42167 Mack LR Electric Garbage Truck

[gyenesvi]

I'd like to point out that the two statements

On 12/24/2023 at 5:28 PM, AVCampos said:

So, I believe it's likely that the designer(s) came across your creation or a clone of it, even if unintentionally.

...

I don't believe LEGO copied your design.

seem to be somewhat contradictory to me.

If Lego designers did come across the creation of @Alexander Hamsterton, which seems incredibly likely given the above analysis, then they could not have just independently come up with the same solution to the same problem, since they were probably influenced by it in the first place. Hence they cannot have done anything else but reused the essence of the design.

To me the analysis and 'evidence' enumerated by @Alexander Hamsterton seems very thorough and convincing. So I think it's much more probable that Lego designers did reuse his design than not. I appreciate their full understanding that they have nothing to claim legally, and they don't try to do so, that's a very mature approach. However, I understand their wish to get some credit for the design at least from this community (also agree, that in Lego, making a much smaller version of an existing large mechanism can be an entirely different challenge).

As an analogy, I think for many MOC designers, a really irritating thing about their design being stolen by some clone brand is not just that they don't get compensated for it (after all, I'm not even sure whether/how copyright laws would apply to stuff that we put out there on RB), but rather that much of the world will believe that it's the design of the clone brand and will never get to know their name. It would feel much better if they just knew it I guess :)

[AVCampos]

I referred to those three sets as examples of grab-and-lift mechanisms (which, at least as far as I know, differ from grab-and-dump just in angle and range of motion; they're all mechanisms in which the input, when it can close the claw no further, automatically raises the arm it's attached to) in general in previous official sets, not the specific way they're implemented or their capabilities. As you're certainly aware, often there are many ways to create a given mechanism. For example, I bet you had to go through many iterations of the mechanism before settling on the one you were most satisfied with.

The dartboard analogy I made wasn't just about garbage trucks or grab-and-lift mechanisms, but LEGO ideas (with lowercase i), concepts and mechanisms in general. With so many fans around the world creating so much stuff, it's practically inevitable that sooner or later an official design will be similar in some way to a fan-created one. Even though I'm not a LEGO employee, I think it's safe to say that TLG doesn't keep their employees locked inside a room with no access to the outside world to prevent them from being aware of fans' creations, and I hope they don't keep an ever growing list of ideas that are forbidden because fans already did them one way or another. The worst that can happen is "X is the best way to do Y but someone else already did the X way, so we have to do Y in a worse way to be different", and I (and I believe I'm not alone in this) really don't want that. So, I'm not surprised when occasionally there's an overlap between what TLG does and what fans do.

Come to think of it, the "dartboard full of darts" isn't the best analogy for what I'm trying to express. A better one would be LEGO throwing darts trying to not hit any target, and fans putting up more and more targets on the wall. Again, not just about garbage trucks and grab-and-lift mechanisms, but ideas, concepts and implementations in general.

 

5 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

I'd like to point out that the two statements

On 12/24/2023 at 4:28 PM, AVCampos said:

So, I believe it's likely that the designer(s) came across your creation or a clone of it, even if unintentionally.

...

I don't believe LEGO copied your design.

seem to be somewhat contradictory to me.

I don't think the statements are contradictory, because coming across the Ideas project or a clone doesn't imply an outright copy. For example, I saw an ad for a cool all-terrain tracked vehicle on a Chinese site, and suspected it had to be a copy of a fan design; turns out it is. The clone brand set is a clear case of a copy. But does the fact that I became aware of a four-armed tracked climber forbid me, or anyone else that sees it, to make my own four-armed tracked climber? (I sure hope not, because I want to make one some day) Or I could just have glanced over it without noticing, and somewhere in the future think "hey, I vaguely recall seeing a four-armed tracked climber, that'd be a cool thing to make".

 

All in all, this debate, which sincerely I'm personally finding too exhausting for its importance, highlights that there's no clear line between independent creation and plagiarism with inspiration somewhere between them, and that different people draw at different places along a gradient the lines that divide the concepts.

Also, the abundance of expressions like "I think" and "most likely" in my posts regarding this matter is intentional. These posts are only the expression of my opinion and of things that in my opinion may or may not have happened. Since I didn't participate in the development of any of the models (Ideas garbage truck and 42167), I'm aware that I don't know and certainly will never know the full truth, and took care to express it as well as I could. So, since they're just opinions and conjectures, I'm also aware and accept that there's a real probability that they may be wrong. Finally, since I've been on the Internet long enough (for almost 24 years... wow, I feel old), I know that these posts, mine or otherwise, won't change any opinions, and I also accept that.

 

Something else just occurred to me right now: what if your project was rejected by the Ideas team, but the Technic team liked it and wanted to try their hand at doing that concept in Technic? It wouldn't be the first time that within TLG "the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing", and not mentioning the inspiration was the Technic team's way of avoiding a clash between departments? To be clear: I have no idea if any of this is true or false; this is just a spitball theory I came up with.

[R0Sch]

Everybody who saw the Mack Garbage truck's mechanism and knew Hamsterton's (aka MochiMaster) submission immediately recognized the source. In today's digital world it's not rocket science to do a quick google search "lego garbage truck mechanism" and the first thing that will pop up is the Ideas submission.
But sadly this is the reality when it comes to multi-billion companies and the daily business practices. Whatever is not patented or under copyright can and will be copied. It happens in the automotive industry all the time so why wouldn't it be common in TLG too? Everyone who submits something to Ideas accepts a long list of terms including the sell-out of their design and blocking the IP for 3 years. It's why TLG did this theme in the first place, to have an endless supply of brainstorming material and a free world wide market analysis on what is popular and in demand and what products can reach new audiences who never heard of LEGO and trap them in this expensive, vicious hobby.
That's why some MOC'ers won't even bother gambling with LEGO Ideas anymore. It's better to just reach out to one of the many Chinese alternatives who will at least respect their design, instead of turning it into a completely different thing that people voted for, like TLG does. Plus you get compensated with a fixed amount and not just % of however many copies sell.

