Steven Song Talks has a compelling argument for why Lego Group has a vested interest in BAM surviving this, thus not coming into the dispute on the side of customers. Namely, that if BAM were to stop operating, the resale market (and thus collectible prices) would collapse, which would eviscerate franchise-branded sales of original sets.
Since their patent expired, Lego's business model has morphed to that of selling commodities as investments. If the promise of appreciation of discontinued sets evaporates, even if only just in Usia, that would, Steven argues, tank Lego Group's sales. (Usia easily accounts for close to half of revenue on new Lego, over half in some recent quarters.)
Which is all to say, Lego's demure excuse that this is "a legal matter" is deflection. Their whole business model depends on the status quo ante.
1/2
