BrickLink attacks BrickOwl.com

[PsyKater]

I wanted to give you an opportunity to discuss on this topic. Bricklink.com as written a letter to the owners of Brickowl.com where they accuse them of copyright infringements. While this is not surprising, I think it is worth discussing this topic. For more information please read this first:

http://brickowl.com/forum#/discussion/580/changes-to-brick-owl

I look forward to hear your opinions. Do you think BL serves its customers by this? Do you think BO did copyright infringements? Do you think BO can replace BL yet?

If this belongs to another forum, I apology. Please move this topic in that case.

[1974]

This will get dirty fast ..

[Col. Brik]

I have no horse in this race. I didn't know about brickowl until you posted this topic. I've used bricklink in the past, purchasing a few items and looking up parts.

I have read, and looked at the situation and I think as the above poster mentions, this could get dirty fast.

I do like BO's layout much more than BL's.

[rakky]

Bricklink have disappointed me with this letter, so I for one intend to stop using their service. Clearly they are acting purely for their own interests and not for the good of the community. There is plenty of room for competition out there.

[PsyKater]

Yes. We as sellers / their customers would definately prefer to use more than one platform with easy synchronization.

[obsidianheart]

Bad deal. Sadness. I use Bricklink all the time, but this makes me feel like their throwing their weight at the new guys a little too hard.

[VBBN]

...So did BrickOwl ever ask permission to link and synchronize with Bricklink? Or is this just a result of the new management?

[The_Skirrid]

When BL first kicked off Daniel wanted the catalogue to be open to all. They started with LDraw and Peeron items and designations [which were inspired by a community project on alt.rec.lego]. There was part number and image sharing between sites, as the BL community realised that a better catalogue drives sales. Their catalogue is full of community supplied images and data.

So BLLtd have now decided that their DB [even though it's based on LDraw conventions, and LDraw came from a project on alt.rec.lego], naming conventions [most of which are Lego or LDraw or Peeron], names [all of which are Lego based] and pictures [almost all of which are community supplied or LDraw renders by the community] are proprietary. Sigh.

VBBN: BO certainly uses similar part designations [but who doesn't, all BL did was to change an x to a b for printed bricks from Peeron for example], the only syncing is for stores AFAIK. They don't even accept images that aren't from Lego or a users own.

[VBBN]

I see more concern in the syncing feature- Regardless of the original state of either site, this is something BO must have received permission to implement. At least, that's how I look at it, I see it as a site partnership. To threaten with legal action either means A) The new management is simply being unreasonable or B) BO never had permission to extract data from BL(the entire syncing feature is essentially a data transfer. Ignoring any of this "part numbering" nonsense that just should be dropped as it has no effect on either business' performance) in which case they shot themselves in the foot.

If I am understanding the entire sync feature wrong then do correct me, as I have never heard of nor used BO. From what I can tell, it simply extracts the data from your BL account to update your inventory on BO. (is this vice versa as well?)

[The_Skirrid]

Yarp, that's all their sync does, hoovers up your store data, and throws it in BO. I can't honestly say how BO started their catalogue or populated their DB.

I don't think that's the problem though, I think BLL see the catalogue as an extra piece of leverage over a competitor. So something that BL themselves took from many, many sources [LDraw, MLCad, Peeron etc], and that was added to by their users, is now being used as a legal tool against a competitor. NOT COOL.

Considering the state of BL, especially post-hack, it's not surprising there's bad feeling. BO has done more in three months than BL has in 18.

[Col. Brik]

I've been reading more on this today and brothers-brick had a nice link to a article, http://www.newelementary.com/2013/09/bricks-inc.html

After reading through that and learning more about how BL grew and got the information it has now I do wonder if the Lego Group will get involved and explain to BL that they are doing things they shouldn't be doing. I know people are going to ask me why that would happen, what has BL done to get Lego involved? I'm still trying to wrap my brain around that one but I would think it would involve using Lego terminology, part numbering?

