LEGO fight Against Chinese counterfeit LEGO

zmarkella

AndyPol said:

Lepin obviously trying to get in early, but haven't managed to get hold of photos yet! Disgraceful as usual......

Click here

That was on AliExpress on the day of the announcement.

The Ship in the bottle has been on sale since September! Not as a 'presell', but as an actual item.

Fizyx

CCC said:

I received my Alien figure yesterday, so might as well put the pics here. The moulding is worse than Lego's, there are visible seams but these can and have now been removed with a blade. However the detail in moulding is very good. The neck bracket that holds the tail is probably too thick, meaning the head has less clutch than it should but it stays on fine. The head cannot really turn. There is a gap between tail and torso that widens from top to bottom. The printing is superb. It isn't perfectly centred though (just like Lego). The print density and colour easily matches Lego quality but they surpass Lego in the continuity of the print. The torso and legs come assembled so I assume they print the pair together. This means no gap in print between the torso and legs, a very common flaw with official Lego. Hand and feet clutch is as per Lego but the back holes in the legs are too small and clutch is way too strong. This seems to be a problem with many knock offs I get, some so tight you cannot even sit them on studs.

For a figure Lego will probably never do, and so won't be available officially, I'm very happy with this one. Slight worse moulding but better prints. It will like great next to the Arvo Bros model next time I get that one out.

Just a note here:  Since the Disney purchase of portions of Fox went through, Disney now owns the Alien IP... and since Disney seems to be pretty friendly with LEGO in terms of licensing, it is completely possible and more likely than ever that we WILL see an official Alien minifig now :D

Fizyx

zmarkella said:

AndyPol said:

Lepin obviously trying to get in early, but haven't managed to get hold of photos yet! Disgraceful as usual......

Click here

That was on AliExpress on the day of the announcement.

The Ship in the bottle has been on sale since September! Not as a 'presell', but as an actual item.

I really REALLY hope that is not a direct copy of the LEGO build, because that bottle is super ugly compared to the Ideas version, and almost ruins the whole idea imo.  That fact gives me hope that they just saw what they thought would be a very appealing set and threw their own shoddy copy of it together without being able to copy it exactly because they are bad.

CCC

Fizyx said:

CCC said:

I received my Alien figure yesterday, so might as well put the pics here. The moulding is worse than Lego's, there are visible seams but these can and have now been removed with a blade. However the detail in moulding is very good. The neck bracket that holds the tail is probably too thick, meaning the head has less clutch than it should but it stays on fine. The head cannot really turn. There is a gap between tail and torso that widens from top to bottom. The printing is superb. It isn't perfectly centred though (just like Lego). The print density and colour easily matches Lego quality but they surpass Lego in the continuity of the print. The torso and legs come assembled so I assume they print the pair together. This means no gap in print between the torso and legs, a very common flaw with official Lego. Hand and feet clutch is as per Lego but the back holes in the legs are too small and clutch is way too strong. This seems to be a problem with many knock offs I get, some so tight you cannot even sit them on studs.

For a figure Lego will probably never do, and so won't be available officially, I'm very happy with this one. Slight worse moulding but better prints. It will like great next to the Arvo Bros model next time I get that one out.

Just a note here:  Since the Disney purchase of portions of Fox went through, Disney now owns the Alien IP... and since Disney seems to be pretty friendly with LEGO in terms of licensing, it is completely possible and more likely than ever that we WILL see an official Alien minifig now :D

It depends how adult LEGO wants to get. The Alien franchise is not very kid friendly.

zmarkella

Fizyx said:

I really REALLY hope that is not a direct copy of the LEGO build, because that bottle is super ugly compared to the Ideas version, and almost ruins the whole idea imo.  That fact gives me hope that they just saw what they thought would be a very appealing set and threw their own shoddy copy of it together without being able to copy it exactly because they are bad.

Definitely not a direct copy of the LEGO build nor the original submission. While the original Ideas submission was using parts 2572 and 6002 for the neck part of the bottle, the Lepin one uses 6059 and 2571.

