Jump to content


Entertainment Earth


Toggle shoutbox Squawkbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

Please don't post Youtube videos in the chat box. The forums software auto embeds them. 

@  lastmaximal : (27 August 2016 - 12:19 AM)

Yes?

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (26 August 2016 - 06:39 PM)

Chuck Norris

@  ShadowMan024 : (26 August 2016 - 04:59 PM)

Goodnight, everybody!

@  Bass X0 : (26 August 2016 - 04:57 PM)

...I don't think so.

@  BlackMax : (26 August 2016 - 04:55 PM)

No no no, ~finger~prints!

@  ShadowMan024 : (26 August 2016 - 04:43 PM)

I'd say "Goodnight, everybody!" but no one's made an innuendo yet.

@  Bass X0 : (26 August 2016 - 04:39 PM)

Goodnight out there... whatever you are!

@  TheMightyMol... : (26 August 2016 - 03:27 PM)

Goodnight, folks!

@  MEDdMI : (26 August 2016 - 03:09 PM)

*drags TMM out of the Squawkbox to continue the fight*

@  TheMightyMol... : (26 August 2016 - 02:26 PM)

I dunno, maybe the big guy's saving it for a special ocassion.

@  MEDdMI : (26 August 2016 - 01:16 PM)

Your spouse's brother is a PRIEST. If you were supposed to get hit by lightning, it would've happened by now.

@  TheMightyMol... : (26 August 2016 - 11:31 AM)

Now I want to make devil's food cake with holy water just to see if I get hit by lightning or something.

@  Pennpenn : (26 August 2016 - 10:10 AM)

I hope not. Ruins the flavour.

@  MEDdMI : (26 August 2016 - 09:09 AM)

Did I put garlic or holy water in it or something?

@  Dracula : (26 August 2016 - 07:45 AM)

Cake? My only weakness! *bursts into flame*

@  MEDdMI : (26 August 2016 - 05:15 AM)

Happy Birthday! *rolls a giant cake into the Shoutbox*

@  Pennpenn : (26 August 2016 - 12:55 AM)

Happy birthday to me!

@  OrionPax44 : (25 August 2016 - 04:50 PM)

Is the main dance move him flashing you in beat with the music?

@  Broadside : (25 August 2016 - 04:50 PM)

http://i.imgur.com/qeoJpsf.jpg

@  TheMightyMol... : (25 August 2016 - 04:48 PM)

HEEEEEEEEEEY FOODSTAMP LAAADAAAY

@  Broadside : (25 August 2016 - 04:45 PM)

Oppa Homeless Style?

@  LV! : (25 August 2016 - 01:01 PM)

That guy had a perfectly nice home, he just didn't want the neighbors to see you with him.

@  TheMightyMol... : (25 August 2016 - 11:52 AM)

Did you at least buy him dinner?

@  Robowang : (25 August 2016 - 11:14 AM)

So I was making out with this random old homeless guy, and he stops and is all like "Why are you making out with me?" and I'm just like "Shut up, Homeless Guy."

@  Benbot : (25 August 2016 - 07:34 AM)

What?

@  MEDdMI : (25 August 2016 - 05:58 AM)

Aren't we the ones causing trouble for Kalidor?

@  LBD "Nyt... : (25 August 2016 - 12:17 AM)

Also, anyone know how to find the rest of how Kalidor got a kid in trouuuuuubleee?

@  LBD "Nyt... : (25 August 2016 - 12:11 AM)

@ TheMightyMol... : (24 August 2016 - 03:20 AM) Why do you hate yourself? -- I don't, really. Whether good or ill, I'd like to know how RG1 goes so, if nothing else, I can actually talk about it from a place of experience.

@  Verity Carlo : (24 August 2016 - 06:58 PM)

I've seen Minority Report, I don't want to read the same thing except with superheroes and also shit

@  Verity Carlo : (24 August 2016 - 06:57 PM)

You know, what I hate about Civil War II the most is that it's not even trying to break out of the Minority Report shaped hole it's in.

@  tffan01 : (24 August 2016 - 02:39 PM)

the debate sems to be over.

@  MEDdMI : (24 August 2016 - 02:37 PM)

Wouldn't it be easier to debate this in the comics subforum?

