A sad day for the LEGO brick

[randomparrot]

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/entertai...2/1534206.shtml

I'm guessing more clone brands. I'm sorry If this has been posted or if it's in the wrong forum.

[KinGanon]

I dunno this seems like the perfect opportunity for a company to step up and have their go at bricks(even if it fails the competition will hopefully drive LEGO prices down)

[dj2005]

I dunno this seems like the perfect opportunity for a company to step up and have their go at bricks(even if it fails the competition will hopefully drive LEGO prices down)

Agreed. Competition is almost always good for the consumer.

[Guss]

good the consumer for low prices... but if the quality decrease because of it ...

[Front]

I've seen some of the stuff mega-brand does, like their ball-joints a la bionicle.

I have rarely seen such low quality, the pieces was in my opinion an example of extremely low engineering quality.

The dimensions of Lego bricks may not always be perfect, but are there any other toy company able to mass produce in such quantities with such a high standard ?

Not by a mile if you ask me.

Front

[Skipper 24]

I think this is really sad. We should like make a petition or something, I will never buy from clone brands ever although they make awesome classic space stuff.

[Algernon]

Unfortunately, it's hard to argue that LEGO has exclusive rights to the brick shape. But this isn't good news for a company already struggling to make end's meet. I don't like high prices, but I understand that LEGO is trying to market a building toy to a demographic that generally prefers breaking things. With more clone brands this will inevitably mean that LEGO will loose money and be forced to drop their prices. They can't drop prices without decreasing quality somehow. I prefer expensive, good sets to cheap, bad ones. I imagine this also means LEGO will have to get more creative with their marketing... meaning we'll see more lines like Power Miners, and probably more licensed themes.

This is not a good thing for LEGO.

[Buttons]

It would be interesting to know what kind of proffits Lego make from selling one set.

[The Cobra]

This reminds me of my first post on this forum.

[5150 Lego]

I've seen some of the stuff mega-brand does, like their ball-joints a la bionicle.

I have rarely seen such low quality, the pieces was in my opinion an example of extremely low engineering quality.

The dimensions of Lego bricks may not always be perfect, but are there any other toy company able to mass produce in such quantities with such a high standard ?

Not by a mile if you ask me.

Front

Agreed. The clone brands,while having a few decent sets and licenses (Mclaren Mercadeses for example),there quality just doesn't hol par to that of Lego bricks. Its because of this, that i feel Lego will always be top dog when it comes to construction toys.

I think this is really sad. We should like make a petition or something, I will never buy from clone brands ever although they make awesome classic space stuff.

A petition won't do anything. If lego lost the rights, then they lost the rights. Like others have said, this should be good for the consumer. More competion means lowewr prices, and more themes. Even these that Lego might not have considered doing.

As far as quality, i don't think this will bring the quality down,since that is IMO, the thing that really seperates LEGO from the clone brands.

[KinGanon]

A petition won't do anything. If lego lost the rights, then they lost the rights. Like others have said, this should be good for the consumer. More competion means lowewr prices, and more themes. Even these that Lego might not have considered doing.

As far as quality, i don't think this will bring the quality down,since that is IMO, the thing that really seperates LEGO from the clone brands.

I don't think LEGO ill stray too far

I mean we've seen quality decrease(like Stickers as opposed to printing) but I don't think something drastic like switching to low quality plastic will happen

(Then again most companies risk going up against a major construction toy like Lego that a long history of quality and many dedicated fans)

[legotrainfan]

This is not good news. I think clone brands mainly profit from inattentive customers. They see a set with bricks and don't look if it's LEGO or not.... but there are certainly also customers who don't really care if it's LEGO or a clone brand. They just want the set to be cheap. At least here in Europe I have seldom seen clone brands (especially in my country).

[daxflame680]

If they even think about lowering the quality, I will leave LEGO. I don't care about the prices.

Quality>Quantity

And I'm not really worried about the clones taking over. LEGO has ALWAYS been waaaaaay better than BEST LOCK or MEGA BLOCKS

[Corvus]

Uh, guys, It's been this way for a while, and that Canadian company is Megabloks.

I know it's legal to copy LEGO, but it's called common decency... Cashing in on what someone else invented.

[brickzone]

Competition isn't always good. Sometimes it may mean lower prices, but then you get far poorer merchandise. Worse still, those making proper merchandise may go out of business. Ultimately cheaper prices don't just mean you get to buy more, it means companies have to run on tighter margins and pay workers less.

So no, I consider the "competition is good" line to be overly simplistic. I certainly would like to see competition in some areas of the market here in Ireland, but in other areas it is infeasible, and sensible regulation to keep a tight reign on monopolies or strong players is a far preferable ambition than pretending competition can be fostered.

[CP5670]

If they even think about lowering the quality, I will leave LEGO. I don't care about the prices.

Quality>Quantity

They already did that two years ago, ever since the change to clear ABS pellets. Lego is still a cut above MB and other clones, but the gap in quality has certainly closed a lot from what it was at one point.

