Mega Bloks Wins Supreme Court Battle Against Lego 254
saskboy writes "Canada's highest court ruled unanimously Thursday that Mega Bloks can continue to sell their Lego styled stackable blocks in Canada.
CBC writes, 'The Supreme Court of Canada decision marks the end of a long-running trademark battle between the Montreal-based Mega Bloks and Denmark's Lego.'"
Score One for Interoperability (Score:5, Interesting)
There was also a set of Tic-Tac-style candies (I forget the name -- Ipso or something like that) that we found at some store that came in square plastic boxes with pegs on two edges and holes on the other. Each edge was exactly like the top or bottom of an 8x2 Lego piece. We'd use them to build walls or base plates. I never saw them anywhere else, so I assumed they were discontinued pretty quickly, whether Lego put pressure on them or they just didn't catch on.
We'd mix and match those different brands of blocks all the time. Having the other companies' blocks never stopped us from buying more Legos.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:1/2 versus 1/3 (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems to be the trend with all toys. Generic or interchangable toys (like building blocks) are cheaper, while branded or IP-based toys (video games, action figures from TV shows, etc) keep getting pricier. My guess is that it's based to mo
Re:Score One for Interoperability (Score:2)
Re:Score One for Interoperability (Score:4, Interesting)
What I remember about the Tyco blocks is that while they technically did intermingle with real Legos, for some reason they did not hold the connections between blocks well at all. I remember several times getting very frustrated with the Tyco blocks because my creations would fall apart wherever I had used them. I eventually (at 9 or 10 years old) purged my Lego collection of any Tycos whatsoever and never bought them again. To this day that collection is Lego-brand only.
Re:Score One for Interoperability (Score:4, Funny)
Oh no! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
Re:Oh no! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parents buying construction toys for their kids don't necessarily know how much higher the quality of the plastics used by LEGO are to their competitors, or how much better-engineered the bricks are, but they do know MB is a hell of a lot cheaper than LEGO, and many of them buy accordingly. It's a shame, but there it is.
And then, of course, there are substantial numbers of people who don't even realize there's a difference. There've been surveys showing a lot of people think MB is some sort of LEGO subsidiary or sister brand.
Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Informative)
Th
Re:Oh no! (Score:4, Insightful)
I had some Mega Bloks dinosaur thing when I was little. I never managed to build it all the way, because it would fall apart any time more than 1/3 of the blocks were stuck together at once. What a piece of crap.
Legos are way better. I wish they'd re-make some of their classic sets, like some of the old Pirate and Castle ones. That, and not charge 10,000% markup. $100 for an 18-inch-long lego boat? Madness.
Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Informative)
I understand what you are saying, that the Mega Bloks (of old) are cheap crappy knockoffs. However, now as parent of my own kids, I've been impressed at how much improved the Mega Blok products have become. At the same time, I'm very distressed at how expensive and "specialized" a lot of the LEGO blocks have become -- so many of the LEGO pieces are no longer "bricks" but specially shaped or curved pieces. So, I've embraced the dark size of building blocks and have been purachasing a lot more Mega Blok pr
Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh no! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Interesting)
Years later I bought a set of knock-off blocks to play around with, and was sorely disappointed in the difference in quality. The bricks would sometimes stick, sometimes not, and sometimes you'd need two pair
Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Informative)
Lots of slashdotters are 40+, myself included. The most vocal, perhaps not. But it's not all kiddies here, it just seems like it lately. If you troll around the yro sections (Your Rights Online) you tend to find more mature
You can fix that at Preferences/Hompage, and deselect some of the "younger" topic areas, and give Y
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
Seriously, though, that part of it gets sorted out by the market, which is why there's an entire aisle of Legos in my local Target, and I'm not sure if they even stock Mega Bloks anymore.
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
Well, the only other option you have is LEGO, and it completely sucked when you get two flat LEGO pieces stuck together. That frustrated my parents to no end as they had to get a razor blade to pry the two pieces apart.
two flats stuck (Score:2)
Re:Oh no! (Score:5, Informative)
What you needed was an official Lego Brick Separator [lego.com]. It separates pieces without denting or cutting them (or yourself) as could occur if you used fingernails, tools, etc. Also, it prevents one of the more common problems of children swallowing pieces while trying to separate stuck pieces with their teeth.
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
Next up... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Next up... (Score:2)
Except that they're too late. "Toy Building Brick", US Patent #3,005,282 issued to G.K. Christiansen (assigned to Lego) in 1964.