@  tffan01 : (24 August 2016 - 01:31 PM)

I don't have anything else to say (although I still think G2 is the true ending, even if G I Joe doesn't mention it, it seems G I Joe/G2 crossover isn't canon for G I Joe comics but only for the Transformers continuity)

@  tffan01 : (24 August 2016 - 01:29 PM)

ok whatever you won.

@  tffan01 : (24 August 2016 - 01:27 PM)

that's why I said "if", I dunno I didn't read G2 or G I Joe. 

@  NotVeryKnightly : (24 August 2016 - 01:26 PM)

Also,you're still basing this entirely on G2 matching a storyline that was part of G2 itself rather than whether or not G2 matches better with the G1 comic proper.

@  NotVeryKnightly : (24 August 2016 - 01:24 PM)

The idea kind of falls apart when it requires that the apocalyptic alien invasions had such little impact that everyone easily just ignored forever.

@  tffan01 : (24 August 2016 - 01:17 PM)

If some issues of G I Joe comics is a prelude to G2 and if there's nothing in the future G I Joe stories that condradicts San Francisco getting destroyed, yes I would say they share a continuity. 

@  NotVeryKnightly : (24 August 2016 - 01:02 PM)

If you're gonna go "we can assume it did happen even though it's never talked about as long as nothing specifically contradicts it", then surely it's just as easy to assume that the actual G1 TF and Joe crossover happened in the backstory of Classics and RG1.

@  tffan01 : (24 August 2016 - 01:02 PM)

also I refrained from mentioning Ask Vector Prime but but didn't it say RG1 is a splinter timeline?

@  tffan01 : (24 August 2016 - 12:58 PM)

has san francisco ever appeared in G I Joe stories that was chronologically set after G2?

@  NotVeryKnightly : (24 August 2016 - 12:55 PM)

Intent is not the same as result. And comics end up ignoring things quite often.

@  Telly : (24 August 2016 - 12:54 PM)

maybe they figured a lot of people that read gi joe also read transformers. so they throw a crossover/build up in their to get some excitement for the new comic coming

@  tffan01 : (24 August 2016 - 12:51 PM)

If G2 universe was to be unrelated to G I Joe, why did they do a prelude to it?

@  NotVeryKnightly : (24 August 2016 - 12:33 PM)

Classics and RG1 not including Joe issues 138-145 in their backstory does not preclude them from including TF 1-80, or even the Joe and TF miniseries.

@  TheMightyMol... : (24 August 2016 - 12:30 PM)

Marvel 616 is also a massive continuity snarl from dozens of writers altering, retconning, or ignoring each others' work for decades, so it's not really a great example for an argument on continuity.

@  tffan01 : (24 August 2016 - 12:29 PM)

Marvel 616 continuity is a shared universe, devastating events happens in individual series but does mean every event gets mentioned in other comics? @Notvery knightly, yeah that's why I edited that post.

@  NotVeryKnightly : (24 August 2016 - 12:27 PM)

Your proof for "TF universe = Joe universe" itself is the G2 lead-up, so your reasoning still goes back to G2 matching G2.

@  TheMightyMol... : (24 August 2016 - 12:25 PM)

So did GI Joe ever reference the time Bludgeon sent his entire force to rampage across the Earth? Or the time Jhiaxus blew San Francisco into a crater?

@  tffan01 : (24 August 2016 - 12:25 PM)

whatever.


How long until the 1984 Transformer molds no longer held by Hasbro?


84 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_mignash_*

Guest_mignash_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:18 PM

Forgive me for not knowing, but I remember hearing that the actual designs for the a toy can only be held for so long from the patents Hasbro files in the 80s. They may own the characters of Prowl, or Starscream, how long until legally some other company can go and make a toy that has the same design as one of the 1984 Transformers LEGALLY in the USA (assuming the company makes them into original characters, with new names, and don't use any TF logos). Could someone legally make a toy that had the same physical design as Optimus in say... 20, 60 or 100 years after the patent?

See I was looking at talk like this:

http://law.freeadvic...nt_duration.htm

From that it would seem that the molds from 1984 would already by available to the public. So if someone were to produce a toy with a 1984 Diaclone mold, but in new colors, with a new name, and not having ANY Transformer trademarks on it (like a Autobot logo), would it be LEGAL?

If this were true, would companies making repro parts to Transformers over 20 years old be legal?

Edited by mignash, 15 April 2012 - 06:27 PM.


