
Interlocking Bricks Before Lego [video] - dsr_
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFELcl75CiY
======
jacquesm
Lego outright copied the UK Kiddicraft bricks, then improved on them.

Then they sued the pants of anybody using their patent acquired through a not-
so-honest patent application. Before they actually went to court they bought
the rights to the Kiddicraft blocks to avoid embarrassment in court.

I'm a huge Lego fan but this is definitely one of the darker pages from the
Lego history book and one more reason for me to look at patents in a negative
way.

The weird thing is that Lego did just fine, quality wise the competition was
in terrible shape and the publicity around the lawsuit made plenty of people
aware of the alternatives.

Given how dirty Lego played the patent game (and to some extent still does)
the degree of hypocrisy is quite annoying for a brand that I otherwise love to
support.

Incidentally, my side project is around 'Lego' and I'm having a ton of fun
with it (robotics, large amounts of Lego, what's not to like :) ?).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiddicraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiddicraft)

~~~
frogpelt
By the way, Lego's patent expired 2011.

[http://boingboing.net/2011/10/21/expired-patent-of-the-
day-l...](http://boingboing.net/2011/10/21/expired-patent-of-the-day-
lego.html)

~~~
wtallis
No, it was merely featured on boingboing in 2011. When that patent was filed,
the US had a patent term of 17 years, meaning it probably expired in 1975.

~~~
frogpelt
You are correct. That's what I get for believing this CNET writer.[1]

According to Wikipedia, all of Lego's patents had expired by 1989.[2]

They have filed copyright infringement lawsuits and they unsuccessfully
attempted to trademark the shape of their bricks in the EU. But they haven't
had a patent in quite a while.

1\. [http://www.cnet.com/news/lego-you-are-dead-to-
me/](http://www.cnet.com/news/lego-you-are-dead-to-me/) 2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lego_Group#Trademark_and_p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lego_Group#Trademark_and_patents)

------
matheweis
Nice overview at 3m42s if you don't have time for the whole thing
[https://youtu.be/iFELcl75CiY?t=3m42s](https://youtu.be/iFELcl75CiY?t=3m42s)

This reminds me of the "Everything is a Remix" series
[http://everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-
series/](http://everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/)

------
sveit
I played with American Bricks at my Grandma's house as a kid. I even built a
suspension bridge with them. They were great fun.

------
jv22222
It's a familiar story that the innovators are not the ones to capitalize on an
idea.

So, the trick is, wait for a new fragmented market to emerge. Once it gets
enough tracktion swoop in and execute really well and become the market
leader.

Google & Slack are a few examples.

~~~
frik
and IBM, Microsoft, Apple, MySpace, Facebook

~~~
kbenson
Apple. A large part of their success is their ability to realize when the time
is right to really polish some existing product type that's almost ready to go
mainstream and release an ultra-polished version just as that segment is
burgeoning (and helping it do just that). That they get in so early, and with
a product that's so superior to those existing in the market at the time,
helps the popular opinion that they innovated the product, when in fact they
just iterated, but iterated several steps at once and did so really well.

Pick your Apple "innovation", and it's usually fairly easy to find the prior
versions: the Mac GUI, ipod., iphone, macbook, etc.

There's nothing wrong with this. It's obviously lucrative for them, and it
helps us get good polished designs quicker than we otherwise would.

~~~
moogleii
What was the prior version of the iPhone? Genuinely curious. I've heard
references to the Apple Newton, but that's about it.

Also, unless something was out by decades prior, I feel it's a bit difficult
to truly know when something was "innovated" first. After all, polish takes
time and customers typically only see what's released. Speaking of Apple,
they've bought wireless charging patents as early as 2007, maybe earlier. But
they've largely sat on them without a product (prior to the watch) as they
often do, seemingly because the end product would not be at the level of
polish they desire. I get less of a sense that it's a passive biding of their
time to strike and start polishing, and more of a, is it possible to build it
the way they want and have it be affordable (to their target market).

~~~
kbenson
That may have come across stronger than intended. I didn't mean to imply that
Apple doesn't innovate, just that what many would consider their largest and
most well known innovations are _less_ innovative than many believe. Even
those those, are still _innovative_ , as they always include their own
advances to the state of the art when producing their new polished,
iteratively leaping products. Indeed, it would be hard to successfully employ
as many people as they do in the industry they are in without coming out with
their own innovations.

That said, the Everything is a Remix video TeMPOraL linked in a sibling
comment is good, and highlights my point of view quite nicely. Apple is good
at taking mostly existing technologies and putting them together, as well as
providing a high level of polish to existing combinations.

~~~
Spooky23
I think that's innovation too.

Nokia n95 and the iPaq were nominally similar in capability to an early
iPhone. But the lack of "polish" and failure to deliver a solution vs. a
gadget made those other devices a silly device to most people.

