The Energon Pub

I'm not simply defending 3rd party companies because they make the toys I like, and I find that assumption extremely offensive. It paints you as someone who is naive enough to believe that everything is based on ethics... Small business around the world are frequently ousted out of operation due to some abusive corporations who want to throw their weight around. Its not even about money (and it clearly isn't here, regarding Botcon).

Hercules is Devastator, but if Hercules avoids breaking copyright laws, and is so then left alone, good for us. For now, TFC is not hurting Hasbro's real profits. So who cares. The rules should be able to bend to give the little guys a leg up, especially since they are frequently abused by the flawed system as a whole.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20081004/BC_Apple_Threatens_Suit_081004/

This is not about ethics (Botcon), its about being Goliath.

I'm not condoning IP theft, I'm just saying that a little more thought has to go into each scenario to come to a conclusion based on all the facts, and not just ethics.

Vicalliose wrote:

Burn wrote:

Vicalliose wrote:Intellectual Property laws are bullshit, they do little to help the small man, you cannot change my mind on the subject.

I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that if something you'd invested time and energy into creating and maintaining was suddenly getting ripped off without your consent.

But I guess it's okay as long as you get your plastic crack addiction satisfied?

Except the chances of that even happening on a massive scale, or at all, are slim, though perhaps it's dependent on the product. And again, even if these laws existed they wouldn't help me and it wouldn't be worth while to sue or put someone in prison for something so petty. Clearly the people who did what they did wouldn't want to buy from or support me in the first place, it would simply be ignorant and bullheaded to give two shits. Besides depending on what you're talking about, my product may be so much like what other companies produce that it really doesn't make a difference.

It's petty, pure and simple.

But it really isn't. It always starts small... And then it grows and grows... Then others catch on and do the same thing. Next thing you know you have dozens of compaines gaining off you IP.

As i said before, i give the 3rd party compaines props for seeing a market and catering to it. But for those that are basing there designs on Hasbro IP, they have a case. (if they chose to persue it). Profit margin has nothing to do with it and just because you don't currently offer the product that is being produced, doesn't give someone else the legal right to use it.

(again, i'm saying this if Hasbro/Tak ever decides to take legal action. At this time i understand all thats actually happening is 3rd parties are being banned at there own event; which I feel they are completely justified in doing.)

The licensing agreement you keep bringing up between Hasbro and Takatoku Toys regarding the use of the Valk is from the early days of G1 and is no longer in place. In fact it became problematic for Hasbro/Takara as soon as Bandai purchased Takatoku Toys and wanted to revive the Macross line, which is why Jetfire was never released in Japan.

Aaah yeah, El Duque just dropped an El Dook Nuke!
He doesn't wield a Gattling gun for nothing

I cannot BELIEVE that this thread is STILL going.
Are we approaching any site records yet? Talk about Diarrhea of the mouth...

I believe the true argument here is how much better our collections of toys would be if the 3P toys were all confiscated - you know, like if the rules at Botcon were enforced everywhere.

Because, you know these toys are the reason why life is so difficult and challenging - instead of how much joy they bring to so many manchild (what was it - oh yeah, basement deweller) geeks out there - like myself.

After all, it's amazing how much insight one must have to see things in the proper perspective all the time. We, the sinners, bask in the light that such intellect, nay - divine moral absolutism, brings. We are thankful and humbled. Amen.

Simple solution - Work with the 3rd party companies, those creating add-ons. Let the 3rd Parties do all the hard designing work add-ons, then leave it up to Hasbro to mass-produce and sell over the net via HTS, TFCC or the various online stores that specialise in these sorts of things.

"Fans" get the product they want, Hasbro don't have their IP infringed on as much, prices will be more affordable, Hasbro can still concentrate on their main lines, 3rd Parties still get their work out there, quality control is less of an issue, everyone wins.

I'm gonna say Classics Jetfire has a few more things in common with a Valkyrie than just the booster pack:





He also comes with a helmet with a set of dual antenna specifically designed to make him look more Valk-ish. However, you are correct when you say there aren't enough similarities for Bandai to sue Hasbro. Just like there aren't enough design similarities between Hercules and Devastator for Hasbro to sue.

MINDVVIPE wrote:I'm not simply defending 3rd party companies because they make the toys I like, and I find that assumption extremely offensive. It paints you as someone who is naive enough to believe that everything is based on ethics... Small business around the world are frequently ousted out of operation due to some abusive corporations who want to throw their weight around. Its not even about money (and it clearly isn't here, regarding Botcon).

Hercules is Devastator, but if Hercules avoids breaking copyright laws, and is so then left alone, good for us. For now, TFC is not hurting Hasbro's real profits. So who cares. The rules should be able to bend to give the little guys a leg up, especially since they are frequently abused by the flawed system as a whole.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20081004/BC_Apple_Threatens_Suit_081004/

This is not about ethics (Botcon), its about being Goliath.

