The Transformers Archive Skip to main content / Also skip section headers

[The Transformers Archive - an international fan site]
Please feel free to log in or register.

 
  • transformers toys
  • transformers comics
  • transformers cartoon
  • transformers live-action movies
  • transformers fandom
  • transformers forum

Go Back   TFARCHIVE > TRANSFORMERS > Transformers News & Rumours

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-04-17, 08:03 PM   #41
Denyer
Shooty Dog Thing
 
Denyer's Avatar
 
UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffjumper View Post
Which is surely what I said
The main difference is I think you could begin to build a case, whereas a fair swathe of other commentators seem to think the outcome a foregone conclusion.

It'd be interesting to get input from a few people with background defending IP suits.
 
Denyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-17, 09:45 PM   #42
Warcry
Likes Beast Wars toys. A lot.
 
Warcry's Avatar
 
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inflatable dalek View Post
would fans adopting these toys as Transformers actually be enough in court?
On its' own, probably not. Taken in isolation I don't think any of the points that get brought up would be enough. It's when you start piling everything together that Hasbro starts to get a case.

On its' own the figure looks a lot like Springer, but it's not a direct knockoff of the original figure or based directly on an existing design (like IDW or War Within or something like that) so it might be able to slide. But the entire back-catalogue of the company that produced it is unambiguously based on Transformers characters and designed to combine with existing, official Transformers figures -- that would have to weigh heavily in Hasbro's favour. The toys are also marketed almost exclusively to Transformers fandom, which would probably be another strike against them -- if it's not meant to be Springer, why aren't they advertising in the wider 'giant robot' market? I think some combination of those three things is where Hasbro would have to make their case.

The fandom's acceptance of the FansProjects stuff as an alternative to official Transformers product would, as I understand it, come into things more in the "are they harming the brand?" part of the case than in the "are they violating Hasbro's IP?" part.

I don't know how (or even if) intent factors into the equation for IP law, but I think you'd have to be burying your head in the sand to deny that the intent is there to market this thing to Transformers fans as an alternative to official Transformers. Like Denyer said, it'd be interesting to hear from an expert exactly how all of this would play out.

It also matters that this is happening in China, where foreign corporations hold a lot of sway over everything. It might come down not to "stop or we'll sue" but "stop or we'll tell the government you're us causing trouble and they'll make you disappear to save face".
 
Warcry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-17, 11:11 PM   #43
Cliffjumper
Cellar Door
 
Cliffjumper's Avatar
 
Smile

I do think it would be something of a foregone conclusion, because that's basically what these toys are. However carefully it's been dressed up, Warbot Defender is Springer. He's closely based on Springer, he's sold to people entirely on his resemblance to Springer. This isn't some small toy company doing their own thing who've design some robot from the bottom up that just happens to bear a passing resemblance to an existing Transformer who've then arbitrarily had their balls stamped on by Big Business. The only reason anyone bought Warbot Defender is because it looks an awful lot like Springer. The only reason it was made was to look a lot like Springer. These guys are selling toys which profit from someone else's work.

You could construct a case, I'm just not convinced it can be done in a manner which doesn't involve common sense being left at the door, or without depending on a lot of goodwill and/or ignorance about the subject from a court.

I sell stuff based on other people's work, but I don't claim it's legally sound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inflatable dalek View Post
After all, how many of those same fans made various Go-Bots stand in for Optimus Prime or whoever as kids?
How many of those Gobots actually looked like the guys they stood in for? How many were based on the designs? FWIW, I don't think people going "OMFG, it's Springer!" counts for much, but I think other points would be conclusive enough.

Question on the grounds I genuinely don't know - do 3rd party companies make a profit? I mean, are these things sold to cover costs, labour, production and maybe a little bit to go towards their next product? Apologies if that's a stupid question, but I genuinely don't know.
 
Cliffjumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-18, 04:14 AM   #44
glazios
Occasional Cage-rattler
 
glazios's Avatar
 
Rhondda Cynon Taff, S.Wales
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffjumper View Post
Question on the grounds I genuinely don't know - do 3rd party companies make a profit? I mean, are these things sold to cover costs, labour, production and maybe a little bit to go towards their next product? Apologies if that's a stupid question, but I genuinely don't know.
I don't think they actually do turn very much of a profit, and if they do earn anything, it almost certainly goes towards funding the next project. One could say with a fair degree of certainty, for example, that after covering the costs of maing their Classics Cliffjumper upgrade kit, the earnings of that project went directly toward making the first iteration of City Commander.

You could also say they made/redeco-ed the City commander mould to death they way they did in-order to fund the G3 Trailer project, the first Crossfire upgrade set, and perhaps even Warbot Defender; then the Warbot proceeds funded the Crossfire-02 sets, which were altogether a project that was taken to the next level - it was't just an upgrade set, but a complete overhaul of the set it was adding to.

Obviously, following the huge success of that one, they've poured the proceeds into their new Causality line-up...

And then you could probably also factor in that they have to live in-between these projects, too, and support any families they may have... I don't think anyone could say with a serious degree of confidence that these guys kick back and live it up on the profits of their last project...
 
glazios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-18, 09:35 PM   #45
glazios
Occasional Cage-rattler
 
glazios's Avatar
 
Rhondda Cynon Taff, S.Wales
Default

You guys are not gonna believe this...

This whole blizzard-of-bullsh*t was a false alarm.

According to Drillbit of TFW2005, the original notice banning certain retailers from selling 3rd-party products also included a blanket ban on importing official Hasbro Transformers - specifically Dark Of The Moon toys.

This was not an attempt to blanket-ban 3rd-party Transformers products - it was a general import-stop notice.

Quote:
TFW2005 said:
Update - 2005 Boards member Drillbit has confirmed that the removal notice also covers Hasbro made American release Transformers, specifically Dark of the Moon imports, so it appears this is not a third party ban but a more general import stop notice.
http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-...be-not-171889/

That was a nice argument of the civilised variety, gents. 'Twas fun while it lasted. Panic's over, keep calm and carry on.
 
glazios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-18, 11:18 PM   #46
Denyer
Shooty Dog Thing
 
Denyer's Avatar
 
UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warcry View Post
I don't know how (or even if) intent factors into the equation for IP law, but I think you'd have to be burying your head in the sand to deny that the intent is there to market this thing to Transformers fans as an alternative to official Transformers. Like Denyer said, it'd be interesting to hear from an expert exactly how all of this would play out.
I say 'defending' rather than 'prosecuting' because lawyers of all stripes promise results, and it's the case-building that's of interest, particularly since the plaintiff would have to prove balance of probability.

Can't find Springer, but did find Sandstorm and Astrotrain as example of triple changers, which gives a good idea of how specific design patents are. Since toys are functional items, the bulk of the design elements (the transformation/mechanics) aren't going to be copyright, so this is a key protection for TF toys -- not applicable, in this case, since the WD design is original.

The face has generic elements and isn't a close match to previous toys or even strongly to previous artwork.

What people seem to be emphasising isn't copyright, patent or trademark concerns, but "passing off" -- i.e. companies trading on the reputations of HasTak. The situation for collector guides is pretty well-established, with imagery kept to a minimum, review emphasised and big 'unofficial' text in strategic places usually being sufficient. By contrast, the packaging of the WD is almost a clean slate; the grid pattern's about it. And retailers have been as careful as FP themselves in not labelling the thing as Springer. That comes down to fan reviews... which have generally been clear that it isn't a HasTak product, and don't suggest that FP have been licensed to use a character (which would be another form of passing off.)

The fan labelling thing isn't a world apart from Hasbro not infringing on the then-holder of Shockwave because fans consistently didn't use Shockblast.
 
Denyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-19, 02:31 AM   #47
Warcry
Likes Beast Wars toys. A lot.
 
