Megabloks is stealing Technic building techniques

[vexorian]

DLuders: HALO is indeed fantasy sci-fi military which is something that Star wars and other themes have had for long. The reason TLG will never do HALO is different, HALO is a game for kids older than 13, and that's a no no for LEGO.

--

Aren't technic bricks a little overrated? I mean the ones that are greater than 1x2 , TLG is still using 1x1 and 1x2 stud-technic bricks, we also now have the 1x2 cross stud technic brick as well. I think that using the 1x1 and 1x2 wherever an axis needs to be put yields the same result as larger bricks, or even better because then your MoC won't have holes everywhere...

Functional design attributes like the design of Technic pins are something where a company is directly profiting from another company's work. However, there's no real legal case for calling this "plagiarism", since according to the LEGO vs. MegaBloks court case, functional design attributes can't be trademarked, and there's not much variety in how they can be carried out.

IP is such a vague term that brings this sort of confusion. THat's the reason we need to specifically talk about : copyright, trademarks, and patents.

In LEGO's case, they have held patents on old brick designs. Including the original LEGO brick, then subsequent things like the technic brick, the gears and stuff. While these patents are active, it is illegal for companies to use bricks that are exactly the same as those patented in those countries. I think that TLG has new patents on many of the new elements, at least I remember seeing talk about some of them. Thus while megabloks are now able to use the system bricks and many pieces released a long time ago like the technic brick, they are probably still unable to use things like the cheese slopes. Likewise, megabloks and KNEX, for example hold patents on many of their elements, which sucks because some of megabloks' bricks are very useful. Patents are not supposed to be about ideas, but about how they are implemented, and as such patents include the "how". Megabloks making a horse minifig may be seen as they "stealing the idea" from LEGO, but that's the same as thinking that LEGO making centaur minifigs would be a steal of custom maker's ideas. That's ridiculous, in the world of patents, it is not stealing unless the actual shape and the way it functions is copied.

And that was true, megabloks would have been illegal years ago while the patents lasted. Because it is TLG's invention. They owned the patent for the first interlocking brick, and then they added patents of their own. (To the interlocking bricks, they changed the size to have nice proportions and also added slope elements, that's the LEGO system, and interlocking + slope bricks was a great innovation over other building toys).

Copyright, I think would refer more to set designs, this is something that makes bootlegs completely illegal because they reuse designs (instruction booklets) that are copyrighted to LEGO.

Trademark applies to names and logos and things that identify a salesman, I think the ruling was fair. Else goodyear would be able to ban competitors from making wheels, and things like that. Megabloks were not using the brick as an advertisement or tried to steal LEGO's identity (at least I don't think they did?)

Why? Positive or negative as long as its kept cival whats wrong with a little disscusion on a competing brand? This is the off topic section were everything non lego related belong anyhow.

This is a LEGO fan site, not a construction toy site.

Edited February 19, 2011 by vexorian

[Omicron]

To be fair, what people are concerned about is the copying of functional design elements rather than just ideas. Ideas like real-life weapons, armor, and animals are nobody's property, and taking the idea from someone else's recent use of it is in my opinion no more shameful than taking an idea that hasn't been used in decades.

True, but a line is crossed when you use a customizor's own item in place of yours when displaying prototypes at shows.

-Omi

Edited February 19, 2011 by Omicron

[vexorian]

For Example?

But it wouldn't really be significant (or crossing a line) unless LEGO started selling copies of the custom. Ideas are silly, silly things and not anyone's property. Playmobil does not own the idea of making an Egyptian theme. A custom does not own the idea of a gun. In regards to inventions, you do not care about the idea but more about the how it was executed. This is the reason software patents are a ridiculous concept.

Megabloks in this case is not using LEGO's idea, but an actual exact copy of a brick design that was in the past patented by LEGO. But the patent expired and this is complete fair play. In fact, the intention of the patent system is to encourage inventors to sharing their ideas, first giving them a monopoly over them but then, when the patent expires, allowing everyone else to use the patented thing.

Edited February 19, 2011 by vexorian

[5150 Lego]

Aren't technic bricks a little overrated? I mean the ones that are greater than 1x2 , TLG is still using 1x1 and 1x2 stud-technic bricks, we also now have the 1x2 cross stud technic brick as well. I think that using the 1x1 and 1x2 wherever an axis needs to be put yields the same result as larger bricks, or even better because then your MoC won't have holes everywhere...

I see what your getting at, but full length technic brick (such as a 1x4 or longer) works very well at keeping two levels of bricks locked together.

