Mego 3.75" body & Hasbro 3.75" body: influence or ???

[Type Two]

I've always wondered about the similarities between Mego's 3.75" body (found on Dukes of Hazzard, CHiPs, Buck Rogers, etc.) and Hasbro's 3.75" GI Joe body. Was it simply one design influencing the other or can we call it a straight-up theft?

Does anyone have any thoughts or facts to add on the matter?

[AcroRay]

That design originated with Takara's Microman [Micronauts] in 1974. Takara applied for a patent, but it was rejected due to a similarity to an existing wooden doll design from the 19th century, believe it or not. :-/ So the mechanical design was public domain. I'll point out that the design was also Takara's adaptation of Hasbro's 12" GI Joe body for their "Victory Project" [Henshin Cyborg] toy series, scaled down and modified for the unique needs of materials and manufacturing limitations in that smaller scale. (The earliest production runs of the body design also used a metal plate to join the torso elements, rather than rubber parts.)

Mego's designers applied the Micronaut body design to their own products. Again, I'll note that the design was already similar to the 8" Mego body design, which was derived from Hasbro's 12" GI Joe as well. I'm inclined to believe that Mego's designers migrated to Hasbro's shops after Mego folded. Alternately - a lot of Mego's (and a fair chunk of the North American toy industry's) mechanical design work was done by the HMS company in Willow Grove, PA. It isn't unreasonable to speculate that both Mego and Hasbro used them for the development of their figures with the Takara articulation style, and HMS had been using it as a standard. In any event, I think it is just a good example of cultural/technological migration rather than 'theft'... especially if you follow the articulation design from Hasbro to Takara to Mego and back to Hasbro.

[Orion]

Thanks for the historical insight here AcroRay, very interesting stuff. Do you think Kenner stayed away from this more articulated body in the Star Wars line as a matter of keeping costs down? Only asking since the unprotected Takara design was out there as far back as 1974.

[AcroRay]

Probably just a costs decision for Kenner. They might have found that the cost of increased articulation wouldn't be offset by any increase in sales for their particular market. When I look back on my playmates in the 1970s, none of them cared about the articulation on their Star Wars figures. What mattered was that the figure was Luke, Boba Fett or one of their other favorites. It didn't matter that they couldn't bend at the knees, as long as there was a big X-Wing or a Tie Fighter that they could sit down in anyway.

[Orion]

Great point. If it ain't broke don't fix it - - - and the way the Star Wars toys were flying off the shelf no reason to make the change. It is still interesting comparing the 3.75 Mego body to the Kenner figures. Mego had the articulation down, but Kenner had the face paint application process going for them. I recall liking my Buck Rogers figures a lot, but always wondered as a kid why the eyes weren't painted in.

[MicromanZone]

I love Microman/Micronaut figures, but the ultra-articulation of the figures back in the 1970s were a great novelty. But Kenner had the brand. I was always conflicted about the toy-like Kenner stuff and ultimately have opted to go the Microman/Micronaut route as an adult collector, but Kenner tapped into a world I never really saw before despite the figures being crap.

[Type Two]

"So the mechanical design was public domain."

Amazing. Thanks for the information. So all fans of the 80's GI Joe line (including me) have Takara to thank! Really fascinating information.

Regarding the copyright on the figure design, I would almost guarantee that if any of the companies involved had devoted the money to legally pursuing the copyright, they would have received it. Oh the things I have read about US copyrights... .

[AcroRay]

Regarding the copyright on the figure design, I would almost guarantee that if any of the companies involved had devoted the money to legally pursuing the copyright, they would have received it. Oh the things I have read about US copyrights... .

Patent is the issue, not copyright. I believe a patent is what you would need to have for a mechanical device/design. Copyright is for creative works, I believe.

[Type Two]

Yeah, yeah, that's it.

Just reading through this information again and still find it fascinating. If I may address you directly, AcroRay, where did you run across this information? An article somewhere, perhaps?

[ddgaff1132]

Ya think Hasbro would have come up witha gimmick (Like GI Joe's thumb) to solidify the patent rights.