Most of the legal related points you raise above are demonstrably false. Nearly all of Lego's patents have expired across the world, and as of today it is perf

Most of the legal related points you raise above are demonstrably false. Nearly all of Lego's patents have expired across the world, and as of today it is perfectly legal for companies to release competing products that are compatible with Lego's interlocking brick system. There are many manufacturers releasing compatible bricks, most famous of which (at least in the west) is Mega Brands, a Canadian company, known for MegaBloks and Mega Construx. More recently quite a few Chinese companies have popped up such as Lepin and Oxford. Today, most of Lego's legal battles involve companies stealing the designs of Lego sets (as in, the full set design, brick for brick) and re-releasing them, the primary culprit being Lepin. Oxford primarilly release their own designs and therefore are left alone. Your quality arguments do hold some merit though, as the design process of both the set and element design that Lego goes through is unmatched. However at least in the quality department, Chinese brands are coming close. They however have the benefit of Lego doing all the design for them in the first place. EDIT: Sources: https://boingboing.net/2005/11/17/judge-to-lego-your-p.html https://boingboing.net/2005/11/17/judge-to-lego-your-p.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/lego-loses-trademark-battle-2079389.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/lego-loses-... http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-48/09 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-48/... https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/business/worldbusiness/building-a-legal-case-block-by-block.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/business/worldbusiness/bu...