New Mould Discussion

[SpacePolice89]

10 hours ago, Toastie said:

About what exactly? LEGO going after Kiddicraft? 

I will not complain about Lego stopping the Chinese fake brands with new patents. I think it is great.

5 hours ago, anothergol said:

So those "fake bricks" become real once LEGO has copied them?

"A Briton, Hilary Fisher Page, and his company Kiddicraft has invented the plastic bricks that Ole Kirk and his son Godtfred are presented with. In the late 1950s, the LEGO Group contacts Kiddicraft to ask whether they object to the LEGO® brick. They do not. On the contrary, they wish the company good luck with the bricks, as they have not enjoyed much success with their product. In 1981, the LEGO Group purchases the rights to the Kiddicraft bricks and trademark from the descendants of Hilary Fisher Page."

https://www.lego.com/en-us/history/articles/c-automatic-binding-bricks

54 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

And that means LEGO abusing the copyright system and making invalid claims is okay with you? I for one hope that every company affected by this will sue LEGO for damages and get the registration nixed as quickly as possible...

Mylenium

If the application is accepted is not up to Lego, that is the ruling of the patent office. I don't mind any tactic that will effectively block the Chinese fake brands.

Edited Monday at 07:01 AM by SpacePolice89

[anothergol]

36 minutes ago, SpacePolice89 said:

"A Briton, Hilary Fisher Page, and his company Kiddicraft has invented the plastic bricks that Ole Kirk and his son Godtfred are presented with. In the late 1950s, the LEGO Group contacts Kiddicraft to ask whether they object to the LEGO® brick. They do not. On the contrary, they wish the company good luck with the bricks, as they have not enjoyed much success with their product. In 1981, the LEGO Group purchases the rights to the Kiddicraft bricks and trademark from the descendants of Hilary Fisher Page."

funny you mention that (and why? do you acknowledge that LEGO is a "fake brick" too?), the guy in the video talks about it, and says that there's not even any evidence that this (the "good luck") happened, nor any evidence that LEGO did purchase/ever owned the Kiddicraft trademark

I would imagine that if LEGO did own the rights to the Kiddicraft trademark, that german guy would have heard from their lawyers already, and he would have had troubles purchase them in the first place.
So who lies here? I would bet on LEGO. OR LEGO would have really purchased the rights to the trademark in 81, but would have sold them to Fisher Price 8 years later, and there would be no evidence of this, even the family descendants knowing nothing of it?

The trademark was between 1989 and 2003 in the hands of Fisher Price^{[20][21] [22]} Since 2022, the trademark belongs to the YouTuber Thorsten Klahold^[23], and the brand belongs to the German company Dark Side Bricks GmbH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Page

 

Quote

If the application is accepted is not up to Lego, that is the ruling of the patent office

oh the abuse indeed comes from both

36 minutes ago, SpacePolice89 said:

I don't mind any tactic that will effectively block the Chinese fake brands.

non-Chinese "fake brands" are ok then? Where's the diff?

Edited Monday at 07:11 AM by anothergol

[Mylenium]

50 minutes ago, SpacePolice89 said:

If the application is accepted is not up to Lego, that is the ruling of the patent office. I don't mind any tactic that will effectively block the Chinese fake brands.

It seems you're not really understanding the process. Design protections are filed blindly and are only ever looked at when someone contests them. The system merely automatically registers them under the assumption that it's okay and there is plausible reason. Otherwise you'd need a few thousand examiners looking at designs filed every day to not get backlogged. At this point nobody has decided anything and I sure hope the competing companies and importers will get off their butts and file a motion to delete the registration ASAP. There is apparently enough "prior art" to prove it.

Mylenium

50 minutes ago, SpacePolice89 said:

In 1981, the LEGO Group purchases the rights to the Kiddicraft bricks and trademark from the descendants of Hilary Fisher Page.

That, as they say in North Korea, is capitalist propaganda. *lol*. No, LEGO didn't buy any trademark. It simply lapsed because it wasn't renewed for eons and someone else re-registered it a few years ago. LEGO only ever bought the initial patents back in the 1950s and 1960s and everything that came with them and then "cleaned house" by buying up the remnants of what was left in the 1970s and 1980s, but never made any effort to actually keep the Kiddicraft brand alive.