#2 ShinRa Inc

ShinRa Inc

    Professional Malcontent

  • Citizen
  • 1873 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mt. Vernon, VA Home: Long Island, NY Previous: Tampa, FL
  • Faction::Free Agent

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:34 PM

I think anyone attempting to do that, assuming they didn't get stopped by Hasbro, would have problems with the various automobile/plane/whatever manufacturers. For the same reasons Hasbro no longer bases toys on real vehicles anymore.

MAGFest.org
Looking for; 2005 Botcon Ratchet, Junker Classics Optimus Prime (for parts)


#3 Guest_mignash_*

Guest_mignash_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:40 PM

That's true about the licensed vehicles, but some of the toys over 20 years old are NOT based on real world vehicles... 21+ year old toys take use back to 1991, which iincludes pratically all of G1 except the Turbomasters. Could someone use the Jumpstarters, Shockwave, or the cassettes molds legally now? Or some of the later Cybertronian ones like the Headmasters, Pretenders, etc?

Edited by mignash, 15 April 2012 - 06:42 PM.


#4 Walky

Walky

    STRONG GRUDGE

  • Citizen
  • 35306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbus, OH
  • Faction::RIRFIB

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:51 PM

A patent filed before 1994 is protected for 17 years, but that can be extended by the company if paperwork is filled and approved.

That just protects the engineering of the toy itself, though. The likeness of the character is protected pretty much indefinitely, thanks to Disney's efforts to not ever lose the right to Mickey Mouse. Prowl will be free for anyone to use maybe sometime next century.

#5 Fishbug

Fishbug

    toot toot

  • Citizen
  • 11093 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galveston, TX
  • Faction::Predacon

Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:04 PM

And by then, is anyone going to want a toy that isn't an actual sentient transforming robot?

"You mean you actually have to use your hands to make it a robot?"
25aputg.jpg
#WHERESINJECTOR

#6 Guest_mignash_*

Guest_mignash_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:21 PM

QUOTE(Code of Walky @ Apr 15 2012, 07:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A patent filed before 1994 is protected for 17 years, but that can be extended by the company if paperwork is filled and approved.

That just protects the engineering of the toy itself, though. The likeness of the character is protected pretty much indefinitely, thanks to Disney's efforts to not ever lose the right to Mickey Mouse. Prowl will be free for anyone to use maybe sometime next century.


Like I said though, if they didn't use the CHARACTER or any trademark symbols. For instance, let's make what we would see as a common knockoff: Someone makes a Topspin toy, paints it pink and white, and calls it "The Mighty Hopper King". No character from Hasbro, no likeness, no Autobot symbol, based on an expired patent, no vehicle mode that the car companies will sue about... technically a legal toy then (if incredibly silly)?

Edited by mignash, 15 April 2012 - 07:29 PM.


#7 Walky

Walky

    STRONG GRUDGE

  • Citizen
  • 35306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbus, OH
  • Faction::RIRFIB

Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:31 PM

It still looks like a character that Hasbro is currently claiming ownership of, and who appears in comics that businesses pay license money to use. You can't knock off the Super Powers Batman toy, color him not like Batman, and legally sell him. You would have to wait for ownership of that likeness to fall into the public domain first, which won't be for a long long while.

#8 Guest_mignash_*

Guest_mignash_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:37 PM

The same mold in a different color still "looks like the character"?

#9 Spark

Spark
  • Citizen
  • 32771 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:39 PM

QUOTE(mignash @ Apr 15 2012, 08:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(Code of Walky @ Apr 15 2012, 07:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A patent filed before 1994 is protected for 17 years, but that can be extended by the company if paperwork is filled and approved.

That just protects the engineering of the toy itself, though. The likeness of the character is protected pretty much indefinitely, thanks to Disney's efforts to not ever lose the right to Mickey Mouse. Prowl will be free for anyone to use maybe sometime next century.


Like I said though, if they didn't use the CHARACTER or any trademark symbols. For instance, let's make what we would see as a common knockoff: Someone makes a Topspin toy, paints it pink and white, and calls it "The Mighty Hopper King". No character from Hasbro, no likeness, no Autobot symbol, based on an expired patent, no vehicle mode that the car companies will sue about... technically a legal toy then (if incredibly silly)?

I would point out that Hasbro sued a company into oblivion over doing exactly that in 1985, so I expect the same is probably true now, at least if the company is within their legal reach.
Fall of Cybertron will blow your mind. That is all.

