Are Clone Lego Brands bad for LEGO?

[The Steward]

I think their strapline says it all. Small company that make toys that people can buy very cheaply. Nothing based on licenses but allow people on low income to purchase brick based toys.

Nothing that has any effect on Lego's bottom line or does anything to push Lego's prices up or even compete with Lego in the acquisition of licenses. They don't aim to compete with Lego, don't have the research budgets Lego do or even try say their moulding or plastics are as good as Lego... but it'll do the job for people that can't afford genuine Lego sets. It also doesn't say Lego anywhere on it.

If you think these toys somehow have an effect on Lego or give Lego reason to increase their prices due to perceived loss of market share and revenue then I'm really not sure what I can add.

You'll notice that The name of this thread is: ARE clone brands bad for LEGO? This thread is asking a question.

I don't know if The clone brands affect LEGO, but to me they look like cheap rip offs, made to make money, it looks like they don't care about the quality of their work, and if you don't care it is worthless, if you don't take pride in your work, it is meaningless and you can't be trusted to do it right or well because you don't care.

So yeah to me they look like rip offs made by some money grubbing garish schmuck.

Just looking at it you can tell it'll brake the day(or so) after you get it.

[Robianco]

This very well might be a company that might be part of a much larger group of companies. I've never had a brick break on me... no matter who has made it. Bricks don't break regardless of what anyone says. But then there are lots of people on this forum who've said that Lego bricks and other parts are breaking recently... does that mean Lego don't care? This company make a product that they do care about. It will achieve all the safety standards that it needs to. They just have smaller operating budgets so put out the best product they can.

Almost every single person on this forum is in the fortunate position of being able to afford Lego. Some of us do it ourselves and there are others who, despite the age restrictions on the site, still rely on parent's to buy it for birthdays or special occasions. There are other people who can't afford it. So they shouldn't have the right to build?

Patek Phillipe invented the wristwatch back in the 1800s... basically the first watch designed specifically for wearing on the wrist although as a piece of jewellery. Their watches sell for £10,000+... cheapest one currently available may be above £10k. I own an Omega wristwatch. A lot less than that but a large enough investment in a watch. I also own a Citizen Ecodrive... much less expensive but also a beautiful watch and one that's well made, looks good and keeps time well. Now while these are all well known brands the Citizen was £400 while the cheapest Patek Phillipe is over £10k... so a fraction of the cost... enough of a gap that there are people who can afford Phillipe watches and would never think to go as low as the Citizen watch... that's for people that can't afford Patek Phillipe watches.

Patek Phillipe invented the wristwatch but know that competition is good. They have an exclusivity but so do some of their competitors... competition drives them to create things of beauty with each range. Same with Rolex... and Breitling... They don't worry about the watches that cost £10 and will need the battery replacing... but that £10 watch could serve someone for many years and do the job of keeping time for someone regardless.

[fred67]

This kinda stuff this is what I consider a clone brand to be, basically it's cheap and ugly, and made to look like LEGO.

And yet there should be no confusion with LEGO, it doesn't even say "Compatible with LEGO" on it... and "ugly" is in the eye of the beholder, in this case. It's certainly not my kind of set, but I know plenty of people who bought Best-Loc sets (especially military themed, since TLG won't do it) and were very happy with them. Again, TLG didn't invent the interlocking plastic brick, so to call any other company that makes plastic, interlocking bricks "clones" is really just... wrong. So yes, this thread is asking a question, but we can't even agree on what "clone" means. Did Chevy "clone" Ford? Did Ford clone Benz?

When companies create sets that really look like existing LEGO sets, with LEGO trademarks (or trademarks licensed to LEGO, like the superhero minifigures), then you can argue those companies are doing something wrong and that their existence may hurt TLG, but other companies making interlocking bricks, even ones directly compatible with LEGO, are doing nothing wrong, they aren't violating patents, they aren't violating trademarks, and if someone is confused about whether or not it's LEGO is entirely on them - again, it's like confusing a midsize family sedan made by Chevy with one made by Ford - let's face it, there are a surprising number of similarities between car brands on similar class vehicles.