Mylenium

Edited Monday at 07:26 AM by Mylenium

[SpacePolice89]

50 minutes ago, anothergol said:

funny you mention that (and why? do you acknowledge that LEGO is a "fake brick" too?), the guy in the video talks about it, and says that there's not even any evidence that this (the "good luck") happened, nor any evidence that LEGO did purchase/ever owned the Kiddicraft trademark

I would imagine that if LEGO did own the rights to the Kiddicraft trademark, that german guy would have heard from their lawyers already, and he would have had troubles purchase them in the first place.
So who lies here? I would bet on LEGO. OR LEGO would have really purchased the rights to the trademark in 81, but would have sold them to Fisher Price 8 years later, and there would be no evidence of this, even the family descendants knowing nothing of it?

The trademark was between 1989 and 2003 in the hands of Fisher Price^{[20][21] [22]} Since 2022, the trademark belongs to the YouTuber Thorsten Klahold^[23], and the brand belongs to the German company Dark Side Bricks GmbH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Page

 

oh the abuse indeed comes from both

non-Chinese "fake brands" are ok then? Where's the diff?

YouTube videos from private individuals are not trustworthy sources. Even I could make one and claim something entirely different and people would believe what I say are facts. It is very plausible that Lego has sold the Kiddicraft trademark to someone else and all evidence points in that direction. I believe they were mostly after the patents and bought everything as a  package in 81. All fake brands are bad but the Chinese one are especially bad because of almost non existing workplace regulations and product safety as well as an entire economy that is built on stealing intellectual property from other countries and companies and the country is also a dictatorship.

52 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

It simply lapsed because it wasn't renewed for eons and someone else re-registered it a few years ago.

That is also a very likely explanation.

Edited Monday at 08:00 AM by SpacePolice89

[anothergol]

1 hour ago, SpacePolice89 said:

YouTube videos from private individuals are not trustworthy sources. Even I could make one and claim something entirely different and people would believe what I say are facts. It is very plausible that Lego has sold the Kiddicraft trademark to someone else and all evidence points in that direction. I believe they were mostly after the patents and bought everything as a  package in 81. All fake brands are bad but the Chinese one are especially bad because of almost non existing workplace regulations and product safety as well as an entire economy that is built on stealing intellectual property from other countries and companies and the country is also a dictatorship.

Uh, that private individual in the video currently owns the Kiddicraft brand, I would trust him more than LEGO's PR that has already been caught trying to rewrite LEGO's history.

Yeah, it's China's thing to steal IP. But it's also LEGO's thing lol.

And yeah it's a dictatorship, at least we agree on that. So what? Good luck if you wanna live not touching ANYTHING from China lol. 
Do you have a problem with those official LEGO parts produced in China? How do you even recognize them? (I think most the CMF are?)
LEGO has factories all over the world, yeah in China & Vietnam too, like most big companies. And there's a reason their factories in Europe are more produced in cheaper eastern countries than in Denmark. 

2 hours ago, Mylenium said:

That, as they say in North Korea, is capitalist propaganda. *lol*. No, LEGO didn't buy any trademark. It simply lapsed because it wasn't renewed for eons and someone else re-registered it a few years ago. LEGO only ever bought the initial patents back in the 1950s and 1960s and everything that came with them and then "cleaned house" by buying up the remnants of what was left in the 1970s and 1980s, but never made any effort to actually keep the Kiddicraft brand alive.

From what I read, Fisher Price bought the Kiddicraft company in 89, and thus the brand along with it (well, says Wiki). But yeah quite likely that it timed out & the german dude simply re-registered it (I had read otherwise somewhere but can't find it back)

Also the real reason why LEGO bought the design from Kiddicraft is worse, it's because they couldn't attack competitors (Tyco being the first apparently) without fully owning the designs first lol.
So Tyco started producing bricks in 80, LEGO bought the designs in 81, and sued Tyco in 84. 
(that reminds me of Universal vs Nintendo about King Kong that they did not own)

Edited Monday at 09:15 AM by anothergol

[SpacePolice89]

2 hours ago, anothergol said:

And yeah it's a dictatorship, at least we agree on that. So what? Good luck if you wanna live not touching ANYTHING from China lol. 
Do you have a problem with those official LEGO parts produced in China? How do you even recognize them? (I think most the CMF are?)
LEGO has factories all over the world, yeah in China & Vietnam too, like most big companies. And there's a reason their factories in Europe are more produced in cheaper eastern countries than in Denmark. 