I'm not condoning IP theft, I'm just saying that a little more thought has to go into each scenario to come to a conclusion based on all the facts, and not just ethics.

You seriously didn't just compare this to predatory pricing did you? There's a vast difference between a corporation using predatory pricing to try and squeeze out a smaller competitor where both companies retail the same product supplied from someone else; and a smaller company ripping off a much bigger comapny's ideas and hoping to be small enough to fly under the radar. You claim you're not trying to justify IP theft, yet that's exactly what you've done here by completely misrepresenting the dynamics of the situation.

G1 Legacy wrote:Aaah yeah, El Duque just dropped an El Dook Nuke!
He doesn't wield a Gattling gun for nothing

Then the Gatling gun should be loaded with live ammo rather than blanks. Even if you factor in the licensing agreement, a quick glance at Jeffire in both modes makes it clear it's designed far more based on the Hooligan and Skyfire designs than it is on the discarder Strike Valk prototype, hence you're talking about inspiration rather than ripping off the design.

El Duque wrote:I'm gonna say Classics Jetfire has a few more things in common with a Valkyrie than just the booster pack:





He also comes with a helmet with a set of dual antenna specifically designed to make him look more Valk-ish. However, you are correct when you say there aren't enough similarities for Bandai to sue Hasbro. Just like there aren't enough design similarities between Hercules and Devastator for Hasbro to sue.

Using a fan made alt mode falls into the "coincidental likeness" category, not to mention that the design is primarily based on other designs which were the workaround that Hasbro used so that they could show a character which they had licensed (remember that Jetfire was unable to be shown toy accurately in the cartoon or comic because of legal issues). At the end of the day, Jetfire still existed though because of a licensing deal, and besides the Valk design, is entirely their IP.

That's where trying to use Jetfire as an example for your argument here really does become apples and oranges and where your argument falls down. One look at Hercules makes it blatantly obvious that he was designed to rip off Devastator as opposed to merely being "inspired" by him, however unlike the Jetfire situation, no money every changed hands.

Always continue to feed a know-it-all slack on his rope...because eventually he'll hang himself with it and do the work for ya.

Enough said.

My comment had nothing to do with predatory pricing...

I was talking about the fact that bigger companies have a ton of money, and they only go after these little guys to throw their weight around. How can you misunderstand what I'm saying?

@Burn, thats a good idea. It would be nicer if they just had a new division that catered to the niche market, so they could actually make full on figures intead of just add-ons.

@G1 Legacy,

Just because it's considered a "fan mode" doesn't mean the designer didn't intend on it being able to pull off the "gerwalk" mode.

MINDVVIPE wrote: I'm not simply defending 3rd party companies because they make the toys I like, and I find that assumption extremely offensive. It paints you as someone who is naive enough to believe that everything is based on ethics... Small business around the world are frequently ousted out of operation due to some abusive corporations who want to throw their weight around. Its not even about money (and it clearly isn't here, regarding Botcon).

I understand this case isn't about money. Its about respect and protecting ones property.

MINDVVIPE wrote:Hercules is Devastator, but if Hercules avoids breaking copyright laws, and is so then left alone, good for us. For now, TFC is not hurting Hasbro's real profits. So who cares.).

I thought it wasn't about money?

MINDVVIPE wrote: The rules should be able to bend to give the little guys a leg up, especially since they are frequently abused by the flawed system as a whole.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20081004/BC_Apple_Threatens_Suit_081004/

This is not about ethics (Botcon), its about being Goliath.

This is where i just can't agree. You don't bend rules just because someone else doesn't have the resources or success of someone that has been in buisness successfully for years. You want to bend the rules for the little guy, but want the big guy to adher to the same rules? And at what point does the "little guy" stop being little and step into the ring with the big dogs?

MINDVVIPE wrote:I'm not condoning IP theft, I'm just saying that a little more thought has to go into each scenario to come to a conclusion based on all the facts, and not just ethics.

Continuing to use TFC's Hercules as an example, i think it really does come down to ethics. From a legal stand point, maybe they do have enough differences from Devestator to keep from being sued. But from an ethics stand point, i still think its a rip off of hasbro's IP. The fact that its not tipping into their profit margin IMO is irrelevent and doesn't make it ok. why couldn't they make it a different color? Use different construction vehicles? Their success was based of the want based off the consumer want of someone else's IP. If TFC could have called there bot Devestator and not hercules without fear of legal actions, i'm more than certain they would have gone that route.

Yes, they might be a small guy, but there still a buisness. They might be fans, but their still a buisness. They want to make money just like the big guy does.