And you're ignoring the fact, as I pointed out before, that these companies often DO make bricks that TLG does not - so yes, they actually innovate. MB actually has a number of bricks that LEGO enthusiasts would love TLG to "clone." That creates competition, and competition is good for us, but it is (or can be), more importantly, good for TLG, because it forces them to innovate as well - and we all like at least some of the innovations they've come up with over the past 20 years, which makes us want to buy more. It's actually a wonderful ecosystem to have, and while patent law might need some work to deal with some specific issues they never thought of when they were writing the laws (mostly technology related), they've done an excellent job at allowing innovative companies to prosper without stifling competition.

So to answer the question, if there is a clone brand - you know, one that is actually ripping off sets that LEGO is currently making, and anybody is "fooled" into buying one thinking that it's genuine LEGO, then both TLG and the consumer suffer. But I submit that this is extremely rare.... it's hardly the same as someone making look-alike Gucci bags that are actually hard to tell apart.

Part of the reason I hate clone brands, is just the principle of the thing. They are copying LEGO and trying to trick people into buying this cheap plastic rip off.

The problem I have with what you're saying is, again, while LEGO might be the best, Best-Loc, Kre-O, and MB all make some very good quality products (again, even if not on par with LEGO). What they are making is no more a rip off or "clone" than what Ole Kirk Christiansen did.

I also submit, again, some third party businesses like BrickArms, BrickForge, etc., etc., are doing GOOD for LEGO, making LEGO more valuable for many enthusiasts. So before the CMF elf, before the LOTR sets, people who were into medieval fantasy could build an elf army. If they had no such option before, they would probably be buying less LEGO than they would have.

We might not even have what I consider to be one of the most beautiful sets EVER made - The Emerald Night - without Big Ben's Bricks.

I guess what I really am saying is, if we really want to discuss this, we have to nail down what "clone" means, but if anyone thinks that "clone" means any compatible building bricks that aren't made by LEGO, then I cannot take it seriously. Again, if anyone thinks only TLG should be allowed to make 1x1, 1x2, 2x2, 2x4 bricks, for example, then you should argue only one company should be allowed to make nails, or screws, or loose leaf paper and binders.... it's just patently (no pun intended) absurd (IMO).

[Sven F]

Unfortunately the interlocking system was registered as a patent, patents expire, and that's ok. What companies with retired patents often try to do is register the design as a trademark. This is difficult to get away with, and rarely works, and LEGO is no exception.

So clone brands have full rights to use the interlocking tubes and studs system (I am sorry, but I do still want to call them clone brands)

They also have rights to make all elements that are not registered as a trademark, and as far as i know, none of LEGO's are except the minifiugre assembly.

The reason for cancelling LEGO's trademark rights on their 2x4 brick was that it's shape is determined by its technical function. Meaning you can't interlock it with other elements if its not designed exactly like that, and things in that category are registered by patents, not trademarks.

Fair enough. So that settles the 2x4 brick and all the other sizes if you wish.

But LEGO also makes a lot of elements which are designed in ways that don't necessarily determine their technical function. For example there is more than one way to design a wheel element, a mudguard or whatever but clone brands still insist on shamelessly using LEGO's existing design and although legally not limited, use the same dimensions to keep compatibility, and as that's not blatant enough, they proudly parade this information on the box.

Things in business are a lot different than other aspects of life, there are no things like "honor" or "fair game" If something is legally allowable, it WILL be exploited. However, I am not a CEO or lawyer, I still value human traits of companies, and everyone who copies others work just because they can, get disrespect. I find "clone" to be an understatement, they don't clone, they copy.. most of them very badly.

[The Steward]

I also submit, again, some third party businesses like BrickArms, BrickForge, etc., etc., are doing GOOD for LEGO, making LEGO more valuable for many enthusiasts. So before the CMF elf, before the LOTR sets, people who were into medieval fantasy could build an elf army. If they had no such option before, they would probably be buying less LEGO than they would have.

We might not even have what I consider to be one of the most beautiful sets EVER made - The Emerald Night - without Big Ben's Bricks.

I guess what I really am saying is, if we really want to discuss this, we have to nail down what "clone" means, but if anyone thinks that "clone" means any compatible building bricks that aren't made by LEGO, then I cannot take it seriously. Again, if anyone thinks only TLG should be allowed to make 1x1, 1x2, 2x2, 2x4 bricks, for example, then you should argue only one company should be allowed to make nails, or screws, or loose leaf paper and binders.... it's just patently (no pun intended) absurd (IMO).