Warcry's Avatar
 
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denyer View Post
What people seem to be emphasising isn't copyright, patent or trademark concerns, but "passing off" -- i.e. companies trading on the reputations of HasTak.
That's how I see it. When a company's entire product catalogue is nothing by third-party accessories for Transformers, they market their products exclusively to Transformers fans, their latest product 'coincidentally' looks a great deal like an official Transformer and the people who buy it do so on the understanding that it's meant to be that Transformer, it becomes very difficult to argue that they're not trading on the Transformers brand. I don't think they need to slap "Heroic Autobot Transformer Springer" on the package to do that, because they're marketing directly to the fandom rather than the general public. In a hypothetical world where Warbot Defender was for sale at Walmart or Toys'r'us I think Fansproject would be able to make a stronger case. But the figures are only available online and their only real avenues of marketing are Transformers websites, and I think it would be really hard to spin that in any way that didn't say "we make money off of Transformers".

That's an outlook that takes Fansproject's entire output into account, though. One item or another might be able to pass muster, but taken en masse there is a clear pattern of their products being based on Transformers characters without any licence to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denyer View Post
By contrast, the packaging of the WD is almost a clean slate; the grid pattern's about it. And retailers have been as careful as FP themselves in not labelling the thing as Springer. That comes down to fan reviews... which have generally been clear that it isn't a HasTak product, and don't suggest that FP have been licensed to use a character (which would be another form of passing off.)
I can see what you're saying, but I don't entirely agree. If I started selling my own Star Wars figures, I wouldn't be able to get away with it and I don't think it would matter one bit that I designed entirely new molds for the figures, designed entirely new packaging and made sure that the words "Star Wars" and the character names were nowhere to be seen on the packaging. One toy that looks like Han Solo is coincidence. But a line of toys that look suspiciously like Han, Leia, Luke, Chewbacca, C-3PO, R2-D2, Lando, Obi-Wan, Wedge and Admiral Ackbar? Surely at some point you'd be crossing the line.

I think the same would hold true for Fansprojects. In a vacuum, Warbot probably isn't a blatant infringement -- it looks a lot like Springer, sure, but there's a good chance they'd get the benefit of the doubt. But alongside Cliffjumper, Ultra Magnus and Rodimus add-ons, new Swindle and Blast-Off toys designed to combine with official Hasbro product and now Insecticons? I would have to think that Fansproject would find themselves on the wrong side of that line if push came to shove.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denyer View Post
The fan labelling thing isn't a world apart from Hasbro not infringing on the then-holder of Shockwave because fans consistently didn't use Shockblast.
Unless there's a Batman villain named Shockwave who happens to be a purple, one-eyed robot with a cannon for an arm, I think there's a lot of difference. I don't know what the Shockwave trademark was applied to (if anything) when Hasbro didn't have it, but I would hazard a guess that it wasn't nearly identical to the Transformer. Fans calling all those Shockblast toys 'Shockwave' would have had a lot less impact than when fans apply the 'Springer' name to another, non-Hasbro green and yellow triple-changing robot.
 
Warcry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-19, 10:08 AM   #48
Cliffjumper
Cellar Door
 
Cliffjumper's Avatar
 
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denyer View Post
What people seem to be emphasising isn't copyright, patent or trademark concerns, but "passing off" -- i.e. companies trading on the reputations of HasTak. The situation for collector guides is pretty well-established, with imagery kept to a minimum, review emphasised and big 'unofficial' text in strategic places usually being sufficient. By contrast, the packaging of the WD is almost a clean slate; the grid pattern's about it. And retailers have been as careful as FP themselves in not labelling the thing as Springer. That comes down to fan reviews... which have generally been clear that it isn't a HasTak product, and don't suggest that FP have been licensed to use a character (which would be another form of passing off.)
I'm not sure exactly how packaging would be a factor (though the anime interpretation of the figure that looks less like Springer than the toy does is a nice touch). The design of the thing is surely a factor, however it's been packed.

The Shockblast thing seems disingenuous because Hasbro own the concept of Shockwave even if they don't own the trademark - so while Hasbro are getting recognition via someone else's TM (I think, having trouble articulating this one) at least the concept is based on one they own.

Though personally I think fan labelling isn't an issue, just because a lot of Transformers fans are morons and see Transformers in lots of unrelated figures, generally through ignorance (I've seen Ideon described as a Prime knock-off, for instance).

