Slashdot Mirror


Lego Loses Its Unique Right To Make Lego Blocks

tsa writes "The European Department of Justice has decided that the Danish company Lego does not have exclusive rights to the lego building block anymore (sorry, it's in Dutch). Lego went to court after a Canadian firm had made blocks that were so like lego blocks that they even fit the real blocks made by Lego. The European judge decided that the design of the lego blocks is not protected by European trademarks and so anyone can make the blocks." If true, hopefully this will open doors for people interested in inexpensive bulk purchase of bricks of specific sizes and colors. Perhaps at long last I can build a life-sized Hemos statue for my office.

127 of 576 comments (clear)

  1. makes sense by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lego was naar het Europese Hof van justitie gestapt in de strijd tegen de Canadese concurrent Mega Brands, die een blokje op de markt heeft gebracht dat past op die van Lego. Het Hof oordeelde vandaag dat het ontwerp van Lego niet is beschermd door het Europees merkenrecht en dat er dus geen sprake mag zijn van alleenrecht.

    Can't really argue with that....

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:makes sense by cowscows · · Score: 5, Funny

      Damn. I'm only 28 and already I'm so old that I can't make sense of this "leet-speak" that kids are using these days.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:makes sense by 10e6Steve · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lego had stepped to the European Court of Justice in the fight against the Canadian competitor Mega fire, which a cube on the market has brought that watches out which of Lego. The court judged today that the design of Lego has not been protected by the European merkenrecht and that there can no talk be therefore of exclusive right.

      From the babelfish

    3. Re:makes sense by snspdaarf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can't really argue with that, either!

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    4. Re:makes sense by genner · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can't really argue with that, either!

      I could argue that....but I don't feel like it.

    5. Re:makes sense by Rigrig · · Score: 2, Funny

      Guess you're right, I'm 25 and I understand it just fine.

      --
      **TODO** [X] Steal someone elses sig.
    6. Re:makes sense by jonaskoelker · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can make out this:

      Lego was at the European Court gestapt in the fight against the Canadia competitor Mega Brands, who has brought to the market a block that passes for those from Lego. The court oordeelde vandaag that the ontwerp van Lego isn't proctected through the European trademark and that er dus geen sprake mag is van exclusive right.

      Run that through dict-freedict-nld-eng and a copywriter to get some sensible english. Or run it through kenny to get

      Pmfmppmfmppf fppmmmfmm mmmfmp fmpmfpmpp Mppfmfpffppfpfmmppmmmppp Mmfppffmfpfffmp mfmmppfmmfmpmmmpfmfmp mffppp fmpmfpmpp mpfmffmfmmfpfmp mmmmfmmmmmffpppfmmfmp fmpmfpmpp Mmfmmmpppmmmmpmmffmmm mmfppfppmpfmmppfmpmfffmpppfpff Ppmmppmfmmmm Mmppffmmmpppmpmfmm, fppmfpppf mfpmmmfmm mmppffppffmfmfmmfpfmp fmpppf fmpmfpmpp ppmmmmpffpmpmppfmp mmm mmppmfppfmmfpmp fmpmfpmmmfmp pfmmmmfmmfmmmppfmm mpfppfpff fmpmfpppffmmmpp mpfpffppfppm Pmfmppmfmppf. Fmpmfpmpp mmfppffmfpfffmp ppfppfpffmpmmppmpppmfmpmmpp fpmmmmpppmpmmmmmmmmfm fmpmfpmmmfmp fmpmfpmpp ppfpppfmpfppmpppffpfm fpmmmmppp Pmfmppmfmppf mfffmmppp'fmp pfmpffppfmmffmpmppmmffmpmppmpm fmpmfppffppffmfmfmmfp fmpmfpmpp Mppfmfpffppfpfmmppmmmppp fmppffmmmmpmmppppmmmmpffpmp mmmpppmpm fmpmfpmmmfmp mpppff mpmfmffmm mfmmppmppppp fmmpfmpffmmmpmpmpp ppmmmmmfm mfffmm fpmmmmppp mppfpfmmfpmffmffmmmfffpmmpp pffmffmfmmfpfmp.

      (apt-get install filters)

    7. Re:makes sense by dragonjujotu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lego was to the European Court of Justice and were active in the fight against the Canadian competitor Mega Brands, which is a block on the market that fits that of Lego. The Court ruled today that the design of Lego is not protected by the trademark and that there should be no question of monopoly.

      Ubiquity translate command - get with the times

      --
      Yes, I am obsessed with ellipses.
    8. Re:makes sense by digitig · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps it's clearer in Swedish -- Swedish Chef, that is... Legu ves neer het Ioorupese-a Huff fun joostitie-a gestept in de-a streejd tegee de-a Cunedese-a cuncoorrent Mega Brunds, deee-a iee blukje-a oop de-a merkt heefft gebrecht det pest oop deee-a fun Legu. Het Huff oourdeelde-a fundeeg det het oontverp fun Legu neeet is beschermd duur het Ioorupees merkenrecht ee det ir doos geee spreke-a meg zeejn fun elleenrecht.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  2. English translation by jschen · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3784225,00.html The news is not that generic blocks didn't previously exist. It's that Lego is unable to retain the trademark.

    1. Re:English translation by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lego is unable to retain its trademark

      • on the shape of the blocks

      (or, in particular, the red, 2x4 block). So it sounds like others will be able to make compatible blocks.

      Had Lego lost their trademark on the Lego name, that would have been much worse.

    2. Re:English translation by gregbot9000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I'm surprised they were able to have anything like that this long. They have been around 50 years, any patent should have ran out years ago. Interesting they would try to trademark the block, which doesn't run out, good thing it didn't work, for the consumer at least.

      I see Lego announcing a change in which country it resides in, to one more favorable towards corporations in trademark laws. That or outsourcing few plants to China to stay competitive.

      And whats with all the toy stories and polls? Is /. gearing up for some big holiday push?

  3. Cheap = Good for parents by TrickFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My kids have been playing with Mega Bloks for years. When you can buy big buckets of them for $20 when Lego costs $100 or more for the bigger sets, well, the choice is obvious.

    1. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by Black+Cardinal · · Score: 4, Informative

      We bought some Mega Bloks for our son, but the plastic they used (polypropylene?) is too soft to keep a good grip. Duplos are made out of ABS plastic that holds its shape much better, so the blocks stay locked and structures stay together. We can't even build a simple staircase out of Mega Bloks without frustration. Constructions have to have twice as many Mega Bloks as Duplos to have the same strength.

      While though the Mega Bloks are cheaper, we'll probably stick to Duplo and Lego for the future.

    2. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by Fishead · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree. Mega blocks are crap.

      We picked up a huge bin at a garage sale last summer. Most of it was Lego, but there was just enough Mega Blocks to frustrate you. They don't fit right, they don't hold very good, and the colours suck.

      I am a big fan of competition. Hopefully this drives down the price of real legos.

      If they lost the trademark though, Mega Blocks can start marketing their product as lego. That would suck.

    3. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by Pope · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My parents always bought me real Lego bricks, and I have practically all of those bricks/sets 30+ years on. They still click and snap like new. Good luck getting that kind of lifespan from the cheap knock-offs.

      Quality costs money, pure and simple. So, no, the choice isn't "obvious" at all.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    4. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by dubbreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. This is old news. Mega Blocks have been around for years and this issue came up in north america quite a while ago. Lego lost their suit because they don't have a patent on the block design. Claiming that a block the same shape and size is a trademark infringement is a bit of a reach. The proper IP vehicle would have been a patent (though maybe the lego block design was unpatentable?).

