How do companies get away with copying Lego?

[Shoc]

Clone brands make either subtle or blatant copies of Lego products, so why is it that they are still produced?!

It eludes me.

:skull:

[Legoist]

Wasn't there a legal war a few years ago? Did it end in favour of the copiers?

[Shoc]

Wasn't there a legal war a few years ago? Did it end in favour of the copiers?

Yes, and yes. I think it was Megabloks. I just don't understand how they can get away with it!

:skull:

[brickfreak99]

Don't Megabloks know that no one except mums not knowing the difference between Megabloks and Lego buy it!

Shame Megabloks, shame.

[Legoist]

Yes, and yes. I think it was Megabloks. I just don't understand how they can get away with it!

:skull:

I don't want to sound bad here, but I wonder if the outcome would have been the same if LEGO had been a US company and MB the Danish one.

However after a quick search on the web, it seems that it's legal because they are just copying the patent which has expired, but they aren't copying the trademarks.

[Shoc]

Don't Megabloks know that no one except mums not knowing the difference between Megabloks and Lego buy it!

Shame Megabloks, shame.

I don't want to sound bad here, but I wonder if the outcome would have been the same if LEGO had been a US company and MB the Danish one.

Hmm, actually MB are Canadian anyway. But, I still wonder that too.

However after a quick search on the web, it seems that it's legal because they are just copying the patent which has expired, but they aren't copying the trademarks.

I don't get how a patent can expire when the company still exists...

So maybe MegaBloks aren't legally seen as copying TLC (even if they are), but what about other companies that make sets that are clones of Lego, or incredibly similar designs (e.g. Oxford minifigs)?

:skull:

[Millacol88]

I don't understand how clone brands get away with it either, but LEGO still clearly sells better, so I don't think its a big deal. I was quite Shocked, however, when I first learnt that LEGO had lost the legal battle against Megabloks.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Millacol88

[Bob]

Some do and some don't.

different brands copy Lego all the time, such as Tyco, Megabloks, and many others. To combat this, like it's been said, they have been fighting in courts all over the world to try and put an end to these copy brands. Some kids may like these brands other than Lego (But I can't see how its possible).

Recently, I picked up a Megabloks PowerRanger's set, because I wanted to give them at least a try. I built the set, and it was okay, and I thought, "Hey, maybe they aren't as bad as they say." I was completly wrong. I tried to take the army off the minifigure, and the arm broke! Same with the head when I took it off. I asked, "How could parents pick these up for their children..."

Some however, like the Enlighten and fake clone companies, do not get away with it. That's why you don't see them in your local Walmart or Target. You see them in small town stores, like Joe's Discount Toys. Lego has goverments all over the place cracking down on these fake brand's, as they take away from their profits.

When you come out with a good idea, everyone wants to copy you...

[Millacol88]

When you come out with a good idea, everyone wants to copy you...

Thats a pretty good judge of a companys quality. If you don't have a bunch of other people copying you you're probably not that popular.

[drdavewatford]

Patents only last a certain number of years; when they expire, anyone can legally manufacture the product. What they can't do is use the trademark. As an example, think of companies that make theirown cola drinks to complete wth Coke and Pepsi - they can't call their product Coke or Pepsi, but everyone knows what the product is modelled on.....

Dr. D.

[ellerb]

Drdavewatford is correct. The stud and tube building brick patent was issued in the mid 1950's. There is vast legal precedence preventing companies from having a monopoly on a functional design indefinitely. This is why many companies make automobiles, light bulbs, radios, televisions, etc. Now if you trademark a rodent cartoon character, that is an entirely different story...

As far as clone brands are concerned, Tyco did have a very high quality product equal to LEGO bricks in many aspects. I object to the poor quality of clone brands more than anything else. If another company had extremely high quality bricks and set designs, I think much of the community would be tempted to use it. Of course there are minimal profit margins when producing high quality bricks, instructions, packaging, and set design. Tyco attempted this and failed. Other clone brands only survive because they can undercut TLG's prices. These companies obviously care more for the bottom line than the educational benefits to children by playing with building blocks.

