LEGO Responds to Business 2.0

Johannes K. writes "Here is an apparently official news message sent out by LEGO as a response to the recent article on mindstorms in Business 2.0. In it, LEGO states that they think it is great that people hack mindstorms and write their own software for it; in fact, they are convinced it will increase the popularity of the product. (Now there's an attitude you don't see nearly often enough.) However, they do have to protect their trademarks, and LegOS is apparently one of the victims of that. Understandable, I suppose."

Comments

LegOS Should Be Renamed

[zoward]

Lego the company has held out the olive branch in a way that other comapnies should emulate. Renaming LegOS is not a huge request to show some goodwill back from the open source community.

Re:LegOS Should Be Renamed

[abe ferlman]

Anyone who watches my comments knows I'm the first to complain when people don't respect free software, but everyone from Stallman to Mundie agrees on one thing: attribution is important. Even in a world without legal "ownership", it's important to make it clear who was responsible for ideas. This doesn't mean that the person responsible should control those ideas, but using the name LegOS does come dangerously close to making it seem as though the authors are speaking for Lego. I hope the authors will simply change the name and take advantage of the free publicity it will generate rather than put Lego in the unfortunate position of using the ugly tools of intellectual property to enforce their will. Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying Lego would be right to do this, but that's not to say that they don't have a valid complaint.

Bryguy

Re:LegOS Should Be Renamed

[madGenius]

I agree.

How about StormOS or to keep with the flow of the current naming scheme: OStorm.

At least it seems some one with a clue as answered from Lego instead of sending in the lawers.

-mG

Make an effort to support this attitude

[gandalf_grey]

I think that the open source community should make a concerted effort to support the attitude. Specifically that the modification, use of open standards, and reuse of materials is not a crime, but a bennifit to many companies. "Coding is not a crime".

European mindset ?

[MosesJones]

This isn't totally unexpected. There has been quite a bit of evidence with DeCSS et al than Europe, and in paticular Scandinavia takes a much lighter view on these acts than their US counterparts. In the US the attitude is "its MY toy you can't play" where as the European attitude is more "you've bought it, its your own fault if you bugger it up".

Somewhat ironically in a dicussion on toys the US companies are themselves acting like spoilt toddlers. LEGOs action appears a very mature response to what isn't really a problem. You bought the product, do what you want. If you bought LEGO bricks and , shock horror, made something other than the car on the box then they'd be fine with that.

Hopefully some US companies will realise that once we buy their products we have the right to break them and use them as we want. If I want to use a CD as a coaster I will, or a frisbee or what ever.

I'll get back in my cot now :)

Re:European mindset ?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's more to it than that. The U.S. has consumer protection laws that make the producer liable for a product's performance. That's why there are warranties.

Can't have it both ways and U.S. laws give the protection to the consumer. This isn't something a company can chose to opt out of.

I know a woman who bought a jug of wine at a grocery store in Italy, walked outside and the jug exploded because the wine had fermented. When she told the store manager about it, he asked if she wanted to buy another bottle. In the U.S. the store would give her another bottle. See the difference?

Re:European mindset ?

[Nurgster]

Except the US population has an attitude of taking no responsibility for their actions. If the toy did break, chances are a lawsuit would follow.

This postive attitude is really great

[epsalon]

I think that if Lego are so supportive of people hacking their software and extending it, they might consider opening their own source under the GPL or similar license. This will enable them to directly benefit from the works of the people hacking their products in order to develop better 'official' software kits for Mindstorms in the future. It's a win-win situation.
About trademark protection, they have a point. It's one thing to hack Lego code, but a totally different thing to make it look as if it's official, and I don't buy that LegOS was not intended to sound like LEGO. Changing a name is a small price to pay for a very positive attiude towards open-source and hackers by a lagre corporation.

personal responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

I just hope the self proclaimed geek crowd will police itselves and respect LEGO. Hacking is great... theft is an entirely different matter that has no place with hackers.

Re:Makes some sense [do NOT mod me up please]

[AntiFreeze]

I completely missed part of the release which stated that they never have, and plan to never sue anyone over issues like this.

Support LEGO !

[darkalfie]

I've had lego since i ward born, and it's the only toy i've never thrown away. (I've since passed it to my younger cousins,etc.. to continue the tradition)

Lego is more then a toy to many, it's the beginnings of a constructive childhood and planning.

