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. 

@  MEDdMI : (26 July 2017 - 05:15 AM)

I just hate Facebook.

@  Confuzor : (26 July 2017 - 01:25 AM)

I hate when follow a link to an article from Facebook it has all this extra junk in the address box, so if I want to copy/paste to send to my friends via text, I have to go hunt down the "permalink" so it's a more manageable size

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (24 July 2017 - 08:52 PM)

*sigh* Yup.

@  Foffy : (24 July 2017 - 06:16 PM)

That's the exact opposite of what Facebook wants to happen, though. They're hoping you get sucked in by other content and end up spending more time on Facebook and/or making an account.

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (24 July 2017 - 04:02 PM)

I hate that these days when you use a permalink to a Facebook post, the rest of the page's material still shows up below. Like, WTF, I only want the old way of seeing the post and nothing else!

@  Benbot : (24 July 2017 - 01:34 PM)

I call bullshit on that

@  MEDdMI : (24 July 2017 - 01:08 PM)

Read the article. Apparently too many comics sets off the machines due to the glossy pages messing up the X-ray

@  Benbot : (24 July 2017 - 01:03 PM)

what possible justification could they have to ban books containing drawings?

@  MEDdMI : (24 July 2017 - 12:56 PM)

Per the article, United appears to be the only airline, but there might be others.

@  Dracula : (24 July 2017 - 12:48 PM)

Like anyone needed another reason not to fly United

@  Evac : (24 July 2017 - 12:46 PM)

No, apparently just United did.

@  Paladin : (24 July 2017 - 12:22 PM)

so the weekend of SDCC, the TSA banned COMIC BOOKS from check-in luggage. http://lechicgeek.bo...ium=LCG FB Page

@  Arazyr : (24 July 2017 - 11:39 AM)

...guy

@  ▲ndrusi : (24 July 2017 - 11:34 AM)

LEAKER DROPS POWER OF THE PRIMES BOMBSHELL! Shrapnel: "No, Bombshell's the other guy"

@  ▲ndrusi : (24 July 2017 - 11:34 AM)

...did RichardT and Nevermore just accidentally do a Cybertron Enquirer gag?

@  Nevermore : (24 July 2017 - 10:52 AM)

Note I wrote "bombshell"in lowercase.

@  Benbot : (24 July 2017 - 10:17 AM)

in this case, face

@  Paladin : (24 July 2017 - 10:16 AM)

depends what appendage its used on.

@  Benbot : (24 July 2017 - 10:15 AM)

I'm something something years old and I have actually never shaved with anything other than electric

@  Benbot : (24 July 2017 - 10:15 AM)

is it worth the trouble?

@  Benbot : (24 July 2017 - 10:15 AM)

Why does a safety razor give a closer shave than an electric razor?

@  RichardT1977 : (24 July 2017 - 10:08 AM)

Nevermore That was Shrapnel, not Bombshell.

@  ▲ndrusi : (24 July 2017 - 10:07 AM)

Deluxe Sludge alone is enough that I probably won't have to eat anything until 2025.

@  ▲ndrusi : (24 July 2017 - 10:06 AM)

I don't know about Paladin, but I personally am fueled by the rage of fans who have a very specific idea of what a Transformers toyline should be.

@  NotVeryKnightly : (24 July 2017 - 09:23 AM)

What do you mean too good? I don't recall lots of Micromaster updates.

@  Paladin : (24 July 2017 - 09:06 AM)

i remain unconvinced. "if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is."

@  General Tekno : (24 July 2017 - 08:58 AM)

yep - especially given that sure is one hyper easy forensic trail to find everyone involved in the leak

@  Nevermore : (24 July 2017 - 08:56 AM)

"How to lose your job spectacularly".

@  Nevermore : (24 July 2017 - 08:55 AM)

Holy cow.

@  Nevermore : (24 July 2017 - 08:55 AM)

Jesus, that Power of the Primes bombshell leak.

@  Fear or Courage : (24 July 2017 - 08:41 AM)

At least in Canada, they have excellent customer service.

@  Maruten : (23 July 2017 - 11:33 PM)

I've ordered from them several times with no problems.

@  Telly : (23 July 2017 - 11:19 PM)

i havent. but ive only ordered from them a few times

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (23 July 2017 - 11:16 PM)

Has anyone here ever had trouble with orders from Tfsource before?

@  BlackMax : (23 July 2017 - 09:29 PM)

Good track, but I prefer Paranoid. Is there any tune better for this board? "tell a joke and I will sigh, and you will laugh, and I will cry".

@  Evac : (23 July 2017 - 08:41 PM)

GEN'RALS GATHERED IN THEIR MASSES *GUITAR CHORD* JUST LIKE WITCHES AT BLACK MASSES

@  TheMightyMol... : (23 July 2017 - 06:29 PM)

Once again, there is pain, I bring flame, I bring cold. I'm the blood red sandman, coming home.

@  Evac : (23 July 2017 - 06:26 PM)

Yo, when Team Skull meets you, they don't even greet you!

@  LBD "Nyt... : (23 July 2017 - 06:23 PM)

Yooooooo

@  Evac : (23 July 2017 - 06:15 PM)

Yo.

@  LBD "Nyt... : (23 July 2017 - 06:14 PM)

Once more, I have returned. w00t.

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (23 July 2017 - 02:01 PM)

Macross Delta sucks but I listen to the music anyway.

@  MEDdMI : (23 July 2017 - 09:46 AM)

And dealing with me.

@  TheMightyMol... : (23 July 2017 - 08:47 AM)

Don't forget the rock music and D&D.

@  unluckiness : (23 July 2017 - 07:52 AM)

He certainly doesn't have the time to be employed full-time what with all the war-stoking, dinosaur fossil burying, pornographing and etc

@  TheMightyMol... : (23 July 2017 - 06:44 AM)

Look, I'm TRYING, okay?

@  Bass X0 : (23 July 2017 - 06:40 AM)

The devil is a part-timer!

@  Nevermore : (23 July 2017 - 06:32 AM)

I always took it to be a catch-all term for "person or thing of the same name" regardless of which came first.

@  PlutoniumBoss : (22 July 2017 - 10:06 PM)

So technically it could be either way and not be wrong, but it is more apt to be Kalidor's example.

@  PlutoniumBoss : (22 July 2017 - 10:05 PM)

one that has the same name as another; especially : one who is named after another or for whom another is named


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
  • 1875 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

    Sad Frogerson

  • Citizen
  • 36828 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
  • 11562 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

    Sad Frogerson

  • Citizen
  • 36828 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
  • 35291 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
  • 11869 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

    @DestronD69

  • Supporter
  • 52850 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?"
You must have Signatures turned on

#14 Fortress Ironhold

Fortress Ironhold

    Blasphemer

  • Citizen
  • 19702 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
  • 19702 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

    @DestronD69

  • Supporter
  • 52850 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.
You must have Signatures turned on

#17 Nutjob R/T

Nutjob R/T

    I love this thread.

  • Citizen
  • 23972 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
  • 17383 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.

 
 
8ZSy6aw.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
  • 11869 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.