Judging by how badly the Chinese imitation lego bricks stick together it is apparently not quite so easy to make proper bricks. I wonder if you can achieve the right "stickiness" within the manufacturing tolerances of a 3D printer.
Although I agree that some of the knockoffs are significantly not as good (in that they don't click together properly), I would have loved to be able to create my own Lego bricks in my younger days and I'd probably put up with them being a bit slack if I had to. I wonder if Lego are worried - things would be pretty grim for them if in 10 years time any child could download and print out any set of interlocking bricks that they wanted...
And Lego has seen this coming for years and done a lot of amazing things to reinvent itself. They had similar problems during the 90's with knockoff products and such, and was almost bankrupt at some point.
They've introduced Lego Technic and later Mindstorm, which patented or not has no good competitors right now. Lego has a good brand name and a good product in a niche! Also, Lego Land in Denmark is awesome!
I think kids for many generations will find joy in some kind of Lego products! At least I hope so, it's the best things ever!
I disagree about the reinvention. It may just be my advancing age showing, but when I try to buy a Christmas present for my cousin it is rather annoying that the majority of the sets seem to be Star Wars or Harry Potter which to me rather defeat the point of Lego, especially since the pieces tend to be a lot more specific to the particular set than I remember from my youth.
Technic has been around for 20 years or more, since I had that back in my childhood.
I agree that overall it's a great toy and a great brand, I just think that they're going to have problems maintaining their current revenues if producing your own became practical, especially since it's not at all cheap in a store.
I just got my 11 y-o son (yet another) Lego Star Wars set for his birthday and it's amazing the things he makes. Day 1 is just building whatever Star Wars thingy the set is about.
Days 2 - infinity are taking the existing thousands of Lego blocks (that he has sorted into color-coded bins: the only organization I've ever seen him do) and building all sorts of crap out of it. So we end up with Boba Fett fighting Harry Potter on top of Hogwarts with the Indiana Jones's office addition!
And all I can do is build Indy an LED lamp for his desk.
As an aside, I really don't know why people get so excited about 3D printing to the exclusion of all other manufacturing methods. Lego blocks could easily be made to the accuracy required on a milling machine using technology that's 100 years old. And it would be much faster than printing.
3D printing is certainly useful, but it gets way too much press. About the only reason I can think of is that it's easier to DIY a RepRap than a CNC milling machine due to the much smaller forces required.
3d printing in this case would be faster than manually using a milling machine. cnc could work though. I thought it would be more of a "this is clever" though i can't imagine charging more than $1-2/block and no clue if anyone would pay that. I haven't bought a lego in 20 years.
If it was held to be "obvious", the patent wouldn't have been granted.
A utility patent lasts around 20 years, unlike a trademark which can last forever. For this reason, you may not use a trademark to secure a utilitarian design - that would be circumventing patent law. Trademarks are intended as an insignia of origin, to distinguish your product from someone else's, and not to protect an invention. Because those different purposes have different needs, different laws cover them.
However, I would have thought there would be many different brick designs with similar utility to Lego: ovals, squares, triangles, different numbers of them, different arrangements etc. The only way I could see support for the judges' finding is if the Lego design was significantly better than the alternatives, in a functional sense.
Moving on to the tablet: A (US) design patent only lasts 14 years - it's not a trademark that lasts forever. Although, like a trademark, it can also be invalidated if it is a utilitarian design (i.e. if it were usurping the law of utility patents): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#Comparison_to_uti...
Design patents can be invalidated if the design has practical utility
(e.g. the shape of a gear).
It's easy to imagine many slight variations of a tablet computer that are quite different from the iPad. Though, in my opinion, the general design of the iPad seems to have great utility, and therefore shouldn't be patented. Maybe what did samsung in was that their design was so exact a copy that it was virtually indistinguishable. They could have varied it a bit without losing functionality.
The Lego was patented 50 years ago. Patent terms generally range from 17-20 years (from issue or filing date). So Lego's original patent expired long ago.
Patents cover functional inventions.
Also mentioned is an earlier Boing-Boing story in which functional aspects of the Lego brick design were denied trademark protection.
Copyright (not mentioned in the article) and trademark do not cover functional design, but literal expression (copyright) and trade dress (trademark). So, a rectangular brick functionally compatible with Lego bricks made by Acme, Inc., and branded appropriately, doesn't infringe Lego's trademark for its functional aspects. Even if these mean that the visual design of the brick is highly similar to a Lego brick (as it would have to be).
Similar findings have been made in copyright law, particularly Sega v. Accolade, in which case a literal reference as part of the activation code of a compatible game was found to be functional, and hence, not a copyright infringement.
Lego had a patent on the design of the bricks 50 years ago - but failed to get a trademark on the shape of the bricks.
Apple got a design patent on the general shape of the iPad. Design patents are a convenient way to get around the fact that trademarks offer much less protection than patents and are generally assessed rather more sensibly.
My point is: even if they'd secured a trademark on the shape of the bricks, if that trademark covered functional aspects of that shape, the protections would not apply. Lego could attempt to enforce them, but a competent defence and court would reject them.
I'm sure most or all HN users would agree that the current patent system is broken. However, as is mentioned in the article and as semanticist pointed out, Lego was able to get a patent on an "obvious" idea, and so was Apple. In other words, a similar argument did apply.
Obvious in retrospect. I had a friend who was a world expert in pen and touch interfaces and he had tablet computers from all over the place. None of them ever looked remotely like the iPad. They were all funky mishmashes that looked like they had been designed by committee whose main pool of ideas was based on hinges, swivels, styluses, and hideable keyboards. They were horrendous, but it wasn't obvious why until after I saw the iPad.
You can't patent this meta-idea of a "clean design". The idea of portable rectangular displays with pen and touch input since the old sci fi shows. Apple simply didn't invent this.
From what I read, the mere aggregation of existing things is not of itself considered patentable. It doesn't make sense to me that anyone would consider the removal of knobs or buttons to be worthy of patent protection. (But then again, almost nothing about the patent system makes sense to me.)