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    5. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by tim_darklighter · · Score: 3, Informative

      When I was about 12 years old (1993), Megablocks used stickers as opposed to the painted-on details that LEGO used. The stickers would fall off within a few days, so things like faces and such went blank on Megablocks, whereas it took a lot more time to scratch the paint off of LEGO blocks. Megablocks also seemed very light and never seemed to snap together as tightly as my LEGO blocks. In short, even as a 12 year old, I thought they were inferior and continued asked for LEGO specifically since I didn't like the Megablocks that my friends had. LEGO bricks were just more fun.

      If these points are still true concerning both companies, then I am still willing to pay for a bin of $100 LEGO because they are the superior product. (Granted, I'm sure the $20 to $100 difference is exaggerated).

      On a related note, most of my LEGO are still in good shape, so I can just mix in my old blocks with my kids' new blocks, and voila, a cheaper alternative to buying whole new buckets.

    6. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And this is the crux of the issue, IMHO.

      Pro: More companies will produce LEGO compatible parts, bring prices down and push availability up.

      Cons: LEGO has an incredibly high standard of quality for their product, and you can pretty much bet no other company will have that same commitment to quality.

      You get what you pay for.

      That said, though... Does this include their TECHNIC line of parts? 'cause they really don't seem to be producing the kits they used to. I wouldn't mind more bulk / non-specific project style boxes being available.
      =Smidge=

    7. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by 2short · · Score: 5, Informative

      "I agree. Mega blocks are crap.

      We picked up a huge bin at a garage sale last summer. "

      Older Mega blocks are crap. Mega Blocks produced in recent years are just as mechanically good as Lego, and after this decision might start looking as good too.

      Lego has had various varieties of legal protections on their blocks in various countries. They had some patents on elements of their production process that prevented others from making good blocks cheap; hence the crappy Mega Blocks. Those patents expired a while ago, so MegaBlocks became good.
          Lego still had a trademarks in various countries on the look of the iconic red brick. Hence the different colour scheme you don't like. That trademark is now gone, so expect Mega Blocks to start looking nice.
          Lego still has, and presumably always will have, a trademark on the name "Lego". So they'll continue to benefit from their (well deserved) reputation for quality, and charge more for their bricks. But MegaBlocks might, now, be just as good.

    8. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by Arthur+B. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably not, Lego factories are entirely robotized. Labor costs are not a big part of the production cost.

      That being said, your consuming choices reflect ignorance of economics, stick to selfish choices, you're smart enough to make those.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    9. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by Fallingcow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I got a huge Mega Blocks tyrannosaurus set one year for Christmas.

      I never managed to assemble it--not for lack of trying, but because the blocks weren't capable of supporting the structure. Legos would have done it, no problem, but the Mega Blocks invariably came apart around 1/3 to 1/2 of the way through. Any more, and they'd fall apart under the weight. My parents even tried glueing some parts when they saw how much it sucked, but that didn't help; it would just break in different places.

      No grip. Can't build anything big with them. Certainly can't move even mid-sized things constructed from them, let alone play with your constructions. LAME.

    10. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was in fact patentable iirc and patented, and it did expire. Shrug. Lego should get a life - they still make the best _quality_ blocks, using plastic that apparently doesn't age rapidly (unlike cheap-ass megablox). Fully lego-compatible pieces have been on sale here *in europe* since the late 1980s IIRC (it's just easier to distort the market in the USA due to even more ridiculously pro-corporate laws there). Fancy restaurants still do well even though McDonalds exists. Apple still exists even though PCs do. etc. etc.
      Lego should just position itself as the high-grade high-quality block maker and keep on trucking. Oh wait, they already did. Shrug.

      It's not irrational for them to fight it in the USA - what have they got to lose by trying to take maximal advantage of the shitty system? - but at the same time it's not the end of the world for lego.

       

    11. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by Black+Cardinal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Older Mega blocks are crap. Mega Blocks produced in recent years are just as mechanically good as Lego, and after this decision might start looking as good too.

      We bought our Mega Bloks new two years ago. Unless they changed their materials very recently, I think they are still pretty bad.

    12. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by fractoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can guarantee you that quality from one supplier who has an exclusive license costs a lot more money than quality amongst competition from different suppliers.

      Also, if it's protected by copyright then only cheap knockoff companies manufacturing in third world sweatshops will be willing to risk a lawsuit, whereas classier, higher-quality shops will shy away. Without IP encumbrance, you'll be able to get... more expensive knockoffs. ;)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    13. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by 2short · · Score: 2, Informative


      I notice in your other post, you mention Duplo: one of Lego's oversize, toddler-frienly lines. MegaBloks also makes some over-size toddler blocks, but I don't know if they have a specific name for them. My experience with those is that Duplo blocks hold together better, but are harder for little, poorly coordinated hands to stick together. So I take that to be an intentionally different design decision.

      In any case, the trademark decision at hand, and my post, is not about the toddler blocks. It's about the little blocks, which Lego calls "Lego" and MegaBloks confusingly just calls "MegaBloks" too. For those, MegaBloks are just a direct knockoff of Legos. In my judgment, a mechanically indistinguishable one in recent years.

    14. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, Comrade, the industrial design trademark was based on the red 2x4 bloc. You tell me.

      (Cue the "in Soviet Europe" jokes...)

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    15. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is exaggerated IMHO. 650 basic pieces including wheels and a base and windows and such for $30 in the US... that's not too bad, especially since you know the quality is going to be top-notch. If you don't want all the do-dads and just want a plain rectangular based block assortment, that's only $25 for 650 pieces.

    16. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by Tom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can guarantee you that quality from one supplier who has an exclusive license costs a lot more money than quality amongst competition from different suppliers.

      They thought that when they opened the energy, telecom, train and many other markets.

      Judging from today's perspective, it turns out that the telecom market is the only one where something along the lines of what was promised has actually happened. In most of the other markets, quality has dropped, prices have gone up. Whoops, the exact opposite of what should have happened.

      Why? Two reasons.
      One, it turns out the former state-owned monopolies did actually take in monopoly rent, but since they had no compulsion to make profit, they spent it again and often on good things, such as quality, employee satisfaction and research. All things that make the product better.
      Two, the promised "market competition" doesn't happen in markets that naturally favour monopolies or oligopolies. Any market with huge entry costs works like that, because after consolidation few players ever enter the market again. Energy market is the prime example here.

      So, in other words, no, competition alone will not necessarily make the product any cheaper nor better.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    17. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by Xtifr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Primarily because the shape of the Lego brick is functional, while the shape of the Coca Cola bottle is not. You cannot trademark functional elements. Thus, while the cosmetic curves and ribbing of the bottle may be trademarked, the fact that it is a hollow, more-or-less cylindrical shape, narrowing at the top, cannot.

      This also means that many specialized Lego bricks could probably be trademarked, but the generic ones cannot. Of course, with the specialized ones, they might have to show that they actually are associated with their brand, and not just random shapes that happen to carry the brand.

  4. ISO Standard by ryanguill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think they ought to take the ruling in stride and just open source the bricks. Make them an ISO standard, but continue to provide quality over quantity. Then let the Canadian company do the cheap bricks so that we can build whatever we want out of bulk. Wish they would do this with the mindstorm stuff too!

    1. Re:ISO Standard by amorsen · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's actually damn hard to make the bricks. Lego found this out when they outsourced production a few years ago. It turned out to be a bad deal both for Flextronics and Lego, so now the factories are all back under direct Lego management.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    2. Re:ISO Standard by WillDraven · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I used to do QA for Flextronics, so it's no surprise to me that it didn't end well. The majority of their workforce gets brought in from headhunter temp services like Manpower, told they'll be offered a permanent position when their temp contract runs out, and then let go right beforehand. The result is a never ending stream of untrained employees trying to adapt to a new position. The line i was testing (pill dispenser machines for walgreens pharmacies) had so many problems it was a miracle we shipped any machines at all.