I agree that things like brick arms are good for LEGO.

But no I am not saying that LEGO should be the only one who can make 1x1 etc. sized bricks, that's as you said is like saying only one company can make nails, screws etc. but some of these building brick brands are copying LEGO, in regards to the figures they come with.

But I would submit that the LEGO clones on places like ebay of things like super hero minifigs are bad, because some money grubber is making fake minifigures out of cheap plastic and selling them as if they are LEGO. Which (as it is usually Super heroes) is a copyright infringement.

[Robianco]

Which (as it is usually Super heroes) is a copyright infringement.

We could start to go down the 'Are custom minifigures of unreleased licensed characters acceptable even if printed on genuine Lego?' territory here...

But on your comments... which is where I'd say 'clone brands' are actually just that... where the Decools and Sheng Yuans of this world very often 'clone' a full product including similar packaging and replica instructions of identical build. This is just a rip off of Lego's products... no grey areas there. But strangely enough... as I said in an early post... they exist and have most exposure and distribution in Lego's fastest growing market... so as much as it's entirely illegal it actually doesn't seem to be harming Lego in any serious way. Not in a market share sense anyway... and I think the consumers there are savvy enough to know exactly what it is they're buying so there's no danger of people thinking these copies are genuine. To be honest I don't think anyone believes that they're buying genuine Lego as long as it's packaged. It's the people on eBay who list bootlegs as genuine while out of packaging that are more to blame.

People referring to all blocks as Lego is really no different to all stick tape and being Sellotape or all vacuum cleaners being Hoovers. It's wrong but if your brand name becomes synonymous with a particular product that can't be a bad thing.

[mpfirnhaber]

Clone brands aren't as bad for LEGO as they were for Kiddicraft :)

[The Steward]

We could start to go down the 'Are custom minifigures of unreleased licensed characters acceptable even if printed on genuine Lego?' territory here...

No, not custom minifigs, when the Super Hero figs are made on different plastic but are replicas of LEGO's existing figures. They are made to look the same, but are incredibly cheap.

[fred67]

So then if we can limit it to a couple of things - like copying things that TLG has a legitimate trademark on (minifigures) or a licensed trademark (superheroes and other licensed property), then while I would agree that those companies "might" be doing something that is not only illegal, but "bad" (as the topic says), including "bad" for TLG - but not "LEGO" as a product, because in vast majority of cases people know exactly what they are getting. If you're paying $5 for a Gucci bag, you're not getting a Gucci bag. It's really that simple - and it's not to say that the world should exist around a "buyer beware" mentality, it's not a justification for companies trying to pass off products as a name brand, it's that consumers can't be stupid about it either.

...

OK, I initially posted a really long rant, but will simplify it to this:

If you're paying $5 for a Gucci bag, you're not getting a Gucci bag - and you KNOW you're not getting a Gucci bag.

Does that make it bad for Gucci, or the bag industry in general?

No. Gucci didn't lose a sale... you can't tell me someone who wants a genuine Gucci bag would pay $5 for one and think they're actually getting a Gucci bag.

Now, when those companies are trying to sell you that knockoff for $1000, that hurts the industry... but none of the LEGO clones are actually purporting to be LEGO. Most don't even mention LEGO on the packaging, claiming to be compatible with other plastic bricks.

Now there are some that do try to confuse people with looking like LEGO, and then I'd say that yes, those companies are bad and hurt LEGO, but otherwise people should know what they are buying.

Edited December 14, 2015 by fred67

[MAB]

Most other brands of building blocks, are of lesser quality, as in plastic and just the general building look.

What proof do you have that they are less quality plastic?

No, not custom minifigs, when the Super Hero figs are made on different plastic but are replicas of LEGO's existing figures. They are made to look the same, but are incredibly cheap.

They aren't different plastic. The fakers are ABS too.

If you're paying $5 for a Gucci bag, you're not getting a Gucci bag - and you KNOW you're not getting a Gucci bag.

And also the $5 bag is not necessarily any worse quality than the $1000 Gucci bag. For example, in jeans / denims manufacture, many superstore brand jeans are being made in the same factory as high end designer jeans. Often from the same material stock on the same machines. Just different designs and different labels are sown on.

