anothergol

I don't quite get it. Even though you have to squint in order to know, I find LEGO pretty transparent about what's a sticker and what's a print, even on 3D renders they show a little bump so that you know what's a sticker and what's a print. But that's not really the problem. The problem is that both LEGO's stickers AND prints SUCK. Well, they generally suck, but sometimes they don't (prints darker than the part are ok, when they're properly centered that is), and you can't know when they do or don't, because they're always bright and color-matching on the packaging. Sure I would rather know from the packaging if the prints/stickers are gonna suck, but 1. it's LEGO afterall and I assume they're gonna suck, 2. I can still watch a review, pretty much every LEGO set has a detailed review somewhere (can't say the same about other brands). Also, off-center prints is a matter of bad luck/bad batch, so it's not the packaging's fault. But off-color stickers/prints isn't a matter of bad batch, sucking is the standard for LEGO here. You may get a replacement printed part from LEGO if the print is off-center, but you're not gonna get a replacement part of sticker when the colors aren't matching, simply because they won't exist. Btw, same thing for -mould marks that LEGO often photoshops out of promo pictures -"gold" parts that look lacquered on promo pictures but are shitty stripey ones (that's normally limited to their 3D renders) I would also like LEGO to go back to "stickers over assembly", because 1 sticker is easier to apply than many, will leave much less gaps, and if you wanna separate the pieces you can still use a cutter. And as for prints, I would also like LEGO to do what most of their competitors do: print over assembly. We all remember the lines not matching on the Mustang. It happens all the time with LEGO. It doesn't happen with chinese brands because they print over pre-assembled parts. Yeah, for those who still manage to defend LEGO on prints & stickers, just look at what the chinese do for a fraction of the price. At worst they're as bad as LEGO, but some brands do a much better job (some also use UV printing, that has pro's & con's, personally not a big fan).

While I don't like anything that LEGO has done to BL, which fortunately isn't much yet (first they removed chromed parts - I can live with it, now they change the logo for an ugly one but I could care less), something has kinda killed BL for me, but it's not LEGO, it's simply the postage fees. BL was about placing small orders to small stores in neighbor countries, and getting your order a few days later for a few bucks. But now does it still make sense to place a 15€ order when the postage fee is also close to 15€? I have over 300 orders there, but haven't ordered much in the last few years. That's a postage fee I'm ready to spend for a large order from a store that has everything I need, but that's not what BL was about - no store had everything you needed, and you have/had to place at least half a dozen orders for a MOC. Because of that, IMHO it would make sense for LEGO to turn BL into an Amazon-like distributor, where sellers wouldn't pick/sort themselves, but deposit/send their parts/sets to the closest LEGO hub, which would then be responsible for picking & delivering (like more local PABs). Large distributors simply don't pay the same to send stuff around. The current BL model simply isn't fitting modern postage anymore. my problem with Brickowl is that it's just like BL, it has never had anything more to offer so I've never understood the point of its existence. But I would absolutely switch to Brickowl if they started supporting alternate brands. There's just no good marketplace for all the parts that LEGO doesn't produce, especially recycled from sets. Some rare brands do sell individual parts, but generally your only option is to get them from sets. Meanwhile, plenty of megabloks parts are most likely thrown away out there while they should totally be recycled the same way (other than in bulk through ebay).

The spotlight is on more than 2 parties (Ben, the Mansell, the Goreman, the BAM guys, and the police), and it also is on the other BAM franchisees. Some are previous victims, some are current victims, but some are crooks as well and had been exposed a month before the whole story caught fire. I'm talking about the chrome gold C3PO story.

I think that temporary "harassment" is the least of the problems for BAM franchisees. The name, pretty much the only thing they're paying for, is done. And if people (well, americans) boycott BAM (which would be the right thing to do and is not "harassment"), they're done. If I was owning such a store, atm my priority would be to find a way to get out of the franchise and continue my business under another name (which their contract probably forbids). And it's not because yeah, they would be fine if Ben hadn't done anything (which sounds like Scoobydoo's "if it weren't for you meddling kids"), that it's HIS FAULT. He just pointed his finger at it. At more than what he was hoping for, actually (thinking of the corrupt police).