I'm a stickler for brick quality and don't like this at all, but I can see why TLG did it to remain a competitive business. This is a trend we've seen with a lot of products, not just Lego. Manufacturers have realized that people generally don't care about quality with most incidental purchases, and would much rather have lower prices.

[fenrir]

The prices of LEGO are high. But the quality of the products are superb (constant). And so are the services they offer.

Unforunatly, as someone said before. If costumers respond on the low prices of other brands, LEGO will be forced to respond on this. If they'll make LEGO cheaper I'm afraid some of the quality and services will be lost...

(And I don't like they Idea buying second hand LEGO from the internet with LEGO clones in it )

[GIR 3691]

I don't really see this as a crisis. Clone brands have been around for years, and none have been able to compete with LEGO quality and brand-name reputation. Why should they be any different now?

[Brickthing]

I don't really see this as a crisis. Clone brands have been around for years, and none have been able to compete with LEGO quality and brand-name reputation. Why should they be any different now?

Now it's much more legal for them to produce their bricks, and they can advertise themselves much more.

[WhiteHexagon]

What LEGO is trying to do here is get around their expired patents by registering the 2x4 brick as a trademark. A battle I think they already lost back in 1999. So this isn't going to change anything. It's been legal to build clone bricks for many years, since the patents expired a long time ago. They need to trust in the consumer is what I think. And with the improvements in sets we've seen recently, I think they are on strong ground.

[edit]

What I never realised before today was that the locking building block patents were originally of English origin!

http://www.hilarypagetoys.com/

Edited November 13, 2008 by WhiteHexagon

[pr0visorak]

Lego will still go strong after all, it has a lot of great themes. Take mega blocks for example, they are tried copying. But Lego still beats them by a mile :pir-skull:

[Minifig Lecturer]

I think this is good news and competition is good. I don't understand how someone can say "competition is bad". They must like monopolies. The consumer decides if they are willing to pay for a more expensive products. If they prefer the cheaper product then the quality difference isn't big enough.

IMO the quality of TLC's bricks has been deteriorating anyway and those of it's competitors can only improve and close the gap.

Competition is likely to force TLC to reduce set prices AND increase quality. Same with their competitors.

The problem for TLC however is the recession. Expect large fall in profits next year, maybe losses.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Calvin

[dj2005]

Competition isn't always good. Sometimes it may mean lower prices, but then you get far poorer merchandise. Worse still, those making proper merchandise may go out of business. Ultimately cheaper prices don't just mean you get to buy more, it means companies have to run on tighter margins and pay workers less.

So no, I consider the "competition is good" line to be overly simplistic. I certainly would like to see competition in some areas of the market here in Ireland, but in other areas it is infeasible, and sensible regulation to keep a tight reign on monopolies or strong players is a far preferable ambition than pretending competition can be fostered.

I haven't seen anyone here make the claim that competition is always good. Obviously, it isn't. If TLC isn't making a large profit off of each set they sell and the company truly is in it for their consumer base, with raising profits second, then competition is likely a bad thing. However, I have yet to witness a monopolistic hold on a certain area to be beneficial to anyone other than the high executives of the corresponding company. I much rather have competition, even an oligopoly, where other companies have the ability to market to families that perhaps cannot afford high prices, or where companies can actually produce better quality items at either the same or lower price. Take a look at Intel vs AMD (back when AMD wasn't a laughing stock) and nVidia vs ATi. In both of these instances, the consumer base got much better products at very competitive prices.

This isn't to say I don't agree with your post. If competition forces TLC to lower their quality control and/or forces them to layoff many of their workers then I much rather pay a bit more.

[Lasse D]

Competition is always good, and LEGO has plenty of competition from all other toy makers.

Copying and brand devaluation on the other hand is bad, and this is exactly what those clone makers do when they lure customers into thinking that they are buying LEGO. The bricks as we know them are "LEGOs" in the common mindset, and clone companies make "LEGOs" as well, which leads to people believing that the quality of LEGO is decreasing.

Now LEGO has to make an offensive "it is only real LEGO when LEGO is written on top"-campaigns, which is quite costly.

[mania3]

Again, I have to say that I don't think competition will be a problem here. If a company's business model is under threat by having to compete with people creating similar products, then I think it is inherently flawed. TLC survived a nearly colossal collapse that came due to their own mistakes, and I'd certainly say they are smarter for having endured it and certainly have solidified their core principles. That being said, any competition coming about at this point now is going up against a toy juggernaut that has withstood the test of time and failure. Even as a young child, I can recall noting a severe detriment in the quality of Megablocks to my LEGO sets (I was unfortunate enough to have well-meaning but ill-informed family members trying to buy a gift for me at Christmas. I assure you, it happened only once.) So, maybe I am overly optimistic in thinking that I see this as an issue of the market sorting things out itself. Plus, I trust the clout of the LEGO legal department. I recall reading an interview with the Agents designer who said that introducing the new cyborg arm caused a conflict with the patent. If a legal team is that strict with their own design team, then I'd say they'll be sternly watching any clone companies.