I'd be really interested to see how LEGO modifies the bottle as the original design (and the Lepin copy) is flimsy as hell. You've got multiple large panels on top of each other without any overlap whatsoever.

Fizyx

zmarkella said:

Definitely not a direct copy of the LEGO build nor the original submission. While the original Ideas submission was using parts 2572 and 6002 for the neck part of the bottle, the Lepin one uses 6059 and 2571.

I'd be really interested to see how LEGO modifies the bottle as the original design (and the Lepin copy) is flimsy as hell. You've got multiple large panels on top of each other without any overlap whatsoever.

I honestly don't know if it's possible to strengthen it that much and keep the clear 'bottle' feel of the whole thing.  That, plus the fact that this is pretty clearly intended to be a display model, and not a play model, might mean that they're a little more willing to allow a certain amount of frailness through... or they might have something really clever up their sleeves that we'll see soon!  Either way though, I'm with you about seeing how they're going to modify it.  I really hope they keep the trans-blue 1x1s piled loose in the bottom, as I feel it adds a lot to the feel of the set... but I would also understand if they didn't. (And would do my best to get my own somehow to fix the issue :P )

CCC

There are some MOCs (but not theirs) that Lepin are doing, where they have airbrushed out figures:

The wine shop one is interesting, as they have left part of a suited business man in and also a newspaper hanging in mid-air.

datsunrobbie

Fizyx said:

CCC said:

I received my Alien figure yesterday, so might as well put the pics here. The moulding is worse than Lego's, there are visible seams but these can and have now been removed with a blade. However the detail in moulding is very good. The neck bracket that holds the tail is probably too thick, meaning the head has less clutch than it should but it stays on fine. The head cannot really turn. There is a gap between tail and torso that widens from top to bottom. The printing is superb. It isn't perfectly centred though (just like Lego). The print density and colour easily matches Lego quality but they surpass Lego in the continuity of the print. The torso and legs come assembled so I assume they print the pair together. This means no gap in print between the torso and legs, a very common flaw with official Lego. Hand and feet clutch is as per Lego but the back holes in the legs are too small and clutch is way too strong. This seems to be a problem with many knock offs I get, some so tight you cannot even sit them on studs.

For a figure Lego will probably never do, and so won't be available officially, I'm very happy with this one. Slight worse moulding but better prints. It will like great next to the Arvo Bros model next time I get that one out.

Just a note here:  Since the Disney purchase of portions of Fox went through, Disney now owns the Alien IP... and since Disney seems to be pretty friendly with LEGO in terms of licensing, it is completely possible and more likely than ever that we WILL see an official Alien minifig now :D

Disney ownership of the Alien IP also means that Mickey may want to speak to the Arvo Brothers about infringement. 

Shib

Fizyx said:

CCC said:

I received my Alien figure yesterday, so might as well put the pics here. The moulding is worse than Lego's, there are visible seams but these can and have now been removed with a blade. However the detail in moulding is very good. The neck bracket that holds the tail is probably too thick, meaning the head has less clutch than it should but it stays on fine. The head cannot really turn. There is a gap between tail and torso that widens from top to bottom. The printing is superb. It isn't perfectly centred though (just like Lego). The print density and colour easily matches Lego quality but they surpass Lego in the continuity of the print. The torso and legs come assembled so I assume they print the pair together. This means no gap in print between the torso and legs, a very common flaw with official Lego. Hand and feet clutch is as per Lego but the back holes in the legs are too small and clutch is way too strong. This seems to be a problem with many knock offs I get, some so tight you cannot even sit them on studs.

For a figure Lego will probably never do, and so won't be available officially, I'm very happy with this one. Slight worse moulding but better prints. It will like great next to the Arvo Bros model next time I get that one out.