      On a slightly related note, those pill machines seemed rather unsafe to me. They had a robotic arm such the pills out of a hopper through a plastic tube and shoot them into a waiting pill bottle. While it sounds like a nice idea in principle, the longer i worked there the more i thought about how real pills wouldnt be as resistant to breaking up or just rubbing in the tube and leaving drug residue all on the insides as the plastic fake pills we tested with. The risk for harmful interactions from contamination made me resolve to never get my prescriptions filled at walgreens anymore.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    3. Re:ISO Standard by brianosaurus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That will probably happen in a few years. First, the TBAA (Toy Brick Association of America) will have to bribe the government to pass new trademark laws protecting the sanctity of Lego Bricks. Next they can build clout by suing any children found interlocking Lego bricks with other brands, mostly in John Doe cases, with mass subpoenas sent to preschools and day care centers in effort to discover the identities of potential offenders.

      After that action *totally* works, the TBAA can then get the US Congress to put pressures on the Europeans to bring their trademark laws "up to date", and allow Lego to continue bringing in the revenue they deserve.

      If it works as well as it did for the RIAA and MPAA, we should have open source bricks before too long. :)

      --
      blog
  5. OLS by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, what Lego needs to do now is publish the OLS, or Open Lego Standard. Seriously, when it becomes obvious you're going to lose the battle, maybe it's time to embrace the alternative? Instead of fighting to keep your ideas out of the hands of others, fight to make sure that *everyone* uses your idea. It makes your assets valuable in a different way. This way, they'll still have control over the standard, and if products meet the standard, they get branded with "OLS Compliant!" and consumers know that if they buy "OLS Compliant!" parts, they'll work with their other "OLS Compliant!" parts, which makes consumers very happy, which makes the standard valuable.

    -G

    --
    Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    1. Re:OLS by philspear · · Score: 3, Funny

      This way, they'll still have control over the standard, and if products meet the standard, they get branded with "OLS Compliant!" and consumers know that if they buy "OLS Compliant!" parts, they'll work with their other "OLS Compliant!" parts, which makes consumers very happy, which makes the standard valuable.

      Times have really changed. Back when I was buying legos, I was only concerned with whether or not I'd have enough to build a spaceship. Kids these days with their obsession with open source... They should just stick with microsoft legos.

  6. Re:first block! by MindKata · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great, time to open source Lego! ... err... not sure how, but it sounds great in theory!

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
  7. brand name = quality by smellsofbikes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have mixed feelings about this. I have 38 years' worth and hundreds of thousands of LEGO bricks, which cost an enormous amount, and it'd sure be nice to get vats of cheap bricks so I can build some of the things I want. (I'm halfway through making a 3-D printer using chocolate, that has a working space of about 9 cubic feet, and boy does that take a lot of blocks.)

    But at the same time, companies will rush into the space formed by LEGO losing their trademark, build cheap bricks, outcompete LEGO, LEGO will go out of business, and then we'll be stuck with lots of cheap imitators who aren't making the beautiful stuff LEGO created, and that could end up destroying exactly what makes LEGO worthwhile.

    There is a value to having a single entity driving a market -- a planned economy in miniature.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    1. Re:brand name = quality by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps, but that economy was built on the quality and diversity of product, not simple market forces. It's kind of like Walmart. They have all the stuff that people normally buy, or most of it, and at cheap prices. When you want something that people don't normally buy, you have to shop somewhere else. So, yes, that drives the price up, but also creates special products.

      I have concerns about imitators diluting the value of the market that Lego has built, to the point that it is no longer viable to create the special parts that Lego does create. I'm not talking about flag poles for ships or castles. Rather I'm talking more of the technic line of parts. If you want active models or robots etc. you need special parts, not just blocks. For example: to build a car Lego provides many wheels/tires/tank treads, Ackerman steerage, differential gearing, shock absorbers etc. The Lego gear-motors are awesome. Lego provides gears, axles, chains, even flex-shafts, worm-gears and housings, pneumatics, .... In fact, blocks are good, but to make really awesome geeky stuff you need all those special parts. I hope this does not mean an end to the specialty parts.

      It would truly be the end of an era if those specialty parts go out of production.

  8. Lego tried an end-run around the law by topham · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lego tried an end-run around the law.

    Copyright couldn't cover their bricks.
    Patents ran out eons ago.
    But Trademarks, Trademarks are perpetual... so they 'Trademark' a physical object instead of a name & logo. anybody wonder why they lost?

    1. Re:Lego tried an end-run around the law by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They just didn't their idea far enough. If their studs were some sort of "Lego" monogram instead of simply circular then others would have to "print" their trademark on their products to make them compatible, breaking the law.
      What? At least it is a better idea than installing rootkits on customers etc...

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    2. Re:Lego tried an end-run around the law by MrSquishy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe Lego should change their name to:
      oooo
      oooo

    3. Re:Lego tried an end-run around the law by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Couldn't competitors make equally functional, if incompatible, building blocks with square or hexagonal studs?

      Studs that aren't round would pose a problem when you tried to build a hinged assembly, where one block pivots on the stud of another.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  9. I thought by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Informative

    If true, hopefully this will open doors for people interested in inexpensive bulk purchase of bricks of specific sizes and colors.

    I thought you could already do that.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:I thought by White+Flame · · Score: 2, Informative

      Better prices and selection through bricklink. It's not just used parts, there are tons of brand new pieces there too (I presume bought in bulk from Lego stores).

  10. This isn't ALL good by cbreaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was a lego boy when I grew up. I had a lot of legos.

    I also had some imitation blocked made by Tyco. These immitation blocks never fit together well. You'd build something and it would fall apart. Although the bricks looked almost identical, the Tyco bricks just sucked.

    So, I do worry about imitation blocks. Lego blocks are the best because they have impossibly high standards during manufacturing in order to avoid the frustration I experienced with the Tyco blocks.

    If someone else is going to start really making sets to compete with Lego, let's hope they go the distance and implement quality control like Lego does.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    1. Re:This isn't ALL good by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was a lego boy when I grew up. I had a lot of legos.

      And then... what? Your fairy godmother made you a real boy?

  11. Cheap = Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one am looking forward to the explosion of availability of cheap melamine and lead-laced lego-like blocks for young toddlers.

    Mmmm, mmmm! Nothing says safe, wholesome and tasty like cheap imports from third-world sweat-shops.

  12. Lego didn't invent them in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    The plastic building block we associated with "LEGO" was actually invented and sold in the late 1940's by an English toy designer named Hilary Page under the "KIDDIECRAFT" brand. He failed to patent it outside the UK and LEGO started manufacturing them without acknowledging their origin.

    After Hilary Page commited suicide, LEGO purchased the expired patents from Page's estate so they could pretend they invented them in the first place.

    LEGO did invent and patent the little tube on the bottom of the brick, which wasn't in Page's original design, which allows for more connection possibilities. Once that patent expired, other companies, such as Canada's MEGA, (creator of Mega Bloks) created clones. LEGO, of course, sued for trademark infringement. In the US, they lost, because you can't trademark and patent the same things - functional elements, which are covered by patents, can't be trademarked. Other countries treat this issue differently, hence LEGO enjoys some trademark protection even for the purely functional elements.

    Apparently, LEGO's view is that a patent should be valid as long as the company holding the patent continues to manufacture the product, and tends to be pretty aggressive about it. The irony they they effectively violated the patents of the original inventor is completely lost on them.

    Posting anonymously because I've had previous run-ins with LEGO's lawyers.

    1. Re:Lego didn't invent them in the first place by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Informative

      because you can't trademark and patent the same things - functional elements, which are covered by patents, can't be trademarked

      Functional elements cannot be trademarked: true

      Non-functional elements cannot be patented: false.