I think BL would have been wiser to ask BO to stop using the sync feature and leave the complaint at that. Involving the naming and numbering system opens up a whole new can of worms.

[RoxYourBlox]

A few thoughts from a buyer:

• BO was asking for trouble by so liberally syncing / referencing BL, regardless of who really owns the content. If you're going to start up a new Lego marketplace, make sure it's independent.
  
• These squabbles affect the buyer less than the seller. If the seller is ready to pout & move off of BL, don't be so sure that your old buyers will follow.
  
• As far as I know, neither site can directly convert an LXF file or its XLS BOM into a wanted list. Or calculate the least number of orders needed to acquire everything on said wanted list, then automatically calculate & sort those groupings by price (i.e., sort & group together shops by lot counts, as airline websites can when you book tickets with layovers). So until those things happen for the buyer, neither site gains high marks from me for complaining about each other.
  

Edited September 27, 2013 by RoxYourBlox

[Duvors]

I think that this, like the attempt of Bricklinks new owners to copyright the parts naming system, is a violation of the rights of the LEGO fan community and of The LEGO Group.

Please excuse me wile I buy some megablocks so I can build a statue of the new owner of Bricklink and burn it in place of the real thing (ie. in effigy).

[PsyKater]

Well, the TOS of BL says that everything provided by the community becomes royaltyfree property of BL. Don't know since when but I guess it is there for a very long time. It's just one of the best business ideas of all time. Let the community do all the work (catalog) without paying them and let them pay for using the system (catalog).

[The_Skirrid]

Well, the TOS of BL says that everything provided by the community becomes royaltyfree property of BL. Don't know since when but I guess it is there for a very long time. It's just one of the best business ideas of all time. Let the community do all the work (catalog) without paying them and let them pay for using the system (catalog).

If you use one of the many wayback sites and look at the old Bricklink TOS, you'll see the changes were added early September, along with the removal of the "Images and data you supplied are yours" disclaimer at the bottom. That's when they claimed ownership. Before that the whole purpose of the catalogue was as a non-commercial community resource.

Given that the entire catalogue comes from roots in 1993 when Pete Miller first decided to collect lego part numbers on alt.toys.lego, then rec.toys.lego, Peeron, LDraw, MLCad, LUGNET and more there's no way they can back up their threats, it's simply too difficult to prove what's theirs and what's inspired.

Having said that, who's going to challenge a multi-millionaire son of a billionaire as a test case?

I don't agree BO was asking for trouble, they simply referenced what became THE de facto community catalogue as do many many other sites. The fact BL feel threatened by this, and decide that the catalogue is now theirs simply shows the way the new owners feel. His public statement "we welcome competition" he made when buying BL is obviously not true, and he's prepared to use the work of thousands of people as his own to enforce this.

[RoxYourBlox]

If you opened a business, would you use your competitor's catalog and data? Would you expect your competitor to remain cordial? So yes, the hacks, the syncing, etc is asking for a response.

By the same token, if I were BL, I'd review and replace contributed content as much as possible to place a stronger stake on ownership.

[KyleJohnson11]

If you opened a business, would you use your competitor's catalog and data? Would you expect your competitor to remain cordial? So yes, the hacks, the syncing, etc is asking for a response.

By the same token, if I were BL, I'd review and replace contributed content as much as possible to place a stronger stake on ownership.

Easy solution is do your job better than the competitor and you won't have to worry about it (Example: LEGO v Mega Bloks). From what I can tell so far, BrickOwl has a much cleaner and easier to navigate interface.

[freakwave]

...

Given that the entire catalogue comes from roots in 1993 when Pete Miller first decided to collect lego part numbers on alt.toys.lego, then rec.toys.lego, Peeron, LDraw, MLCad, LUGNET and more there's no way they can back up their threats, it's simply too difficult to prove what's theirs and what's inspired.