Just a note here:  Since the Disney purchase of portions of Fox went through, Disney now owns the Alien IP... and since Disney seems to be pretty friendly with LEGO in terms of licensing, it is completely possible and more likely than ever that we WILL see an official Alien minifig now :D

If Dimensions was ongoing I’d agree with you, with it cancelled not so much

alaskaguy

You know what would be interesting....since Lego eliminated the ability to turn your LDD designs into a custom set from Lego - is if Lepin offered that service.  You send them your LDD file and they'll send you the parts, instructions and printed box (:

zmarkella

alaskaguy said:

You know what would be interesting....since Lego eliminated the ability to turn your LDD designs into a custom set from Lego - is if Lepin offered that service.  You send them your LDD file and they'll send you the parts, instructions and printed box (:

You know what - I don't even need the box. Just provide me parts in bulk at a decent price
 (I confess: that's why I bought the ship in the bottle - for the trans-clear panels. A trans-clear 6059 will set you back £8+ a piece as it has not been in production for the last 15 years!)

Fizyx

CCC said:

There are some MOCs (but not theirs) that Lepin are doing, where they have airbrushed out figures:

The wine shop one is interesting, as they have left part of a suited business man in and also a newspaper hanging in mid-air.

Honestly, THIS is what really pisses me off about Lepin.  I don't like that they copy LEGO wholesale and all, but LEGO is a multibillion dollar company.  The people that make these MOCs are not, and the fact the Lepin just goes in and rips off their amazing hard work like that really gets me steaming.

(Also, the decapitated business man is a little disturbing, not going to lie!)

zmarkella

Fizyx said:

Honestly, THIS is what really pisses me off about Lepin.  I don't like that they copy LEGO wholesale and all, but LEGO is a multibillion dollar company.  The people that make these MOCs are not, and the fact the Lepin just goes in and rips off their amazing hard work like that really gets me steaming.

So how do we go about getting these people paid? I am happy to pay for instructions/digital models, but they either don't exist or the designers don't want to sell them (or they can't sell them if you look at failed Ideas projects).

How about this: reintroduce the 'Design byMe' service, where you could buy other people's creation and they would receive a cut from the price?

datsunrobbie

Getting them paid by Lepin won't happen, but you can buy instructions at Brickstruct. There are probably other sites selling instructions as well, this is just the one I know about.

http://www.brickstruct.com/Brickstruct.com/Welcome.html

Aanchir

zmarkella said:

Fizyx said:

Honestly, THIS is what really pisses me off about Lepin.  I don't like that they copy LEGO wholesale and all, but LEGO is a multibillion dollar company.  The people that make these MOCs are not, and the fact the Lepin just goes in and rips off their amazing hard work like that really gets me steaming.

So how do we go about getting these people paid? I am happy to pay for instructions/digital models, but they either don't exist or the designers don't want to sell them (or they can't sell them if you look at failed Ideas projects).

How about this: reintroduce the 'Design byMe' service, where you could buy other people's creation and they would receive a cut from the price?

Design byME wasn’t successful enough for LEGO to really justify its costs, and beyond that, the extremely limited parts palette (a necessity for a service that involves packing boxes by hand) means that most MOCs couldn’t really work through that kind of service anyhow.

Also, even if all creators had the option to make their designs available for purchase, I’m sure some would choose not to, and that’s still entirely their call. I dislike the implication that these copies signify some sort of unmet obligation for the designers to make their work available to others. It’s bad enough when people say that kind of thing about, say, retired sets… but those were at least commercial products to begin with, whereas MOCs, more often than not, are made for their creators’ personal enjoyment.

zmarkella

Aanchir said:

Design byME wasn’t successful enough for LEGO to really justify its costs, and beyond that, the extremely limited parts palette (a necessity for a service that involves packing boxes by hand) means that most MOCs couldn’t really work through that kind of service anyhow.

Also, even if all creators had the option to make their designs available for purchase, I’m sure some would choose not to, and that’s still entirely their call. I dislike the implication that these copies signify some sort of unmet obligation for the designers to make their work available to others. It’s bad enough when people say that kind of thing about, say, retired sets… but those were at least commercial products to begin with, whereas MOCs, more often than not, are made for their creators’ personal enjoyment.

Maybe Design byME was just too ahead of its time. I wasn't aware that the bricks were hand-picked - I was still in my dark ages.

