Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Lego Loses Its Unique Right To Make Lego Blocks

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Nov 12, 2008 01:01 PM
from the this-could-be-huge dept.
tsa writes "The European Department of Justice has decided that the Danish company Lego does not have exclusive rights to the lego building block anymore (sorry, it's in Dutch). Lego went to court after a Canadian firm had made blocks that were so like lego blocks that they even fit the real blocks made by Lego. The European judge decided that the design of the lego blocks is not protected by European trademarks and so anyone can make the blocks." If true, hopefully this will open doors for people interested in inexpensive bulk purchase of bricks of specific sizes and colors. Perhaps at long last I can build a life-sized Hemos statue for my office.
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • makes sense (Score:5, Funny)

    by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:03PM (#25735025)

    Lego was naar het Europese Hof van justitie gestapt in de strijd tegen de Canadese concurrent Mega Brands, die een blokje op de markt heeft gebracht dat past op die van Lego. Het Hof oordeelde vandaag dat het ontwerp van Lego niet is beschermd door het Europees merkenrecht en dat er dus geen sprake mag zijn van alleenrecht.

    Can't really argue with that....

    • by cowscows (103644) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:05PM (#25735055) Journal

      Damn. I'm only 28 and already I'm so old that I can't make sense of this "leet-speak" that kids are using these days.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:35PM (#25735529)

        Lego was naar het Europese Hof van justitie gestapt in de strijd tegen de Canadese concurrent Mega Brands, die een blokje op de markt heeft gebracht dat past op die van Lego. Het Hof oordeelde vandaag dat het ontwerp van Lego niet is beschermd door het Europees merkenrecht en dat er dus geen sprake mag zijn van alleenrecht.

        My shot at it:

        Lego was near hot European Hasselhoff just in time to gestate in the stride generator concurrent with the Canada geese Mega Brands, ...okay, I give up...

  • English translation (Score:5, Informative)

    by jschen (1249578) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:04PM (#25735053)
    http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3784225,00.html [dw-world.de] The news is not that generic blocks didn't previously exist. It's that Lego is unable to retain the trademark.
    • by OwnedByTwoCats (124103) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:15PM (#25735217)

      Lego is unable to retain its trademark

      • on the shape of the blocks

      (or, in particular, the red, 2x4 block). So it sounds like others will be able to make compatible blocks.

      Had Lego lost their trademark on the Lego name, that would have been much worse.

    • by gregbot9000 (1293772) <mckinleg@csusb.edu> on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:34PM (#25735515) Journal
      Well, I'm surprised they were able to have anything like that this long. They have been around 50 years, any patent should have ran out years ago. Interesting they would try to trademark the block, which doesn't run out, good thing it didn't work, for the consumer at least.

      I see Lego announcing a change in which country it resides in, to one more favorable towards corporations in trademark laws. That or outsourcing few plants to China to stay competitive.

      And whats with all the toy stories and polls? Is /. gearing up for some big holiday push?
  • OLS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ambiguous Coward (205751) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:10PM (#25735147) Homepage

    So, what Lego needs to do now is publish the OLS, or Open Lego Standard. Seriously, when it becomes obvious you're going to lose the battle, maybe it's time to embrace the alternative? Instead of fighting to keep your ideas out of the hands of others, fight to make sure that *everyone* uses your idea. It makes your assets valuable in a different way. This way, they'll still have control over the standard, and if products meet the standard, they get branded with "OLS Compliant!" and consumers know that if they buy "OLS Compliant!" parts, they'll work with their other "OLS Compliant!" parts, which makes consumers very happy, which makes the standard valuable.

    -G

  • by smellsofbikes (890263) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:17PM (#25735253) Journal

    I have mixed feelings about this. I have 38 years' worth and hundreds of thousands of LEGO bricks, which cost an enormous amount, and it'd sure be nice to get vats of cheap bricks so I can build some of the things I want. (I'm halfway through making a 3-D printer using chocolate, that has a working space of about 9 cubic feet, and boy does that take a lot of blocks.)

    But at the same time, companies will rush into the space formed by LEGO losing their trademark, build cheap bricks, outcompete LEGO, LEGO will go out of business, and then we'll be stuck with lots of cheap imitators who aren't making the beautiful stuff LEGO created, and that could end up destroying exactly what makes LEGO worthwhile.