#10 Guest_mignash_*

Guest_mignash_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:00 PM

In 1985 though the patents were still new. They are NOT now. I recall that case too, and it was filed based on PATENT violation right? Some company made fake Jumpstarters because they claimed that the Diaclone Attack Robot mold wasn't patented properly, so technically the design was in the public domain. The other toy company lost the case based on Hasbro owning the patent, not because they violated the IP of the Topspin character. So if they went back into production TODAY they would be legal, yes?

Edited by mignash, 15 April 2012 - 08:08 PM.


#11 Daytonus

Daytonus

    Full Circle

  • Retired Staff
  • 11864 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK
  • Faction::Cannonball's Pirate Crew

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:01 PM

QUOTE(mignash @ Apr 15 2012, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The same mold in a different color still "looks like the character"?


That would have to be determined by the legal system, but the precedent probably favors the original owner.

Sure, some company could knock off the ENGINEERING before the character--e.g. a toy that transformers like Prowl but doesn't have his character-specific molding--but why would anyone want to do that?

#12 Guest_mignash_*

Guest_mignash_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:11 PM

On related note, did/does Hasbro have any legal ownership on the mold they never released or patented in the US, but Takara or Takara-Tomy released in Japan? Something like, for instance, the original Metalhawk?

#13 Destron D-69

Destron D-69

    yes please! and Preordered!

  • Supporter
  • 42830 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Canada
  • Faction::Decepticon

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:11 PM

yeah from all the talk and text it seems like the best you could do would be get a few cheap things sold at a dollar store before Hasbro and Tomy ate your babies ...

despite what we may come to believe after being in the system, it is called the LEGAL SYSTEM because it was designed for people to do legal things... waiting around to circumvent a loophole ...

>_> doesn't seem to fit that definition

and yeah as others have asked, "why even bother?"
With Takara's current cheesecakey track record, I don't doubt she fires the Fusion Railgun on her back by bending over at the waist and blushing o//o

#14 Fortress Ironhold

Fortress Ironhold

    Blasphemer

  • Citizen
  • 18975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copperas Cove, Texas

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:06 PM

QUOTE(mignash @ Apr 15 2012, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In 1985 though the patents were still new. They are NOT now. I recall that case too, and it was filed based on PATENT violation right? Some company made fake Jumpstarters because they claimed that the Diaclone Attack Robot mold wasn't patented properly, so technically the design was in the public domain. The other toy company lost the case based on Hasbro owning the patent, not because they violated the IP of the Topspin character. So if they went back into production TODAY they would be legal, yes?


Actually, we had that discussion a few months back; Nevermore found the official rulings on the matter, and I translated them from legalese to basic English.


The gist of the matter was that certain figures didn't have copyright or patent information on them when they were first presented to the Japanese public, and so the bootleggers presumed that Takara had no legal claim on the figures. Thus, the bootleggers presumed that the figures had to instead be in the public domain.

The judge responded by noting that the bootleggers made the presumptions based on American IP law when they actually should have considered Japanese IP law. As the judge noted, although the figures may not have had clear markings, Takara otherwise did everything in their power to act as if they were protected. Furthermore, the legal arrangement between Takara and Hasbro was enough to where, even if the figures were public domain in Japan, Hasbro could still easily claim protection retroactively.

What's more, the bootleggers undercut their own claims by visibly attempting to alter the individual figures. Had the figures been the exact same as the ones first presented in Japan, then the company could have easily claimed ignorance. But since the figures had modifications made to the molds, that raised the prospect the company actually knew they were dealing in bootlegs and were attempting to circumvent this by claiming differentiation.
Lexicon: still up and running!

**

"At my last intern briefing, Craig was clearly tired. His message had changed to, "Stay out of trouble, period." It seemed that, as director of security, Livingstone was growing old fast. If he didn't watch out, he'd become one of us - a 'Mormon' or a 'straight,' which is what Clinton staffers called FBI agents, the Secret Service, and former Bush employees."

Aldrich, Gary. Unlimited Access Washington D.C.: Regency, 1996. Pg 38

**

Please visit my Half.com store

Deviant Art page

#15 Fortress Ironhold

Fortress Ironhold

    Blasphemer

  • Citizen
  • 18975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copperas Cove, Texas

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:14 PM

QUOTE(Destron D-69 @ Apr 15 2012, 08:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
yeah from all the talk and text it seems like the best you could do would be get a few cheap things sold at a dollar store before Hasbro and Tomy ate your babies ...

despite what we may come to believe after being in the system, it is called the LEGAL SYSTEM because it was designed for people to do legal things... waiting around to circumvent a loophole ...