I never said that anyone should be obliged to sell instructions/digital models. If you want to make money out of your creation - go ahead; I'm happy to pay for it. If not, that's fine by me.
I was merely suggesting an idea that might work for designers who'd rather see some return on their work than let Lepin bank all the money.

Fizyx

zmarkella said:

Maybe Design byME was just too ahead of its time. I wasn't aware that the bricks were hand-picked - I was still in my dark ages.

This is likely true.  A lot of issues with services like this can be fixed with automation, but only the kind of automation that we're really just now beginning to see emerging, and that many industrial applications won't see for another 5-10 years at the earliest.  Honestly, in 10 years I could absolutely see it being worth LEGO's time and effort to provide a service like this that is close to fully automated, from design input to shipping to the customer.  But even right now I don't think it would be completely viable to do.

Also, there would certainly still be some rough patches that LEGO would need to work out, and limited palette is certainly one of them.  The introduction and retirement of brick types and colors would have to have a concrete process that was widely communicated to creators, and creators would have to have the means to develop and publish updates to sets or retires sets as they desired when brick inventories were about to be depleted.  There would also be issues with the manufacturing pipeline and supply forecasting that are somewhat different from the way LEGO handles those things today, since they would almost have to be on a piece by piece bases, which is much more complicated than on a set by set basis.

Personally, since on-demand production at volume prices is the dream of manufacturing companies economically, and because high levels of automation are one of the only ways to reliably achieve this, I feel that LEGO will almost certainly be moving towards a production infrastructure that would support an economically viable Design byME system in the not to distant future, if they aren't already.  It would still need some tweaks compared to their normal commercial production to achieve (if they are moving in this direction) but those would almost certainly be worthwhile for them from a manufacturing standpoint.  There might be some other issues around IP monitoring and such (so people don't just rip off other's models or IP or copy LEGOs own older products, etc) that change the equation, but I don't believe they are insurmountable by any means.

I guess this also assumes that LEGO's manufacturing throughput is large enough to mostly keep up with demand, which is also a pretty big assumption.

PapaBear

datsunrobbie said:

Disney ownership of the Alien IP also means that Mickey may want to speak to the Arvo Brothers about infringement. 

Yup, Disney never steals anything.  No IP infringement here.  Move along.  Just take out your wallets and dance.

Lyichir

PapaBear said:

datsunrobbie said:

Disney ownership of the Alien IP also means that Mickey may want to speak to the Arvo Brothers about infringement. 

Yup, Disney never steals anything.  No IP infringement here.  Move along.  Just take out your wallets and dance.

Setting aside the question of exactly how much Kimba the White Lion did or did not influence The Lion King, that sort of argument (pointing to a decades-old controversy to try and allege that a company or individual actually following the law is hypocritical, a dubious argument in most cases) is irrelevant when it comes to the question of trademark infringement (which the Lion King was decidedly not even if certain poses and framing might have been plagiarised). The Arvo brothers have never tried to make any claim that the model in question is not in fact a Xenomorph from the Alien franchise. Trying to sell it has therefore been legally risky since even before Disney had the rights; the fact that Disney  is a more aggressive litigant merely means that there might actually be consequences for that this time.

SumoLego

I'm sure LEGO isn't actually concerned about essentially a fan-tribute sculpture.  Evidently, Fox really didn't care, either.

I'm sure if LEGO percieved a broad market for this piece, they could either license it, or produce one themselves.

(And perhaps send a polite 'cease and desist' letter.)

datsunrobbie

When it was just books of instructions for a "fan-tribute sculpture" of IP not owned by Disney there was probably not much for the Arvo Brothers to worry about. Now they have partnered with Xingbao and their names are in the marketing materials as designers for mass-produced sets. Disney may sue the Arvo Brothers to dissuade other designers from making similar deals. A polite letter may not be enough for the Brothers to get out of their deal with Xingbao.

PapaBear

Lyichir said:

PapaBear said:

datsunrobbie said:

Disney ownership of the Alien IP also means that Mickey may want to speak to the Arvo Brothers about infringement. 

