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.
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.