    There is a value to having a single entity driving a market -- a planned economy in miniature.

    • by zappepcs (820751) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:29PM (#25735447) Journal

      Perhaps, but that economy was built on the quality and diversity of product, not simple market forces. It's kind of like Walmart. They have all the stuff that people normally buy, or most of it, and at cheap prices. When you want something that people don't normally buy, you have to shop somewhere else. So, yes, that drives the price up, but also creates special products.

      I have concerns about imitators diluting the value of the market that Lego has built, to the point that it is no longer viable to create the special parts that Lego does create. I'm not talking about flag poles for ships or castles. Rather I'm talking more of the technic line of parts. If you want active models or robots etc. you need special parts, not just blocks. For example: to build a car Lego provides many wheels/tires/tank treads, Ackerman steerage, differential gearing, shock absorbers etc. The Lego gear-motors are awesome. Lego provides gears, axles, chains, even flex-shafts, worm-gears and housings, pneumatics, .... In fact, blocks are good, but to make really awesome geeky stuff you need all those special parts. I hope this does not mean an end to the specialty parts.

      It would truly be the end of an era if those specialty parts go out of production.

  • by topham (32406) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:17PM (#25735263) Homepage

    Lego tried an end-run around the law.

    Copyright couldn't cover their bricks.
    Patents ran out eons ago.
    But Trademarks, Trademarks are perpetual... so they 'Trademark' a physical object instead of a name & logo. anybody wonder why they lost?

  • I thought (Score:5, Informative)

    by Thelasko (1196535) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:19PM (#25735277) Journal

    If true, hopefully this will open doors for people interested in inexpensive bulk purchase of bricks of specific sizes and colors.

    I thought you could already do that. [lego.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:23PM (#25735355)
    The plastic building block we associated with "LEGO" was actually invented and sold in the late 1940's by an English toy designer named Hilary Page under the "KIDDIECRAFT" brand. He failed to patent it outside the UK and LEGO started manufacturing them without acknowledging their origin.

    After Hilary Page commited suicide, LEGO purchased the expired patents from Page's estate so they could pretend they invented them in the first place.

    LEGO did invent and patent the little tube on the bottom of the brick, which wasn't in Page's original design, which allows for more connection possibilities. Once that patent expired, other companies, such as Canada's MEGA, (creator of Mega Bloks) created clones. LEGO, of course, sued for trademark infringement. In the US, they lost, because you can't trademark and patent the same things - functional elements, which are covered by patents, can't be trademarked. Other countries treat this issue differently, hence LEGO enjoys some trademark protection even for the purely functional elements.

    Apparently, LEGO's view is that a patent should be valid as long as the company holding the patent continues to manufacture the product, and tends to be pretty aggressive about it. The irony they they effectively violated the patents of the original inventor is completely lost on them.

    Posting anonymously because I've had previous run-ins with LEGO's lawyers.

  • Translation (Score:5, Informative)

    by KasperMeerts (1305097) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:23PM (#25735359)
    Finally, I knew all this Dutch my parents learned me would pay off! This had better give me some free karma.

    Lego loses it's unique right to make Lego blocks

    Luxemburg - It'll be hard to swallow for the Danish manufacturer Lego now that the European Court of Justice has decided Wednesday that everyone can make a block that fits the original legoblock.

    Lego had gone to the European Court of Justice battling against the Canadian competitor Mega Brands, who has brought a block on the market that fits Lego's. The Court ruled today that the design of Lego is not protected by European trademark and that there can be no such thing as an unique right.

    The Lego block was invented in 1932 by Ole Kirk Christiansen in the Danish city Billund. The name LEGO is derived from the Danish words "LE GOdt" (play good). Later the word appeared the word could be interpreted in Latin as "I gather" (or 'I choose' or 'I read').

    LEGO is a Danish toy manufacturer that became famous because of the colored plastic blocks. The blocks are sold under the name "Lego"; that way they refer not only to the manufacturer, but it also became a generic brand. The manufacturer is the biggest toy manufacturer in Europe with a revenue of 7823 billion Danish Krone ( 1049 billion Euro or 1337 billion dollars ) in 2006. Meanwhile, LEGO has won the price "Toy of the Century" twice.

