• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Canada finds Lego to be a monopoly

M

mdchesne

Banned
link here

so...um...cananda.... whats the distinction between the two that you used to conclude Mega Blox was not infringing on Lego's copyright? the size? oh! really? So if I made a Honda Civic, with the saem exact featues, materal and look, but made it bigger.... I wouldn't be violating the copyright? cool!
 
Supreme Court of Canada wasn?t the only court to rule against Lego. They were owned by couple of other courts around the world, or so I read in the newspaper.
 
What's the problem? Seems like a fair ruling to me. Mega Blox != Lego, thus they can sell it if they want to.
 
I just find it strange that the Mega Blox product is the exact same as the Lego's but with a different size ratio. I can see the monopoly ruling... what could stand up to the lovable (but basic) lego? It's like owning the right to the 104-key layout on a keyboard... not much more you can add to it to make it better or different. I dunno, the ruling just struck me as "what? who would care if Lego has a monopoly?"
 
Fair ruling
Mega Blocks is winning nearly all court battles Lego tries against them.
MB won IN DENMARK! home of Lego

 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Lego sucks now anyway. Sorry, but putting three highly detailed pieces together does not count as building blocks.
Click to expand...

I think you are referring to mega blocks...
 
I think it's fair since canada didn't want lego to be its sole military parts supplier. This should help control costs in their defense department and eventually allow them to construct a second tank.
 
Curse those Canadians with the bacon and the hosers and the hockey with the saying of "eh"!
 
Did the article say size was the reason for the ruling? It mentioned size, but I didn't read it as being the reason for the ruling. This was the reason for the ruling:

But the Supreme Court concluded that design or ''functionality'' doesn't confer a trademark and dismissed Lego's claim with costs.
Click to expand...

It's funny how people criticize the news media for sensationalizing and having misleading headlines... and yet individuals do the same thing here.
 
Originally posted by: Aquaman
no....... the tank is made out of fremented back bacon hardened with maple syrup 😉

Cheer,s
Aquaman
Click to expand...
maple cookie projectiles and fueled on Tim Horton's coffee 🙂
 
You guys in favor of lego seem to be missing the point.

The concern was not a PATENT infringement - that is to say that the design copied lego's, but a TRADEMARK infringement.

That would be like Apple suing Creative for the Zen because "It's a small white box with rounded edges that plays mp3's"

Besides which, I don't think Lego has made "lego" shaped pieces since like 1988 :\


Oh, and yes, megablocks suck, but the point is that anyone old enough to not choke on them knows the difference, and knows that megablocks suck, so there's no issue of confusing brands - even if functionality were found to be a legitimate claim for trademark.
 
Why would Lego bother to sue? 😕

Anyway, Lego does have a monopoly, which is why they can charge exhorbitant prices for even the crappiest sets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top