      There are design patents that cover non-trademarked, non-functional parts of devices. I think that's what razor companies use to lock me into their replacement blades.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Lego didn't invent them in the first place by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He failed to patent it outside the UK [...] he irony they they effectively violated the patents of the original inventor is completely lost on them.

      How did they effectively violate his patent? You said it yourself - he failed to patent it outside the UK.

      That's like saying that European software developers are effectively violating US software patents. Fuck you - they aren't in effect here.

    3. Re:Lego didn't invent them in the first place by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your timeline is incorrect, based on most of the sources I can find. Lego-to-be obtained samples of Page's blocks back around '47, and although Page hadn't bothered to patent them outside the UK and France (where he had businesses), Lego-to-be obtained the rights to produce the blocks from Kiddicraft anyway, in '49. The started selling their own that year. Both sets of bricks were abysmal failures by any reasonable measure. Page didn't commit suicide until '57, and Lego didn't introduce the central "tube" until '58. Lego acquired all of Kiddicraft's remaining plastic block patents in ninteen eighty one, almost twenty-five years after Page's suicide, as an aid to their impending litigation.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Lego didn't invent them in the first place by smellsofbikes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There were other, similar blocks well before Hilary Page invented Kiddicraft. I have a box of 2000 pressed wooden blocks called "American Bricks" from 1938, that are similar in size and identical in layout (ratio of height, width, and length, with 2x4 blocks, with 8 studs on top and matching holes on the bottom.) I've read previously that they went back into the late 1920's, and there were others like them beforehand.

      It wasn't the idea of stackable, interlocking bricks like Page's and others, that made LEGO successful. It was learning how to do precision plastic injection molding that allowed the bricks to stick together very tightly, and precision chemistry that allowed them to last through thousands of attach/detach cycles, that made LEGO enormous. A friend of mine was a plant manager for an old Samsonite plant that licensed the manufacture of LEGO bricks from 1968-1972, and he said that the LEGO plastic injection molding equipment, used for making toys, was superior to the best American plastic injection molding equipment used for medical equipment at that time.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    5. Re:Lego didn't invent them in the first place by stupkid · · Score: 3, Informative

      This page supports this story:

      http://www.hilarypagetoys.com/


      But this is just the internet so...

  13. Translation by KasperMeerts · · Score: 5, Informative

    Finally, I knew all this Dutch my parents learned me would pay off! This had better give me some free karma.

    Lego loses it's unique right to make Lego blocks

    Luxemburg - It'll be hard to swallow for the Danish manufacturer Lego now that the European Court of Justice has decided Wednesday that everyone can make a block that fits the original legoblock.

    Lego had gone to the European Court of Justice battling against the Canadian competitor Mega Brands, who has brought a block on the market that fits Lego's. The Court ruled today that the design of Lego is not protected by European trademark and that there can be no such thing as an unique right.

    The Lego block was invented in 1932 by Ole Kirk Christiansen in the Danish city Billund. The name LEGO is derived from the Danish words "LE GOdt" (play good). Later the word appeared the word could be interpreted in Latin as "I gather" (or 'I choose' or 'I read').

    LEGO is a Danish toy manufacturer that became famous because of the colored plastic blocks. The blocks are sold under the name "Lego"; that way they refer not only to the manufacturer, but it also became a generic brand. The manufacturer is the biggest toy manufacturer in Europe with a revenue of 7823 billion Danish Krone ( 1049 billion Euro or 1337 billion dollars ) in 2006. Meanwhile, LEGO has won the price "Toy of the Century" twice.

    The LEGO Group is the fifth biggest toy manufacturer in the world.

    --
    As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
  14. Fitted? by fucket · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fitted? Really?

  15. Chinese Legos by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Funny

    Made for children, by children.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  16. Re:first block! by atomicthumbs · · Score: 4, Funny

    one 1x1

    Flat or tall?

    --
    http://pinopsida.com
  17. This story is completely wrong. by amorsen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lego hasn't had a monopoly on the bricks for decades. (They have a monopoly on making bricks that actually work, but that's not for legal reasons, that's just because their competitors are incompetent.)

    Lego has used a red 2x4 Lego brick in advertisements, and they believed that this particular brick could be used as a trademarked "logo". The European Department of Justice decided that the brick picture is too generic to be trademarked. The decision will be appealed.

    So all it means is that competitors are allowed to put that particular brick in their advertisements and on their boxes. They already had the right to produce the brick.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    1. Re:This story is completely wrong. by compro01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They have a monopoly on making bricks that actually work, but that's not for legal reasons, that's just because their competitors are incompetent.

      Actually, I'm pretty sure one of the main things is their trade-secret plastics formula(s) and molding techniques, which I doubt the others have, which allow for their really tight manufacturing tolerances.

      Even with the trademarks and patents out of the picture, I doubt the competition is going to be able to match quality, barring some industrial espionage.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  18. Re: MS Blocks! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Funny

    Following their pattern of Wait & BadlyCopy, Microsoft will announce the need for the strategic purchase of Mega so they can Embrace the Blocks, Extend, and Extinguish Lego!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  19. Chinese Lego by bshensky · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/18382

    Probably won't help with the pirates. Real pirates!

    --
    Makin' money, makin' friends, makin' whoopee and wearin' Depends
  20. Let me attempt to translate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lego was naar het Europese Hof van justitie gestapt in de strijd tegen de Canadese concurrent Mega Brands, die een blokje op de markt heeft gebracht dat past op die van Lego. Het Hof oordeelde vandaag dat het ontwerp van Lego niet is beschermd door het Europees merkenrecht en dat er dus geen sprake mag zijn van alleenrecht.

    My shot at it:

    Lego was near hot European Hasselhoff just in time to gestate in the stride generator concurrent with the Canada geese Mega Brands, ...okay, I give up...

    1. Re:Let me attempt to translate... by NuclearError · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, it's "My European Lego hovercraft is fulls of eels."

      --
      Nuclear engineers build weapons. Civil engineers build targets.
    2. Re:Let me attempt to translate... by msh104 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Lego was naar het Europese Hof van justitie gestapt in de strijd tegen de Canadese concurrent Mega Brands, die een blokje op de markt heeft gebracht dat past op die van Lego. Het Hof oordeelde vandaag dat het ontwerp van Lego niet is beschermd door het Europees merkenrecht en dat er dus geen sprake mag zijn van alleenrecht.

      Perhaps less fun..
      But here is the more correct ( though quick and quite literal ) translation:

      Lego went to the "Europese Hof" (a very high justice department in europe) in a battle against the Canadian competitor Mega Brands, who created a brick that fits on the lego brick. The "Hof" decided today that the design of Lego is not protected by the European Market rights, and that there thus cannot be any case for exclusive ownership.

    3. Re:Let me attempt to translate... by theaveng · · Score: 5, Informative

      Babel Fish to the rescue:

      "Lego had stepped to the European Court of Justice in the fight against the Canadian competitor Mega fire, which a cube on the market has brought that watches out which of Lego. The court judged today that the design of Lego has not been protected by the European merkenrecht and that there can no talk be therefore of exclusive right."

      Hmmm. Well my fish is almost 40 years old.

      "Lego was, according to the European Court of Justice objected in the fight against the Canadian competitor mega brands, which is a cube on the market that has brought shall apply to those of Lego. The Court ruled today that the design of Lego not protected by the European trademark law and that there is no question of exclusive rights."

      Nope. Still sounds like nonsense.

      Here's what Deutsche Welle says: "The European Union's Court of First Instance turned down Lego's appeal to force the EU's trademarks and designs office to reissue its trademark for the shape of its standard red Lego brick with eight cylindrical knobs.