Yup, Disney never steals anything.  No IP infringement here.  Move along.  Just take out your wallets and dance.

Setting aside the question of exactly how much Kimba the White Lion did or did not influence The Lion King, that sort of argument (pointing to a decades-old controversy to try and allege that a company or individual actually following the law is hypocritical, a dubious argument in most cases) is irrelevant when it comes to the question of trademark infringement (which the Lion King was decidedly not even if certain poses and framing might have been plagiarised). The Arvo brothers have never tried to make any claim that the model in question is not in fact a Xenomorph from the Alien franchise. Trying to sell it has therefore been legally risky since even before Disney had the rights; the fact that Disney  is a more aggressive litigant merely means that there might actually be consequences for that this time.

In many parts it has the same exact story, the characters have the same journeys, a tremendous amount of characters are portrayed the same, many visuals are the same, and even the names (Kimba vs Simba) are far too similar.  Making the argument that the similarities are a dubious claim is a dubious claim.  I really don't care about what the "Arvo brothers" do and I care less about what Disney does.  If I do see the TLJ I certainly won't pay to see it. 

Over the past 80 years only 25% of Disney's movies have been original.  The rest have been remakes, adaptations, and sequels.  They'll continue this trend with Marvel, Star Wars, Xmen, Alien, Predator, etc.  Disney may be good at targeting markets and suing people, but creatively they have lost their touch.

Anyways, I don't know why you thought so deeply into a meme I posted.

SumoLego

^ Simba is the word 'lion' in Swahili.  As far as I can tell, Kimba is the word for 'brush fire' in the Aboriginal language.  And considering Kimba is a '60's Japanese cartoon, who knows where it really came from.  Citing a silly similarity undermines your point.

Regardless, I'd peruse this article about the 'controversy'.  
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6272316?ir=Celebrity

I'd reference Led Zeppelin stealing from early Blues musicians, or that Avatar is Ferngully...

Shib

To be fair The Lion King is just Hamlet.

PapaBear

SumoLego said:

^ Simba is the word 'lion' in Swahili.  As far as I can tell, Kimba is the word for 'brush fire' in the Aboriginal language.  And considering Kimba is a '60's Japanese cartoon, who knows where it really came from.  Citing a silly similarity undermines your point.

Regardless, I'd peruse this article about the 'controversy'.  
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6272316?ir=Celebrity

I'd reference Led Zeppelin stealing from early Blues musicians, or that Avatar is Ferngully...

I'm aware what the words mean, but the similarity is still too close.  Roy Disney also referred to him as Kimba.  Regardless, there is enough evidence there that Disney at least copied some ideas.  Avatar is very similar to Fergully, but I wouldn't put the two comparisons in the same category.  I think 21st Century Fox owns both of those anyways.  It happens in all industries.  Reminds me of Picasso's quote "Good artists copy.  Great artists steal."

I'm not going to fault Disney because they stole some ideas, but I really don't care if someone uses their IP (they just bought) to make a few bucks. 

SumoLego

PapaBear said:
...too close...

That phrase makes the argument completely subjective, and undermines your point.  The purported Kimba thievery really has nothing to do with similar names.

And I'm not defending Disney for 'inspiration', 'borrowing', 'stealing', 'copying' or outright 'appropriating' in many instances.  As noted above, Lion King is essentially a kid-version of Hamlet.

But, I would be worried about a nasty-gram from LEGO or Disney/Fox with regards to the Alien.  (Or maybe not - as I think about it now, Disney and Fox have collaborated in the past and licensed Fox IP.)

SumoLego

And although Disney does do a fair amount of derivative work, even if a quarter of the product is 'original', that's still an admirable amount of creativity.  Those sequels and reboots have to come from somewhere.

I suppose by that rationale, DC hasn't had an original idea since the early '80's, and Marvel since the late'80's...

Fizyx

SumoLego said:

And although Disney does do a fair amount of derivative work, even if a quarter of the product is 'original', that's still an admirable amount of creativity.  Those sequels and reboots have to come from somewhere.