Yeah, well to me (& I used to be a purist) it has always been about a form of art with a set of rules. It has never been about the LEGO brand to me, just the set of rules. So what I did is just move to another category with another set of rules, because there's better to do in that category (and thus also higher expectations, when judging). I also see it as an extension of digital (bricks) design, where you're never restricted on the colors & availability. In my new set of rules however, there's no room for a shoelace or a bit of plastic from a container just because they are LEGO-branded or have once appeared in a LEGO set, as to me those aren't "in-system". But to each his own. I've definitely cut a part for this AT-ST (the antenna, for the railing on the roof), but I'm still looking for better options because I still don't like the idea. Also, I grew tired of having to do hacks for stud inversion & stuff like that that other brands make dead easy. Everyone can do stud inversion now, it's not a clever hack anymore, it's just wasted time (& space) IMHO, I've just moved on. As for the changes on Rebrickable, I don't know for sure the motivations behind it. On one hand, it's true that pretty much everything you put on Rebrickable, ends up on Ali. Well, all of my stuff did (and I never cared), and I assume it's the same for everyone. So it's a form of protection for its users I guess. But if it goes as far as having an official swearlist that censors *mentionning* pretty much any non-LEGO brands *in discussions* or even private messages, that makes me think that the intentions are different. I believe that the main motivation is to make it friendly to the LEGO brand, in order to be later acquired (because for the LEGO company, having full control over sites like this, is probably worth a lot more than their true value). And that I can't agree with. Another hint is that I can't spot "Sluban" in the list of banned brands, whereas all the other chinese ones are - which makes me think that this list might be coming from LEGO itself, as LEGO has already made deals with Sluban in (/out of) court (I learnt the hard way that Sluban sets are never seized by customs like most other brands are, and it was confirm by the/a law firm that works with LEGO). So that's suspicious to me.

A few months ago the project got disabled on Rebrickable, where it didn't fit the new rules. Since then I keep being asked where to find it. So I've just put it there for everyone: AT-ST Project Guide It's pretty much the same files, including versions 2, 3 & 4. It does NOT include 4.5 as there are no instructions made for it (only a few non-LEGO parts, but still hard to make a proper manual for it), and there will not be one for the future version either (way too many hard-to-find parts). Also thanks to all those who had bought it over the last years.

Oh you're right, 4x8 seem to be showing here: https://www.steine-kanal.de/cobi-dornier-do-j-wal-amundsen-1384-review/ They even have 8x..9(?) tiles lol. I thought Cobi didn't need these as, let's face it, LEGO produces large parts & POOPs in order to print on them, while some other brands print on assemblies (who knows why LEGO can't do this) and don't need large parts for good alignment. However I never pay attention to Cobi's parts as their colors aren't compatible and it's hard to do a full MOC when there's no proper shop (Cobi's is a joke) nor a "Bricklink for other brands" to get everything necessary in compatible colors. Otherwise I'd be all-in, Cobi has the best slopes & curves. yeah.. theorically.. because a pure MOC can still be using very rare parts that are much harder & expensive to acquire than non-LEGO parts THESE are designs that I find fair for LEGO to be protecting, btw. Because, to start with, they're designs. And then they're unique. If you ask 2 persons to design a LEGO fantasy castle roof, or a shark, they're never gonna come up with exactly the same design, so it's fair to be allowed to protect these parts. But most of LEGO's protected designs are troll patents. A 1x1 hollow round stud isn't a design, it's already in everyone's head, it's just that LEGO was the first to manufacture one. And the only reason it exists, is for LEGO to be able to legally block competition, by blocking the most elementary part. They know that this big castle piece isn't gonna be found in any competitor's set, it's a rare piece, and they can easily change the design for the same function. So they mostly protect "logical" parts that already "exist" in everyone's mind, and that's where EUIPO should adapt to prevent this. Well to start with, EUIPO shouldn't allow protecting a design that is a function in disguise. But from what I've read, the ones having used this argument in order to invalidate their designs to far, seem to have failed. Now, ironically, I think that LEGO shot itself in the foot by protecting the apollo stud. Now anyone can just make most of LEGO's designs not a copy by simply changing one stud to a hollow one (which is what most brands do). LEGO can't complain anyone, as they made their best to prove that a part with a hollow stud wasn't the same part anymore.