      "The EU court, however, sided with a 2004 decision made by the EU agency, which had canceled Lego's trademark after rival toy maker Canada's Mega Brands Inc. filed an appeal to Lego's application. Mega Brands produces similar plastic building blocks that compete with Lego."

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    4. Re:Let me attempt to translate... by corbettw · · Score: 5, Funny

      The "Hof" decided today that the design of Lego is not protected by the European Market rights, and that there thus cannot be any case for exclusive ownership.

      You know, I knew David Hasselhof was popular in Europe, but I had no idea he was so powerful!

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    5. Re:Let me attempt to translate... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2

      Here's what Deutsche Welle says: "The European Union's Court of First Instance turned down Lego's appeal to force the EU's trademarks and designs office to reissue its trademark for the shape of its standard red Lego brick with eight cylindrical knobs. "The EU court, however, sided with a 2004 decision made by the EU agency, which had canceled Lego's trademark after rival toy maker Canada's Mega Brands Inc. filed an appeal to Lego's application. Mega Brands produces similar plastic building blocks that compete with Lego."

      About. Fucking. Time.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    6. Re:Let me attempt to translate... by KidHash · · Score: 4, Funny

      That'll teach them to Hassle the Hof

    7. Re:Let me attempt to translate... by nuke-alwin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Luxembourg - The Danish manufacturer will have to swallow hard as the European Court of Justice decided on Wednesday that anyone may produce a block which fits on the original Lego block. Lego went to the European Court of Justice in a battle against the Canadian competitor Mega Brands who have brought a block to market which fits to those of Lego. The Court decided today that the design of Lego is not protected by European trademarks and that there can be no exclusive rights. The rest of the article is historical information about Lego.

      --
      "Have no fear for Atomic Energy" - Bob Marley in Redemption Song
  21. Re:Bets on how long Legos exist? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've always had respect for Lego. I feel like their prices are high because they refuse to take the cheap-ass manufacturing shortcuts (like production in a 3rd world country). They sacrifice price for quality, and I find that admirable. Not to mention the fact that they are providing jobs within their own country.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  22. Re:Hemos Lego Statue by operagost · · Score: 2, Funny

    They don't make a small enough brick.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  23. Re:Obligatory by smitty97 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fixed it:

    All your baseplates are belong to us

    --
    mod me funny
  24. Good for your wallet, but poor quality by hellfire · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Personally, I hated megablocks, because the bricks are not made with the same quality as Legos. Legos have a very exacting standard they make for each brick, to guarentee they fit together and stay together when you want to, and come apart when you need them to. Megablocks I found are looser, and don't stay together as often. I'm anal. I played with Legos when I was young, but when I grew up, my son and I put together some megablocks sets he got from someone else. The comparative quality was very poor.

    However, in terms of business, a competition between Megablocks and Legos is a good thing. Legos wants (I hope) to be a higher quality toy, while Megablocks is for those who are less anal and more frugal. They have carved out their own niches and provide choice for the consumer. Additional players in the market should help.

    At the same time, I hope someone tackles with the idea that lego sets are too specialized now. There are so many specialty pieces that it limits the amount you can create with a single set, and limits the replay value. Back in the 80s, there were tons of new pieces that weren't all just bricks, but those pieces could still be creatively used to build new models from your imagination. The odd shaped clear plastic panel that curls around the model just so and only has one real use is annoying.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Good for your wallet, but poor quality by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed on all counts. I call this "one function only" type of "creativity" DOING THE PLAYING FOR THE CHILD. It actively *prevents* kids from being genuinely creative.

      Better to have to figure out how to create the specialty object from the generic parts -- now that's the way to stretch a kid's brain!

      [Buy my "Home Brain Stretcher", built entirely from Legos and available for only $199.95!]

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  25. Re:makes sense, meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, on the one hand, the race to the bottom wins again.

    On the other hand, Lego is a socially responsible company with zero waste, excellent pay and bennies for all employees, and an all around good company. I hope this doesn't mean the collapse of the Danish economy. I mean, they pretty much have Legos, Bang and Olfsen, Hans Christian Anderson... and that's about it.

  26. I'm up on Mega, down on lego, pine for Am. Bricks by MickLinux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We use the mega blocks and duplo blocks, both. There both okay for pretending.

    However, I've found that both I and my kids cannot easily take legos apart. In addition, the form factor of legos makes it easy to make their intended toy (if you want to spend the time), but comparatively hard to make other things.

    I remember the days of American Bricks, though, when we'd make marble machines, spaceships (tiny, med, large, and super), ships, and whatnot. Yeah, it didn't have all the specialized parts that lego has. But that's what imagination is for. I remember playing the Children's Space Revolution (in 1972, with a theme song that was remarkably similar to that which came out for Star Wars), and other stories that we made up as we went.

    I never saw that with legos -- not with my brothers, not with my oldest son. We gave it up. The kids do pretend with Mega Bloks. As a parent, I'd much prefer something that falls apart every so often, to something that you can't get apart without tremendous effort.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  27. Re:End of legoes by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why not? Any company that wants to compete with them will still have to turn a profit, which means that they won't be able to drive Lego out of business unless Lego's simply less competitive. It'll be decades before the word "Lego" is no longer synonymous with building blocks that snap together. Further, they retain the rights to the "Lego" name, just not to the blocks themselves, so they'll still have a ridiculous amount of mindshare. If you're going to release buildable models, do you want to release them under the name of "Lego", or do you want to release them under the name "FunBlocks!"?

    This is a huge blow to Lego, but it shouldn't be deadly by any stretch of the imagination.

  28. Re:It's a somewaht unique case and sad really by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now anyone can produce their product... ...and it's highly unlikely Lego will survive.

          I'm having trouble reconciling that statement. It's essentially the mantra chanted by lobbyists for many "protected" industries, like for example the pharmaceutical industry. Funnily enough, anyone can make and sell acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) nowadays, and Bayer is still in business. There are plenty of denim pant manufacturers, and Levi's is still in business. I simply don't buy the "protect me" argument. Oh sure, they each make less money than in a monopoly situation, but they all still make money.

          In a truly free market, if Lego Group has grown so inefficient that it can't compete, then it DESERVES to go bankrupt. The REAL free market rewards efficiency - in production, marketing and distribution. Tampering with the free market in any way allows inefficiencies to creep in. These inefficiencies incur a hidden cost for all of us, since resources are tied up that could have been used by society elsewhere.

          However I guess the US has forgotten what a free market is. Just looking at the headlines is a daily reminder. Enjoy your United Socialist States of America, and continue to "protect" as much as you can... me, I live in a country that protects very little by law - but allows me a great deal of personal freedom.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  29. Re:Hemos Lego Statue by Keramos · · Score: 2, Funny

    The questions is, would it be an anatomically correct Hemos statue?

    Quoting Black Cardinal, above:

    We bought some Mega Bloks for our son, but the plastic they used (polypropylene?) is too soft to keep a good grip

    So, yes, there's a good chance it would be :-)

  30. Lego can't compete by a.ameri · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem is, Lego might be a household name, indeed in some countries it is a generic name for building blocks, but it is still a family-owned business. It's CEO and Chairman is a cool-looking grandson of the founder, and it resides in a rural town in Denmark called Billund, with a population of about 27,000 where nearly 90% of its manufacturing still occurs. The town is almost entirely dependent on Lego.

    Lego is among the world's best employers (if not outright best). Equal opportunity in action. Employees, including the CEO, do not have reserved parking spots at the HQ's carpark, offices mostly resemble community areas rather than walled rooms, free food and drinks are all over the place, not to mention some of the best sporting and health facilities provided to employees. Blue collar workers receive the same treatment, for most things from gym membership to access to the health clinic, there is no difference between the executives and simple manufacturing employee. People don't wear name tags, they nearly always wear casual, unless they have a meeting with an outside party.