[ShaydDeGrai]

In _my_ mind, a "clone brand" is one where the core of the product is a direct implementation of expired (or infringed) intellectual property as recognized by patent. This is different from "licensed by patent" or "derived from patent". To qualify for a patent, an inventor has to demonstrate that his/her idea represent an "non-obvious" innovation over prior art, which is to say that a third party, knowledgable in your field is convinced you've done something meaningfully different than what everyone else had thought to do based on the same starting position. Nearly all patent applications cite prior (patented) work (and if they don't it often raises flags that results in the patent being rejected) so that it is clear where the unique, value-added starts.

By this definition, after adding the "tube" to the "knob" of interlocking bricks, LEGO wasn't a "clone", they'd demonstrated "non-obvious innovation" at the core of the product.

Also, Samsonite Lego wasn't a clone, it was licensed (and as a side-bar let's not lose sight of the fact that the word "patent" means "open" and the original purpose of patents was not to promote exclusivity, it was to get good ideas out there while protecting inventors from manufacturers who wanted to steal their designs, bring them to market and not share the profit. For much of the history of patent law, most companies did not have R&D departments; invention was something largely left to individuals and companies focused on implementation. It wasn't until the rise of people like Ford and Edison that "in-house" innovation became a big business model. Also, it is only in the last half century or so that companies have started using patent law as a way of _preventing_ competition rather than promoting it (and this is usually done by setting patent fees so high that anyone trying to license the IP will be priced out of the market (thanks largely to Drug and Software company lawyers).

Things like Mega-blocks and Kre-O (and any number of cheap knock-offs) clearly are clones as, while they may introduce a few parts here and there that are worthy of patents, their products simply wouldn't be viable without directly implementing designs originally held by TLG that they are not paying licensing fees on (which is all perfectly legal).

Things like Brick Arms and Big Ben Bricks are not clones as the core of their business is to innovating new parts that are compatible with LEGO but not a direct implementation of existing parts.

So, are clones bad for TLG? I would say only where they undermine the LEGO brand with misleading packaging (counterfeits) or dilute brand recognition (like all cotton swabs becoming known as Q-tips, all adhesive bandages becoming Band-aids, etc.) An educated consumer will not be fooled, just as my wife would never buy a "Guchi" purse for $50 thinking that it was a great bargain on a "Gucci" one. And it is also fair to say that an educated customer might also _choose_ to buy the clone for whatever reason. The problem lies with the uneducated consumer, the cost to "educate" them and the competition for "shelf space" (real or virtual) with vendors.

I remember being on vacation once up in Vermont and overhearing an elderly woman who came into a local General Store. "Do you carry Lego?" she asked. "Oh yes," replied the clerk, "we carry all the major lego brands, even some exclusives from England" and pointed her at the toy section. _Major lego brands??_ I thought. _England?_ So I wandered in that direction myself and found a wall with a handful of genuine Lego side by side with Mega-Blocks, Kre-O and Best-Lock kits, all displayed under a familiar red logo on the wall advertising Lego. Regardless of brand, nearly all the kits were in the 25-50 dollar range but that also meant that the genuine Lego kits were fairly modest (Creator line) compared to the buying power of $50 for the clones. The woman, BTW, opted for a larger, non-Lego kit.

So yes, there are ways in which clones hurt TLG's bottom line. The woman set out to spend $50 on a gift for some kid who likes Lego and that money went to a different manufacturer, plain and simple. Would the kid have known the difference and opted for one of the "real" sets, maybe (or maybe the kid would have opted for quantity over quality as well - who knows) The point is LEGO, as a brand, was diluted, a customer was (intentionally or otherwise) mislead into thinking there was no real difference and the in-store inventory implied that you "get more" by _not_ paying for the Lego brand.

Granted this was just one incident that I personally witnessed, but I find it quite easy to believe that scenarios like this play out all over the world every day. Maybe this is a good thing (for us as educated consumers) in that it reminds TLG to keep prices reasonable, quality high and innovation forthcoming.

