Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mega Bloks Wins Supreme Court Battle Against Lego

Posted by Zonk on from the tiny-pegs-of-justice dept.

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.'"

50 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. Score One for Interoperability by Kelson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember when I was a kid I had a ton of Legos, including some of the larger Duplo blocks left over from when I was *really* young. At one point my brother and I picked up a set of Tyco blocks (some dinosaur mecha, if I remember right). What was interesting about it was that the blocks and pegs were the same size, so they could connect with Legos, but the flat pieces were half the thickness of a normal piece instead of one-third. That made for some interesting possibilities.

    There was also a set of Tic-Tac-style candies (I forget the name -- Ipso or something like that) that we found at some store that came in square plastic boxes with pegs on two edges and holes on the other. Each edge was exactly like the top or bottom of an 8x2 Lego piece. We'd use them to build walls or base plates. I never saw them anywhere else, so I assumed they were discontinued pretty quickly, whether Lego put pressure on them or they just didn't catch on.

    We'd mix and match those different brands of blocks all the time. Having the other companies' blocks never stopped us from buying more Legos.

    1. Re:Score One for Interoperability by Mattcelt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The candies are still around - I bought some a few months ago in North Carolina. I don't know if they still click with Legos, but they can be built on their own for sure. (Might be a different brand, I don't know.)

      What I remember about the Tyco blocks is that while they technically did intermingle with real Legos, for some reason they did not hold the connections between blocks well at all. I remember several times getting very frustrated with the Tyco blocks because my creations would fall apart wherever I had used them. I eventually (at 9 or 10 years old) purged my Lego collection of any Tycos whatsoever and never bought them again. To this day that collection is Lego-brand only.

    2. Re:Score One for Interoperability by Kayamon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Come the revolution, you will be first against the wall.

      --
      Kayamon
  2. Oh no! by slimey_limey · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

    --
    ☠
    1. Re:Oh no! by Fallingcow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're exactly right. The damn things fall apart if you try to build anything big with them.

      I had some Mega Bloks dinosaur thing when I was little. I never managed to build it all the way, because it would fall apart any time more than 1/3 of the blocks were stuck together at once. What a piece of crap.

      Legos are way better. I wish they'd re-make some of their classic sets, like some of the old Pirate and Castle ones. That, and not charge 10,000% markup. $100 for an 18-inch-long lego boat? Madness.

    2. Re:Oh no! by slideroll · · Score: 4, Funny

      Remember, it's colder in Canada, so the blocks contract. That way they stay together better. Also, Canadian children often spit on them to freeze the joints together.

    3. Re:Oh no! by v1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had a huge box full of legos when I was a kid. The 2x4 bricks and the 2x12/2x14 were by far the most useful. Did you know you can build a functional tumbler locked storage box that requires a lego key to open? (if you glued the blocks together, you wouldn't get in without either the key or a torch)

      Years later I bought a set of knock-off blocks to play around with, and was sorely disappointed in the difference in quality. The bricks would sometimes stick, sometimes not, and sometimes you'd need two pair of pliers to separate them. Stacking bricks, the sides would be smooth and even from block to block with Legos; the knock-offs were jagged. Couldn't build a lock with them because the bricks would catch or jam on bricks next to them because of the crummy tolerances.

      But despite all that, patents need to expire after the artist/creator has had an opportunity to recoup their investment of creativity. Lego has certainly gotten their nickel back and then some, time to open the market.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    4. Re:Oh no! by Demolition · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Oh no! by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    6. Re:Oh no! by spectre_240sx · · Score: 3, Funny

      Damned crossword puzzles... Anyone know a 4 letter word said to inspire laughter?

    7. Re:Oh no! by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Unfortunately, the market is being kinder to MegaBloks than to LEGO. LEGO has fallen on hard financial times in recent years, while MB has been eating away at their market, and doing so using a basic brick design cribbed from LEGO.

      Parents buying construction toys for their kids don't necessarily know how much higher the quality of the plastics used by LEGO are to their competitors, or how much better-engineered the bricks are, but they do know MB is a hell of a lot cheaper than LEGO, and many of them buy accordingly. It's a shame, but there it is.

      And then, of course, there are substantial numbers of people who don't even realize there's a difference. There've been surveys showing a lot of people think MB is some sort of LEGO subsidiary or sister brand.

    8. Re:Oh no! by ClayDowling · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Easy Online Role Playing Campaign Management
    9. Re:Oh no! by Generic+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      { - Generic Guy - }
    10. Re:Oh no! by Fallingcow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know! I hate the movie themed lego crap. It seems like they dropped their Space stuff and replaced it with Star Wars, and replaced their Castle sets with Harry Potter! If kids want to play with movie themed stuff, there are perfectly good action figures for that. Legos should be about making your own thing, or at least having no pre-made storyline tying you down or prejudicing your views of the characters before you start, even if you just build what's on the box.