I think the 3rd party's marketing directly at fans and intentionally copying of Hasbro characters would be, though, and where fans might come into it is things like the Big Board thread Clay linked, where people are outright stating "I'm not buying this Frenzy & Rumble, I'm sticking with Garage Company's Frenzy & Rumble". It's not watertight, of course, but it'd certainly be an arrow in the sheaf of a prosecutor.

Short version, though, is that Hasbro's legal department would probably have better things to do than get involved in these sort of things if production levels of 3rd party stuff stays at the same level.


I actually find it a interesting that TakaraTomy are suffering enough from Hasbro stock being imported to declare a blanket ban... It amazes me they don't link up a little more on this sort of thing, so that T-T actually have figures in stores at the same kind of turn-around Hasbro do, and then your Henkei or film accurate redecos come out in later waves, via web exclusives or whatever.

That said, the update doesn't telly very well with the initial news - if TT told the online seller to "not to sell 3rd party products due to copyright and trademark violation", how does that effect Hasbro product? Copyright and trademark surely doesn't apply (cf. USA editions, which were IIRC Hasbro stock with a sticker slapped on). So someone, somewhere is wrong about something - either that or TT have just made something up to protect their rapidly shrinking market share.

TakaraTomy - the toy world's answer to Ken Tyrrell.
 
Cliffjumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-20, 08:32 PM   #49
Denyer
Shooty Dog Thing
 
Denyer's Avatar
 
UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warcry
That's an outlook that takes Fansproject's entire output into account, though.
Mmm. I'm not; the City Commander head and artwork, for example, are prejudicial to the outfit as a whole. They'd be better off separating the two operations of add-on kits and whole figures.

I do think it very unlikely that any motion directed against WD as a distinct product would proceed with certainty in TakTom's favour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy
I'm not sure exactly how packaging would be a factor
It's clear of trademarks and almost clear of associations. The product (toy and packaging) doesn't go out of its way to trade on strongly definable IP (copyrightable, patentable and trademark-able elements), save for perhaps the head. You might say it's evocative rather than derivative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy
I actually find it a interesting that TakaraTomy are suffering enough from Hasbro stock being imported to declare a blanket ban...
Yeah, logical continuation of a cultural thing; media-related imports generally do well (music being a prime example, which also usually beats domestic product to market) and gotta-have-it-first reactions are a bit more OCD than the West. Takara's doing the traditional thing of trying to make their product premium (an equivalent of slapping bonus tracks onto CDs, bundling postcards, etc.)

Bearing in mind shrinking markets in general and rising production costs, they're probably ****ed.
 
Denyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-21, 01:37 PM   #50
Cliffjumper
Cellar Door
 
Cliffjumper's Avatar
 
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denyer View Post
It's clear of trademarks and almost clear of associations. The product (toy and packaging) doesn't go out of its way to trade on strongly definable IP (copyrightable, patentable and trademark-able elements), save for perhaps the head. You might say it's evocative rather than derivative.
But surely for a web-based toy the packaging is basically a vanity exercise, and either way an irrelevance - if our theoretical court were to decide the toy was infringing on HasTak IP, it'd be because of the figure design, rather than the box people don't see until they've bought it anyway. If it was being sold on shelves (or just primarily on images of the boxed toy) I could see it a bit more, but once again it comes back to WD being dependant on association with a Hasbro-owned character in order to sell. If it didn't look close enough to Springer, none of the people who have brought it would have brought it.

Something to consider as well is whether this has ****ed up the chances of a Springer for the rest of us (and the kids). Because WD is more-or-less what a Neo-G1 Springer would look like... Now, if Hasbro's engineering team comes up with something similar looking for a possible Generations Springer, they'd possibly be open to FP suing them for stealing 'their' idea, which if nothing else would provide an entertaining head****. I remember Torsten or someone saying there was speculation at Big Board or the Waki or somewhere that fan recolours could theoretically leave Hasbro open to legal action... I whether there was anything other than speculation, and what the line was on "Obvious Schemes Hasbro did first" (e.g. redecoing Sideswipe as Red Alert before Red Alert was announced). but it's an interesting thought, especially for a relatively obscure character (c'mon, awesome as he is, he didn't really do anything in TF:TM), it'd nudge Springer into "not worth the bother" territory.