A reply like this from Lego shows not only support, but their attitude towards their toys - That lego's not about making money, it's all about building, hacking and all that bricks !

I'm going out there to buy a mindstorm set ! (And telling my frens about it)

Yes, exactly.

[Kasreyn]

Tweaking Lego's tail might be fun, but there is such a thing as carrying a joke too far. Lego is being more wise and openminded that the vast majority of companies would in its shoes. We definitely need to LUNGE on this opportunity to SET a PRECEDENT, so we can hold it up to other countries in the same situation and say, "Look, Lego decided to be cool and not sue, and look how much the hackers benefitted them! You should do the same and not sue".

Precedent is good!

-Kasreyn

thanks LEGO!

[dpletche]

This goes to show that Lego is not only a cool toy, but a cool company too! I certainly hope that the authors of these great add-ons (in particular, LegOS) will accept this graciously-extended olive branch and find a compromise that suits everyone. Today I could really live with a world that's more friendly and less confrontational.

It's a pity that these issues so readily escalate to acrimonious exchanges and legal threats -- witness the current legal woes facing amdzone.com. Again, my commendation to Lego for taking the high road. May they enjoy continued healthy sales and goodwill with their enthusiast community.

Apple vs. Lego

[cholokoy]

Had Apple done the same thing with their Macs, they would probably be the most dominant personal computer maker by now.

Here is a win-win situation that other companies can emulate.

Hats off to LEGO (tm)

[Ami Ganguli]

I must say I'm impressed. After all the stupidity being perpetrated by mega-corporations lately, it's great to see a company do something thoughtful and intelligent. The letter was straightforward and reasonable - not threats, no legalese, just a well thought out explanation of their position. I had almost forgotten that corporations are capable of common sense - it feels good to be reminded.

You know, I haven't played with Legos in twenty years, but those Mindstorms do look pretty cool. Maybe I'll go out and buy a box.

Very reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Lego is the first reasonable corporate citizen on copyright and trademark laws that I've seen. Rather than blasting people with lawyers and nasty legal letters, they sent friendly, cooperative letters explaining the problem and working with the web sites to resolve it. Then, instead of going for an intellectual property landgrab, they set up a set of reasonable policies for fair use.

If I were Lego, I'd do two things slightly differently:

Lobby (and make clear that I'm doing so) for fair international IP law (rather than stronger international IP law), hopefully resambling that which the US had about ten years ago.

Allow some fair use of the red Lego logo (though the latter is really their call, and its certainly morally right if they wish not to do that).

Thanks, Lego! You've always had a strong sense of ethics in the types of toys you've made, and its good to see you're still carrying it on in how you interact with adults. I appreciate how your toys have always been educational and reasonably non-violent. I enjoyed your toys as a little kid, and now I can play with them again at MIT as a bigger kid, and probably my kids (when I have them) will have a huge collections of Legos as well.

This doesn't suprise me at all

[pubjames]

I said in my posting the other day "I would be really suprised if Lego (Denmark) agree with this [Business 2.0 article]". And this press release proves that they don't.

I'm afraid that you American's need to wake up to the fact that you have a very abusive corporate mentality, which is not in the interests of anyone but the company. Many of you seem to think that Europeans are a bunch of 'socialist losers' (going by the postings on Slashdot), because we generally approve of goverment intervention to prevent abusive business practices in the free market, and most of our companies are not as aggressive as yours, as this Lego case demonstrates. However, we see it not as being losers, but as being more civilized.

Re:This doesn't suprise me at all

[Registered Coward v2]

'm afraid that you American's need to wake up to the fact that you have a very abusive corporate mentality, which is not in the interests of
anyone but the company. Many of you seem to think that Europeans are a bunch of 'socialist losers' (going by the postings on Slashdot),because we generally approve of goverment intervention to prevent abusive business practices in the free market, and most of our companies are not as aggressive as yours, as this Lego case demonstrates. However, we see it not as being losers, but as being more civilized.

The problem I have with the European viewpoint is that government intervention generally acts not in the interests of consumers but of business. For example, when I lived in Switzerland, store hours were set by law, which protects the small mom-and pops from being driven out of business by big stores that can offer more convient shopping hours.

Companies also set the "right price" which could not be discounted - which protected mom and pops, as well as big companies because they didn't have to worry about competing on price. They simply divided up the market based on location. The manufactures didn't have to worry about big companies demanding price breaks, since the manufaturers set prices at suitably high margins.