    Lego has Idea Labs where people just experiment with new toys. It employs scientist, from chemists to child psychologists just to carry out all sorts of experiments. It is such a fun place, you'd be forgiven if you thought you where in Wonderland. It has a museum full of toys that it invented but failed to manufacture, mostly due to safety concerns. I can understand why some of them might have been thought of as dangerous, but boy are they cool!

    Of course, with all the above, with the cost of employing and manufacturing in Europe, it can't compete with the cheapest-of-the-cheap Chinese factory which just mass produces plastic blocks. I understand that in this case, IP laws do not really cover its business, and anyone is legally able to copy them, but IMO it's rather sad to see that such companies can't really exist in this world, that consumers don't value the history and the culture of a company. They just look at a price tag and make their decision solely based on that.

    Everyone I met at Lego is aware of these issues. They have carried massive restructuring plans since 2005, but they know they can't compete against most rivals whose costs are simply lower; yet they really want to preserve the unique culture that has made Lego, Lego for the past generations. Short of outsourcing manufacturing to some place in China, closing its museum and laboratory and airport and with it the town and becoming just another plastic manufacturer, I can't think of a way for them to survive. As I said, it's rather sad.

    --
    -- /* Those who don't underestand Unix, are condemned to reinvent it poorly */
  31. Google Translation by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lego was to the European Court of Justice and were active in the fight against the Canadian competitor Mega Brands, which is a block on the market that fits that of Lego. The Court ruled today that the design of Lego is not protected by the trademark and that there should be no question of monopoly.

    Here's the translated page. And no, BabelFish did not produce a translation of the same quality.

    Google frightens me sometimes. Almost every day now.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Google Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      now the European Court of Justice has ruled Wednesday that everyone must make a box that fits the original lego bit.

      Well, fuck. Do I have to start right away, or is there some kind of deadline?

    2. Re:Google Translation by CubicleView · · Score: 4, Funny
      From the Google translation

      LEGO twice the price "toys of the century" won.

      Don't be frightened, Yoda wouldn't work for anyone evil.

  32. lego vs cheap knock-offs by loafula · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the perspective of a man who grew up with legos and duplos- The legos were waaaaaay easier to snort.

    --
    FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
  33. Re:makes sense, meh by theaveng · · Score: 4, Funny

    You forgot the red-light districts.

    Not that I've ever been there. Nope. Uh huh. Nyet. I'm just a Puritan American and have no clue what "red light" means. Yep.

    --
    FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
  34. Where does it say that? by argent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OK, I don't speak Dutch, but...

    The competing companies will even benefit from free advertising since Lego company advertising will effectively promote companies that simply call their product Legos.

    Is the decision about the *shape* of the toys, or the *name* of the toys?

  35. The AWFUL truth about LEGO by zoomshorts · · Score: 5, Funny

    My son had LEGO blocks, but I soon discovered that they have sharp
    pointy edges, and hurt when you step on them barefooted in the dark.

    Needless to say, any block I encountered in the dark disappeared. Soon
    he had none. That never did teach him to pick up his toys. Grrrrr.

    1. Re:The AWFUL truth about LEGO by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 5, Funny

      One Christmas I spread my Lego bricks around the Christmas tree and on the stairs, to try to catch Santa.

      At about midnight there was a lot of swearing, and I found out that Santa wasn't real. :(

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    2. Re:The AWFUL truth about LEGO by WillyDavidK · · Score: 2, Funny

      hahaha, there's a unique story. Tho, as funny as that is, I can't help but wonder what your parents were doing while you were setting up your .. er .. trap...

      --
      For lack of a better signature...
  36. Re:End of legoes by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There are three ways in which a company could undercut Lego:
    1. Better economies of scale.
    2. Lower production quality.
    3. Cross-subsidy.

    Option 1 doesn't look feasible - you can't get better economies of scale than the market leader easily. Option 2, from the comments in the last story about this, seems to already be happening. All this does is strengthen the Lego brand - they are the people who make bricks that actually stick together and don't cause toy structures to collapse. Option 3 is also a possibility, but what can you sell more of by selling cheap construction bricks?

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  37. Re:makes sense, meh by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah... I look at this as a mixed blessing.

    I have a substantial collection of Lego, and I have a single MegaBlocks model... as much as I hate to say it, there's really a difference in quality. The Lego plastic is actually superior, and the quality of the molds must be better, too.

    So while I'd like to be able to buy bulk packs of pieces (which I've done via bricklink for some years now) at cheap prices (at an average approaching $0.10 piece for a little piece of molded plastic?), I certainly wouldn't accept lower quality just to get cheaper pieces.

    I'm all for competition, though. If Lego reduces prices (I know they whine they are barely making it... which is just baffling to me), then I'll be all over it. I mean, go ahead and charge $50 for a 400 piece Star Wars set... but let me buy bulk bricks to build my mega (no pun intended) structures, and I'll be a happy guy.

    Sometimes on bricklink you can find pieces you like for less than a penny a piece... unfortunately, while I admit I don't look very often, I haven't seen that kind of deal in some time.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  38. Lego moved ops to czech republic and mexico by slew · · Score: 3, Informative

    I also doubt them moving to China very much, since they are one of the few eco-conscious companies out there.

    Although Lego is still a danish company, I believe they moved all their production operations from Billund, Denmark and the US into the Czech Republic and Mexico back in 2006... So for what it's worth, maybe not China, but Czech republic and Mexico aren't known as hot-spots of eco-consciousness either...

  39. Re:I'm up on Mega, down on lego, pine for Am. Bric by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Pfft. Look through any sizable collection of legos belonging to someone under, say, age 8.

    Give me a nickle for every brick with teeth marks on it.

  40. Re:makes sense, meh by mollymoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have a substantial collection of Lego, and I have a single MegaBlocks model... as much as I hate to say it, there's really a difference in quality. The Lego plastic is actually superior, and the quality of the molds must be better, too.

    Lego are utterly fantastic at making their bricks. They're mind-bogglingly good, in fact. To work properly, Lego bricks must be made to a tolerance of one micron, otherwise models would fall apart or the bricks be too hard to separate. Those little plastic bricks are as precisely engineered as the most precisely engineered components in the most expensive Swiss watch. They've been making them exactly the right size since the 1960s - the bricks you or you parents had in the 60s will still work perfectly with the bricks they make today.

    --
    Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
  41. Re:makes sense, meh by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Lego plastic is actually superior, and the quality of the molds must be better, too.

    So why is it a mixed blessing? If Lego's products are better, they'll win on quality and be worth the price. Or perhaps the general public doesn't value the difference, in which case the public gets what it wants. This is capitalism working well: competition, with competitors competing on quality and price and consumers having options.

  42. Re:makes sense, meh by steelfood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to one interview I read somewhere, the most expensive Lego parts to manufacture are the mini-figs. I believe they cost something like a little over $1 US to manufacture.

    Lego uses very precise molds. It is the key to the Lego bricks' distinctiveness, and why they fit well. Old molds are destroyed by burying them in the concrete foundation of buildings. They also have several different kinds of plastic to create different specialized bricks and pieces. People can replicate the design of the bricks and sell them cheaper, but I don't think they can replicate the manufacturing process and not be forced to raise prices.

    I have yet to read TFA (go figure), but I'm guessing this has something to do with Lego trying to maintain IP protection on their brick design by claiming that their trademarked logo is on the stud, and therefore the idea of a stud is trademarked as well.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  43. Re:makes sense, meh by owlstead · · Score: 4, Funny

    Uh, I did not know that the Dutch red light district had any competition from the Danish red light district. Unless you mean to have sex with Lego figures, that is.

  44. Already there. by Comboman · · Score: 2, Informative

    I see Lego announcing a change in which country it resides in, to one more favorable towards corporations in trademark laws.