Quote:
Bearing in mind shrinking markets in general and rising production costs, they're probably ****ed.
The more I think about it, the more surprised I am that Tomy took them over merged with them as equals oh yes oh yes... Going through various lists of their lines, it seems Transformers is one of the few successful properties they have. The obvious thing, to my mind, would have been for Hasbro to take them over and effectively turn them into Hasbro Japan, rather than leaving their Japanese partners to merge with one of their worldwide rivals. But then it's quite possible I'm missing something there.
 
Cliffjumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-21, 06:27 PM   #51
inflatable dalek
Duke of Kidderminster
 
inflatable dalek's Avatar
 
Kidderminster UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffjumper View Post
The more I think about it, the more surprised I am that Tomy took them over merged with them as equals oh yes oh yes... Going through various lists of their lines, it seems Transformers is one of the few successful properties they have. The obvious thing, to my mind, would have been for Hasbro to take them over and effectively turn them into Hasbro Japan, rather than leaving their Japanese partners to merge with one of their worldwide rivals. But then it's quite possible I'm missing something there.

I've wondered that myself, you'd have thought having complete ownership of one of their properties, especially at the time the merger happened when, IIRC the movies were at least imminent (and had the first one happened already?). I assume even with the stuff Hasbro does by itself they have to bung Takara some money for it (and vice versa).
 
inflatable dalek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-21, 07:38 PM   #52
Warcry
Likes Beast Wars toys. A lot.
 
Warcry's Avatar
 
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denyer View Post
Mmm. I'm not; the City Commander head and artwork, for example, are prejudicial to the outfit as a whole. They'd be better off separating the two operations of add-on kits and whole figures.

I do think it very unlikely that any motion directed against WD as a distinct product would proceed with certainty in TakTom's favour.
I agree in principle, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to partition things off like that. I can't see any situation where the hypothetical Hasbro/Takara vs. Fansproject lawsuit wouldn't be geared for shutting them down entirely. The lawyers would be throwing everything but the kitchen sink at them to see what stuck and Warbot is only a part of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denyer View Post
Yeah, logical continuation of a cultural thing; media-related imports generally do well (music being a prime example, which also usually beats domestic product to market) and gotta-have-it-first reactions are a bit more OCD than the West.
It also bears mentioning that before the Movie/Classics era the Japanese figures were the ones that came out first and they capitalized on the impatience of Western collectors as much as (if not more than) Hasbro is doing now in the Japanese market. With the situation reversed, not only are they losing out on some of their domestic market but on a fair slice of cash from the West as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffjumper View Post
Something to consider as well is whether this has ****ed up the chances of a Springer for the rest of us (and the kids). Because WD is more-or-less what a Neo-G1 Springer would look like... Now, if Hasbro's engineering team comes up with something similar looking for a possible Generations Springer, they'd possibly be open to FP suing them for stealing 'their' idea, which if nothing else would provide an entertaining head****. I remember Torsten or someone saying there was speculation at Big Board or the Waki or somewhere that fan recolours could theoretically leave Hasbro open to legal action... I whether there was anything other than speculation, and what the line was on "Obvious Schemes Hasbro did first" (e.g. redecoing Sideswipe as Red Alert before Red Alert was announced). but it's an interesting thought, especially for a relatively obscure character (c'mon, awesome as he is, he didn't really do anything in TF:TM), it'd nudge Springer into "not worth the bother" territory.
That's probably not something we need to worry about. You'd have to think the third-party companies would be trying to avoid legal entanglements. But even if they're not and even if the law was on their side, "The legitimate owners of the IP we're stealing are selling a bootleg of our toy! Help us!" probably won't cut much ice with a jury.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffjumper View Post
The more I think about it, the more surprised I am that Tomy took them over merged with them as equals oh yes oh yes... Going through various lists of their lines, it seems Transformers is one of the few successful properties they have. The obvious thing, to my mind, would have been for Hasbro to take them over and effectively turn them into Hasbro Japan, rather than leaving their Japanese partners to merge with one of their worldwide rivals. But then it's quite possible I'm missing something there.
Even if it made perfect sense financially (and I'm not entirely sure Hasbro would benefit from the deal at all considering the state Takara was in), pride would probably have kept Takara from going in that direction. Even today a lot of Japanese still consider it extremely shameful for a Japanese company to be bought out by foreign interests.
 