I suppose by that rationale, DC hasn't had an original idea since the early '80's, and Marvel since the late'80's...

Honestly, for me the issue isn't that Disney makes derivative works.  It's the fact that they will take these stories either from the public domain, or from other artists, and make billions of dollars off it... and then turn around and use their money to shut out other artists and creators from doing anything even remotely related in any way to one of their own works.  I guess that's a little bit of an off-topic screed to go into here, though.

datsunrobbie

It's been said there are only 7 plots, so there's going to be a lot of recycling. As a guitar player I learned that one 3-chord progression works for hundreds of songs. So to some extent, most things are derivative works. It's the details that make things copyrightable. Anybody can make a space monster, but make one just like Giger's Alien and you infringe his IP rights, fair-use notwithstanding. Kid's marketing/programming follows a few basic themes with a wide range of characters - the trick is figuring out what characters will appeal to the kids (and translate into a toy line - I have no illusions about TV's influence on kids).

I wish the Arvo Brothers the best, they have made some really nice looking MOCs. But if a mouse comes knocking at the door, RUN!

Bobflip

PapaBear said:

datsunrobbie said:

Disney ownership of the Alien IP also means that Mickey may want to speak to the Arvo Brothers about infringement. 

Yup, Disney never steals anything.  No IP infringement here.  Move along.  Just take out your wallets and dance.

Well... yeah... but

SumoLego

I'm not sure why it's relevant to mention Kiddicraft or some obscure bit of allegedly similar or coincidental example when discussing IP rights.

It's the 'hey, that guy was speeding' argument that never works when one tries to get out of a traffic ticket.

The Avro Brothers should expect that if Fox wants to protect its IP, it can ask them to cease making models based on their IP.  Or atleast advertising them as such, because they do not have a license to do so.  'Scary Booger Monster from Far-Off Planet' doesn't have the ring as 'Alien'.

CCC

SumoLego said:

^ Simba is the word 'lion' in Swahili. 

And STAR WRNS is dyslexic text speak for Star Winners ...

CCC

Aanchir said:

Also, even if all creators had the option to make their designs available for purchase, I’m sure some would choose not to, and that’s still entirely their call. I dislike the implication that these copies signify some sort of unmet obligation for the designers to make their work available to others. It’s bad enough when people say that kind of thing about, say, retired sets… but those were at least commercial products to begin with, whereas MOCs, more often than not, are made for their creators’ personal enjoyment.

In that case, the simplest thing to do is not put the instructions online. I cannot see these companies reverse engineering detailed MOCs from a few images online, they are surely taking instructions from somewhere.

zmarkella

CCC said:

In that case, the simplest thing to do is not put the instructions online. I cannot see these companies reverse engineering detailed MOCs from a few images online, they are surely taking instructions from somewhere.

Don't underestimate them! They took a (pretty pathetic) stab at the Ideas Ship in a bottle. Never seen anything built so poorly. The ship had 'floating' plates in some of the steps, which were connected to the main model couple of steps down the line. Even the base of the model had 2x4s piled on top of each other with zero overlap!

SumoLego

CCC said:
I cannot see these companies reverse engineering detailed MOCs from a few images online, they are surely taking instructions from somewhere. 

I thought there was a thinktank of disgruntled Kiddiecraft employees bent on the demise of LEGO.

Cyberdragon

zmarkella said:

CCC said:

In that case, the simplest thing to do is not put the instructions online. I cannot see these companies reverse engineering detailed MOCs from a few images online, they are surely taking instructions from somewhere.

Don't underestimate them! They took a (pretty pathetic) stab at the Ideas Ship in a bottle. Never seen anything built so poorly. The ship had 'floating' plates in some of the steps, which were connected to the main model couple of steps down the line. Even the base of the model had 2x4s piled on top of each other with zero overlap!

That sounds like what the LDD auto-instructions would do, I wonder if that's where they got them from.

zmarkella

Cyberdragon said:

That sounds like what the LDD auto-instructions would do, I wonder if that's where they got them from.

