Lego as a brand does imo substantially benefit from positive associations such as heritage, sentimentality, and other positive attributes. Otherwise how would they be able to demand such premium prices.
So I would see it less as them being “dinged” for this action, but them losing some of those privileges.
bus_factor@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I have a hard time reading this thread as anything other than suggestions for boycotting Lego based on them having removed their DEI policy, while suggesting alternatives which never had one.
And they still deserve credit for having invented the concept and designed the bulk of the bricks. I don’t see how that changes at all based on whether they have a DEI policy. They obviously should lose any benefit from having a better DEI policy, since they no longer have one, but that doesn’t change anything else.
golli@sopuli.xyz 18 hours ago
As always with debates on the internet nuances get lost and things get painted more black and white.
No idea if the other comment that they stole it is true, but looking at the wealth of the owner family I’d say they got more than enough credit. They are set for many generations to come. At some point ideas have to become common good for others to also build upon.
bus_factor@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Someone did invent stackable blocks with four round pegs on them, but saying Lego stole the entire concept is like saying whoever invented the wheel stole the concept because they didn’t invent the circle. You have to allow for iterative design to some extent.
To your second point, you are right that they have got “enough credit”, considering that the patent is expired. This is how patents work: In exchange for sharing your idea with the world so it can be iterated upon, you get to keep exclusive rights to use it (which you can optionally license to others) for a limited time. So the patents expiring is literally the system saying they got their due.
That being said, they still can get brownie points in public opinion for coming up with all this, and the competition has done very little iteration on the concept as far as I can tell, beyond making cool designs with existing brick designs. But considering that the competition so far has mostly been playing catch-up, this may change. Also, considering the vastness and versatility of existing brick designs, there wasn’t much to iterate upon, so maybe set design is really where we’re going to see most of the movement.
It’s basically down to “name brand vs generics” now with the patent expired, and some people will prefer name brand stuff.
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 2 days ago
It’s like this: if someone says ‘I won’t ever stab you’ and then later rescinds that statement, are you going to trust them more or less than someone who didn’t announce their stance on potentially stabbing you?
Yeah, I’d go with the other party, too.
bus_factor@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I get your point, although I’m not sure that’s a good example. I’d be very wary of anyone promising not to stab me out of the blue :-)
That being said, I’d be very surprised if Lego isn’t still doing largely the same things they did before, except they’re no longer publishing what they’re doing. For the Danish part of their operations I’m guessing most of it mandated by local law anyway.
couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
*stole the original concept