Ben

Edited February 27, 2009 by ellerb

[Shoc]

Thanks everyone for your input!

I was quite Shocked, however, when I first learnt that LEGO had lost the legal battle against Megabloks.

Me too, it was Lego products that they had based their own products on!

Some do and some don't.

different brands copy Lego all the time, such as Tyco, Megabloks, and many others. To combat this, like it's been said, they have been fighting in courts all over the world to try and put an end to these copy brands...

Some however, like the Enlighten and fake clone companies, do not get away with it. That's why you don't see them in your local Walmart or Target. You see them in small town stores, like Joe's Discount Toys. Lego has goverments all over the place cracking down on these fake brand's, as they take away from their profits.

Ah, so many companies that there's always going to be products sold by small businesses looking for a cheaper alternative, right? At least TLC are fighting the companies, but I expect it takes longer because they have better things to do (like making products).

Thats a pretty good judge of a companys quality. If you don't have a bunch of other people copying you you're probably not that popular.

True. If something is good quality or popular, there will always be impersonators. Other things just seem to vanish from knowledge because they aren't liked and didn't have any kind of legacy.

Patents only last a certain number of years; when they expire, anyone can legally manufacture the product. What they can't do is use the trademark. As an example, think of companies that make theirown cola drinks to complete wth Coke and Pepsi - they can't call their product Coke or Pepsi, but everyone knows what the product is modelled on.....

Ohh, thanks. Yep, I've seen lots of "cola" products, and it's obvious where the idea came from. But an original toy product just seems a bit different than a drink in those terms, you know? Is there any way to renew a patent (I doubt it)?

There is vast legal precedence preventing companies from having a monopoly on a functional design indefinitely. This is why many companies make automobiles, light bulbs, radios, televisions, etc. Now if you trademark a rodent cartoon character, that is an entirely different story...

Personally I find the whole idea of Lego products to be a lot more original than Mickey Mouse, but I suppose you can't consider a useful physical design (like that of Lego bricks) to be a trademark...

Other clone brands only survive because they can undercut TLG's prices. These companies obviously care more for the bottom line than the educational benefits to children by playing with building blocks.

Yes... they want business rather than to promote fun and engineering. I think The Lego Company has a good stance on those points, they make good (and bad) business descisions to get more money, but they use the money to make good quality toys and designs. That's why they have succeeded.

:skull:

Edited February 27, 2009 by Shoc

[Joebot]

Ah, so many companies that there's always going to be products sold by small businesses looking for a cheaper alternative, right? At least TLC are fighting the companies, but I expect it takes longer because they have better things to do (like making products).

Lego also has to decide whether it's worth it to fight all the knock-off brands. That would cost millions in legal fees and court costs to sue all those different companies. How much money are the clones really stealing from Lego's business? Or, should Lego take those companies to court just based on principle, even if it costs more money?

On a related note, right now Apple is embroiled in a lawsuit with a company called Psystar for illegally selling computers with Mac OS X installed on it. By all accounts, Psystar is just a couple of guys working out of their garage. They can't possibly harm Apple's bottom line in any serious fashion, and yet Apple has unleashed the lawyers. My guess is that Apple is fighting them on principle, rather than out of any concern ove a loss of business. So, companies have lots of reasons for whether they choose to take a competitor to court.

[Eilif]

Clone brands make either subtle or blatant copies of Lego products, so why is it that they are still produced?!

It eludes me.

Ah, young padawan, it's time you were introduced to the ugly truth about LEGO. It's a clone brand of Kiddiecraft bricks!

Here's a page that will be of some interest to you. http://www.hilarypagetoys.com/ Read deep, there's some interesting info in there.

Kiddiecraft came first, and LEGO made nearly identical bricks (with no compensation to kiddiecraft) until they finally bought the rights to the Kiddiecraft patents a few decades later for a pittance. Also, several subsequent lawsuits have resulted in the courts deciding that LEGO does not have exlusive rights to LEGO compatible brick based construction sets .