Example.. (sorry for the crappy quality pics)

Though its technic beam and not a brick, (same concept though) i use them both regularly to hold multilevel of bricks together. In this case the goose neck hitch to the flat bed trailer. If it weren't for this method, there would be no way support a build of this size as the goose neck would just snap off. Similar methods are even used in some of the larger Star wars sets. So while technic bricks may not be the most visual appealing, they do have there place.

[Omicron]

For Example?

Wow you guys really don't follow all this? :/

Link

Plus I can list off all the new items that LEGO recently came out with that was already made by BF and BA prior.

-Omi

[Siegfried]

Why? Positive or negative as long as its kept cival whats wrong with a little disscusion on a competing brand? This is the off topic section were everything non lego related belong anyhow.

Well when I posted that this topic was in the Technic forum, and it was becoming more and more off topic with each post! Now that it's in Community it's on-topic. But to answer your question, no, nothing is wrong with a little discussion, but it's becoming more than that. A similar topic was closed only a few days ago.

It comes down to this;

1. If you love M$g! Bl*ks, you might be on the wrong site.

2. If you tolerate some M&g@ Bl#ks, it's OK, but we'd prefer you discussed it elsewhere.

3. If you hate M^g! Bl@ks we'd rather you kept your hated to a dull roar... and please don't be a troll and discuss it elsewhere!

In short any topic on a non-LEGO construction toy belongs on EB as much as topics on Motorbikes do. We're happy for light occasional non-LEGO discussion of between friends, but in my experience any on the topic of M&g@ Bl*ks beyond that is pointless and causes trouble. The haters come out and say that the competitors are rubbish, the lovers defend them... and the topic just becomes a negative blight.

[johnsocal]

We all know by now that MEGA would take the LEGO name if they could. Since they can't, they will just slowly take everything else that isn't trademarked or had it patents expire.

[Omicron]

We all know by now that MEGA would take the LEGO name if they could. Since they can't, they will just slowly take everything else that isn't trademarked or had it patents expire.

I think your exaggerating the issue a bit. Mega Brands can always take what LEGO does not (Halo anybody?). You also seem to forget that they are a legit business and not crooks. If it is up for grabs, it is up for grabs. Coca-Cola and Pepsi do this. Sony and Microsoft do this.

-Omi

[blueandwhite]

Wow you guys really don't follow all this? :/

Link

Plus I can list off all the new items that LEGO recently came out with that was already made by BF and BA prior.

-Omi

In fairness, a hoplite's helmet or a Great Helm can only be made in so many ways. As somebody who will not use 3rd party accessories, I'm pleased to see LEGO produce these items. The fact that Brick Forge and Brick Arms produced similar items at an earlier date is a moot point to me.

[Omicron]

In fairness, a hoplite's helmet or a Great Helm can only be made in so many ways. As somebody who will not use 3rd party accessories, I'm pleased to see LEGO produce these items. The fact that Brick Forge and Brick Arms produced similar items at an earlier date is a moot point to me.

Then it should be moot point that LEGO produced similar items at an earlier date that MB now makes. Right?

-Omi

[Scouty]

Then it should be moot point that LEGO produced similar items at an earlier date that MB now makes. Right?

-Omi

No, I don't think so. BF and BA are LEGO custom companies, that is to say, they make custom pieces to complement LEGO figures, etc. So in this regard, they can be grouped on the LEGO side of the line. Megabloks, however, is taking away from LEGO, copying a couple parts and throwing in a couple of their own parts. Short to say, they hurt TLC more than they do complement it. So when we see something that hurts our beloved brand, expect to have a push by some, but we also expect a push back, and this could just go on and on and on and annoyingly on.

But this is all besides the point. This is a LEGO website, and it's just odd to see that we have three (more than three, really) threads on clone brands and what have you.

Just as Siegfried the Walrus says, it comes down to those three things. We are a LEGO website, "Uniting LEGO Fans around the world", right? This not to say those who like other brands should not be on this site, but rather that we should just stop bickering about this, accept the fact, and go back to building our bricks and sharing them with the Internet world.

I've always saw Community as a place to share your other hobbies, away from building with bricks (well, unless you're a bricklayer, too ), and converse with each other on other matters. Bringing LEGO or other brands in here is just out of place. But that's my view.

[Omicron]

No, I don't think so. BF and BA are LEGO custom companies, that is to say, they make custom pieces to complement LEGO figures, etc.

Just wanna correct you on this. BF makes products to compliment both LEGO and MB as well as other similar brands. If you take a look at their site, you would see products modeled with Stikfas and Minimates. Mainly LEGO, yes, but intended for everything else. :)

but rather that we should just stop bickering about this, accept the fact, and go back to building our bricks and sharing them with the Internet world.

I totally agree. I just don't like all these one-sided ordeals.