    They're already in one. Lego has been able to keep Mega Blocks from selling in Europe until now via this bogus trademark law, but that was the last holdout. Most countries have already ruled against Lego on this issue.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  45. Re:makes sense, meh by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a mixed blessing because of exactly what you point out...

    I think people will go for low prices, and before they realize it was a mistake, Lego will already be out of business. You'll say the customers have chosen (they have), but even most of them will realize they chose wrongly only after it was too late.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  46. Re:makes sense, meh by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Funny

    You like Danish cheese? I love Cheese Danish.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  47. Re:makes sense, meh by legirons · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Lego plastic is actually superior, and the quality of the molds must be better, too.

    They were pretty famous for being obsessive about mold quality and tolerances

    slashdot article about manufacture:

    http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/21/1716239

  48. Re:makes sense, meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    They've been making them in high quality since the mid 70's. I have Lego sets ranging from around the 50's to sets made in 2004 (albeit only a few in the 1965-90 and 1997-2004 ranges). The ones from the 1950's show quite a bit of wear and tear (structurally, not aesthetically), and will actually degrade large structures built using them (not as badly as Megablocks, but still weaker than newer Legos). It's not until (late) 1970 stuff that blocks start improving in quality, such that I can't tell the difference between a worn 1979 block and a worn 1999 block.

    They've only been making them excatly right since 1980.

  49. Re:makes sense, meh by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    [i]According to one interview I read somewhere, the most expensive Lego parts to manufacture are the mini-figs. I believe they cost something like a little over $1 US to manufacture.[/i]

    I believe it, but it's still mind boggling that, after all this time, despite how precise their molds are, that it costs so much for a molded piece of plastic.

    Even if the plastic is super high quality, you're only getting a couple of grams of it.

    How long does it take for a high quality mold to require replacement when it's just molding plastic? I don't know.

    Still, it seems to me that technological advances should make it cheaper for them to be able to produce those parts... ultimately it's still just molded plastic.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  50. Re:makes sense, meh by x102output · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just visited a LEGO store at a mall in San Jose. They have a wall of Lego piece dispensers all individually filled with unique common Lego pieces. You can grab a cup for 7 bucks, or a bigger one for 14 bucks, and fill it up with as much pieces as you can fit. Definitely beats bricklink. check it out!

  51. Re:makes sense, meh by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Lego plastic is actually superior, and the quality of the molds must be better, too.

    So why is it a mixed blessing? If Lego's products are better, they'll win on quality and be worth the price. Or perhaps the general public doesn't value the difference, in which case the public gets what it wants. This is capitalism working well: competition, with competitors competing on quality and price and consumers having options.

    Quality doesn't win in this market. You can win on marketing, but not on quality. This ruling means there will soon be lead-tainted Lego-compatible pieces made in a certain Asian country and sold mostly through Walmart. Yeah, they'll break, discolor, and not fit together all that well, but they'll be significantly cheaper than genuine Legos, because Lego can't get away with paying its employees $2500 a year. And these new parts will soon outsell Lego. Now Lego does have a good marketing position, given their great brand recognition, and they'll make a lot more money per part. This will slowly erode, however, until Lego branded parts are a either niche market for elitist liberals who buy their groceries at farmers markets, or it will go away entirely.

    Just so you know.

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  52. Re:makes sense, meh by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have one of those stores here (in GA), and it's actually very conveniently located for me...

    I go there all the time, but there's only a few dozen types of pieces at a time, and those ROUND cups they have make it difficult to effectively use the space in them.

    But I have bought pieces there plenty of times... but it surely doesn't beat bricklink when I want black or white or even gray 2x4 bricks and all they have is pink or purple 2x2 and 2x3, some fence pieces I don't want... the small car plates (but no wheels)...

    But they rotate inventory in and so I do go there occasionally.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  53. Re:makes sense, meh by hvm2hvm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He as a guy who values quality over price(or quantity if you want) sees this as a mixed blessing since people would probably care more for quantity. That would make Lego lower their prices which might lead to a diminish in the quality of the work.

    Usually when something is produced by many companies in big numbers marketing starts to take over and quality is most of the times compromised for flashiness or ease of use and other idiot friendly things.

    An example that comes to mind is digital cameras. Most cameras these days have more megapixels than they can handle and most parameters are automatic which in IMHO is retarded. It's really hard to find a camera that lets you set the focus and exposure as you like. Instead they have features like print directly from the camera, post on hi5 or something like that... That happening to Lego would make it a joke and destroy one of the only toys that actually educates children instead of dumbing them down (or brainwashing if you want to be more extreme).

    PS: Before you start flaming me about the camera example, I am OK with having an automatic focus/exposure/etc. But not including a slider that lets you select 1/100 seems stupid since it's a simple UI element and if you can program an automatic system for the focus you should be able to make it manual. Also, when I said "more megapixels than they can handle" I was talking about the noise that appears because the CCD is just too small for the resolution they are cramming on it. There is a proven limit on the resolution that depends on the lens size and CCD size and as far as I can tell most cameras exceed the limit.

    --
    ics
  54. Re:makes sense, meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I totally agree. We recently "polluted" my son's Lego collection with MegaBlocks, and after several tearful episodes ("They won't stick together!" "They don't fit!") have decided to root this evil from our house. They're a scourge.

  55. Most kids stuff is crap... by alexhmit01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Once a week my son goes and plays at my parents house for a few hours. The Brio trains from when I was a kid still work great, but the cheap knock off add on parts my parents bought to have more for him are crap... they had to find an affordable retailer online to get more stuff. As he's moving past the real little kid blocks and into Duplo, the fact that everything from my childhood held up is remarkable.

    However, just about everything that we buy on the market at this point, is cheap and crappy. It's gotten to the point that we just buy whatever is cheapest at Walmart, because trying to get the higher end stuff isn't higher end, just more expensive. Why pay twice as much for the same falling apart plastic junk from the same factories in China? After churning through $100+ car seats, we not just get the $40 ones at Walmart, and when they go, we replace them. I have two kids, 18 months apart, and just about none of the stuff gets handed down because EVERYTHING on the market is poorly made.

    It's easy to blame consumers, but a lot is a function of smaller family sizes. The generation born in the 70s was born when average family sizes were over 2.5 kids, so 2-3 was normal, and plenty of families of 4-5 existed. Family sizes for middle class families (the ones that buy this stuff) are probably under 1.5 right now... If most of your customers won't have a second kid, why would they pay more for quality, it's not getting passed down.

    America just isn't child friendly anymore... and we have fewer kids in each family... can't put 3 kids in a normal sized sedan, need either a giant sedan, SUV, or minivan with a third kid, and kids under 13 aren't supposed to ride up front... WTF? The sedan was the quintessential family car... now a mom running small carpool with 4 kids in her car needs a minivan because you can't put one up front and 3 in the back, something that was routine for us growing up as kids.

    Alex

  56. Re:makes sense, meh by randyest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To work properly, Lego bricks must be made to a tolerance of one micron, otherwise models would fall apart or the bricks be too hard to separate.

    Source? Sorry, no one in their right mind will believe this without more data than some random /.'er claiming it. I mean, sure, there's a tolerance, and according to LEGO company (Warning: PDF, see page 18) it's "as small as 2um" (twice a loose tolerance as your claim.) To me, the "as small as" bit means "no smaller than, and often larger than" so please share why you think it's always twice as accurate as LEGO claims it sometimes is.

    --
    everything in moderation
  57. Re:makes sense, meh by v1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    they make good quality legos too. I was waxing nostalgic last year and bought a generic bin of legos at kmart or something, it wasn't lego brand but looked identical, and they held together like crap.

    I remember taking my 2x8 blocks and seeing how far I could get them to extend horizontally while stacked, and could get over 50 sometimes. The crappy new ones were lucky to see 10.