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:You know, why doesn't some of these 3rd party compaines do the right thing and contact hasbro and get PERMISSION to use the name and design? Personally, i think that's the right thing to do. Now i don't blame them for seeing a market and going after it. But many of the 3rd party figures (like Hercules) are blannt copies of Has/tak property. The fact that their small and in compared to hasbro is irrelevent. (sure their small NOW, but in 5yrs time...) Its their property thats being used without permission. Its not about being assholes, jerks, being scared or not caring about the fans. Its about protecting whats theirs at their show. I honestly can't see anything wrong with that and to be honest, have yet to see any aurgument other than..
"Hasbro are just being jerks and are scared" (There's nothing that can prove either)

That is the right thing to do. But have you ever seen the prices of the licenses and legal fees? I can imagine they're pretty high, too high for a small time company with small production runs to consider.

Well then if they don't want to do things the propper way because its to expensive, they then must face the real possibility of being sued for IP "theft" (i don't know the legal term) which can ultimately cost them much more than the oringal licenseing fee's. Again, there a right way to do it, and a wrong way. If you decide to go down the wrong path then if and when those legal battles come up, be preparred to suffer the concequences if your found guilty.

@5150 Cruiser, those are all fair questions, as I probably do come off contradictory. But it was in light of each situation where I decide, myself, the ethics of each action. Hell, its why companies have these things decided in court. I would say its unethical to kill a small business that isn't invading your market share towards having a large impact on profits just to be the big dog in town. In these cases, the ones with the little companies, I just can't NOT defend them when its so blatantly a greed move. Ya ya, IP theft is going down to a certain extent, but if you look at the advantages versus the disadvantages, you see that Hasbro has so much more to gain from this. The engineering and production from a smaller companies business model could be useful information to Hasbro who might want to get more into the serious collector market... theres the progression in terms of Transformer engineering. Theres also heightened popularity of Hasbro products... and so on.

I can't give any definitive answers on when the small guy is a serious threat, but again, that is all dependent on the situation. Anyway, if I still don't make sense to people, just don't listen to me. haha.

MINDVVIPE wrote:My comment had nothing to do with predatory pricing...

I was talking about the fact that bigger companies have a ton of money, and they only go after these little guys to throw their weight around. How can you misunderstand what I'm saying?

Except that you were trying to pass off a small company trying to steal from a bigger company where said bigger company protects its interests as being some kind of situation similar to a small company trying to honestly compete with a bigger company and having the bigger company trying to throw their weight around (eg predaqtory pricing). I didn't misunderstand anything- you have openly admitted that TFClub in the instance of Hercules is completely in the wrong, yet you keep trying to pass it off as "the big scary evil corporation" vs "the poor little innocent small business". The reality is that your position is now untenable and by trying to misrepresent the dynamics of the situation, you are simply digging yourself a bigger hole.

El Duque wrote:Just because it's considered a "fan mode" doesn't mean the designer didn't intend on it being able to pull off the "gerwalk" mode.

Then why didn't it make the instructions? Possibly because HasTak as a company had no intention of copying the Valk and facing the legal wrath of Bandai? Hasbro legal are hardly going to expose the company to that kind of financial loss. That's why the design is almost entirely based on the Skyfire design and not the Valk design- meaning that it's ultimately the use of a Hasbro IP while having "inspired" design cues to the mold that was a part of the original toy and licensing arrangement.

Right now you're just clutching at straws and ignoring the evidence after you tried to compare apples with oranges and failed.

Oh BTW, Mattel and Maisto (both of which have official licenses from Audi) dropped by and wanted to have a little talk with Hasbro...........

Your not making any sense in regards to predatory pricing. The example was apple sueing some school for logo use. Nothing to do with competing products, just logos.
Hasbro could sue TFC, and that still wouldn't be predatory pricing... I have no idea what your on about.

I never said they were completely in the wrong, just that it was concievably IP theft. Theres worse things that could happen than IP theft in the business world.

@El Duque, Any idea how hasbro got around that one?

5150 Cruiser wrote: why couldn't they make it a different color? Use different construction vehicles?

Or even the same construction vehicles but in a completely different configuration when forming the combined mod for that matter?

MINDVVIPE wrote:I would say its unethical to kill a small business that isn't invading your market share towards having a large impact on profits just to be the big dog in town.

If Hercules was an original IP, this would be a valid point, yet the fact that it isn't makes your entire point moot.

MINDVVIPE wrote:In these cases, the ones with the little companies, I just can't NOT defend them when its so blatantly a greed move.

It's far less of a greed move than stealing someone else's ideas and designs to milk them for as much cash as you can.