[gyenesvi]

18 hours ago, AVCampos said:

I don't think the statements are contradictory, because coming across the Ideas project or a clone doesn't imply an outright copy.

Sure, you are right, I also tried to use words carefully when I said somewhat contradictory, and what I actually wanted to mean is that the hypothesis that they probably came across the mechanism means that they probably did not invent the same solution totally independently. But you are right, there is a fine line here, with lots of suppositions, so after a while it's not worth pursuing the topic further.

[Alexander Hamsterton]

23 hours ago, AVCampos said:

The dartboard analogy I made wasn't just about garbage trucks or grab-and-lift mechanisms, but LEGO ideas (with lowercase i), concepts and mechanisms in general.

...and I hope they don't keep an ever growing list of ideas that are forbidden because fans already did them one way or another.

Our conversation is about the implementation of one very specific mechanism. A mechanism that is explicitly not “forbidden” from LEGO because we have assigned them the rights to it. 

23 hours ago, AVCampos said:

But does the fact that I became aware of a four-armed tracked climber forbid me, or anyone else that sees it, to make my own four-armed tracked climber?

I have no idea where you’re getting this idea. We are certainly not saying individuals should be prevented from building whatever they want. This has nothing to do with the conversation we are having.

23 hours ago, AVCampos said:

All in all, this debate, which sincerely I'm personally finding too exhausting for its importance...

Levi and I are investing in this (we concur exhausting) conversation because it actually is very important to us to share our honest perspective and try to keep the record straight. The personal impact on us is substantial.

[TeriXeri]

 

15 hours ago, R0Sch said:

Everybody who saw the Mack Garbage truck's mechanism and knew Hamsterton's (aka MochiMaster) submission immediately recognized the source. In today's digital world it's not rocket science to do a quick google search "lego garbage truck mechanism" and the first thing that will pop up is the Ideas submission.

First results that pops up on "electric side loader garbage truck"  is the Heil RevAMP real life truck, which the LEGO model is based on, and looks much much closer to the IDEAS submission ever did. LEGO didn't just put a Mack sticker on it to claim it.

The truck is Mack, but the exact mechanism used is made by Heil , a company that exists over a 100 years, and making garbage trucks all over the US since at least the 1930s.

Since this is what they say the  "world's first all-electric side loader" (which means no hydraulics and a seperate battery for the collecting mechanism) , which I assume made it special enough for LEGO to produce it.

"The Heil RevAMP electric side loader is more environmentally friendly than any other standard automated truck on the market." 

Sounds exactly like the talk LEGO has been doing for the past couple years, with plants from plants, paper bags etc.

https://www.heil.com/about/

 

As for the mechanism being similar, tbh, one of those "designer interviews" should cover that question.

I think if this was some unlicensed brick-built garbage truck with similar mechanisms released shortly after the IDEAS was rejected , then yes, it'd be somewhat suspicious to see, but this released years after, in a different theme and scale, and LEGO making this licensed probably cost them a fair bit more then a regular system truck as well.

What makes me think what triggered LEGO to finally make such a truck, is still the whole "world first all electric side loader" thing, and not so much that a few years have passed on IDEAS.

Not trying to downplay the IDEAS design here at all, but, if there's one place to solve the case, it's by asking the designer of this official set.

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by TeriXeri

[brickphisto]

On 12/28/2023 at 10:19 AM, R0Sch said:

That's why some MOC'ers won't even bother gambling with LEGO Ideas anymore. It's better to just reach out to one of the many Chinese alternatives who will at least respect their design, instead of turning it into a completely different thing that people voted for, like TLG does. Plus you get compensated with a fixed amount and not just % of however many copies sell.

Exactly my thoughts. Furthermore you do not need to promote your model constantly to gain 10000 supporters. To be fair you have to say you only get paid a fraction of what a successful Ideas model would make you earn. However if you take into account the chances of seeing your model become an Ideas set offering your MOC to a legit Chinese competitor is by far more reasonable imho. BDP is more attractive than Ideas from a designer's point of view but still not an option for Technic guys, of course.

Regarding the controversy of the garbage truck's mechanism I do feel for the original designer. But as has been mentioned the fault is a combination of the Ideas submission guidelines and accepting these.

[Lipko]

That kind of mechanism we see all the time in GBCs in principle. The fact that it looks so close to the Ideas implementation is simply because the specific conditions are the same. An optimal solution to a problem is an absolute, specific thing, not a matter of opinion and taste.

As an engineer by profession I can say that pretty much everything that can be solved mechanically is solved and used in industry at least since 70 years ago.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Does anyone else get this annoying problem in which the LBG 2L liftarm on the right side of the bracket frequently knocks the white 1x4 tile out when the claws go up? Because I did.

Edited January 1 by Ngoc Nguyen

[Auroralampinen]

https://pin.it/4XnFrcDAu

Just got my 42167 and stickers are broken this is my second time this has happened to me first was batmobile technic set WHY lego cant put the stickers between instruction pages or in envelope in these smaller sets i have now order new stickers

[R0Sch]

So Milan is not the designer of this set, he just reviews it.

Edited January 16 by R0Sch

[Paul B Technic]

Has anybody built this in Stud.io and can share the file?

 

[R0Sch]

8 hours ago, Paul B Technic said:

Has anybody built this in Stud.io and can share the file?

It's always worth to check Ldraw forum. https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-27891.html

[Paul B Technic]

^ Thank you, I didn't even know that existed, I am going to grab all the technic ones :)