    The LEGO Group is the fifth biggest toy manufacturer in the world.
  • by amorsen (7485) <benny+slashdot@amorsen.dk> on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:26PM (#25735401)

    Lego hasn't had a monopoly on the bricks for decades. (They have a monopoly on making bricks that actually work, but that's not for legal reasons, that's just because their competitors are incompetent.)

    Lego has used a red 2x4 Lego brick in advertisements, and they believed that this particular brick could be used as a trademarked "logo". The European Department of Justice decided that the brick picture is too generic to be trademarked. The decision will be appealed.

    So all it means is that competitors are allowed to put that particular brick in their advertisements and on their boxes. They already had the right to produce the brick.

    • by Black Cardinal (19996) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:12PM (#25735175) Homepage

      We bought some Mega Bloks for our son, but the plastic they used (polypropylene?) is too soft to keep a good grip. Duplos are made out of ABS plastic that holds its shape much better, so the blocks stay locked and structures stay together. We can't even build a simple staircase out of Mega Bloks without frustration. Constructions have to have twice as many Mega Bloks as Duplos to have the same strength.

      While though the Mega Bloks are cheaper, we'll probably stick to Duplo and Lego for the future.

      • by Fishead (658061) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:16PM (#25735239)

        I agree. Mega blocks are crap.

        We picked up a huge bin at a garage sale last summer. Most of it was Lego, but there was just enough Mega Blocks to frustrate you. They don't fit right, they don't hold very good, and the colours suck.

        I am a big fan of competition. Hopefully this drives down the price of real legos.

        If they lost the trademark though, Mega Blocks can start marketing their product as lego. That would suck.

        • by TaoPhoenix (980487) * <TaoPhoenix@yahoo.com> on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:29PM (#25735427)

          Following their pattern of Wait & BadlyCopy, Microsoft will announce the need for the strategic purchase of Mega so they can Embrace the Blocks, Extend, and Extinguish Lego!

        • by 2short (466733) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:33PM (#25735497)
          "I agree. Mega blocks are crap.

          We picked up a huge bin at a garage sale last summer. "

          Older Mega blocks are crap. Mega Blocks produced in recent years are just as mechanically good as Lego, and after this decision might start looking as good too.

          Lego has had various varieties of legal protections on their blocks in various countries. They had some patents on elements of their production process that prevented others from making good blocks cheap; hence the crappy Mega Blocks. Those patents expired a while ago, so MegaBlocks became good.
              Lego still had a trademarks in various countries on the look of the iconic red brick. Hence the different colour scheme you don't like. That trademark is now gone, so expect Mega Blocks to start looking nice.
              Lego still has, and presumably always will have, a trademark on the name "Lego". So they'll continue to benefit from their (well deserved) reputation for quality, and charge more for their bricks. But MegaBlocks might, now, be just as good.
        • by Fallingcow (213461) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:38PM (#25735571) Homepage

          I got a huge Mega Blocks tyrannosaurus set one year for Christmas.

          I never managed to assemble it--not for lack of trying, but because the blocks weren't capable of supporting the structure. Legos would have done it, no problem, but the Mega Blocks invariably came apart around 1/3 to 1/2 of the way through. Any more, and they'd fall apart under the weight. My parents even tried glueing some parts when they saw how much it sucked, but that didn't help; it would just break in different places.

          No grip. Can't build anything big with them. Certainly can't move even mid-sized things constructed from them, let alone play with your constructions. LAME.

    • by Pope (17780) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:20PM (#25735303) Homepage

      My parents always bought me real Lego bricks, and I have practically all of those bricks/sets 30+ years on. They still click and snap like new. Good luck getting that kind of lifespan from the cheap knock-offs.

      Quality costs money, pure and simple. So, no, the choice isn't "obvious" at all.

    • Re:ISO Standard (Score:5, Informative)

      by amorsen (7485) <benny+slashdot@amorsen.dk> on Wednesday November 12 2008, @01:19PM (#25735289)

      It's actually damn hard to make the bricks. Lego found this out when they outsourced production a few years ago. It turned out to be a bad deal both for Flextronics and Lego, so now the factories are all back under direct Lego management.