>_> doesn't seem to fit that definition

and yeah as others have asked, "why even bother?"


I think the best thing that people could hope for would be to have a figure with a similar transformation pattern to an existing figure.

For example, compare Hans-Cuff to First Aid.

With both figures (who, I might add, transform into white emergency vehicles), transformation occurs when the rear section is flipped over to form the lower legs and the sides of the vehicle mode are pulled out to become the arms.

However, that's where the similarities end. Instead, virtually everything else beyond color, theme, and transformation are completely different. In fact, there's even an extra step to First Aid's transformation.

Similarly, Rest-Q and Ratchet are both white ambulances of similar make and model, but the transformations are so wildly different that there's no comparison.

In these instances, it's all more-or-less kosher.

But making a knock-off Prowl, giving him new colors, and assigning him a different name? Ain't no way.
Lexicon: still up and running!

**

"At my last intern briefing, Craig was clearly tired. His message had changed to, "Stay out of trouble, period." It seemed that, as director of security, Livingstone was growing old fast. If he didn't watch out, he'd become one of us - a 'Mormon' or a 'straight,' which is what Clinton staffers called FBI agents, the Secret Service, and former Bush employees."

Aldrich, Gary. Unlimited Access Washington D.C.: Regency, 1996. Pg 38

**

Please visit my Half.com store

Deviant Art page

#16 Destron D-69

Destron D-69

    yes please! and Preordered!

  • Supporter
  • 42830 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Canada
  • Faction::Decepticon

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:40 PM

well yeah I get that... two entirely different toys, would be two entirely different toys.

I was going to suggest an example where you could make a tug boat robot that had the same transformation scheme as g1 optimus prime... you know the old legs back, arms in head swivel ...

and that would be cool... but then if you go and paint him red and blue, give him a prime head and have him pull a big grey boat with a blue stripe ....

>_> not so good.

its like we always seem to bring up in these threads - Hastakomy doesn't have a monopoly on "robot shape changers" but that also isn't the okay for IP theft.
With Takara's current cheesecakey track record, I don't doubt she fires the Fusion Railgun on her back by bending over at the waist and blushing o//o

#17 Nutjob R/T

Nutjob R/T

    I love this thread.

  • Citizen
  • 22993 posts
  • Faction::Autobot

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:46 PM

QUOTE(Code of Walky @ Apr 15 2012, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You can't knock off the Super Powers Batman toy, color him not like Batman, and legally sell him.



Poor example, Walky.

I think the only colour never used on a Batman toy is pink.
Earth is Kill because Santa.

#18 Dake

Dake

    Resident resident

  • Supporter
  • 16453 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The planet that is farthest from.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 08:02 AM

QUOTE(Daytonus @ Apr 15 2012, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(mignash @ Apr 15 2012, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The same mold in a different color still "looks like the character"?


That would have to be determined by the legal system, but the precedent probably favors the original owner.

Yeah, isn't there something about what a "reasonable person" could see in defense of patents and the like? If you set pink not-Topspin next to real Topspin, any reasonable person, TF-fan or not could see they were the same toy, just different colors.

 
 
6CbAAc9.jpg

#19 Guest_mignash_*

Guest_mignash_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:09 AM

QUOTE(Dake @ Apr 16 2012, 09:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(Daytonus @ Apr 15 2012, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(mignash @ Apr 15 2012, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The same mold in a different color still "looks like the character"?


That would have to be determined by the legal system, but the precedent probably favors the original owner.

Yeah, isn't there something about what a "reasonable person" could see in defense of patents and the like? If you set pink not-Topspin next to real Topspin, any reasonable person, TF-fan or not could see they were the same toy, just different colors.


Not same TOY, same CHARACTER. Same toy mold would be legal.

#20 Daytonus

Daytonus

    Full Circle

  • Retired Staff
  • 11864 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK
  • Faction::Cannonball's Pirate Crew

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:12 AM

Yeah, so any reasonable person would see that it was the same character in different colors.

In any case, the only companies that would reasonably profit from this would be companies probably already in the business of bootlegging anyway. I still don't see the point.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users