"Blocks adapted to be connected together by means of projections extending from the faces of the elements". [uspto.gov]
Which is one of the reasons this suit was lost. The court found that Lego's patents had expired and that they couldn't use trademark law to protect the design of their blocks.
Dump all non-physical property rights. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm always here decrying the value is striking copyright, patents and trademark rights. At the most basic, they're a way to gain government's monopoly on force for yourself.
Legos. Plastic bricks. The value in their logo is held up by showing consumers that Lego makes the most consistent blocks, with the easiest instructions and with the most fun creations. The State-granted monopoly that gave Lego sole use of the design isn't the power behind the brand.
I'd normally get replies saying "Without protections, no one would write music/invent/make plastic blocks!!!" But this is not true.
If you open a restaurant, do you get a monopoly for running a restaurant in your area? Isn't it wrong for someone to open a restaurant in a new community, build a customer base for years and then have some whipper-snapper open a new restaurant across the street and steal your customers?
I own retail stores (board sports and paintball). It costs about $25 in marketing to get a new customer into the sport and into my store. At least yearly I have someone see our good fortune and open a few miles away. They underprice me, steal some business and then go bankrupt and sell everything at half price. In 3 years I've outlived 7 such competitors.
Why is my time (or my managers' time) building my product different than a song writer or a book writer? It isn't. Yet they're legally protected with monopoly powers.
Trademark (and copyright) is bunk. Freedom means the freedom to compete.
Create a product. If it's copied easily, find a way to make yours better.
Yeah! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Your building a name (Score:4, Insightful)
-everphilski-
Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's how I feel about the issue as far as software is concerned.
But, what if your creation can be reverse engineered somewhat easily, and adding new properties is difficult?
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of not being able to do something because someone did it first (especially when it happened decades before I was born and therefore I didn't have a chance to make it). But I still think some, limited, form of protection
Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. (Score:2)
I don't believe your retail or restaurant analogy fits. I don't believe that the market can fix all problems, and I don't believe that government can fix all problems. I would personally like some form of government protection if some competitor used my name and somehow managed to convinced the sheep that they are the real thing, and later ruining my reput
Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. (Score:2)
Clearly, you never had grandparents who thought the one who could create the biggest pile of plastic toys on a budget won.
Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell me, what is the incentive to create a $100 million movie when on completion you don't even own it? What about a $10 million game (like half-life2 or World of Warcraft).
Why not just dump ALL property rights. Why not have your customers help themselves to anything they want in your store?
Create a product. If it's copied easily, find a way to make yours better.
Thats the thing about IP, its pathetically easy to duplicate, whether we're talking about software, music, bo
Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. (Score:2)
Don't put any idea in writing if you don't mind losing it. Write a song? Only play it live. Or only let people have "dibs" on seeing you live IF they have an official CD. There are infinite ways to profit from a song without copyright.
Have a movie? Only show it in theatres with metal detectors. Don't release movies on insecure formats.
I write articles and books and sell My personal services for the real movie. Just wri
Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. (Score:2)
Here's a little story for you: There's a restaraunt called Qdoba, that came up with the idea of a "naked burrito" -- a "burrito" that didn't have a shell, but instead just had all the insides piled on a plate. Well, along
Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. (Score:2)
I buy it from Albertson's or Target. They're the people who confirm my Pepsi is real (some Indian and Mexican stores sell fakes). They also make sure my lamps are UL tested and that my toilet paper isn't sand paper.
The market protects Pepsi. Not a law.
Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. (Score:2)
Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. (Score:2)
Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. (Score:2)
The fact that I only see this in flea markets makes me think it's in a legal grey area... they're not calling themselves DURACELL but are making the product look so similar it might deceive
Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. (Score:2)
Are we cheaper? No.
Are we better stocked? No.
Are we located in the best spot? No.
We have the best service and most knowledgable staff. Name and logo is nothing.
Our sign says "Paintball" not our logo. I welcome my competition to use my name.
Branding without monopoly (Score:2)
I suspect that even with no monopolistic IP, brand marks would be sacrosanct and socially enforced. If I made a computer and tried to sell it as "IBM", people would laugh and call me a liar. However, product trademarks might not be - they could quickly become new gener
Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dump all non-physical property rights. (Score:2)
relevant quote from my rejected submission: (Score:5, Insightful)
Also: (Score:2)
Re:Also: (Score:2)
Re:Also: (Score:3)
Re:Also: (Score:3, Insightful)
What, even on the MegaBloks? I rather doubt it. Otherwise, simple trademark law would have won the day for Lego.
Lego has a technically superior product of far greater quality, consistency, and creativity. I mean, this is the company that gave us Space Police, Blacktron, and Mindstorms!