Warcry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-21, 08:29 PM   #53
Cliffjumper
Cellar Door
 
Cliffjumper's Avatar
 
Smile

Yeh, the "wanting to sell to another Japanese company" thing was something that occured... The other thing worth considering is that (in the old days at least) Japanese toy companies often lent 'rivals' staff and even facilities, which means there's a chance a lot of Takara's staff have worked at Tomy and vice-versa... It's not an unknown phenomena in industry - when Ferrari were near-bankrupt in the early 1970s, Enzo Ferrari sold it to Fiat for something like a tenth of the money Ford were offering because he wanted the company to remain Italian-owned.
 
Cliffjumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-22, 10:26 AM   #54
Denyer
Shooty Dog Thing
 
Denyer's Avatar
 
UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warcry
I can't see any situation where the hypothetical Hasbro/Takara vs. Fansproject lawsuit wouldn't be geared for shutting them down entirely.
As hinted at earlier, a sensible approach would be to fold and to re-emerge having separated operations, not mixing stuff that can't be defended with what can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warcry
probably won't cut much ice with a jury.
I know the situation's a bit different in the Americas, but civil cases elsewhere don't tend to involve juries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy
surely for a web-based toy [...] rather than the box people don't see until they've bought it anyway
Online retailers not only use in-packaging shots, but in this instance ran with the producers' general avoidance of passing off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy
it comes back to WD being dependant on association with a Hasbro-owned character
To pick a topical example, there's going to be a lot of un-endorsed Royal Wedding cash-in tat around that would fly through legal challenges because the strength of association isn't enough to prove the balance of probabilities.

Of the associative aspects (head, colour, heli-tank-bot concept) only the first of those is particularly strong in a way that attracts strong protection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy
speculation at Big Board or the Waki or somewhere that fan recolours could theoretically leave Hasbro open to legal action
Possible in the US if said 'fan' had a very deep wallet or backers, although I'm not aware of any case law so it's probably just a case of almost any suit being possible to bring in a rather ****ed-up legal system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy
Something to consider as well is whether this has ****ed up the chances of a Springer for the rest of us
Nah, premium short-run stuff doesn't compete with ToysRus, and there's a lot of scope for not doing a copy either of the original toy or WD. On the other hand, it's a good excuse to stir online communities and attempt to drum up additional brand loyalty.

Home fabrication's getting better by the year, but I don't think it's going to take down toy companies in general yet or indeed until we get honest-to-dog Trek replicators.
 
Denyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-22, 02:15 PM   #55
Warcry
Likes Beast Wars toys. A lot.
 
Warcry's Avatar
 
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denyer View Post
As hinted at earlier, a sensible approach would be to fold and to re-emerge having separated operations, not mixing stuff that can't be defended with what can.
I'm not sure that the benefits of that would outweigh the costs, so to speak. Fansproject has a good reputation and their target market generally has a high opinion of them. If they pulled a Houdini only to reappear as different companies, they would lose a lot of the customer goodwill they've built up over the years.

On the other hand, iGear would probably benefit from burning their bridges, and it wouldn't impact the other, more minor companies much either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denyer View Post
I know the situation's a bit different in the Americas, but civil cases elsewhere don't tend to involve juries.
They usually don't here either. I'm assuming that any case that got brought against Hasbro would happen in the States though. The weak IP laws in China that we're always told make it so easy for these guys to set up shop in the first place would work against them if they filed suit there, and if they tried to face down TakaraTomy in Japan I doubt they'd get very far, them being Chinese and Japanese culture being what it is. Whereas, like you say later, in the US you can pretty much sue anyone for anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denyer View Post
Home fabrication's getting better by the year, but I don't think it's going to take down toy companies in general yet or indeed until we get honest-to-dog Trek replicators.
Even then, it would change the market but I don't think it would kill them. If anything, it might strengthen them because they wouldn't have to pay for fabrication anymore. You'd just see what you wanted in their online catalogue, purchase the one-time, copy-protected schematics, and voila! There's your toy. There'd be no more shelf-warmers like Mudflap, no more insanely hard-to-find toys like Windcharger in the US and no more issues with sloppy QC. Everyone would be able to access anything they wanted as soon as it was released, and (presumably) whenever they want. Hell, in a replicator society you'd probably still be able to buy new G1 toys...

