The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Farm Boy]

I have a set of robot bricks that definitely do that too. Kid has non-Lego Lego-comptible tape he sticks on the walls and makes cannons and lasers out of. Sure, they didn't used to make grey bricks because that was the color of tanks, but the Lego universe is awash in ripoffs and weaponry. I agree it's a stronk legal position, but the morality or any human factor that explains that strength is really simple. It's the men with non-toy guns. A non-compelling question of theory, and a standard issue of scale.

 

[Samson]

Calling it a "flaw" depends on your perspective. I doubt LEGO would see it as a "flaw", since they "won".

The general feature of the legal system that ones ability to get what one wants depends more on the parties ability to pay than the right or wrong of the case is a very real thing. I agree that whether it is a flaw or a feature depends on your point of view.

The fact that making a gun that looks like a toy needs an IP case to stop it is a whole other "feature".

 

[Sommerswerd]

The general feature of the legal system that ones ability to get what one wants depends more on the parties ability to pay than the right or wrong of the case is a very real thing. I agree that whether it is a flaw or a feature depends on your point of view.

The fact that making a gun that looks like a toy needs an IP case to stop it is a whole other "feature".

To the point that @TheMeInTeam raised and you and @Farm Boy are expounding upon, one man's flaw is another man's feature. But there is no question that might makes right more often than not.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I have a set of robot bricks that definitely do that too. Kid has non-Lego Lego-comptible tape he sticks on the walls and makes cannons and lasers out of. Sure, they didn't used to make grey bricks because that was the color of tanks, but the Lego universe is awash in ripoffs and weaponry. I agree it's a stronk legal position, but the morality or any human factor that explains that strength is really simple. It's the men with non-toy guns. A non-compelling question of theory, and a standard issue of scale.

As I referenced earlier, among other factors, like degree of similarity, for example, its a matter of incentives. LEGO (or any megacorp) has to decide whether there is enough (or any) damage to their brand to justify spending the time/resources doing the crushing/threatening. There are ways that knockoffs for example, could possibly enhance the value of a brand. Imitation as they say is a form of flattery. Much easier to feel superior using/paying for the genuine article and looking down the nose at others using the knockoffs when there are actual knockoffs to look down on.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm just saying the words of megacorps, and the words of those in their employ, are legally compelled to maximize profit and are therefore entirely worthless. Which makes them incredibly boring. May as well fish out a floater with a sock and wing it against the wall.

 

[Samson]

As I referenced earlier, among other factors, like similarity, for example, its a matter of incentives. LEGO (or any megacorp) has to decide whether there is enough (or any) damage to their brand to justify spending the time/resources doing the crushing/threatening. There are ways that knockoffs for example, could possibly enhance the value of a brand. Imitation as they say is a form of flattery. Much easier to feel superior using the genuine article and look down the nose at others using the knockoffs when there are actual knockoffs to look down on.

You do know that they have lost loads of suits trying to stop knockoffs, and they are themselves a knockoff of Hilary Page's Bri-Plax, who killed himself perhaps because of lego?

 

[Sommerswerd]

You do know that they have lost loads of suits trying to stop knockoffs, and they are themselves a knockoff of Hilary Page's Bri-Plax, who killed himself perhaps because of lego?

Yes, as I said, degree of similarity is one of the factors involved.

As to the second point. Everything is ultimately a knockoff of something else. Classical music is a knockoff of banging a rock against a hollow log and blowing air through a hollow stick. The moon is quite literally a knockoff of Earth The bottom line is LEGO went after Culper and got what they wanted.

 

[Samson]

Yes, as I said, degree of similarity is one of the factors involved.

As to the second point. Everything is ultimately a knockoff of something else. Classical music is a knockoff of banging a rock against a hollow log and blowing air through a hollow stick. The moon is quite literally a knockoff of Earth The bottom line is LEGO went after Culper and got what they wanted.

Absolutely the bottom line is that something happened and they stopped making that particular gun that looked like a toy. But as to the degree of similarity, which of these is the real lego and which the legal knockoff?

Spoiler Answer :

Left image:
Mega Bloks building block (above) and Lego building brick (below)

Right image:
From left, Best-Lock followed by Lego repeated.

 

[amadeus]

It’s my understanding that (a.) companies will routinely file these kinds of suits, even if they are likely to fail, in order to protect their brands by establishing a precedent if there is some future case that could actually jeopardize the brand. Also, (b.) the courts could well decide against the gunmaker but not Mega Bloks because the latter, while being a blatant and arguably inferior copy, doesn’t damage Lego’s reputation like having a gun associated with it could.