Then again, you have to wonder how many kids are politely faking smiles under the pressure of a parent's glare when that well-meaning aunt or grandmother shows up with a Best-Lock Dinosuar Set after repeatedly asking for a Lego Jurassic World kit for Christmas

[mpfirnhaber]

LEGO was very much a clone when it started. They copied the 2x2 and 2x4 brick design directly from Kiddicraft, along with the 1-slot and 2-slot brick configurations, the baseplates, even the shape and style of the doors and windows. Kiddicraft also produced DUPLO-sized bricks long before LEGO did.

LEGO also copied Kiddicraft's first interlocking brick design - the early Bri-Plax cubes, which were patented in 1936. LEGO's version Byggeklodser came out in 1950, though in such limited quantities they mostly only exist in Billund's vaults. LEGO not only copied the Bri-Plax brick design, but also the packaging design and configuration.

Yes, LEGO added tubes and revolutionized the 2x4 brick design and took over the world, but only after selling "clone" bricks for 9 years :)

[The Steward]

LEGO was very much a clone when it started. They copied the 2x2 and 2x4 brick design directly from Kiddicraft, along with the 1-slot and 2-slot brick configurations, the baseplates, even the shape and style of the doors and windows. Kiddicraft also produced DUPLO-sized bricks long before LEGO did.

LEGO also copied Kiddicraft's first interlocking brick design - the early Bri-Plax cubes, which were patented in 1936. LEGO's version Byggeklodser came out in 1950, though in such limited quantities they mostly only exist in Billund's vaults. LEGO not only copied the Bri-Plax brick design, but also the packaging design and configuration.

Yes, LEGO added tubes and revolutionized the 2x4 brick design and took over the world, but only after selling "clone" bricks for 9 years :)

That's not what LEGO's documentary on their company says.....

Lego's documentary says the owner just saw a plastic brick making machine at a toy fair, thought it was awesome and bought it.

Edited December 14, 2015 by The Steward

[Robianco]

That's not what LEGO's documentary on their company says.....

Lego's documentary says the owner just saw a plastic brick making machine at a toy fair, thought it was awesome and bought it.

Well they do say history is written by the winners...

[fred67]

The history is well known; of course TLG is going to give their own whitewashed version of it.

By this definition, after adding the "tube" to the "knob" of interlocking bricks, LEGO wasn't a "clone", they'd demonstrated "non-obvious innovation" at the core of the product.

But for quite some time they sold bricks identical to the kiddiecraft ones.

Just like MB, who sold/sells bricks just like LEGO... but then added their own into the mix, as did Kre-O and Best-Loc.

The simple fact is that things are never quite as simple as we make them out to be, and the way the world advances is by taking existing ideas and improving on them - and that's exactly why patents expire. Yes, it's true, sometimes people just capitalize on the ideas of others and don't innovate, but none of these major companies have NOT made unique bricks.

I'll repeat what I said earlier - the patent system is not perfect, but ALL of these major companies have benefited both from the existence of patents AND the fact they expire, as have we all.

EDIT: I want to add more to that last statement... it's not just the products they produce, but EVERYTHING along the line in the manufacturing process. All of those things - the patents for ABS formulas, tooling machines, injection molding processes, even shipping processes... they ALL benefit from the expiration of patents. EVERY major company does, Apple does, Samsung does, every major electronics manufacture has both been protected by patents, and taken advantage of expired patents. You can't blame MB or Best-Loc without blaming virtually EVERY single major company out there, INCLUDING TLG.

Edited December 14, 2015 by fred67

[ShaydDeGrai]

But for quite some time they sold bricks identical to the kiddiecraft ones.

No argument there. What I meant to say (but only implied) was that after adding the tube LEGO wasn't a clone _anymore_ . That's because their new "non-obvious" innovation became the heart of their product line. Yes, they built upon (no pun intended) the prior art of kiddiecraft and their own knock-offs, but almost all patented technology does that these days, but the key point is that they weren't supplementing the copied IP with custom additions (like BrickArms or Mega-Blocs) they were supplanting a borrowed idea with a new innovation and stopped selling the old design.

Just like MB, who sold/sells bricks just like LEGO... but then added their own into the mix, as did Kre-O and Best-Loc.

In the MegaBlocks (et alii) case, their innovations (and there are some) are largely meaningless without being co-packaged with _exact copies_ of the "borrowed" IP, unlike Brick Arms, who can be very successful selling you a baggie full of arms and armor without actually selling you a Mini-figure. Imagine what the typical MegaBlocs model would look like if they _only_ sold you the parts that they authored the original patents for (expired or not) - there wouldn't be very much in the box because the core of their product is based on IP developed elsewhere.