But attempting to stretch the bounds of trademark law over functional qualities--the domain of patents--is just completely evil and radi
Can we say... (Score:4, Funny)
"For a Limited Time" (Score:5, Informative)
Patents live only so long. This is for a reason. Granting exclusive monopolies on things forever is not a good idea.
Lego's patent expired, long, long after they had recouped money orders of magnitude beyond what would induce others to attempt to innovate in that industry.
Other people started to make lego-like bricks.
Like a lot of monopolists, Lego became addicted to not having and not suffering competitors. They decided that they wanted to play lawyer games and try to keep others from competing with them rather than follow the law, and pretended that the studs on the bricks that make them work are "trademarked" by them...
The judge basically said, "Look, don't you even try that stunt in here. Your patent expired. The studs on the blocks are a mechanical feature, not a mark. Go away."
Re:"For a Limited Time" (Score:2)
Whether that means they should be protected, I don't pretend to know. I'm deeply uncomfortable and sometimes outraged with a lot of the hyperzealousness we see from companies guarding their IP, but I don't know that it means there shouldn't be any protection. I'm bi
The question is why you'd want non-lego blocks (Score:5, Interesting)
They feel cheap, they don't hook together and stay hooked, and they use way way way more custom peices than lego (and these days, that's saying something!).
I mean, I'm all for competition, but I can't say that I think the price legos deliver at, around 1c US per brick in the generic bins of bricks is, you know, out of line.
Re:The question is why you'd want non-lego blocks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The question is why you'd want non-lego blocks (Score:2)
Nice try, but ... (Score:2)
Maybe MegaBloks have gotten better recently, but I find that they are much less 'tight' of a connection than Legos. They seem to be made of a softer plastic, so it may just be from many, many, hours of use. (Most of the MegaBloks I play with are at my neighbor's house, where they have a 5 year old, and the majority of the blocks were hand-me-downs, and they are significantly looser than my vintage (20-25 yr old) Legos.
However
Mega Blocks (Score:2)
The one exception to Mega Blocks
I suggest.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I suggest.... (Score:2)
What do you think Technic and Bionicle were for? So they could create new pieces and new types of connections which were patented in their own right. That they could do new cool stuff with Technic was
Cripple interoperability? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I suggest.... (Score:2)
And what would Lego do to itself then?
Lego would destroy the standard they created. Why would you buy more Lego if it didn't work with the rest of your Lego?
One of the two indicators of IT affinity (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm yet to find a major exception to the above theory.
Nice to see that there will continue to be Lego alternatives for those anti-Danish interested in developing IT aptitude skills
Re:One of the two indicators of IT affinity (Score:2)
Re:One of the two indicators of IT affinity (Score:2)
Re:One of the two indicators of IT affinity (Score:4, Informative)
Re:One of the two indicators of IT affinity (Score:2)
Re:One of the two indicators of IT affinity (Score:2)
* Put up your hand if you can appreciate Monty Python (the Goodies / Red Dwarf / etc) humour.
And for those of you with both hands up who haven't seen it yet, check out the "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" special edition DVD. One of the extra features is an animated Lego version of the Camelot song and dance number. (You can also download it from a link here [dailyllama.com].) Even funnier than the original.
Lego didn't invent the brick in the first place (Score:5, Informative)
However, Lego did have patents on the little tube on the underside, which allow more connection combinations. After the stud-tube patents expired, Lego attempted to use the appearance of the bricks as a trademark - losing in litigationin most countries, including the United States. Lego now attempts to frighten companies with the more nebulous "trade dress".
More info [best-lock.com]
Re:Lego didn't invent the brick in the first place (Score:3, Interesting)
"Suicide" eh? If I think too hard about that one it might throw a dark cloud over all those happy times spent building with Legos as a child. It poses a moral question: are the hours of enjoyment for millions of children worth the death of one man? Granted, he was British and had a girl's name. That alone should be enough to retroactively label him "terrorist" and purify Lego's avarice-driven assassination.
I was reading to see if this article got it right (Score:2, Interesting)
W00t...Canada 1- Denmark 0 (Score:5, Funny)
As an aside, since they are made in Montreal would they be Mega-Blok Quebecois? And if so is it ironic or paradoxical that separatist cubes would be specifically designed to stick together with things.
-Pinkoir
Re:W00t...Canada 1- Denmark 0 (Score:2)
Re:W00t...Canada 1- Denmark 0 (Score:2)
Re:W00t...Canada 1- Denmark 0 (Score:3, Insightful)
It's ironic, not paradoxial. Paradoxial would be if LEGO was suing them for making a similar product while at the same time not suing them.
