Mega Bloks Wins Supreme Court Battle Against Lego

saskboy writes "Canada's highest court ruled unanimously Thursday that Mega Bloks can continue to sell their Lego styled stackable blocks in Canada. CBC writes, 'The Supreme Court of Canada decision marks the end of a long-running trademark battle between the Montreal-based Mega Bloks and Denmark's Lego.'"

Comments

Oh no!

[slimey_limey]

I always hated Mega Bloks. They are made out of the cheapest plastic, and don't stay together. Even though they may have needed to win (legally) they shouldn't have (quality-wise).

Re:Oh no!

[Demolition]

Well, the only other option you have is LEGO, and it completely sucked when you get two flat LEGO pieces stuck together. That frustrated my parents to no end as they had to get a razor blade to pry the two pieces apart.

What you needed was an official Lego Brick Separator. It separates pieces without denting or cutting them (or yourself) as could occur if you used fingernails, tools, etc. Also, it prevents one of the more common problems of children swallowing pieces while trying to separate stuck pieces with their teeth.

Re:Oh no!

[Pharmboy]

BUT: I did it more than 30 years ago. So at least I can claim prior art. (There can't be anyone older than me on slashdot.)

Lots of slashdotters are 40+, myself included. The most vocal, perhaps not. But it's not all kiddies here, it just seems like it lately. If you troll around the yro sections (Your Rights Online) you tend to find more mature /.ers. Well, older anyway. Same with the more science topics.

You can fix that at Preferences/Hompage, and deselect some of the "younger" topic areas, and give YRO and Science higher priority. Politics, Games, Hardware and Linux areas seem to attract the young and the fanboys.

Re:Oh no!

[ClayDowling]

Speaking as a parent and somebody who plays with the blocks himself, I can say that there are situations where the Mega Blocks are a better choice. Lego kits in the last few years have been mostly specialty parts and fewer basic bricks. This means that I'm a lot more restricted in what I can build with a Legos kit. Sadly MegaBlocks seems to be hopping on this trend as well, but last time I purchased blocks I found that a kit contained a lot of basic blocks that were easily recombined into other things.

The loose coupling of MegaBlocks is also useful for somebody like me who likes to idly assemble pieces to make strange buildings and alien monuments. These blocks were shockingly good therapy when I was waiting for my wife to come out of surgery a few years back.

Re:Oh no!

[Generic Guy]

I understand what you are saying, that the Mega Bloks (of old) are cheap crappy knockoffs. However, now as parent of my own kids, I've been impressed at how much improved the Mega Blok products have become. At the same time, I'm very distressed at how expensive and "specialized" a lot of the LEGO blocks have become -- so many of the LEGO pieces are no longer "bricks" but specially shaped or curved pieces. So, I've embraced the dark size of building blocks and have been purachasing a lot more Mega Blok products, lately.

"For a Limited Time"

[Concern]

Lego's invention is very old, and was patented a long time ago.

Patents live only so long. This is for a reason. Granting exclusive monopolies on things forever is not a good idea.

Lego's patent expired, long, long after they had recouped money orders of magnitude beyond what would induce others to attempt to innovate in that industry.

Other people started to make lego-like bricks.

Like a lot of monopolists, Lego became addicted to not having and not suffering competitors. They decided that they wanted to play lawyer games and try to keep others from competing with them rather than follow the law, and pretended that the studs on the bricks that make them work are "trademarked" by them...

The judge basically said, "Look, don't you even try that stunt in here. Your patent expired. The studs on the blocks are a mechanical feature, not a mark. Go away."

RTFA. It's about what can be used as a trademark.

[temojen]

"purely functional" features, such as the well-known geometrical pattern of raised studs on the top of the bricks, could not be the basis of a trademark.

How is this tit-for-tat? Lego is a Danish company.

Lego didn't invent the brick in the first place

[One Louder]

The interconnecting block wasn't even invented by Lego - they were invented by a British inventor named Hillary Page. Lego manufactured them in countries in which Page did not have a license, then purchased the expired patents after he commited suicide.

However, Lego did have patents on the little tube on the underside, which allow more connection combinations. After the stud-tube patents expired, Lego attempted to use the appearance of the bricks as a trademark - losing in litigationin most countries, including the United States. Lego now attempts to frighten companies with the more nebulous "trade dress".

More info

Re:about RIM not law.

[SoSueMe]

"Hunh?"
Blackberry was a patent infringement case.
This was a Trademark issue.
The correlation is not analogous.
Please understand the dispute before inflaming arguments.

Re:One of the two indicators of IT affinity

[rossz]

Put up your hand if you played with Lego (mechano/etc) as a child, and

What do you mean as a child?