  3. Next up... by OakDragon · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...Microsoft and Amazon race to patent 'bumps on blocks.'

    --
    Dark Reflection
  4. Dump all non-physical property rights. by dada21 · · Score: 4, Interesting


    I'm always here decrying the value is striking copyright, patents and trademark rights. At the most basic, they're a way to gain government's monopoly on force for yourself.

    Legos. Plastic bricks. The value in their logo is held up by showing consumers that Lego makes the most consistent blocks, with the easiest instructions and with the most fun creations. The State-granted monopoly that gave Lego sole use of the design isn't the power behind the brand.

    I'd normally get replies saying "Without protections, no one would write music/invent/make plastic blocks!!!" But this is not true.

    If you open a restaurant, do you get a monopoly for running a restaurant in your area? Isn't it wrong for someone to open a restaurant in a new community, build a customer base for years and then have some whipper-snapper open a new restaurant across the street and steal your customers?

    I own retail stores (board sports and paintball). It costs about $25 in marketing to get a new customer into the sport and into my store. At least yearly I have someone see our good fortune and open a few miles away. They underprice me, steal some business and then go bankrupt and sell everything at half price. In 3 years I've outlived 7 such competitors.

    Why is my time (or my managers' time) building my product different than a song writer or a book writer? It isn't. Yet they're legally protected with monopoly powers.

    Trademark (and copyright) is bunk. Freedom means the freedom to compete.

    Create a product. If it's copied easily, find a way to make yours better.

    1. Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. by sedyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Create a product. If it's copied easily, find a way to make yours better."

      That's how I feel about the issue as far as software is concerned.

      But, what if your creation can be reverse engineered somewhat easily, and adding new properties is difficult?

      Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of not being able to do something because someone did it first (especially when it happened decades before I was born and therefore I didn't have a chance to make it). But I still think some, limited, form of protection is needed.

      --
      Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
    2. Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. by danielk1982 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dump all intellectual property rights?

      Tell me, what is the incentive to create a $100 million movie when on completion you don't even own it? What about a $10 million game (like half-life2 or World of Warcraft).

      Why not just dump ALL property rights. Why not have your customers help themselves to anything they want in your store?


      Create a product. If it's copied easily, find a way to make yours better.

      Thats the thing about IP, its pathetically easy to duplicate, whether we're talking about software, music, books, or movies. The costs are not in the duplication or distribution but creation (as opposed to retail where profit and costs come from distribution and creation costs $0). It takes months or years to create (or research) most IP, and might involve many people, each of which needs to eat and provide for his family.

      Yeah..your way is dumb.

      Why is my time (or my managers' time) building my product different than a song writer or a book writer?

      At heart is the concept of property. You own your sporting merchandise and you choose to give it away for profit. A song writer owns his song and he chooses to do with it what he will (usually sell out to Sony or something). Yes IP is a little bit different which is why it is treated differently, copyright and patents expire and trademarks could be lost. So both you and the song writer own what you create (or build up) and you are given rights to do with what you will. Not that different.

    3. Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. by Monkelectric · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Subway franchises have similar "deals" where, if you have a certain number of stores, then nobody else is allowed to put a store in your area ... frequently store owners get the required number of stores, then build a store 25 miles away from your other stores to cut a swath where nobody else can build a store.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  5. relevant quote from my rejected submission: by temojen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Trademark law should not be used to perpetuate monopoly rights enjoyed under now-expired patents," the Supreme Court says.

  6. Can we say... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Home court advantage? I wonder what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled the other way. Burning Lego blocks on the court steps... :P

  7. "For a Limited Time" by Concern · · Score: 4, Informative

    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."

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
  8. The question is why you'd want non-lego blocks by Rhys · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The quality of non-lego blocks is seriously sub-par compared to the lego company's brick quality.

    They feel cheap, they don't hook together and stay hooked, and they use way way way more custom peices than lego (and these days, that's saying something!).

    I mean, I'm all for competition, but I can't say that I think the price legos deliver at, around 1c US per brick in the generic bins of bricks is, you know, out of line.

    --
    Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
    1. Re:The question is why you'd want non-lego blocks by temojen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now that other comanies can go to market without getting sued, there will likely be many new market entrants, hopefully some where the quality is good and with a line like Dacta, not stupid only-builds-one-thing dinosaur/castle/pirate-ship sets.