Just to be clear, I am not against patents. I'm an engineer and co-author on several patent applications over the years. I'm against abuse of patent law in order to stifle competition. Patents were invented to encourage widespread adoption of good ideas while trying to be fair to inventors, manufacturers and consumers alike. That's why they are public and have expiration dates.

You can't blame MB or Best-Loc without blaming virtually EVERY single major company out there, INCLUDING TLG.

In this fred67 is quite correct but I'll take it one step further and say that the concept of "blame" only applies to patent infringement, which is illegal. Once a patent is issued the original authors are entitled, by law, to set the "fee" associated with using the idea. After a fixed term (which has changed over the years but typically has been somewhere between 14 and 21 years) they may have the option of applying for a one-time renewal (varies by country and industry) which, if granted, gets them another fixed term (usually half to three quarters of the length of the original) to collect fees from companies seeking to use the idea to advance their own agenda. After initial term (and any applied for and approved extension) elapses, the idea _automatically_ is given into the public domain and _anyone_ can use it without asking permission or paying a fee.

That's just how the system works and and the inventor has to agree to play by these rules when they apply for the patent in the first place. Patents are designed to funnel ideas into the public domain and if you don't like it, use a copyright (if appropriate) , a trademark (if eligible) or take your chances with a trade secret.

TLG knew there would be a day when anyone would be able to produce compatible bricks using the very patent that they authored and, presumably, they planned for that day by not sitting on their laurels assuming they'd always have a monopoly on 2x4 plastic bricks. It makes no sense to "blame" MB for capitalizing on a good idea in the public domain, that's just good business sense and is exactly the sort of thing the authors of the first patent laws back in the 1400's _intended_ to have happen.

Now if someone were producing a design that was still protected under patent without asking permission and paying a fee, that would be a different story (mostly playing out in south east asia these days) but that's not what Kre-O and MB are doing. The parent companies are both too big and too market-aware to risk international lawsuits and product recalls over the design of a particular brick when they can fill a box, design reasonable kits and realize a tidy profit using all public domain elements.

[anothergol]

No argument there. What I meant to say (but only implied) was that after adding the tube LEGO wasn't a clone _anymore_ .

it's like saying that it wasn't a clone anymore after they added "lego" on each stud :)

But it doesn't even matter, they did it again later, shamelessly cloning Philiform.

Lego shares that with Minecraft, sometimes the clone wins, and some try to rewrite history.

[AAG Spitta - LEGO Channel]

I would say that the clone brands certainly affect LEGO. They are everywhere!

[Dopplercb]

As someone who buys knock off and clone brands on the regular, all they made me do is hanker for the real thing all the more. But enlighten is a fantastic quality clone brand. IMO.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Dopplercb

[_Samibotss_]

Kre-O, Megablocks,lite bricks, etc... all took advantage of LEGO's expiring patent for a brick&tub based construction toys, to basically be allowed to sell their clone lego products without law problems....

I personally think if LEGO took the time to file a lawsuit against these companies, then I think it must hurt them in someway. But not in a major way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_clone

[notaromantic]

I know, a touchy subject. Always has been. And one definitely in need of a different perspective.

And so, I told myself I would look at it this way:

"Are clones of Me bad for Me?"

And I'll have to get back to you as its a pretty complicated idea right now. But in my gut, something just does not sit right... That primal fear, to wit every sci-fi-horror story/movie speaks, that whispers to us that, ultimately, in the end, any clones will be dangerous to us, probably should be listened to: Clone(s) = Not Good(^x).

But does that pertain to LEGO? I'm not sure. But I believe the question of it basicically does: Does their charity outweigh their malevolence?

I think in the beginning it could've been argued that it did - that companies, by making things LEGO does not, are actually benefitting the hobbyist/ hobby. - But more recently, it seems, companies are instead, mostly via online auctions, flooding the market with direct, very blatant rip-offs of many things LEGO. Which, I believe changes the nature of the answer to that argument. But really, now speaking to the question of cloning myself, and this too, is there really any other evolution to it that turns out positive? I mean, human intelligence will always find its way to trip itself up. A clone will just be able to do it with less empathy.