Most Lego sets sold in Europe are mostly made in Europe (production of pieces mostly in Denmark and Hungary and packaging and printing mostly in the Czech Republic). Only a small amount comes from other regions.

It is of course not possible to completely avoid products made in China but most stuff is avoidable if one puts some effort into it. Electronics and household equipment is easy to find from manufacturers in Europe, North America, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc. Varta batteries are made in Germany and Maglite flashlights in the US to name a few examples of other products that otherwise are mostly made in China. Clothing is the category that is the most difficult to find non China/dictator stuff but even there I manage to find products made in India, Portugal, Mexico, South America or the US to name a few places. Lego is actually one of the few toys that are not made in China (if you buy outside the Asia/Pacific region).   

[icm]

Regardless of where various items are manufactured, it's clearly wrong for Lego to protect a part that it did not originate and that other brands have been using for years. It's wrong for Lego to take credit for that part and prevent other brands from using it. It's wrong for Lego to copycat other brands and then play the victim. Forget about the geopolitics for a moment. This is wrong.

[anothergol]

Exactly. 

I wouldn't even complain if LEGO wasn't actively fighting fair competition. I would welcome the fact that just this year they've directly copied 7904, 7828/29, 7835 from other brands, and that more parts were inspired by existing ones from other brands. 
I'd be happy, because that makes it easier to get those parts, gives more choice of color, and it pushes the game forward (that's what competition is about, all benefit for the consumer).

But no, LEGO steals with one hand and uses the the other to point at those who steal from them. And when, like me, it's not the LEGO brand that you like, but the system (which, again, is mainly about set of metrics that LEGO did not come up with), you want to get all the parts that exist out there, whatever the brand. LEGO should just deal with it, and do better than the competition, the proper way to fight it. No one asked for the smart brick, all we want is more dumb bricks.

 

[SpacePolice89]

The pirate companies stole Lego's product in the first place so it's only fair that Lego get's the patent.

[Yperio_Bricks]

On 4/6/2026 at 9:58 AM, SpacePolice89 said:

YouTube videos from private individuals are not trustworthy sources. Even I could make one and claim something entirely different and people would believe what I say are facts. It is very plausible that Lego has sold the Kiddicraft trademark to someone else and all evidence points in that direction. I believe they were mostly after the patents and bought everything as a  package in 81. All fake brands are bad but the Chinese one are especially bad because of almost non existing workplace regulations and product safety as well as an entire economy that is built on stealing intellectual property from other countries and companies and the country is also a dictatorship.

Your blatant hate towards everything that is not Lego is blinding you. You are spreading hate in this forum for years now and I wish you would stop echoing the same hateful statements over and over again.

The "private individual" as you call him is the founder of the modern Kiddcraft company and the owner of the trademark. Lego never owned the Kiddicraft trademark. He knows more about the whole process than anybody else I have heard or read since I left my dark ages in 2018. From designing a set, creating new molds, creating new minifigs, printing, packaging, logistics & transport, pricing, protected parts and patents, legal basis and many more topics. He speaks openly about all these topics in his videos. And he certainly has more expertise on these subjects than most people on this planet. Surely more expertise than the haters.

 

[SpacePolice89]

3 hours ago, Yperio_Bricks said:

Your blatant hate towards everything that is not Lego is blinding you. You are spreading hate in this forum for years now and I wish you would stop echoing the same hateful statements over and over again.

That's uncalled for. I am allowed to have and opinion even if you disagree with it. That's how it works in the free world and after all this is a Lego forum and not a fake brand forum.

[Toastie]

5 hours ago, SpacePolice89 said:

That's how it works in the free world and after all this is a Lego forum and not a fake brand forum.

I believe I can call it my 40th research anniversary this year in summer.