 

[Gorbles]

Kinda ignoring everything else in the thread for a second, but LEGO bricks aren't just LEGO bricks because of what they look like. It's the materials used (plus a current push to making more sustainable bricks), how long they last for (how long they're "playable with" for), and so on. There's an awful lot of R&D (as well as obviously sales pitches) inside the LEGO Group, so obviously having things that look the same but might not function as well is a black mark on the brand (ah, dear, I've invoked The Brand™).

 

[amadeus]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

In the case of Legos, I think the knock-off products just remind consumers of the “superiority” of the genuine article, having the opposite effect.

 

[Samson]

As I understand it the legal point is that patent law is to protect that sort of thing, and the patent ran out in 1978. It is not trade mark as original Lego brick "merely performs a technical function [and] cannot be registered as a trademark."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Calling it a "flaw" depends on your perspective. I doubt LEGO would see it as a "flaw", since they "won".

Flaw being they effectively bullied another company to change action, when its not clear they had any right to do that absent the bullying leverage.

The reason this is bad is not unlike the reason that anti-SLAPP is a thing. Especially if the reason the gun company backed down was "c" from above.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Flaw being they effectively bullied another company to change action, when its not clear they had any right to do that absent the bullying leverage.

Again, similar to the prior distinction about "winning", you're confusing what LEGO (or anyone FTM)'s "rights" are in this context. LEGO absolutely had the "right" to "bully" Culper ie, threaten legal action, "leverage" or no "leverage".

The fact they (LEGO) is large and powerful is certainly a factor in why they were succesful. The fact that Culper obviously, blatantly, and intentionally copied LEGO's brand is another factor. What also should not be overlooked is the catch 22... That part of the reason LEGO is rich and powerful is precisely tied to the fact that they have built up this internationally famous brand... which in turn gives them the wealth and power to "bully" folks in the course of protecting their brand they've built.

The "pure legal merit" of LEGO's potential claims against Culper... to the extent that there is any such thing (there isn't, as @Farm Boy alluded to) are irrelevant as that sort of thing can't be parsed out from the surrounding circumstances.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Again, similar to the prior distinction about "winning", you're confusing what LEGO (or anyone FTM)'s "rights" are in this context. LEGO absolutely had the "right" to "bully" Culper ie, threaten legal action, "leverage" or no "leverage".

How about commenting on the substance of my argument wrt why this is bad? This is de facto legal SLAPP. Unless you disagree that anti-SLAPP style regulations are a good thing.

The fact that Culper obviously, blatantly, and intentionally copied LEGO's brand is another factor.

As demonstrated above, this hasn't been demonstrated as factual at all. I see no LEGO branding on the device, just a reference to plastic blocks that interlock. Which are clearly not limited to LEGO even in the sphere of putting plastic blocks together.

 

[Samson]

I see no LEGO branding on the device, just a reference to plastic blocks that interlock.

You do not see a similarity?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You do not see a similarity?

Could be inspired by mega bloks, lol. The name is even technically closer to that!

More reasonably, if mega bloks in your image above are legal/valid to sell at scale, how exactly is this not? This is obviously not building blocks, nor is it claiming to be LEGO specifically.

This is de facto corporate SLAPP. Don't like something, use a poor legal system to threaten it down without anything other than the threat of that lawsuit backing the action. A lawsuit that, given the legal existence of mega bloks, doesn't appear to have merit by coherent standards.

I get that our legal system doesn't require coherent standards. That's bad.

 

[Samson]

Could be inspired by mega bloks, lol. The name is even technically closer to that!

More reasonably, if mega bloks in your image above are legal/valid to sell at scale, how exactly is this not? This is obviously not building blocks, nor is it claiming to be LEGO specifically.

This is de facto corporate SLAPP. Don't like something, use a poor legal system to threaten it down without anything other than the threat of that lawsuit backing the action. A lawsuit that, given the legal existence of mega bloks, doesn't appear to have merit by coherent standards.

I get that our legal system doesn't require coherent standards. That's bad.

The mega blocks logo is very different:

It looks to me like the Block 19 logo is clearly based on the lego one, the colour scheme is identical and the font really similar.

I am not sure how it is a SLAPP as it is not about public participation. In California it requires the target to be "conduct that falls within the rights of petition or free speech." Making a gun that looks like a toy is not that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am not sure how it is a SLAPP as it is not about public participation. In California it requires the target to be "conduct that falls within the rights of petition or free speech." Making a gun that looks like a toy is not that.

The reasoning is similar to SLAPP, I'm not saying it literally is SLAPP. Hence the "de facto".

 

[Samson]

The reasoning is similar to SLAPP, I'm not saying it literally is SLAPP. Hence the "de facto".

De facto means in fact?