Jump to content


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. 

@  Blues : (27 September 2016 - 05:08 PM)

I LOVE BOT MASTER SO MUCH. Too bad the toys sucked. I even own jungle fiver. I love him so much, but he can barely stand on his own.

@  TheMightyMol... : (27 September 2016 - 05:03 PM)

That's the 90s.

@  MEDdMI : (27 September 2016 - 04:50 PM)

Ninjzz? That's an unfortunate name.

@  Verity Carlo : (27 September 2016 - 04:44 PM)

Also I thought Fico Ossio was quite nice on Revolutions.

@  Rycochet : (27 September 2016 - 04:36 PM)

You know the planet is in a jam, a diabolical plan of only one man. Louis Leon Paradim an international punk, and his army of 3As are his piece of junk.

@  Telly : (27 September 2016 - 04:26 PM)

for the longest time i thought jungle fiver was called jungle fiBer

@  Bass X0 : (27 September 2016 - 04:21 PM)

Does anybody remember the cartoon Bots Master? I enjoyed the show but looking back on it, most of the robot designs were lame. The only cool designs were Jungle Fiver and Ninjzz although the toys were nothing compared to Transformers of course. I thought the main human characters were decent enough for a show about robots. 

@  Verity Carlo : (27 September 2016 - 02:43 PM)

Although this is odd to me, since I'm fairly sure they are/were good friends.

@  Verity Carlo : (27 September 2016 - 02:42 PM)

Yeah I stopped liking the guy when I found his Twitter.

@  zephyrX9 : (27 September 2016 - 12:35 PM)

https://twitter.com/DerrickJWyatt/status/779870732935233536 link

@  unluckiness : (27 September 2016 - 09:16 AM)

I cut out the middleman and assume that they're all jerks and/or shills.

@  Rycochet : (27 September 2016 - 07:15 AM)

Social media is the worst thing to happen to fandom, you can now see people whose work you like being jerks or shills on a daily basis, which is worse than a bad interview or two.

@  Robowang : (27 September 2016 - 07:12 AM)

Dirty Jerk Warts?

@  Broadside : (27 September 2016 - 07:05 AM)

Also, I guess he hates IDW Soundwave for not being an emotionless brick like the cartoon version? Man. Any enjoyment of Animated in future is going to be tainted for me by the fact that DJW is the worst kind of boring Geewunner.

@  Broadside : (27 September 2016 - 07:04 AM)

He also hates Action Man for no apparent reason other than "I don't know who this is and I don't care to find out". Which isn't fair, because Ian is the best character in IDW.

@  Jalaguy : (27 September 2016 - 06:47 AM)

DJW was mouthing off about the art for Revolution the other day too, doesn't entirely surprise.

@  Verity Carlo : (27 September 2016 - 05:11 AM)

Do you have a link, zephyr?

@  Cabooceratops : (27 September 2016 - 01:36 AM)

bweh!!

@  Cabooceratops : (27 September 2016 - 01:36 AM)

bweh bweh

@  zephyrX9 : (26 September 2016 - 10:11 PM)

Sipher's.

@  Telly : (26 September 2016 - 10:08 PM)

*has flashbacks of the "image wars"*

@  Touch My Thighs : (26 September 2016 - 09:30 PM)

Sakamoto or Sipher's art?

@  ShadowMan024 : (26 September 2016 - 08:17 PM)

Oof.

@  zephyrX9 : (26 September 2016 - 08:05 PM)

Sipher made a sarcastic remark about Sakamoto's skeeviness. Derrick called him an a**hole, and insulted his art, which was a low, unnecessary blow.

@  Touch My Thighs : (26 September 2016 - 07:43 PM)

What did Derrick do?

@  Pennpenn : (26 September 2016 - 07:42 PM)

That makes sense, thank you.

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (26 September 2016 - 07:30 PM)

Derrick J. Wyatt?

@  Pennpenn : (26 September 2016 - 07:21 PM)

Djw?

@  zephyrX9 : (26 September 2016 - 05:45 PM)

wow, didn't expect to have to block djw on twitter

@  ▲ndrusi : (26 September 2016 - 02:48 PM)

Yeah, it was really sad that they didn't survive in any of the endings. Eaten by Unicron every time.

@  Bass X0 : (26 September 2016 - 12:17 PM)

I wish I could have seen Kick Axe live.

