORMS in Business 2.0 may be wondering what our position is regarding third-party programs such as LegOS. Truth be told, we were also somewhat surprised by the article, which doesn't really represent our views and misquotes several LEGO employees.
So here's the deal: the LEGO Company does not have a problem with people writing their own software and code meant for use with LEGO MINDSTORMS products. In fact, exactly the opposite -- we absolutely love what people have done to extend the possibilities of LEGO MINDSTORMS. Taking something apart, putting it back together, making it into your own creation that does what you want it to do -- this is what LEGO is all about! We feel very strongly that extensions and modifications by independent programmers have made LEGO MINDSTORMS a much better product.
We'd like more people to be aware of the tremendous possibilities of the RCX brick and all the great work people in the global LEGO MINDSTORMS community have done -- tools like NQC, pbForth, LegOS, etc. In fact, we recently decided that we wanted to add a links page to the official LEGO MINDSTORMS Web site, highlighting the different third-party programs and tools out there.
This new proposed page, along with some reorganization in the LEGO MINDSTORMS team, prompted a close look at the company's relationship to third-party programs. If we wanted to link to non-official software, what kind of disclaimer did we need? We discussed what we wanted to do with our legal team: the sites we wanted to link to, and the various third-party programs, applications, and operating systems available on the net. The point of concern that came up was not the development or distribution of these programs, but the use of our trademarks in some program names.
Again, not a problem with the programs themselves, or with hacking LEGO MINDSTORMS software and hardware in general. To be absolutely clear: we have never sued, are not suing, and do not contemplate suing anyone for taking apart LEGO MINDSTORMS and writing their own code to extend the product, or for distributing that code for free.
Trademarks can be diluted -- and therefore decline in value -- if they are frequently used in connection with products and services that are not created or authorized by the trademark-holding company. If trademarks become diluted, the company no longer has any reason to create more products that bear those marks.
As a result, there are certain words that we absolutely must protect for the sake of our business and the future of LEGO products. These words are our trademarks: LEGO, MINDSTORMS, RCX, and Robotics Invention System (RIS). Many enthusiasts and observers on sites like Lugnet and Slashdot have recognized that there are very good reasons why have to limit the use of these words. If we don't defend these trademarks, there's a chance that we could lose them in the future -- because trademark owners are required to supervise the creation of products bearing the trademark. There's also a possibility for confusion in some people's minds about whether a program that uses these trademarks is an official LEGO product, whether the company is responsible for its performance and support, etc.
For these reasons we have now asked and will continue to ask that the authors using these trademarks in the names of programs, operating systems, etc. change the names in all future versions. We're not asking that all existing copies of the software be renamed, or anything extreme like that; we simply ask that you not use our trademarks in the name of your programs, just as we ask that you abide by the Fair Play Policy posted on our site (http://www.lego.com/info/printfairplay.asp) when using our trademarks on Web sites.
Below is a copy of the letter that we are sending out to the authors mentioned above. Note that LegOS is one of these programs -- although we are aware that it can be split into "Leg" and "Operating System," the similarity between "LegOS" and "LEGO," considering LegOS is designed to work with LEGO products, is simply too great to ignore. Note also that there are many names out there in the community which do not infringe on trademarks at all: pbFORTH, Gordon's Brick Programmer, etc.
We sincerely hope that all of these programs, operating systems, and other third-party tools continue to be developed and used, and that a change of names is not too great an inconvenience for the contributors and authors of the few programs, which are affected. Thanks for your understanding and support -- and your contributions to an excellent system of robotics.
We invite replies to this post, or inquiries via e-mail at fairplay@legomindstorms.com.
Also, please feel free to repost this message in other appropriate forums, mailing lists, etc. -- you can help spread the word about our policy on naming and the reasons for it.
------------
From: LEGO MINDSTORMS
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 18:06:20 -0400
To: [author]
Subject: A message from the LEGO MINDSTORMS team
Dear [author],
We wanted to let you know that we're working on a new page for the official LEGO® MINDSTORMS(tm) website (www.legomindstorms.com): a list of "hacker links" to resources around the web for advanced users of LEGO MINDSTORMS. Naturally, we'd like to include a link to your site. The list is sure to generate a lot of traffic and will be at the core of an important section on our site.
As you know, LEGO tries to protect its trademarks vigilantly. Keeping an eye on our trademarks reduces that chance that the public will be deceived by products that are not created by the LEGO Group and greatly helps us to prevent counterfeiting. With strong trademarks, we can maintain the internal company support necessary to help the LEGO MINDSTORMS line continue to thrive and grow.
We've seen a number of software applications for use with LEGO MINDSTORMS that use our trademarks in their names. Although we are pretty sure that neither you nor any of the other software authors are trying to fool people into thinking that your software is an official LEGO product, we still have to protect our trademarks strongly. If we don't, there's a chance that LEGO could one day lose its right to protect those trademarks against the real counterfeiters. That's the way the legal world works.
To get to the point, we must ask that the authors of these applications migrate to new names that do not use our trademarks and, therefore, do not] violate our Fair Play policy (http://www.lego.com/info/fairplay.asp). The trademarks that cannot be used include the following words:
LEGO
MINDSTORMS
RCX
Robotics Invention System
We greatly value the contribution that all the LEGO MINDSTORMS software authors out there have made to the LEGO MINDSTORMS community, and again, we're not accusing anyone of malicious wrongdoing; it's just a matter of a few words that have to stay off-limits for the greater good of the survival of LEGO MINDSTORMS.
Here are some examples of names that are perfectly fine:
NQC
Mind Control
BotCode
Brick Programmer
Bot-Kit
pbFORTH (aka Programmable Brick FORTH)
Gordon's Brick Programmer
WebSpirit
RoboRemote
We do realize that some of the software applications which do include our trademarks in their names are in wide circulation and would be difficult to remove from all the sites that are distributing them. Therefore, while it is preferable, we are not asking that you try to rename or remove all the older versions of your applications that are out there! We only ask that you rename the current and future versions that you distribute, and that you make a good faith effort to get the renamed applications into circulation.
We appreciate your support and your understanding. If you have any questions, we invite you to contact us at the email address below.
The LEGO MINDSTORMS team
fairplay@legomindstorms.com