Talk:Lego/Archive 3

message: This article seems to be slanted in favor of the LEGO Company. In the "LEGO trademark" section, shouldn't there be mention of the LEGO company's failed attempt to trademark their brick design (the "Lego Indicia Mark") and sue Mega Bloks? Furthermore, there is no mention of the "KIDDICRAFT brick construction sets with cylindrical knobs [...] designed, manufactured and sold by Mr. Harry Fisher Page" (see here and here).
BuilderQ 21:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; I wrote the bulk of the article based on information culled from LEGO publications, web sites, and a few LEGO fan sites; I also happen to be a big fan of LEGO myself, so there is likely to be some bias. There's probably some subtle bias in my choice of words, too: "Consumers on a budget are sometimes willing to forego the LEGO brand in favor of a cheaper alternative" was my attempt at neutrally saying "some customers don't mind cheap knockoffs", but looking at it now, strikes me as still subtly offensive to the companies (Tyco, Mega blocks, etc.) trying to sell different, but compatible, building blocks. Good website references! It might also be good to mention a recent occurrence in Finland in which LEGO destroyed 54,000 imitation products. In the light LEGO puts on it, their act was benevolent, in that it helped prevent brand confusion and build customer trust. But it could also be seen as a very selfish act, an attempt to prevent lawsuits against LEGO, and an opportunity to crush the competition, no matter whether the competition was blatantly ripping off Lego's packaging. Feel free to rework the article for neutrality, to include some of the negative or controversial things about the company. I'll pitch in where I can. -- Wapcaplet 17:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "in which LEGO destroyed 54,000 imitation products."  I heard about that.  Seems like a huge waste to me, and selfish.  I like Legos and used them a lot growing up (and it probably improved things like motor skills and spatial perception) but those could have been given to poor children or something so that they could learn, too. - Omegatron 18:05, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
LEGO publications? Whatever these are (The World of LEGO Toys, per chance?), could they be listed in a "References" section? As for LEGO destroying the 54000 Enlighten products, can more information be found from some other reference (preferably one not affiliated with the LEGO company)? And seeing how the LEGO article is getting so long, perhaps some of the data about Lego's interaction with its competitors could be moved to said competitors' pages? By the way, would a "Category: LEGO clone brands" be justified? Also a fan of LEGO, BuilderQ 00:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point; you are correct, it was The World of LEGO Toys (1987), which is why the official chronology since 1987 mentions mostly new series releases, contests, etc. I will put it in the references, though, and work on your other suggestions. As for extracting part of this article into another article, there's some discussion of that above. The best I can think of is to extract some of the more trivial tidbits from the chronology (second-generation train release, upgraded DUPLO, Technic getting pneumatics, Guinness records, etc.) and put them in a LEGO timeline article or something similar; that would (I hope) let this article concentrate more on the narrative of the company's development, success, and later difficulties. I don't think the competitor conflicts should have a separate article, unless the section becomes much lengthier; leaving the conflict in this article helps to balance the neutrality a little, since so much of the company's prior history is weighted positively. I should also note that I'm glad you've brought these matters up; the article has been in need of reworking for a while, but I haven't known quite where to begin until now. This has already been a Featured Article, but now we can make it even better! -- Wapcaplet 17:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of View

message: The company can be called The LEGO Group.  Is there anyone that could fix or upload the updated image or verison of the company logo?  The current one is the old one not the updated one.  I'm looking for one on and off. Problem is they changed it in 1999 and all the catalog scans with large logos that I can think of offhand are before then, or are skewed (like the 1999 "Star Wars" catalog is). I'll replace it sooner than later, but I just couldn't stand the ugly one seen at LEGO Group. Blech. GarrettTalk 06:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LEGO trademark dilution

message: Given the long discussion about this in the "Unnecessary supplication to corporate demands for trademark treatment" section, I figure it warrants it's own section so folks don't have to sift through that long line of talk.  To the point, is LEGO an acronym?  Going by definition at face value, it is.  But given the way LEGO is formed it may not 'officially' count in so far as capitalization is concerned.  Searching on the 'net, I managed to find www.acronymfinder.com, which has LEGO (in caps) listed as an acronym. I don't think certain individuals would accept this as 'official' (*cough* Nohat *cough*), and I'm unsure if I even accept this source, but it makes you think that they had to have gotten their info from somewhere.  Does anyone have any info or insight into this subject?  And I'll bluntly say, not making stuff up.  Filibustering with assumed or even made-up info doesn't do anyone any good.  Dannybu2001 13:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is "LEGO" an acronym? Or is "Lego" a word?

message: I moved the LEGO (disambiguation) page to Lego (disambiguation) to match Dannybu2001's move of the main page and re-linked it.  Is this undesirable, since there are only three meanings currently, two of which are discussed on this page and one that's linked?  I added the disambiguation page in the first because I was hoping the 'trademark' and 'language use' issues might move to and perhaps be appropriately disambiguated on the disambiguation page, freeing up space here for discussions about content.  Jethero 04:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about doing that myself before, but found that the only really different thing was the Sun Microsystems LEGO, everything else basically is this article or can be accessed from this article.  I don't think it's needed to have a disambiguation page for 3 meanings, 2 of which reference virtually the same thing (i.e. LEGO Bricks, Lego's, etc.)  The only other thing the old disambiguation page had was reference to "Lego my Eggo", which wasn't even accurate cause I've always seen it as "Leggo my Eggo" or something like that in ads.  I'd recommend editing back to the single reference to Sun Microsystems and just forget about the disambiguation page. It may be more organized if there's a central place for all wiki-LEGO pages to discuss issues like "LEGO" vs. "Lego" vs. "legos", but honestly I don't anticipate people going along with that. I could be wrong, but I think it would add to the confusion more than anything. Dannybu2001 20:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation Page