    I also made things that required proper tolerance. I made a working lego lock. Tried to make one with the new blocks but they kept catching on each other. crap I say. Pay the money and get the real Lego.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  58. Re:makes sense, meh by Neoprofin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is when you buy a set of Legos most of the premium you pay isn't going for superior build quality, it's going for licensing because you're getting "Harry Potter" or "Star Wars" wrapped up in the deal, but don't worry they're nice enough to spread the cost to all their lines.

    You also have to deal with the politics of Lego. No modern weapons, no Nazis for Indiana Jones to foil. I love my Legos, and the build quality is superior, but there are plenty of other reasons to shop Megablocks.

  59. Re:makes sense, meh by winwar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "That would make Lego lower their prices which might lead to a diminish in the quality of the work."

    It may but it doesn't have to. After all, the basic blocks haven't changed for probably 50 years. It can't cost much to make plastic blocks from standard dies.

    The new stuff, sure. And if Walmart carries legos, they will squeeze them anyway, competition or no.

  60. Re:makes sense, meh by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you want some Nazis or guns to go with your Legos here you go. From what I've seen very quality build work too. Enjoy!

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  61. Re:makes sense, meh by BlackCreek · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Because the market selects for lemonade. Seriously. This work won a Nobel prize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

    Though one could argue that in this case, you can make informed shopping of quality bricks. So I guess, this is not directly what the linked article relates to, but more like expensive big iron main frame computers, which most people don't actually need, so most people don't actually pay for it.

  62. Re:makes sense, meh by Eccles · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm just a Puritan American and have no clue what "red light" means.

    There are a lot a drivers around here like that.

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  63. Re:makes sense, meh by Xero_One · · Score: 3, Informative

    For your modern weapon LEGO needs, I would check out this site: http://www.brickarms.com/Toys/Weapons.aspx

    They claim it's made from the same plastic as real LEGOs, but I haven't used them. Anyways they seem pretty cool.

    They also happen to make Nazi figurines for your enjoyment: http://www.brickarms.com/Toys/Minifigs.aspx

  64. Re:makes sense, meh by Suppafly · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to one interview I read somewhere, the most expensive Lego parts to manufacture are the mini-figs. I believe they cost something like a little over $1 US to manufacture.

    I seriously doubt that. They'd be selling them at a loss otherwise.
    http://shop.lego.com/

  65. Re:makes sense, meh by Neoprofin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh man!

    Years on slashdot and finally something to show for it!

  66. No blulk purchases there by cnaumann · · Score: 2, Informative

    True, they have quite a few elements there and in quite a few colors. However, they nowhere near all the common elements listed, and there are no bulk purchases. Sure, you can by a 1x1 yellow plate for about 10 cents. That is a pretty good deal if you need a single plate. But if you need 500 or 1000 such plates it is still about 10 cents a plates. That is not such a good deal. Sadly, they used to have some bulk packs with reasonable per-element prices. Those have all gone away.

    LEGO does not understand how to market to Americans.

  67. Re:makes sense, meh by snaz555 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's definitely a race to the bottom, because most parents have no clue what they buy their kids. The #1 goal of buying something is to shut the kid up. The #2 goal is to surprise the kid with a gift. And a $10 CrapKit will do either just as well as a $50 quality one. Toys are considered disposable. And the kid has no clue about concepts like quality and functionality - as long as it looks the part. (Brand recognition is a factor.) The kid will play with the CrapKit, find it difficult to proceed beyond the basics, and will likely grow tired of it because of its limitations. The parent will observe that the hotly desired toy stops being played with after a few days or weeks and pats themselves on the back for being cheap and wonders why anyone would buy the expensive version. They leave this to the people with more money than sense. It's a self-reinforcing spiral, simply because the average person is average intelligence, which means if you even bring up the subject of developing intelligence they'll look at you like you're from a different planet. It's just not something that they ever spend a single brain cycle on. Hey, they came out alright... right?

    I always played with Legos when I was a kid. Well, to my parents it was playing, to me it was construction projects. As I got older they became ever better planned and thought out, and I'd carefully plan around the parts available. My parents never saw that part. They viewed Lego, I'm sure, as the equivalent of a crayon and a sheet of paper.

    By the time I was 10 or so I built things like flexible suspension bridges (suspended with string) that could carry my HO size train set across 3 feet or more, to replicas of buildings I read about. Lego is a fantastic tool for early development of an innate sense of force distribution; in particular how to design for forces to distribute into compression with little pulling (depending on axis) and close to zero twisting. It encourages focusing on difficult problems somewhat beyond the current skill, then learning through failure and developing an innate sense for how to further improve something that a bystander might already be impressed by or think is beyond good enough.

    My take on it is that every parent should buy their kid real, quality Lego. Mostly generic blocks. At least give it a try. Because if the kid takes to it - boy are you getting something of real value for dirt cheap!

  68. Re:makes sense, meh by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 2, Informative

    Carlsberg?

    --
    We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
  69. Re:makes sense, meh by morari · · Score: 2, Funny

    I remember going through the Great MegaBlocks Purge as a child. My brother and I had each received a fairly neat looking set for the holidays, but were quickly disappointed with not only the quality of the plastic, but the inability of the block to properly fit with Legos, let alone themselves. Our parents contacted MegaBlocks with these concerns and they made it up to us by sending us a ton more of their product. Well, eventually my brother and I decided to go through our tubs and tubs of blocks and sort out all of the MegaBlocks so as to be cast aside. There was much rejoicing in Lego Land.

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  70. Re:makes sense, meh by thechao · · Score: 4, Informative

    Probably too late for a proper reply. An old roommate of mine used to occasionally make dies. Like anything in manufacturing, pick two of three: accurate, hard-wearing, cheap. For high-speed production you need to make especially costly dies; even a cheap die for something the size of one Lego brick would set you back several hundred dollars, and you couldn't expect to use a very dense/high-quality plastic with it (due to injection pressures), nor expect it to last much beyond a few dozen or scores of casts for any sort of reasonable accuracy. I suppose for very high tolerances, sharp narrow edges (which Lego have), high speed, and hard plastics you would be paying many thousands (or more?) for the die; the costs grow enormously if you want a die for large pieces, i.e., more than a few square cm. And you would have to replace the die fairly often. The cost of the plastic is trivial compared to the capital cost of the die.

    As for technological advances... well, there's only so much you can do to make tooling steel better; basically, it is a materials-science question, and the advances there are not quick. For instance, except for CAD/CAM there have not been significant advances in tooling that would help in the manufacture of the die, that I know of, for probably the last 50 years.

  71. Re:makes sense, meh by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Informative

    The problem is also that, since Lego has been the only game in town for many years, the average Joe will think that everything that fits Lego blocks *is* made by Lego even if it really is a cheap knockoff. That will dilute the Lego brand itself, which is probably one of the things Lego wanted to avoid by taking these guys to court.

    Too bad, so sad. I don't know European trademark law, but in the US, the Lego trademark is not the actual bits of the brick that make it compatible with the other bricks. That's functional anyway, so trademarks would never protect it. You'd want patents instead, and they are no longer available in this case. Using the functional parts of the brick in a dilutive way is perfectly okay. Now, when they use the word LEGO in some fashion, since that's actually a trademark, then we can begin to discuss dilution. Although saying "LEGO-compatible" is a nominative use, so that's also okay, if it's true.

    Incidentally, what you were describing is actually customer confusion, which goes to trademark infringement; dilution is when there is no confusion, which is why it's kind of bullshit.

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  72. Re:makes sense, meh by xtracto · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was going to mod this funny... but I rather share the joke with others...

    Go ahead and read parent post with the voice of Comic Book Guy.

    Fantastic!

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'