 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In article <Fsnzz7.Mrp@lugnet.com>, "Suzanne D. Rich"
<suz@baseplate.com> wrote:
> What happened (apparently) is that LEGO now has their cake and eats it
> too. This
> makes me sick.
I assume Jonathan (and ORA) went through the same discussions my
publisher did with TLG regarding using "Mindstorms" in a book title.
Lego had no problem at all with people writing books...in fact I've
gotten a lot of encouraging feedback from people within TLG that
wholeheartedly endorse these efforts.
However, they are wary of people using (and possibly abusing) the Lego
brand. This is understandable...the brand has a lot of value and they
wouldn't want poor-quality products by third parties to in any way
compromise that brand. Furthermore, since the brand has such high
value, it is perfectly reasonable for them to expect payment for use of
their brand (i.e. licensing fees).
My impression was TLG was very happy with the fact that there were books
dealing with Lego sets and that obviously it should be clear from the
book's title *which* lego set it being discussed. Per their
recommendation, my book carries a label stating that it applies to the
Robotics Invention System 1.0 and 1.5 (so as to eliminate confusion
about the other Mindstorms sets).
At this point, both books are out, and TLG feels that the books may add
to the "Mindstorms" experience, thus they point to the books from their
web site. As an author, I find this helpful...it means more people may
read my book and enjoy it.
I guess what I'm saying is that I find it perfectly reasonable that they
are willing to point interested users to the books, but at the same time
don't want their name on them.
>
> I just discovered their page devoted to (quote) "some 'introductory'
> Books about
> LEGO MINDSTORMS." There I see two books, Jonathan's O'Reilly and Dave's
> NQC book
> with obvious links to Amazon.com for online purchasing. LEGO has
> shamelessly
> added an Amazon.com _associate_code_ to the URLs! Not only does this look
> "cheap" but I see no mention of where those dollars go. ...that's 15%
> taken from
> every direct sale. Is this "global company" _so_ in need of cash?
>
> If TLC is seriously sponging money through the needs of the adult
> robotics
> community (due to lacking in their own provisions and foresight), then I
> have
> only one word for it. Sleazy!
Personally, I'd much rather have them link from their site to the
publishers' sites for the books - in general these provide much better
information about the books and allow potential readers to make a more
informed decision.
However, linking to amazon.com and getting the associated revenue is
pretty common practice. I don't believe it takes any money from
buyers...the money comes from amazon.com's margins.
I didn't realize it was 15%...at that rate, TLG makes more off each sale
than I do! Perhaps I need to speak with them about a referral fee for
anyone who bought a Mindstorms set because of NQC :)
Dave Baum
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Dave Baum" <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote in message
news:dbaum-FAB69A.18020807042000@lugnet.com...
> At this point, both books are out, and TLG feels that the books may add
> to the "Mindstorms" experience, thus they point to the books from their
> web site. As an author, I find this helpful...it means more people may
> read my book and enjoy it.
Get both books, cheaper, from Varisty Books:
http://www.lugnet.com/robotics/?n=11225
-Rob.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
> However, they are wary of people using (and possibly abusing) the Lego
> brand. This is understandable...the brand has a lot of value and they
> wouldn't want poor-quality products by third parties to in any way
> compromise that brand. Furthermore, since the brand has such high value,
> it is perfectly reasonable for them to expect payment for use of their
> brand (i.e. licensing fees).
However, it seems extremely unreasonable in the case of books about a
product. In fact, although I'm not a lawyer, this use of trademarks seems
100% within the precedent set for fair use: it's impossible to describe
_without_ using the trademark.
The classic example is: if writing about the Boston Marathon (a trademark of
the Boston Athletic Association), you don't have to call it "that 42.2k race
they have in Boston every year" -- you can actually call it "the Boston
Marathon". The same applies to a book specifically about Lego Mindstorms --
you don't have to call it a book about "the robotic construction set from
the famous maker of interlocking plastic building blocks".
I can understand why O'Reilly wouldn't want to go to court over this, but
I'm pretty sure that if it came to that, TLC wouldn't have much to stand on.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that if it came to that, TLC wouldn't have much to stand on.
Not to mention, of course, the whole thing where these books are nothing but
beneficial to Lego, and much more beneficial if they actually use their name
in the title.
(To make another analogy: a book called "How to use Linux" is nice for Red
Hat; a book called "How to use Red Hat Linux" is much better. And I'm pretty
sure that no one is confused into thinking that such books are official --
especially if they happen to be called something like "The Unofficial Guide
to Red Hat Linux".)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In article <slrn8esvg9.qk9.mattdm@jadzia.bu.edu>, mattdm@mattdm.org
wrote:
> Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
> > However, they are wary of people using (and possibly abusing) the Lego
> > brand. This is understandable...the brand has a lot of value and they
> > wouldn't want poor-quality products by third parties to in any way
> > compromise that brand. Furthermore, since the brand has such high
> > value,
> > it is perfectly reasonable for them to expect payment for use of their
> > brand (i.e. licensing fees).
>
>
> However, it seems extremely unreasonable in the case of books about a
> product. In fact, although I'm not a lawyer, this use of trademarks seems
> 100% within the precedent set for fair use: it's impossible to describe
> _without_ using the trademark.
There's tons of precedent on using trademarked names in titles of books.
I don't believe my publisher was ever seriously concerned about losing a
court case. But they didn't want to bother going to court, and there's
a lot of value in a good faith effort such as respecting their wishes
and putting an "unofficial" stamp on the book.
Bear in mind that TLC is sort of an "old" company that's just coming
into the "new" market. They're used to customers and competitors. Not
collaborators and side industries.
I'm not saying they shouldn't change...they should. However, big
companies don't turn on a dime, so I have to keep tempering my
expectations.
We have seen a lot of progress (at least in Mindstorms)....consider the
fact that they released pre-alpha firmware for RCX 2.0 along with
complete documentation of the bytecodes. That must've been a hard sell
to management.
Dave
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
| | | | | | |