Finally... (Score:2)
Anyone should be able to sell blocks (Score:2)
Re:Anyone should be able to sell blocks (Score:2)
I suppose it all depends on your definition of expensive. A quick search for bulk discount Lego blocks puts them at about $0.05 each; not high until you consider the block is nothing more then a tiny colored bit of molded plastic that probably cost a quarter of a penny to manufacture. If you go with one of their boxed kits, the price jumps up significantly on the price-per-block scale.
Sell Lego blocks at 1 or 2 cents each, and I'd probably get back into the hobby in a big way.
This might set a precedent... (Score:2)
Then again, that was Canada's, not US' Supreme Court.
And of course, there's the issue of software patents...
Mega Bloks are crap though. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are made of a much harder plastic and after being snapped together and pulled apart just a couple of times, they wear out to the point where they hardly stick together at all.
Lego parts are of a slightly more 'rubbery' plastic - they feel almost oily to the touch. I have Lego bricks from 40 years ago that still work just as well as they day they were first used.
When my son was given a bunch of MegaBloks as a present, they 'polluted' our vast Lego collection. Every time I find one, I toss it straight into the trash.
About the only use for MegaBloks is in making large sculptural pieces that you want to glue together to make permenant. The hard polystyrene in MegaBloks can be glued together with polystyrene cement - and the issue of wear becomes irrelevent!
Yet other Lego clones exist - but they tend to have poorer tolerances than either Lego or MegaBloks and can actually damage your real Lego if you mix them.
Good for them (Score:4, Funny)
You can't trademark an invention (Score:2)
Re:You can't trademark an invention (Score:2)
Lego evil? Say it ain't so! (Score:2)
Man, that hurts.
Well, ok but there's still only one lego (Score:3, Interesting)
Though if megablocks don't fit into lego blocks I'd be happy with it
Sorry for the rant... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad that Mega Bloks won the suit - they, at least, put out more creative sets than Lego (not to mention they're Canadian). Lego, if you're listening, I've got lots of disposable income and a fondness towards your brand, but if all you're going to is brand other people's IP, you're not going to have me as a customer.
Re:Sorry for the rant... (Score:2)
Re:Sorry for the rant... (Score:2)
I applaud (Score:2, Interesting)
I use Mega Blocks (the small kind) in a class room setting of about 25 children and have never had any problems. They stil stick hard... so hard that they have a tough time pulling them apart (just like I remember with Lego bricks). I can buy 600-900
Re:I applaud (Score:3, Interesting)
The moulding machines are very expensive, and they mould their bricks to tolerances so high that you can use them in scientific optical experiments to hold lenses. This results in a high manufacturing cost; even with the high current cost of Lego, they're having a hard time turning a profit. In 2005, the LEGO G
Before Lego (Score:3, Funny)
Lego copied the idea and was better at marketing. Sorta the Microsoft of building blocks.
See, it IS possible to slam Microsoft even with something as simple as kiddie blocks...
They do have some cooler products though (Score:2)
did anyone else read this as... (Score:2)
Denmark?? (Score:2)
What's next, action figures made in Tiawan?
RTFA. It's about what can be used as a trademark. (Score:4, Informative)
How is this tit-for-tat? Lego is a Danish company.
Re:about RIM not law. (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume you're joking...?
First of all, LEGO is not a US company.
Secondly, MegaBlock is not in violation because the patent has expired. LEGO was trying to use trademark law to extend their monopoly.
Re:about RIM not law. (Score:2, Informative)
Blackberry was a patent infringement case.
This was a Trademark issue.
The correlation is not analogous.
Please understand the dispute before inflaming arguments.
Re:about RIM not law. (Score:4, Insightful)
MegaBlock clearly is in violation. IMHO this has less to do with Canadian law, and more to do with playing a game of tit for tat with the US over the Blackberries. That is not only a dangerous road to go down, but a foolish one.
And how exactly would ruling against a Denmark company like Lego help Canada get back at the USA?
Re:about RIM not law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:about RIM not law. (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with the US or any tit-for-tat. I think you're seeing leftist monsters in the closet.
go ahead.. mod me troll
Re:Great news! (Score:2)
I'd like to see them make that stick. I could make a site about the Romans in West Yorkshire[1] and the there's diddly squat they could do if I named it www.legolium.com (
Re:Great news! (Score:2)
The problem is that Lego used to be a geek toy, and has since become a mass market toy.
You just need more geek toys.
Re:Insert EOLAS joke here (Score:2)
That said, Lego's QA on their product is