On the other hand, a good 50% of us would be unemployed as the manufacturing, retail, wholesale and warehousing industries disappeared overnight.
 
Warcry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-22, 02:34 PM   #56
inflatable dalek
Duke of Kidderminster
 
inflatable dalek's Avatar
 
Kidderminster UK
Red face

Screw the replicator, I want a holodeck. Goddess of Empathy Troi as a optional extra.

As a tangent, I'm amazed how the porn industry is able to get away with this [Though the site isn't likely something you'll want showing up on your work browser history the trailer is completely safe to view, containing fan wank rather than actual wank]:

http://axxxparody.com/index.html

Someone's basically got a bunch of porn stars together to film their Tasha Yar slash fic (even tossing in Geordi's two episode love interest!). With, despite minor changes to the costumes and sets, all names intact. Considering the trailer suggests it's not so much a typical porn spoof but rather an attempt at a "proper" TNG episode that just happens to have lots of sex in it, how are Paramount not suing the ass off them?

Troi's outfit makes much more sense in this context though.
 
inflatable dalek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-24, 04:13 PM   #57
Denyer
Shooty Dog Thing
 
Denyer's Avatar
 
UK
Default

Quote:
If they pulled a Houdini only to reappear as different companies, they would lose a lot of the customer goodwill they've built up over the years.
Even if there weren't a lot of nodding and winking, one or two decent releases is enough for an outfit to build a rep on.

Quote:
I'm assuming that any case that got brought against Hasbro would happen in the States though.
Ah. They'd have to be fairly nuts, yeah. Or trying it in East Texas.

Quote:
purchase the one-time, copy-protected schematics
Copy protection hasn't really worked for much else, so I doubt it'll cut any more mustard applied to physical objects. I also reckon it'll sneak up on traditional manufacturing much as photocopiers did, maybe with a diversion via being banned due to military applications, due to costs... to begin with, ready supplies of materials will be (are; we're at that stage now) needed.

On the other hand, some people will always prefer official/original and attach kudos to owning that, even if we make it to post-scarcity.

Quote:
how are Paramount not suing the ass off them?
Paying heed to good lawyers, apparently;

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/02/...es-and-report/
 
Denyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-25, 11:17 PM   #58
glazios
Occasional Cage-rattler
 
glazios's Avatar
 
Rhondda Cynon Taff, S.Wales
Default

iGear's PP03S Seeker Storm

These morons just don't know when to stop pissing on the hornet's nest, do they? *sigh*
 
glazios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-26, 03:50 AM   #59
Warcry
Likes Beast Wars toys. A lot.
 
Warcry's Avatar
 
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Talking

The official, Takara-commissioned artwork on the box is a nice touch...
 
Warcry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-26, 06:07 AM   #60
inflatable dalek
Duke of Kidderminster
 
inflatable dalek's Avatar
 
Kidderminster UK
Red face

Hmm, even if that's just placeholder artwork rather than what will be on the final box that's just asking for it that is.

And wait, this is just the Classic toy "upscaled" rather than an actual MP Sunstorm? Isn't that a bit crap?
 
inflatable dalek is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
 
 
[the-hub.co.uk]
[transfans.co.uk]
[oneshallstand]
[unicron.com]
[counter-x.net]
[ntfa.net]
[allspark.com]
[transformertoys.co.uk]
[tfu.info]
[botchthecrab.com]
[obscure_tf]
[tfradio.net]
 

[TFArchive button]
Link graphics...

BOOKMARK US
Or in FF, hit Ctrl+D.