What I have learned on that journey, both the hard way and the educated way (much later), is that when you never go out of your comfort zone, never leave your bubble, never watch out what others do (and they do it, for sure, things you can't even dream of) then the others just leave you behind. And go on and on. Fair or not fair, that is not the question. The question is: Am I on top of "things"? Thoughts, ideas, plans, proposals ... sometimes it is called creativity. 

It is a LEGO leaning >site<, which has a - you can repeat your "fake brand" term as long as you see fit - Community Forum. Where alternative brands are discussed, shown, challenged, praised, called what you call it all the time, and so on and so forth.

In a free world, that you love so much, this is of course self-evident.

       

[anothergol]

Well some love the brand, some love the system. 

For me a LEGO shoelace has zero value for my MOCs, because it's just a shoelace, it's not "in system", just a normal shoelace that happens to have appeared in a LEGO set. 
Meanwhile, there are lots of parts that are in system, very useful, and that LEGO has abandoned, but that other brands have cherished and moved forward. Like, the 2/3 prong hinges, they don't exist for LEGO anymore, but you can find them in modern colors & new parts.
There are brands that love better than LEGO what Kiddicraft & LEGO have created.

And I used to be a purist, for me it has never been about a brand (how much of a cultist does one have to be to love a company or brand?), but an art with a set of rules, the main one being "it has to be made of stuff found in LEGO sets". From that, I moved to "it has to be made of stuff in the bricks-compatible system" (so, the metrics mostly defined by Kiddicraft and a little by LEGO [since I believe LEGO came up with the plates & bars metrics]). And it's a lot more fun.
I think people into Technics made that choice much earlier btw. They don't mind going for third-party motors, carbon fiber axles, etc. Even if you simply want lighting in your MOCs these days, you can't go pure LEGO, LEGO has never cared about that. Meanwhile, some brands went all-in not just with LEDs that normally have nothing to do with the "system", but also with the new parts that help passing cables around & organizing them. 
 

Edited 22 hours ago by anothergol

[icm]

14 hours ago, SpacePolice89 said:

The pirate companies stole Lego's product in the first place so it's only fair that Lego get's the patent.

Two wrongs don't make a right. We're not talking about pirate companies producing dupes of official Lego sets, or even of fly-by-night outfits mass-producing stolen MOCs. We're talking about legitimate competing brick brands that make and sell their own original kit designs, using parts libraries that contain parts of their own design that Lego does not, or did not, make. If part "X" originated with company "Y" several years ago and has been used by company "Y" (and maybe company "Z" too) in multiple kits over the years, it is not necessarily wrong for Lego to also start using that part in its own kits, as long as that part is not protected by law. What is wrong is for Lego to exploit that lack of protection by trying to protect that part itself, so that company "Y" is no longer allowed to use part "X" that it originated several years ago! That is corporate theft, plain and simple. 

How many wrongs make a right? It's not just two. Is it three? Four? How many times does the cycle of finger-pointing about corporate theft, finders keepers, etc, have to repeat before everyone just plays fair with each other? The answer is blowin' in the wind, I guess.

[Toastie]

51 minutes ago, anothergol said:

I think people into Technics made that choice much earlier btw.

Been to the Train Tech forum? 

All the best
Thorsten

[danth]

All I know is this kind of patent seems anti competitive. It doesn't help anyone but TLG. Customers suffer if competing brands can't use certain shapes.

Patenting a brick shape is stupid. It's not like nobody ever thought of a quarter circle before. 

  

[RichardGoring]

There is a new 8x8 ring plate in the Jurassic Park Jeep Wrangler 77984 as the base for the display stand. In a designer interview from Tiago Catarino, at about 3:05 and at about 7:45 he reveals that the version they have is painted, and you can see the underside, which I thought was fascinating, that LEGO are OK with painting things. It's just prototyping, but fun to see how they subvert how most people treat their LEGO pieces.

There is also a new 4x8 tile in black and light grey in the set.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by RichardGoring

[anothergol]

2 hours ago, RichardGoring said:

There is also a new 4x8 tile in black and light grey in the set.

That's nice to get. 
Surprisingly one I haven't seen out there yet (while 4x4 existed before LEGO did theirs, and even 3x6 and 2x8 can be found)