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?
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
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.
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
The Lego Reverse Engineering Site.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Lego would have more important things to sue Mattel over, methinks. For example, what if a company built blocks that had the same nub spacing on top, so that they seamlessly fit together with Lego blocks? Wouldn't that be more of a threat? If you had the dimensions of the blocks, and knew approximately what plastic formula to use, you could flood the market with cheap blocks and undercut Lego themselves. I think someone duplicating the Lego "hardware" product is a lot more dangerous than someone duplicating the Lego software/OS itself.
Come to think of it, I've never seen any blocks that were piece-compatible with Lego. I've seen some obvious imitations, but for whatever reason they never would quite fit together with the real thing. You would think that someone would have already gotten into this market; maybe by producing more of those joints, hinges, and other bits you can never have enough of. Or maybe Lego's legal team has already been active...
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
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
There are 42 categories of trademarks, and unauthorize use of a trademark is only infringing if the use falls in the same category. Lego is probably registered as a Class 28: Games and playthings; gymnastic and sporting articles not included in other classes; decorations for christmas trees.
This means I can sell a beer called Lego without them having a legal leg to stand on in a lawsuit unless they have also registered Lego as a Class 32 trademark (Beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages.).
Since LegOS is made for use with Lego's Mindstorm toys, it's pretty clear that it's a class 28 product. If your dog is called LegOS, you're probably pretty safe unless you start selling him as a toy or christmas decoration.
"...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
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.
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
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.
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
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.