That's why on the legitimate market you see tons of brick based sets, but no identical set copies.

On the pirated market, however, you will see alot of sets that are direct clones of LEGO sets, right down to the instructions and box art. These are usually produced by the Brick/Enlighten/Shifty group, built in coutnries with no effective trademark or intelectual property laws, and are sold in private and second line retailers who aren't under the same scrutiny as the big names. Governments just doesn't have the resources to regulate all the toys that come into the country. However, when shipments are discovered, they are destroyed, as happened to a shipment intercepted some years back in finland

http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?p...ountrycode=2057.

Most of us who know the history still prefer LEGO because of the better quality sets, bricks, and service. However, there are alot of us who dabble in the dark side...

Hope this clears it up for you.

[drdavewatford]

Thanks, Eilif, for providing some fascinating background info - much appreciated.

Dr. D.

[Peppermint_M]

Like everyone above said, the functionality of the brick cannot be copyrighted, patented or trademarked. The Minifig on the other hand is and therefore cannot be copied. The new arms on the cyborged Inferno henchmen needed lots of lawyer approval so as not to risk the minifig. This is why MB and all the others cannot have an identical type of figure.

Kiddicraft invented the bricks (my grandma has some kiddicraft stcking cups )

The pirates don't care and sell through very cheap shops and markets so there can be a major crackdown by trading standards every now and then, I think the toys that test safe get sent to people in underprivileged countries, just like the knock-off clothes.

But yeah, functional design of brick is the same as the functional design of a ringbinder, Minifig is a lego patent.

[Shoc]

Wow, Eilif, that is very strange!

Thanks, Eilif, for providing some fascinating background info - much appreciated.

I share the same compliments. I never knew that Lego bricks had such a mysterious origin, I thought it was Ole Kirk's idea... I hope that man's suicide wasn't because of TLC's success over his idea.

On the pirated market, however, you will see alot of sets that are direct clones of LEGO sets, right down to the instructions and box art. These are usually produced by the Brick/Enlighten/Shifty group, built in coutnries with no effective trademark or intelectual property laws, and are sold in private and second line retailers who aren't under the same scrutiny as the big names. Governments just doesn't have the resources to regulate all the toys that come into the country.

The pirates don't care and sell through very cheap shops and markets so there can be a major crackdown by trading standards every now and then, I think the toys that test safe get sent to people in underprivileged countries, just like the knock-off clothes.

Oh yes, I never thought about the different government rules or attitudes. That's how Shifty still stay so shifty!

However, when shipments are discovered, they are destroyed, as happened to a shipment intercepted some years back in finland

http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?p...ountrycode=2057.

I've seen that before, it made me laugh.

Hope this clears it up for you.

Yep, it does. Thank you!

The new arms on the cyborged Inferno henchmen needed lots of lawyer approval so as not to risk the minifig.

That's odd. Wouldn't that cost a lot of money?

But yeah, functional design of brick is the same as the functional design of a ringbinder, Minifig is a lego patent.

I don't know why, but comparing a Lego brick to a ringbinder made me laugh...

:skull:

Edited February 27, 2009 by Shoc

[Peppermint_M]

Well it was the only mundane but highly functional thing I could think of...

And the cyborg arm did require great amounts of lawyer, TLG's lawyers. It said so in an interview the designer had with Brothers Brick. Very informative

[Eilif]

The pirates don't care and sell through very cheap shops and markets so there can be a major crackdown by trading standards every now and then, I think the toys that test safe get sent to people in underprivileged countries, just like the knock-off clothes.

That may be for clothes, but according to LEGO's own words, no pirated bricks that LEGO gets ahold of will end up anywhere but the incinerator.

Wow, Eilif, that is very strange!

I share the same compliments. I never knew that Lego bricks had such a mysterious origin, I thought it was Ole Kirk's idea... I hope that man's suicide wasn't because of TLC's success over his idea.

That's odd. Wouldn't that cost a lot of money?

Happy to be of help!