  9. I suggest.... by S.+Ballmer · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...Lego shift the current block format a millimeter or so. That way it can cripple interoperability with mega blocks' products and further lock in customers. They can sell it as an innovation, saving money to their costumers with all the plastic being cut out. But that's just how we do it where I work... :)

  10. RTFA. It's about what can be used as a trademark. by temojen · · Score: 3, Informative
    "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.
  11. One of the two indicators of IT affinity by erucsbo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I used to run a quick poll on people who were wanting to get in to IT (before the dot.com crash) and it ran along the lines of:
    • Put up your hand if you played with Lego (mechano/etc) as a child, and
    • Put up your hand if you can appreciate Monty Python (the Goodies / Red Dwarf / etc) humour.
    If you put up a hand for both questions then you have the right personality to be able to work in IT, otherwise there are now plenty of jobs around the periphery of IT that might suit you.
    I'm yet to find a major exception to the above theory.
    Nice to see that there will continue to be Lego alternatives for those anti-Danish interested in developing IT aptitude skills ;-)
    1. Re:One of the two indicators of IT affinity by rossz · · Score: 3, Informative
      Put up your hand if you played with Lego (mechano/etc) as a child, and
      What do you mean as a child?
      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
  12. Re:about RIM not law. by RobinH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MegaBlock clearly is in violation. IMHO this has less to do with Canadian law, and more to do with playing a game of tit for tat with the US over the Blackberries. That is not only a dangerous road to go down, but a foolish one.

    I assume you're joking...?

    First of all, LEGO is not a US company.

    Secondly, MegaBlock is not in violation because the patent has expired. LEGO was trying to use trademark law to extend their monopoly.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  13. Lego didn't invent the brick in the first place by One+Louder · · Score: 5, Informative
    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

    1. Re:Lego didn't invent the brick in the first place by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      purchased the expired patents after he committed suicide

      "Suicide" eh? If I think too hard about that one it might throw a dark cloud over all those happy times spent building with Legos as a child. It poses a moral question: are the hours of enjoyment for millions of children worth the death of one man? Granted, he was British and had a girl's name. That alone should be enough to retroactively label him "terrorist" and purify Lego's avarice-driven assassination.

  14. I was reading to see if this article got it right by poobread · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not there anymore, but http://www.legos.com/ used to open to a personal note (screenshot here: http://jaffejuice.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized /legoslas.jpg) from the muti-million dollar world-reknown company telling you that they did not want their name tainted by calling Lego® Blocks "legos".

  15. W00t...Canada 1- Denmark 0 by Pinkoir · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now let's all go build a Mega-Blok castle on Hans Island and really teach those bastards a lesson.

    As an aside, since they are made in Montreal would they be Mega-Blok Quebecois? And if so is it ironic or paradoxical that separatist cubes would be specifically designed to stick together with things.

    -Pinkoir

    1. Re:W00t...Canada 1- Denmark 0 by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm out of points, but that was the funniest post I've seen on /. all week.

      It's ironic, not paradoxial. Paradoxial would be if LEGO was suing them for making a similar product while at the same time not suing them.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Re:about RIM not law. by SoSueMe · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  18. Re:about RIM not law. by Experiment+626 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    MegaBlock clearly is in violation. IMHO this has less to do with Canadian law, and more to do with playing a game of tit for tat with the US over the Blackberries. That is not only a dangerous road to go down, but a foolish one.

    And how exactly would ruling against a Denmark company like Lego help Canada get back at the USA?

  19. Your building a name by everphilski · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But your selling other people's products. Your 'product' is 'joe's sports equiptment store' or whatever. Now if another store comes in town called 'joe's sports equiptment store', then you've got a case. Again, the difference is, you are not creating you are reselling. Very distinct from this case where you have MegaBlocks making bricks with bumps, and Legos making bricks with bumps, and the question being if the bumps infringe on the image. (go back to my second sentance, your parallel would be another company called joe's...)

    -everphilski-

  20. Re:about RIM not law. by saskboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You might be onto something since I read that Lego is Danish, and Denmark and Canada were recently in a spat about who owns a worthless island in the high arctic, because it might one day determine trade routes through the opening NorthWest Passage.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  21. Mega Bloks are crap though. by sbaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any serious or even semi-serious Lego builder will tell you that MegaBloks are *AWFUL* compared to the genuine article.

    They are made of a much harder plastic and after being snapped together and pulled apart just a couple of times, they wear out to the point where they hardly stick together at all.

    Lego parts are of a slightly more 'rubbery' plastic - they feel almost oily to the touch. I have Lego bricks from 40 years ago that still work just as well as they day they were first used.

    When my son was given a bunch of MegaBloks as a present, they 'polluted' our vast Lego collection. Every time I find one, I toss it straight into the trash.

    About the only use for MegaBloks is in making large sculptural pieces that you want to glue together to make permenant. The hard polystyrene in MegaBloks can be glued together with polystyrene cement - and the issue of wear becomes irrelevent!

    Yet other Lego clones exist - but they tend to have poorer tolerances than either Lego or MegaBloks and can actually damage your real Lego if you mix them.

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
  22. Cripple interoperability? by Pichu0102 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is Sony entering the building block business?