MINDVVIPE wrote:Ya ya, IP theft is going down to a certain extent, but if you look at the advantages versus the disadvantages, you see that Hasbro has so much more to gain from this.

[/quote]

On the contrary, all Hasbro has "gained" from this is lost revenue from licensing due to them being unlicensed. That's ignoring the fact that there are people who will decide that they only want the 3rd party version when Hasbro release one- there are enough anti-Hasbro, pro-3rd Party statements in here to attest to that fact.

I completely get where you're trying to come from here, but your position is simply untenable. That's the problem with relativism - everything looks fine with it until you actually have to address the elephant in the room.

Bowspearer wrote:Right now you're just clutching at straws and ignoring the evidence after you tried to compare apples with oranges and failed.

This isn't an apples and oranges comparison. Classics Jetfire is Hasbro's unofficial version of a Bandai Valkyrie. That's the bottom line.

Bowspearer wrote:Right now you're just clutching at straws and ignoring the evidence after you tried to compare apples with oranges and failed.

Dude, the only one clutching at straws is you. After 8 hours offline, I come back and see you are half of the new posts, making the same tired points or, after having been rebuffed, making new points that are only tangentially related and are often on another track entirely.

You know what, we get it. You think the 3rd party companies are immoral, unethical and flat out wrong. But your insistence and perpetual posting doesn't make your argument right or better or mean that you have won whatever "cosmic battle" you think is happening here. All it means is that you've made the most posts.

No one is saying you can't have your opinion, but enough is enough. By strongly arguing against basically every poster here, you have solidified the opinions of said posters. The Skyfire vs. Valk example is apples and apples. The Lambo vs. Hercules example is apples and apples. Those are my opinions, and you aren't changing them.

I suggest you go to sleep.

El Duque wrote:Oh BTW, Mattel and Maisto (both of which have official licenses from Audi) dropped by and wanted to have a little talk with Hasbro...........

Also licensed from Audi through the movie licensing deals (ROTF toys fall under the category of official movie merchandise and thus fall under the same licensing deal as that which allows it to appear on film). Your point is moot.

MINDVVIPE wrote:@El Duque, Any idea how hasbro got around that one?

The same way the third-parties get by with it. They designed their own Valkyrie with enough differences to not get sued but still so much the same that it's easily recognizable. I can assure you they didn't call up Bandai and get permission.

El Duque wrote:

MINDVVIPE wrote:@El Duque, Any idea how hasbro got around that one?

The same way the third-parties get by with it. They designed their own Valkyrie with enough differences to not get sued but still so much the same that it's easily recognizable. I can assure you they didn't call up Bandai and get permission.

Ahh... I remember way back when Robotech had mechs really similar to Battletech and Mechwarrior... If i remember, they basically came to a stalemate because they couldn't really figure who came up with the stuff first (including the Valkyrie)

Bowspearer wrote:

El Duque wrote:Oh BTW, Mattel and Maisto (both of which have official licenses from Audi) dropped by and wanted to have a little talk with Hasbro...........

Also licensed from Audi through the movie licensing deals (ROTF toys fall under the category of official movie merchandise and thus fall under the same licensing deal as that which allows it to appear on film). Your point is moot.

Absolutely incorrect. Why do think we aren't getting a toy version of DOTM Dino? I was told by the head of the Transformers Brand team at Toy Fair that he isn't getting a toy because they can't get a licence from Ferrari. I would be willing to bet a some point down the line we get a not-Ferrari version of Dino though.

El Duque wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:Right now you're just clutching at straws and ignoring the evidence after you tried to compare apples with oranges and failed.

This isn't an apples and oranges comparison. Classics Jetfire is Hasbro's unofficial version of a Bandai Valkyrie. That's the bottom line.

You clearly have no idea of just what IPs are at play here. There's far more to this than just the toys mold - there's the character themselves, which when you get into the cartoon and comic side of things, is a radically different design to the discarded Strike Valkyrie prototype. Everything beyond that prototype is entirely Hasbro's IP and not Bandai's. If Takara of Hasbro were to reissue the original Jetfire toy without renewing the license, then you'd actually have a point. However as it stands, your entire argument is a strawman one.

El Duque wrote:

MINDVVIPE wrote:@El Duque, Any idea how hasbro got around that one?

The same way the third-parties get by with it. They designed their own Valkyrie with enough differences to not get sued but still so much the same that it's easily recognizable. I can assure you they didn't call up Bandai and get permission.

Which is how the argument does look when you deliberately ignore the facts. The fact is that the original Skyfire (ie cartoon/comic) design was worked out during the licensing stage of when the Strike Valkyrie proto was bought by HasTak, and thus was deemed acceptable by Bandai (otherwise it never would have appeared on screen) which is exactly what the Classics design is based on. Thus your entire argument here is moot.