Companies are not aggressive because governments have established a set of legal and regulatory protections that benefits all the incumbent companies, so there is no reason to upset the applecart. Look at the reaction from companies when somebody tries - such as poor Sabena, where an upstart low fare competitor had the nerve to advertise they were cheaper than Sabena. They sure showed they had the interests of more than Sabena at heart when they sued to get the competitor to stop comparing fares.

In the end, the average consumer in Europe is worse off than those in the US. (Where most of us have enough common sense to accept responsibility for our own actions.)

Re:This doesn't suprise me at all

[Registered Coward v2]

ME:
Companies also set the "right price" which could not be discounted - which protected mom and pops, as well as big companies because they didn't have to worry about competing on price.

You:
This doesn't just benefit the mom and pops, it benefits consumers -- albeit indirectly.

I'm sorry , but I don't agree with the idea than a consumer benefits by paying higher prices. If you truely believe that, then you might as well do away with anti-trust laws and let companies setup cartels.

You won't run into a situation where Some Big Box Store(Wal Mart?) comes into town, cuts prices below whatever anyone else in town is charging until all others in town are out of business, then jacks the prices above the point they were to begin with.

Except it doesn't work that way, primarily becasue even if you do run everyone out of business, as soon as you jack up prices, new competitors will open stores. As a result, you have to keep prices so low to keep competitors out, until you either go bankrupt or get tired of tiny returns on your investment. In fact, Wal-Mart has a policy of pricing at the prevailing prices in an area - they avoid starting price wars with major competitors. While there may be some areas where there are no K-Marts/Targets/Ames/Meijer/Albertsions et.al and just a lone Wal-Mart, I bet most have major competitors within their territory. They may drive some local business out, but overall they lower prices in an area - which benefits consumers.

In addition, companies can compete on more than price - service is one area where they have an advantage. Of course, this means the same people that complain about Wal-mart driving local stores out of business need to be willing to vote with their pocket book and pay more for goods. For example, I buy my N64/GBA stuff at a small local retailer, even if he is more expensive (which he generally isn't). Why? Because I know he will get me the hot games (such as a PS2 at list price when *nobody* else had them, if I wanted) and help me avoid bad ones. If he gets a used game in he knows I want, he saves it for me. Try that at Wal-Mart.

Re:Another possible way

[plover]

I see where you're going, but the answer is still "probably not."

If the LEGO(tm) name is on it, people who purchase it are going to expect it to be LEGO. Since installing it prevents it from running other "standard" LEGO programs written in their brick code from running, it would confuse people who are incapable of understanding it but who are able to recognize the LEGO name. Even if L*gOS is "non-destructive", won't hurt their brick, approved for use by children under 3, all that stuff, it still won't "act" like a normal RCX, so it won't "act" LEGO enough for them.

If it were my decision, I wouldn't sell my name like that.

John

Thingees, whirlygigs and whatchamacallits

[RalphTWaP]

I'd like to write a witty response to the article here. In fact, I'd very much ejoy talking about those little plastic bits that stick to each other with anyone who cares to listen... (picks a little plastic bit that just got flicked at him out of his coffee).

At the same time, since the corporation that makes them was very polite, I'd really like to do so without once using one of thier trademarks.

Unfortunately, now I'm at an impass.

the following text contains trademarks of the LEGO corporation. In all cases, it is my intent that the trademarks are used in good faith

My question to pose is thus. If one were to write software to drive the LEGO Mindstorm system, one would have to *eventually* write bits having to do with very definite parts of the technology. Perhaps there's a component "dingle_driver.o" or somesuch. Perhaps it's as simple as including readable code-documentation about the bit in question.

Now how could you do it if you couldn't use the name of the whatsit you were writing software about? Would the code be of higher quality? Would it be maintainable? Perhaps most importantly around here... Would it be hackable?

Possibly, most likely not.

Certainly it's possible to brand your product using something not confuseable with a trademark of a given corporation, at least at a high level, but I have to believe that at some point people name things because of what they are or what they do. Certainly it's pretty easy to determine that LegOS is either an OS for LEGOS or it's some kind of operating system for pedal-limbs.

Eventually I arrive at the thought that perhaps corporations who wish to encourage private development and tinkering ought to establish a set of licenseable trademarks. Certainly they could be spun to have recognition with the parent brand without significantly diluting the brand.