I would maintain that stuff like Mega-blox doesn't even provide much competition (Except that they stole Narnia. Dang it.), but that stuff like Brickarms and Brickwarriors actually help them, because their appeal to many who would not be normally interested in or are losing interest in Lego draws them back.

^^ w.r.t. brickarms/brickforge/altbricks/brickwarriors and a slew of others, the fact is that you need to give the people what they want. For a very long time we were stuck with what companies offered us, and despite knowing what we wanted, it was easier for them to say "no" and not offer choices (look at AT&T before the breakup). Nowadays there is still a lot of corporate mentality that our choices are what they offer us, but they are way behind the times and companies need to adapt to the modern world.

Anyone that doesn't believe TLG is intently looking at what these third parties are offering is delusional - as time goes on, we get more and more "official" versions of what these entrepreneurs have been giving us for years. It makes no sense today to be a LEGO "purist." Why wait 10 years for Big Ben type train wheels? Or elf armor or weapons?

And, of course, they offer us things TLG never will, like modern weapons.

I think of LEGO like computer operating systems or game consoles - it's silly to argue about which one is better, the answer is always that it's the one that gives you what you want (or at least the most of what you want).

Wal-Mart has some clone sets, Chinese stuff I believe. I've seen them in the shelves in the lego isle.

Yes, I think it hurts LEGO. And the most affected are newcomers to the toy. People who buy a cheaper "alternative" thinking these things are all the same, and then being thrown off the whole thing because they think the whole system is at fault.

I don't understand the constant excuses for MB being a fair competitor because they "do their own thing" Where is this "own thing"? If you mean the themes and licences, then yes, they mostly keep to their own, but licences come and go. Why do they need to copy brick designs? Every brick you use had to be engineered and researched how it can best compliment other elements and this is something clone brands STEAL and use as public domain. That may be fair play in the corporate world, but it's dirty and calls for extreme lack of respect from me.

Remember Lego STOLE the idea and dimensions in the first place. Lego is based on being a clone brand at inception.

Just because Lego is positioned at the top of the interconnecting brick based toy world does not mean it's the be-all-end-all of it... and it's not even the original.

I'll still say they don't hurt Lego... How can they? Since 'clone brands' came on the scene Lego has become the largest toy company in the world. Doesn't seem like they're doing anything remotely detrimental.

Just because Lego is positioned at the top of the interconnecting brick based toy world does not mean it's the be-all-end-all of it... and it's not even the original.

I'll still say they don't hurt Lego... How can they? Since 'clone brands' came on the scene Lego has become the largest toy company in the world. Doesn't seem like they're doing anything remotely detrimental.

What do you mean LEGO isn't even the original?

What do you mean LEGO isn't even the original?

The LEGO brick was in part based off Kiddiecraft's patented automatic locking bricks. A few decades later LEGO bought the rights to Kiddiecraft.

The LEGO brick was in part based off Kiddiecraft's patented automatic locking bricks. A few decades later LEGO bought the rights to Kiddiecraft.

Huh, I never knew that.

But I don't associate with clone Brands, it's blasphemy.

Huh, I never knew that.

But I don't associate with clone Brands, it's blasphemy.

...and therein lies the answer. ;)

...and therein lies the answer. ;)

Most other brands of building blocks, are of lesser quality, as in plastic and just the general building look.

Huh, I never knew that.

But I don't associate with clone Brands, it's blasphemy.

And yet LEGO was THE clone brand for many years. The world isn't so simple, and many of these companies (including MB) have introduced original bricks that TLG has never made. They spend their time and money researching, too, even if not to the extent that TLG does.

EDIT: I also shudder to think what the world would be like if we applied your logic to everything else. You could only get your smartphone from apple, and it would cost several times more than it does; only one company could make PCs, only one company could make laptops, only one company could make cars, bikes... there's a reason patents expire.

Edited December 13, 20159 yr by fred67

Most other brands of building blocks, are of lesser quality, as in plastic and just the general building look.

Lego's aesthetics are very different now to how they used to be... and will continue to evolve. Plastic quality is obviously a strong point but even that is undergoing change as we speak with the development of 'greener' plastics.

MB have a different aesthetic and different licenses so they've got their own path as do other competitor brands. I don't think everyone just waits for Lego to pick up their license and then calls it a day as they now have the best toy brand making their stuff...

This is a very different conversation to the original question. If people want to just say that they think Lego are the best and don't see why anyone else should make brick based toys then that's up to them... but it's not much of a conversation when even the origin of Lego is glossed over simply because they're someone's favourite. I'm sure they're the 'favourite' of everyone on this forum but that's not a reason to not appreciate the work of a competitor if it's worth it.

And yet LEGO was THE clone brand for many years. The world isn't so simple, and many of these companies (including MB) have introduced original bricks that TLG has never made. They spend their time and money researching, too, even if not to the extent that TLG does.

EDIT: I also shudder to think what the world would be like if we applied your logic to everything else. You could only get your smartphone from apple, and it would cost several times more than it does; only one company could make PCs, only one company could make laptops, only one company could make cars, bikes... there's a reason patents expire.