I think Mr. Page's suicide had more to do with fears about a possible failure of his company. He died before LEGO came to Brittan in '59, and his daughter has said that she's glad he died before learning about LEGO. http://www.hilarypagetoys.com/history.php?his_id=4

Interestingly, LEGO didn't buy the rights to the kiddicraft patents until they were just beginning their lawsuit against Tyco in '81.

As to the lawyers, I'm sure it'd be alot of $ for you or I, but as a billion-plus dollar company, I'm quite sure that TLG has a team of Lawyers on retainer working for them at all times.

Please, no one think that I'm trying to disparage TLG. Quite the contrary, I adore LEGO bricks and TLG. They still make the best bricks and sets, and have the best service and community involvement of any of the brick manufacturers. I just like to get the truth out there.

[5150 Lego]

Clone brands make either subtle or blatant copies of Lego products, so why is it that they are still produced?!

It eludes me.

:skull:

Well a couple reasons...

1.- Many people (parents) don't always have the extra money that lego warants. MB and other clone brands are an average of 15 to 20% cheaper with the same brick count as simular lego sets.

2.- Many clone brands (mainly Mega Blocks) get liecence that lego doesn't have, Theme's like Pirates of the Caribean, Catapillar tractors, or thier newest, Halo. Or they do themes that lego won't do at present time such as military type themes.

While the quality and building experiance isn't always up to Lego standards, these reasons alone help to keep the clone brands competitive.

[ditto]

actually this reminds me of the "Disney copyright law". if the copyright law could be extended (supposedly because mickey mouse's copyright was about to expire), why can't similar things happen for lego? both are kind of crucial/central to each company.

[Shoc]

Well it was the only mundane but highly functional thing I could think of...

And the cyborg arm did require great amounts of lawyer, TLG's lawyers. It said so in an interview the designer had with Brothers Brick. Very informative

As to the lawyers, I'm sure it'd be alot of $ for you or I, but as a billion-plus dollar company, I'm quite sure that TLG has a team of Lawyers on retainer working for them at all times.

Yeah, I suppose so. They have enough money to do it, so they can, and if it gives people work and helps crack down on copyright crimes, then it's good.

I think Mr. Page's suicide had more to do with fears about a possible failure of his company. He died before LEGO came to Brittan in '59, and his daughter has said that she's glad he died before learning about LEGO. http://www.hilarypagetoys.com/history.php?his_id=4

Interestingly, LEGO didn't buy the rights to the kiddicraft patents until they were just beginning their lawsuit against Tyco in '81.

Oh, OK then. If they didn't buy the rights until 1981, were they effectively stealing before?!

Please, no one think that I'm trying to disparage TLG. Quite the contrary, I adore LEGO bricks and TLG. They still make the best bricks and sets, and have the best service and community involvement of any of the brick manufacturers. I just like to get the truth out there.

Oh, no, I would do the same if anyone asked me about it now! I think the truth should come out, no matter how bad, and we can still enjoy our favourite toys despite their dark history!

actually this reminds me of the "Disney copyright law". if the copyright law could be extended (supposedly because mickey mouse's copyright was about to expire), why can't similar things happen for lego? both are kind of crucial/central to each company.

Hmm... I think this has been addressed now, but I see what you mean. Disney also copied Mickey Mouse, from real life mice!

:skull:

[Eilif]

Oh, OK then. If they didn't buy the rights until 1981, were they effectively stealing before?!

That's the million dollar question. Mr Page died before learning of LEGO's success with his designs, but he wasn't a slouch with patents and defense of his designs. He had many patents, including those of his bricks. If he had learned of LEGO, he would likely have taken some action. However, when he passed on, Kiddiecraft's second leaders never took any action, and, it seemed that the later owners had no idea what patents they had. The 45,000 that LEGO paid for the patents (which were then owned by a third company) seems like a pittance compared to how much they made from the design.

In LEGO's defense, after taking the Page design, LEGO entered their own patents in Denmark, and later added the interior "tubes"and patented them as well. Further, and kiddiecraft and the companies that purchased kiddiecraft in 77, 84, and 89 never pursued legal action.