Nah, it wasn't that bad, but there were some eyebrow raising steps and techniques!

floridabrick

Look at this crap!  Was on vacation last month and found these in the gift shop at Atlantis.  "Cobi" have 3 sets under the theme "Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas".  I was so pissed because I would have been all over anything Lego/Atlantis branded.  "Compatible with other brands" Lol.  What gets me is how expensive EVERYTHING is at Atlantis.  And they went with a knockoff brand.  ...And charge $50 for these POSs!

Cyberdragon

They had the audacity to put this cheap trash in display cases! Look at that nasty plastic! And the worst part is look at the bottom of the box...something about "COBI is a standard building system from the COBI Group and should not be confused with other..." YEAH RIGHT! They're guilty and they know it! Translation: "See, we're totally not ripping of Lego products (and name), so stop saying that...'cause we're totally not...see, we said so!" I wonder what else they have to say for themselves...(hope they get busted!)

M1J0E

^ even if they weren’t official LEGO sets, they still could’ve had sets packaged & sold.  But perhaps it’s either easier for them, or cheaper, to farm it out to Cobi.  If that was real LEGO, & I was there LOL, I’d have bought everything.  But $50 spent on a clone, even if it was for a souvenir, is still $50 that I didn’t get to spend on currently available LEGO sets, never mind catching up on anything I’ve missed.  IDK how well they sell, but surely they’d sell better if they were real LEGO?

SumoLego

I think Cobi has a Titanic set available at the gift shop at the Luxor in Las Vegas.

M1J0E

At least they’re doing their own thing & not copying official sets directly.  

Cyberdragon

M1J0E said:

At least they’re doing their own thing & not copying official sets directly.  

Yeah, but they are claiming it's their own building system, which is a load of BS.

Fizyx

Cyberdragon said:

M1J0E said:

At least they’re doing their own thing & not copying official sets directly.  

Yeah, but they are claiming it's their own building system, which is a load of BS.

To be fair, the interlocking brick system is not LEGO's own building system either.  There were at least one, and I think possibly more, brands that had almost the same configuration of interlocking plastic bricks prior to LEGO's System being released.  LEGO does differ in a couple of ways (higher clutch power was a major one, I believe) but the base system is still extremely similar.

(Also, I am NOT saying that I would ever purchase one of these knockoffs :P )

Shib

Cobi are doing nothing wrong, they are designing their own sets and selling them legitimately. LEGO don’t own the word Atlantis and it’s not like that set is even trying to look like a LEGO Atlantis set.

Like it or not LEGO’s patent on the interlocking brick system expired so there’s nothing wrong with other companies making compatible sets.

frankly if this stuff annoys you so much, I can’t imagine you could walk out of a toy shop without getting furious at the Mega-blox/construx sets!

dimefield

Picked up an architecture set today from toys r us that had two “city”
sets in it! 

TheFew

<chinese_mode-on>

Those sets look pretty city to me!

</chinese_mode_off>

Aanchir

dimefield said:

Picked up an architecture set today from toys r us that had two “city”
sets in it! 

Getting bootleg sets in a LEGO box is a bit of a surprise… shows perhaps a little more dedication on the part of the thieves than when you get one that a thief filled with random junk. No less deceptive though!

zmarkella

Cyberdragon said:

They had the audacity to put this cheap trash in display cases! Look at that nasty plastic! And the worst part is look at the bottom of the box...something about "COBI is a standard building system from the COBI Group and should not be confused with other..." YEAH RIGHT! They're guilty and they know it! Translation: "See, we're totally not ripping of Lego products (and name), so stop saying that...'cause we're totally not...see, we said so!" I wonder what else they have to say for themselves...(hope they get busted!)

Just out of curiosity: how do you classify a piece of plastic 'nasty'? Missing 'Lego' on the studs?

dimefield

I opened one of the bags of the “City” stuff before I realized what it was. The bricks are fairly good quality with good clutch. Just missing the LEGO stamp. Either way it’s going back!