-Omi

[blueandwhite]

Then it should be moot point that LEGO produced similar items at an earlier date that MB now makes. Right?

-Omi

Honestly, I really don't care either way. I don't purchase Mega Bloks either.

I have no real issue with MB, BF or BA products but I recognize that all three manufacturers depend on LEGO far more than LEGO depends on them. The crux of the matter is that all of the aforementioned brands decided to produce a line of building toys and accessories that are directly compatible with LEGO in order to feed off the success of the LEGO brand. Mega Bloks and any other clone brand could have just as easily produced bricks that have a different set of dimensions; ones that do not match up with the LEGO standard. Heck, LEGO's own Modulex bricks have a unique set of dimensions that aren't directly compatible with LEGO bricks. If Mega Bloks had what it takes to make it on its own it would have introduced its own standard. As it stands, it's simply a clone brand that has used its similarities with LEGO to obtain a share of the marketplace.

Of course, all of this would seem far more devious if you ignore the fact that LEGO did the same thing in the late 1940s to Kiddicraft when they modified the original Automatic Binding Brick. Stealing is an inherent part of the toy industry, which would probably explain why manufacturers go to such lengths to hide their products during development. Clone brands have benefited from LEGO's success. They don't offer an original product, rather they compliment the marketplace by offering greater variety at a range of prices.

[Omicron]

Mega Bloks and any other clone brand could have just as easily produced bricks that have a different set of dimensions; ones that do not match up with the LEGO standard.

They have. Numerously.

As Family Guy always put it:

"I always asked Lois to buy me LEGO, but she gets me Mega Bloks"

"They're the same thing Peter."

"You know Lois, they are not the same."

-Omi

Edited February 20, 2011 by Omicron

[Plastic Nurak]

Of course, all of this would seem far more devious if you ignore the fact that LEGO did the same thing in the late 1940s to Kiddicraft when they modified the original Automatic Binding Brick.

From the fog of those still mysterious times is coming out some new fact that's going to contradict the clone origin of our beloved LEGO bricks - at least, since 1952/3.

Read carefully these pages:

http://www.leg@s.tabacaria.com.pt/Textos/timeline.htm

http://www.leg@s.tabacaria.com.pt/Pt2/txt/700/700_3ABB49Dk.htm

http://www.leg@s.tabacaria.com.pt/clones/texts/kiddicraft.htm (the appendix)

----------> http://www.leg@s.tabacaria.com.pt/Pt2/txtBk/50a.htm <------------

I've got some idea about what happened at the time, now I (we) need some evidence .

Edited February 21, 2011 by Plastic Nurak

[Peppermint_M]

http://www.LEGO bricks.tabacaria.com.pt/Textos/timeline.htm

http://www.LEGO bricks.tabacaria.com.pt/Pt2/txt/700/700_3ABB49Dk.htm

http://www.LEGO bricks.tabacaria.com.pt/clones/texts/kiddicraft.htm (the appendix)

----------> http://www.LEGO bricks.tabacaria.com.pt/Pt2/txtBk/50a.htm <------------

I've got some idea about what happened at the time, now I (we) need some evidence .

Please fix links thanks

If we are speaking of Kiddicraft, I know that it has been said before, but far too many people ignore it. Here is an interesting site.

[5150 Lego]

But this is all besides the point. This is a LEGO website, and it's just odd to see that we have three (more than three, really) threads on clone brands and what have you.

To be fair, the threads seem to be focused around theme's that TLC either won't touch, or just don't have anything similar. Halo from MB, and Transformers from Kre-o are good examples. Now if a thread started based on a competitors "city" or "space" theme (even though I wouldn't have a problem with it personally) I could understand were there might be a problem. But I hear alot of uneducated comments about this brick being stolen from TLC, or that their crooks. Non of which is true. Alittle healthy discussion on competitor brands shouldn't be discouraged as it can open up alot of peoples to to the real facts; good and bad. Whether or not they choose to believe any is up to them.

[Plastic Nurak]

From the fog of those still mysterious times is coming out some new fact that's going to contradict the clone origin of our beloved LEGO bricks - at least, since 1952/3.

Read carefully these pages:

http:// www. leg@s. tabacaria. com. pt/ Textos/ timeline. htm

http:// www. leg@s. tabacaria. com. pt/ Pt2/ txt/ 700/ 700_3ABB49Dk. htm

http:// www. leg@s. tabacaria. com. pt/ clones/ texts/ kiddicraft. htm (the appendix)

----------> http:// www. leg@s. tabacaria. com. pt/ Pt2/ txtBk/ 50a. htm <------------

I've got some idea about what happened at the time, now I (we) need some evidence .

Erase empty spaces and change '@' with 'o' (stupid script restrictions ).