Having said that, who's going to challenge a multi-millionaire son of a billionaire as a test case?

...

Given that BL started up somewhere in 2000 and relying on the LDRAW catalogue which was there nearly 5 years before, I think the prior art clause should apply...

Sounds like rounded corners on a rectangular thingy...

Edit: here's the link to the original James Jesseman LDRAW parts list as of 1997...

[Darth Malgus]

Never really been a fan of BL just don't like the feel, quite like BO though, can't stand hypocrasy and feel that is what BL is doing here a little.

[LiamM32]

I'm not worried that BrickOwl commited a "copyright infringement". But ever since I found out about BrickOwl, it just seemed to me like a pointless duplication of Bricklink. Unless if they are making sufficient improvements over Bricklink, then there isn't much use in having another Lego online marketplace. I have a few problems with it, but overall I think that Bricklink has most of the features I would want and a good interface to get around them. But I think that it's ridiculous that there were copyrights on the part naming. Threating a lawsuit is just mean. The person who started the site (Daniel) wanted it to be free, it was put together open-source, and the names are quite generic. I don't see the same colour naming as a copyright infringement, but I just wish that BrickOwl used the official names instead. Official colour naming is an improvement that I wanted to see. However, I'm happy to see that they have listings for printed and stickered versions of each part, which is a feature that I wanted on Bricklink. Maybe I'll start to prefer BrickOwl if they make some more improvements.

Also, I was under the impression that Bricklink (the whole website, not the individual shops) was non-profit; I don't see any (external) advertisements there, and I didn't think that there was a fee to run a shop. But I guess that I was wrong, or else they wouldn't have this problem with "competition".

[Mister Phes]

So BLLtd have now decided that their DB [even though it's based on LDraw conventions, and LDraw came from a project on alt.rec.lego], naming conventions [most of which are Lego or LDraw or Peeron], names [all of which are Lego based] and pictures [almost all of which are community supplied or LDraw renders by the community] are proprietary. Sigh.

Irrespective of where the naming conventions originated from has Bricklink patented their naming system?

[CisFran]

I'm not worried that BrickOwl commited a "copyright infringement". But ever since I found out about BrickOwl, it just seemed to me like a pointless duplication of Bricklink. Unless if they are making sufficient improvements over Bricklink, then there isn't much use in having another Lego online marketplace. I have a few problems with it, but overall I think that Bricklink has most of the features I would want and a good interface to get around them. But I think that it's ridiculous that there were copyrights on the part naming. Threating a lawsuit is just mean. The person who started the site (Daniel) wanted it to be free, it was put together open-source, and the names are quite generic. I don't see the same colour naming as a copyright infringement, but I just wish that BrickOwl used the official names instead. Official colour naming is an improvement that I wanted to see. However, I'm happy to see that they have listings for printed and stickered versions of each part, which is a feature that I wanted on Bricklink. Maybe I'll start to prefer BrickOwl if they make some more improvements.

Also, I was under the impression that Bricklink (the whole website, not the individual shops) was non-profit; I don't see any (external) advertisements there, and I didn't think that there was a fee to run a shop. But I guess that I was wrong, or else they wouldn't have this problem with "competition".

Yes they are profit-oriented. They derive their income based on a certain percentage of the sales of shop owners

Here's their fee structure:

http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=38

Edited October 11, 2013 by CisFran

[Bricktrain]

Its simple business, when you pay a lot of money for a business you dont then go and give the best parts away to the competition.

[Mister Phes]

It's also ill-advised to engage in anti-competitive business practices...

[ikba]

I wonder how much this had to do with the new management; hopefully it's not a sign of things to come.

I really think this is a bad move on the part of Bricklink, they're alienating the community by trying to make their catalog strictly their property, and they're giving their competition Brick Owl free publicity (I hadn't even heard of Brick Owl until now, and I'm now considering putting a store on it ). Hopefully this is just a one-time thing, and not a new policy for Bricklink.