Psh, I dislike clone brands because they are a far worse then LEGO quality wise,and their logos are made to look like LEGO to trick people into buying them. Their sets are terribly made and designed not to mention the plastic is terrible quality.

I'm not sure patents should expire, especially on intellectual property. Like If I wrote a book, 50 years after I've kicked the bucket, some schmuck can come along and and steal what I made and use it to make money. How's that fair? If I made it why should suddenly 50 years later it's no longer my property?

But a laptop is such a generic Idea, 'a computer that folds', unless it's a complete clone it shouldn't have any sort of patent. Some inventive object like say, a Light-bulb, that should be patented. Generic Ideas don't deserve it.

Ball point pens aren't patented, but a ball point pen the also can shoot lasers and erase, and write in all the colors of the rainbow, that's inventive, imaginary, it deserves to be protected from stupid schmucks who just want to make a quick buck.

You're confusing copyright with patents. Your book is copyrighted, and protected for a lot longer than your lifespan. And once it's out of copyright, it's in the public domain.

Patents expire precisely to encourage competition. If patents didn't expire, our technology would be decades behind where it is right now as most companies are happy to rest on their laurels while protected by patents while competitors build on what is already there, and the fact of the matter is that pretty much all companies benefit from both the existence of patents AND the fact that they expire.

Psh, I dislike clone brands because they are a far worse then LEGO quality wise,and their logos are made to look like LEGO to trick people into buying them. Their sets are terribly made and designed not to mention the plastic is terrible quality.

Even the Chinese bootleg companies have their own logos that don't look like Lego to trick people into thinking it is. I'm not sure how Mega Blocks, Kreo, Character building etc have copied Lego's branding.

Just think... if Kiddiecraft had just sat on a patent and been as ruthless as someone like Apple in their protection of patents we might now be buying Fisher Price building blocks and this forum wouldn't exist.

You're confusing copyright with patents. Your book is copyrighted, and protected for a lot longer than your lifespan. And once it's out of copyright, it's in the public domain.

Patents expire precisely to encourage competition. If patents didn't expire, our technology would be decades behind where it is right now as most companies are happy to rest on their laurels while protected by patents while competitors build on what is already there, and the fact of the matter is that pretty much all companies benefit from both the existence of patents AND the fact that they expire.

I see what you mean about patents have to expire to force technology to grow and evolve.

Ball point pens were patented around 1945 by Biro.

Patents typically last up to 20 years (or 17 years from issue). Expiring can be good for others to get into the market to provide more choices to consumers and can help lower the prices like in health and medicine.

But who did LEGO even copy. The founder of LEGO went to a toy convention saw a machine that made little plastic bricks and bought it. That's how LEGO as a plastic toy started. How was that copying?

Clone brands are good for Lego and for us. Competition is always a good thing. Without competition Lego would get complacent and prices would get out of hand.

Clone brands are good for Lego and for us. Competition is always a good thing. Without competition Lego would get complacent and prices would get out of hand.

I don't see how clone brand brands help us, they steal business from LEGO, wouldn't that make LEGO have to charge more?

But who did LEGO even copy. The founder of LEGO went to a toy convention saw a machine that made little plastic bricks and bought it. That's how LEGO as a plastic toy started. How was that copying?

Lego bought an injection moulding machine and were given a sample of Hilary Page's interlocking brick which they then worked from. Page was the person who founded Kiddicraft and developed plastic bricks through a frustration of toys with wooden building blocks. Rubber bricks with studs were even before that.

I don't see how clone brand brands help us, they steal business from LEGO, wouldn't that make LEGO have to charge more?

Why? Competition makes people be competitive. I'm not sure you're entirely getting what competition is about.

Can you define exactly who you consider a clone brand to be?

Lego bought an injection moulding machine and were given a sample of Hilary Page's interlocking brick which they then worked from. Page was the person who founded Kiddicraft and developed plastic bricks through a frustration of toys with wooden building blocks. Rubber bricks with studs were even before that.

Hmm interesting. The documentary LEGO made about how the company started doesn't mention this Page guy.

Hmm interesting. The documentary LEGO made about how the company started doesn't mention this Page guy.

Here's a site dedicated to him: http://www.hilarypagetoys.com/

Can you define exactly who you consider a clone brand to be?

This kinda stuff this is what I consider a clone brand to be, basically it's cheap and ugly, and made to look like LEGO.

Part of the reason I hate clone brands, is just the principle of the thing. They are copying LEGO and trying to trick people into buying this cheap plastic rip off.

Edited December 13, 20159 yr by The Steward

I think their strapline says it all. Small company that make toys that people can buy very cheaply. Nothing based on licenses but allow people on low income to purchase brick based toys.

Nothing that has any effect on Lego's bottom line or does anything to push Lego's prices up or even compete with Lego in the acquisition of licenses. They don't aim to compete with Lego, don't have the research budgets Lego do or even try say their moulding or plastics are as good as Lego... but it'll do the job for people that can't afford genuine Lego sets. It also doesn't say Lego anywhere on it.

If you think these toys somehow have an effect on Lego or give Lego reason to increase their prices due to perceived loss of market share and revenue then I'm really not sure what I can add.

Edited December 13, 20159 yr by Robianco