Edited February 21, 2011 by Plastic Nurak

[simonjedi]

It's literally 'Baby's first Technic connection' I doubt Lego is losing sleep over it.

[vexorian]

Wow you guys really don't follow all this? :/

Link

The plumes and the helmets from BF and the preliminary pic of Series 4 don't look that similar... I don't think it can be proven that it is the same mold beyond thinking that both bricks represent the same thing. The plumes in the link actually have a whole different shape so I don't really know if the BF link was updated or something.

Plus I can list off all the new items that LEGO recently came out with that was already made by BF and BA prior.

-Omi

I then hope BF and BA stop producing new items if they will cry idea theft whenever TLG makes something similar, seeing as to how they keep making whatever they hear being requested among fans, I would not like LEGO getting blamed for stealing ideas from BF whenever they decide to make a item that is very requested by fans. Hoplite helmets were around far earlier than BF and BA. Plus seeing how BF and BA get ideas from LEGO fans and LEGO does as well, this is in no way shocking. What's probably very shocking would be BF and BA thinking that they came up with ideas that have been around for ages among fans, publicly stating their interest on such items everywhere...

Edited February 21, 2011 by vexorian

[Omicron]

The plumes and the helmets from BF and the preliminary pic of Series 4 don't look that similar... I don't think it can be proven that it is the same mold beyond thinking that both bricks represent the same thing.

Armothe says it is, so it is. Plus the fact that the newer mold of the helmet does not resemble the one in the prelim, and there have been several comparisons.

I then hope BF and BA stop producing new items if they will cry idea theft whenever TLG makes something similar

They aren't. I am only saying that Lego picks other brains too for their products. Plus they make what Lego does not make. They are the ones listening to fans. The centaur body that BF released last year? that was fan made and Lego isn't getting around to it, and probably won't ever.

Hoplite helmets were around far earlier than BF and BA.

But not Lego versions.

Which is the whole point of this. It isn't the real life design itself. It is the element.

Lego makes a brick design, which they apparently borrowed from another guy. People seem ok with that.

MB borrows the brick design and does their version of it. People scream bloody murder over it.

A custom vendor makes their own design on an element, which Lego makes their own later on. People seem ok with it.

You see the pattern here? Why is it ok for Lego to make their own designs of similar products, but not ok when a competing company does it?

I would not like LEGO getting blamed for stealing ideas

I would not like Mega Bloks getting blamed for stealing ideas. :)

-Omi

[Aanchir]

The plumes and the helmets from BF and the preliminary pic of Series 4 don't look that similar... I don't think it can be proven that it is the same mold beyond thinking that both bricks represent the same thing. The plumes in the link actually have a whole different shape so I don't really know if the BF link was updated or something.

I then hope BF and BA stop producing new items if they will cry idea theft whenever TLG makes something similar, seeing as to how they keep making whatever they hear being requested among fans, I would not like LEGO getting blamed for stealing ideas from BF whenever they decide to make a item that is very requested by fans. Hoplite helmets were around far earlier than BF and BA. Plus seeing how BF and BA get ideas from LEGO fans and LEGO does as well, this is in no way shocking. What's probably very shocking would be BF and BA thinking that they came up with ideas that have been around for ages among fans, publicly stating their interest on such items everywhere...

Actually, LEGO designers have admitted to using Brickforge parts as placeholders for the real parts in the past. They rarely end up in preliminary images that the public has access to... but then, most of the time preliminary images aren't meant for the public's eyes at all!

All in all, I don't think there's any malicious intent behind this, nor is LEGO trying to take shortcuts by copying other people's designs.

And most Brickforge folks don't cry "idea theft" when LEGO uses similar ideas, no matter how many silly AFOLs do so whenever pics of new parts emerge. I think I read that Armothe himself actually considers it an honor that LEGO uses Brickforge parts as inspiration for new parts (although I may be misquoting the person I heard this from, or for that matter the person I heard this from may have been misinformed-- it was quite a while ago).

[Omicron]

I think I read that Armothe himself actually considers it an honor that LEGO uses Brickforge parts as inspiration for new parts (although I may be misquoting the person I heard this from, or for that matter the person I heard this from may have been misinformed-- it was quite a while ago).

He did say something like that. shmails said something similar as well:

The final point I want to make is about the BF influence rearring its head again. I believe these figures legitimize what BF and companies like this one do. How many companies can say that they inspire the Megacorp that inspired them to start the business in the first place? I just wish LEGO would acknowledge this fact.

-Omi

[Scouty]

Ok, I'm going to lock this thread. Basically, let it go. People have their opinions and on the internet, they're not going to be swayed. What is is, no use straining each other over it. Let's shake hands, and stop going back and forth .