@  LBD "Nyt... : (26 September 2016 - 10:14 AM)

@TheMightyMollusk WWE Raw is on tonight. By the third hour, it'll probably feel the same, minus the actual physical trauma.

@  TheMightyMol... : (26 September 2016 - 09:51 AM)

I think I'd rather punch myself in the nuts.

@  Dracula : (26 September 2016 - 09:34 AM)

I think I'll watch Godzilla versus Gigan instead

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (26 September 2016 - 09:32 AM)

Hillary versus Trump tonight. Oh boy.

@  TheMightyMol... : (26 September 2016 - 06:53 AM)

I think I'm just too used to metal to not understand the lyrics.

@  ▲ndrusi : (26 September 2016 - 06:02 AM)

it's a vile interruption, chess the scripture way

@  Pennpenn : (26 September 2016 - 03:49 AM)

I've had versions where the issue doesn't come up (or at least doesn't come up in the part I notice the most), but the version that got remastered for Bluray and DVD releases have it.

@  Nevermore : (26 September 2016 - 02:05 AM)

I initially misheard "flying tools of torment" as "we're flyin' into some torment".

@  NotVeryKnightly : (26 September 2016 - 01:08 AM)

If it's a problem with all released versions, maybe the original audio source was itself damaged?

@  Pennpenn : (25 September 2016 - 09:30 PM)

I wish they'd relase a remastered version that fixed the audio and included at least had an option to have the text crawl rather than the credits at the start.

@  Telly : (25 September 2016 - 09:27 PM)

tryin to buy the movie from amazon for $20-ish. the price of it has been fluctuating like crazy. not a day has gone by that it hasnt dropped to one price and then gone back up a few hours later. never seen a price fluctuate so much

@  Pennpenn : (25 September 2016 - 07:57 PM)

Then again, a lot of versions of the movie had pretty bad sound quality, even the most recent blu-rays mess it up in places, so it's not as much our fault if we misheard stuff.

@  Arazyr : (25 September 2016 - 07:28 PM)

When I first heard it, half of it may as well have been in a foreign language, for all I could make out. (Of course, I can say that about most music...)

@  Pennpenn : (25 September 2016 - 07:14 PM)

I can't remember entirely, and I can't "hear" anything but the actual lyrics now, but I remember "I am born to hurt you, I'll break the boundless sky" as how my brain parsed the first words.

@  Nevermore : (25 September 2016 - 07:01 PM)

So what did you hear?

@  Pennpenn : (25 September 2016 - 06:39 PM)

I almost completely misinterpreted the lyrics for that song for ages, and when I did find out what they were I thought my idea of the lyrics was better.

@  Nevermore : (25 September 2016 - 06:29 PM)

So apparently the 2016 remake of "Instruments of Destruction" is out. I'm still waiting for an Amazon download to become available, but the clips I heard thus far sound cool. They're using the uncensored lyrics!

@  Bass X0 : (25 September 2016 - 03:02 PM)

:(

@  PlutoniumBoss : (25 September 2016 - 08:25 AM)

Sorry bebbeh, I'm taken.


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


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
84 replies to this topic

#1 (Deactivated) mignash

(Deactivated) 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
  • 1874 posts

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 (Deactivated) mignash

(Deactivated) 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
  • 35531 posts

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
  • 11168 posts

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 (Deactivated) mignash

(Deactivated) 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
  • 35531 posts

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 (Deactivated) mignash

(Deactivated) 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
  • 32986 posts

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 (Deactivated) mignash

(Deactivated) 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

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 (Deactivated) mignash

(Deactivated) 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

    Servant of Med

  • Supporter
  • 43935 posts

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?"
Avatar: Dee and Maple, By Med
#Renegade4Life

#14 Fortress Ironhold

Fortress Ironhold

    Blasphemer

  • Citizen
  • 19055 posts

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
  • 19055 posts

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

    Servant of Med

  • Supporter
  • 43935 posts

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.
Avatar: Dee and Maple, By Med
#Renegade4Life

#17 Nutjob R/T

Nutjob R/T

    I love this thread.

  • Citizen
  • 23078 posts

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
  • 16551 posts

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.

 
 
u6dnun8.jpg

#19 (Deactivated) mignash

(Deactivated) 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

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.