[PMJ]

Ah, young padawan, it's time you were introduced to the ugly truth about LEGO. It's a clone brand of Kiddiecraft bricks!

Here's a page that will be of some interest to you. http://www.hilarypagetoys.com/ Read deep, there's some interesting info in there.

Kiddiecraft came first, and LEGO made nearly identical bricks (with no compensation to kiddiecraft) until they finally bought the rights to the Kiddiecraft patents a few decades later for a pittance. Also, several subsequent lawsuits have resulted in the courts deciding that LEGO does not have exlusive rights to LEGO compatible brick based construction sets .

That's why on the legitimate market you see tons of brick based sets, but no identical set copies.

On the pirated market, however, you will see alot of sets that are direct clones of LEGO sets, right down to the instructions and box art. These are usually produced by the Brick/Enlighten/Shifty group, built in coutnries with no effective trademark or intelectual property laws, and are sold in private and second line retailers who aren't under the same scrutiny as the big names. Governments just doesn't have the resources to regulate all the toys that come into the country. However, when shipments are discovered, they are destroyed, as happened to a shipment intercepted some years back in finland

http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?p...ountrycode=2057.

Most of us who know the history still prefer LEGO because of the better quality sets, bricks, and service. However, there are alot of us who dabble in the dark side...

Hope this clears it up for you.

The pic in the link want to make me laugh SO hard.

[Martijn]

actually this reminds me of the "Disney copyright law". if the copyright law could be extended (supposedly because mickey mouse's copyright was about to expire), why can't similar things happen for lego? both are kind of crucial/central to each company.

Disney copyright law is a travesty, and certainly not an admirable example. The only reason that post-Steamboat Willy copyrights will never expire is that Disney has American politicians in its pocket, and the US is powerful enough to force its copyright standards on the rest of the world. (I certainly hope copyright will be reduced to a more reasonable 30 years again.) Patents, however, have always lasted shorter than copyrights, and if pharmaceutical companies can't get patents extended, then neither can Lego.

The important thing to realise here is that it's not the law's job to protect monopolies. Quite the contrary, in fact. Copyright, patent and trademarks are artificial monopolies granted to a company or person, because they're assumed to be beneficial to the public. That's what this is about: the public. Monopolies are usualy bad for us, because they stifle competition, leading to less choice, higher prices, and less innovation. It's different for copyright and patents because they're protecting something that (is supposed to) take some investment to develop, but is relatively easy to copy. Artists and inventors need to be able to make a living, in order to encourage them to create more art and inventions, and the limited monopoly granted by copyrights and patents gives them that chance to make money from their investment before others can copy it. But the monopolies are not unlimited, because if you can't get enough of a head start on the competition while your patent lasts, then apparently your invention wasn't all that great anyway, and artists will eventually need to make new art again.

Trademark is the only one that's supposed to be unlimited, because it protects a brand name, and it's useful to the public to be able to identify who made something. It's important that we can distinguish Lego bricks from MB bricks because the Lego ones are much higher quality, and they're what we want. But if anyone is willing to accept lower quality for a lower price, then there's a market for competitors. That's how the free market works. As long as they're not being marketed as Lego bricks, it's only good that MB bricks are compatible with Lego.

Now in the Lego-compatible brick market it may be a bit confusing that there are lower quality non-Lego bricks availlable, and we don't really need the competition, but there are many other markets that do benefit from this kind of competition. Consider the PC market where AMD makes Intel-compatible CPUs. Intel used to have a monopoly on PC CPUs, but got lazy, focused and the wrong stuff, and basically dropped the ball. Suddenly tiny upstart AMD starts making superior CPUs, and Intel has to compete or lose market share. Now Intel makes the best CPUs again, but they need to keep working at it, or AMD will overtake them again. In any case, we win.

There are very few companies that produce such consistent high quality for a long time as Lego does, which means most markets benefit from competition. Consider the (unlikely) scenario that Lego quality drops, and suddenly MB starts producing higher quality bricks for a lower price. Then we'd suddenly be happy with MB, and cursing Lego for pulling that crap. Competition is important.