That's nice to get. Surprisingly one I haven't seen out there yet (while 4x4 existed before LEGO did theirs, and even 3x6 and 2x8 can be found)

Well some love the brand, some love the system. For me a LEGO shoelace has zero value for my MOCs, because it's just a shoelace, it's not "in system", just a normal shoelace that happens to have appeared in a LEGO set. Meanwhile, there are lots of parts that are in system, very useful, and that LEGO has abandoned, but that other brands have cherished and moved forward. Like, the 2/3 prong hinges, they don't exist for LEGO anymore, but you can find them in modern colors & new parts. There are brands that love better than LEGO what Kiddicraft & LEGO have created. And I used to be a purist, for me it has never been about a brand (how much of a cultist does one have to be to love a company or brand?), but an art with a set of rules, the main one being "it has to be made of stuff found in LEGO sets". From that, I moved to "it has to be made of stuff in the bricks-compatible system" (so, the metrics mostly defined by Kiddicraft and a little by LEGO [since I believe LEGO came up with the plates & bars metrics]). And it's a lot more fun. I think people into Technics made that choice much earlier btw. They don't mind going for third-party motors, carbon fiber axles, etc. Even if you simply want lighting in your MOCs these days, you can't go pure LEGO, LEGO has never cared about that. Meanwhile, some brands went all-in not just with LEDs that normally have nothing to do with the "system", but also with the new parts that help passing cables around & organizing them.

Exactly. I wouldn't even complain if LEGO wasn't actively fighting fair competition. I would welcome the fact that just this year they've directly copied 7904, 7828/29, 7835 from other brands, and that more parts were inspired by existing ones from other brands. I'd be happy, because that makes it easier to get those parts, gives more choice of color, and it pushes the game forward (that's what competition is about, all benefit for the consumer). But no, LEGO steals with one hand and uses the the other to point at those who steal from them. And when, like me, it's not the LEGO brand that you like, but the system (which, again, is mainly about set of metrics that LEGO did not come up with), you want to get all the parts that exist out there, whatever the brand. LEGO should just deal with it, and do better than the competition, the proper way to fight it. No one asked for the smart brick, all we want is more dumb bricks.

Uh, that private individual in the video currently owns the Kiddicraft brand, I would trust him more than LEGO's PR that has already been caught trying to rewrite LEGO's history. Yeah, it's China's thing to steal IP. But it's also LEGO's thing lol. And yeah it's a dictatorship, at least we agree on that. So what? Good luck if you wanna live not touching ANYTHING from China lol. Do you have a problem with those official LEGO parts produced in China? How do you even recognize them? (I think most the CMF are?) LEGO has factories all over the world, yeah in China & Vietnam too, like most big companies. And there's a reason their factories in Europe are more produced in cheaper eastern countries than in Denmark. From what I read, Fisher Price bought the Kiddicraft company in 89, and thus the brand along with it (well, says Wiki). But yeah quite likely that it timed out & the german dude simply re-registered it (I had read otherwise somewhere but can't find it back) Also the real reason why LEGO bought the design from Kiddicraft is worse, it's because they couldn't attack competitors (Tyco being the first apparently) without fully owning the designs first lol. So Tyco started producing bricks in 80, LEGO bought the designs in 81, and sued Tyco in 84. (that reminds me of Universal vs Nintendo about King Kong that they did not own)

funny you mention that (and why? do you acknowledge that LEGO is a "fake brick" too?), the guy in the video talks about it, and says that there's not even any evidence that this (the "good luck") happened, nor any evidence that LEGO did purchase/ever owned the Kiddicraft trademark I would imagine that if LEGO did own the rights to the Kiddicraft trademark, that german guy would have heard from their lawyers already, and he would have had troubles purchase them in the first place. So who lies here? I would bet on LEGO. OR LEGO would have really purchased the rights to the trademark in 81, but would have sold them to Fisher Price 8 years later, and there would be no evidence of this, even the family descendants knowing nothing of it? The trademark was between 1989 and 2003 in the hands of Fisher Price[20][21] [22] Since 2022, the trademark belongs to the YouTuber Thorsten Klahold[23], and the brand belongs to the German company Dark Side Bricks GmbH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Page oh the abuse indeed comes from both non-Chinese "fake brands" are ok then? Where's the diff?

So those "fake bricks" become real once LEGO has copied them?

LEGO patent trolling again: I have this part for YEARS in several colors. Wange has them in like 25 colors already. As the guy says in the video, Panlos has them since at least 2022. Yet, LEGO DID manage to protect it in Europe in 2025. Surely LEGO was aware that it already existed. They're just trying their luck, and it works. And yes, another brand could normally easily make this design protection invalid, but that takes months or more, meanwhile LEGO can use this to get the customs block legit imported sets from other brands. https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/designs/015119489-0005

well considering that I've had to remove the current instructions from Rebrickable because the rules have changed there, the next one won't be there, as it uses every possible (& not always easy or cheap to find) non-Lego part now Thanks! It has changed a little since then, because I've recently found a new 2x5 wedge tile perfect for the back! (A7V tank from Quanguan, for those who need that. Lego has started making wedge tiles now and they're probably gonna cover 2x3 & 2x4, but 2x5 I doubt they ever will)