  23. Re:1/2 versus 1/3 by Yartrebo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, but at least having some competition has reigned in the price. I was surprised when I was shopping this year to see that the nominal prices of LEGO blocks are cheaper than when I was a kid (that's not counting for inflation) and the Mega Blocks are even cheaper.

    This seems to be the trend with all toys. Generic or interchangable toys (like building blocks) are cheaper, while branded or IP-based toys (video games, action figures from TV shows, etc) keep getting pricier. My guess is that it's based to more effective marketing (improved advertisements and more extensive use of class-based marketing and pricing are the main changes I've noticed).

  24. Good for them by ApuD2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm surprised Mega Bloks won against Lego. I figured the odds were stacked against them.

  25. Well, ok but there's still only one lego by NoMercy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I always hated it when I found other non lego blocks in my bin full of blocks, espically if they fitted with other lego blocks, but not quite perfectly, I'd be happyly looking for the right piece, think Ive found it, and then have it pop off every time I play with my creation, only to find out it's a fake that's slipped under the radar!

    Though if megablocks don't fit into lego blocks I'd be happy with it :)

  26. Re:Also: by temojen · · Score: 2

    Not the Mega Bloks ones.

  27. Sorry for the rant... by Txiasaeia · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...but what the hell is Lego thinking as of late? Okay, so you've got a lawsuit against a competitor because their product is similar. I can see that. But why in the world did they move from terrific, wonderful, *creative* designs to essentially marketing Harry Potter and Star Wars sets? Blacktron (new and old), Space Police, M-Tron... Lego used to put out extremely interesting sets 10-15 years ago, and then all of a sudden they decided that creativity was no longer necessary and sold their soul to IP.

    I'm glad that Mega Bloks won the suit - they, at least, put out more creative sets than Lego (not to mention they're Canadian). Lego, if you're listening, I've got lots of disposable income and a fondness towards your brand, but if all you're going to is brand other people's IP, you're not going to have me as a customer.

    --
    Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
  28. Re:Also: by idontgno · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If you look closely at the bumps, I believe they have a tiny LEGO logo etched onto them.

    What, even on the MegaBloks? I rather doubt it. Otherwise, simple trademark law would have won the day for Lego.

    Lego has a technically superior product of far greater quality, consistency, and creativity. I mean, this is the company that gave us Space Police, Blacktron, and Mindstorms!

    But attempting to stretch the bounds of trademark law over functional qualities--the domain of patents--is just completely evil and radically asshat. If the parties involved were, say, Microsoft and Suse, I have no doubt how discussion here would go. It'd have nothing to do with the relative technical merits of the product; it's only be about how Company "B" can only seem to win by litigation, not innovation.

    Sheesh. I still like Lego, and I still disdain compatible knockoffs, but DAMMIT I wish good companies would stop indulging their legal departments whenever the legal eagles feel like double-fist-raping the bounds of intellectual-property law.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  29. I applaud by theendlessnow · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm a big Lego fan. And when you had to get your Lego bricks from overseas (I'm in the states) it made sense that 20 pieces would cost $10+. But I think they are produced locally now... and so I don't understand why Lego has not reduced their prices. ????

    I use Mega Blocks (the small kind) in a class room setting of about 25 children and have never had any problems. They stil stick hard... so hard that they have a tough time pulling them apart (just like I remember with Lego bricks). I can buy 600-900 pieces for $10 with Mega Blocks. Even if they were of lesser quality (which I have not found to be true), they're still a good deal IMHO. Sure.. they don't have all the trashy Neo Lego (non creative) designs... but I just want bricks... like the good ole days when you had to have some imagination to play with Lego bricks. Nowadays, there are tons of pre formed speciality parts that just take the fun out of Lego bricks. The beauty was in the design using the primitive parts. Mega Blocks still gives you that. There are a few generic kits for Lego bricks.. but the price is 4-10x the price of Mega Blocks.

    Lego is not the company I grew up with (even then, it was worth the money to buy their stuff... but not anymore).

    1. Re:I applaud by Bombcar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lego is actually not produced in the US anymore. Current production of bricks is in Denmark and Switzerland, with packaging occurring in Denmark, Switzerland, U.S., South Korea and the Czech Republic.

      The moulding machines are very expensive, and they mould their bricks to tolerances so high that you can use them in scientific optical experiments to hold lenses. This results in a high manufacturing cost; even with the high current cost of Lego, they're having a hard time turning a profit. In 2005, the LEGO Group reported a 2004 net loss of DKK 1.9 billion on a total turnover, including LEGO's amusement parks, of DKK 7,934 billion.

      --
      Fellowship 9/11
  30. Before Lego by HermanAB · · Score: 2, Funny

    there was a UK company with a product called Montini.

    Lego copied the idea and was better at marketing. Sorta the Microsoft of building blocks.

    See, it IS possible to slam Microsoft even with something as simple as kiddie blocks... :)

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...