In the following sentence and context, do Lego and Emoji have underlying rights to be purchased?
Unlike like, say Lego, there are also no underlying rights here to purchase, which makes this as much a catnip idea to Hollywood as public domain fairy tales that fuel so many blockbusters.
— from the first paragraph of http://deadline.com/2015/07/emoji-movie-sony-pictures-animation-anthony-leondis-kung-fu-panda-secrets-of-the-masters-1201482768/
The problem here is that the quote is grammatically incorrect. It should either say "Unlike, say, Lego" or "Like, say, Lego". The author of the quote presumably knew the latter phrase, and didn't know how to use it with "unlike".
The use of say in phrases of this type means "for example". (See dictionary.reference.com's page on say, meaning 12). It's doesn't add anything to the meaning of whether Lego and emoji have the same rights; it is there to state that Lego is being used as an example.
Hence, once corrected for grammar and simplified, the quote means:
Unlike Lego, there are no underlying rights [for emoji]
This then means that Lego has underlying rights, but emoji do not.
there are also no underlying rights here to purchase, refers to the word emoji and the image of the emoji. Sometimes, the words, images, shapes or characteristics of an object or a character are protected by trademark, trade dress, design patent, copyright, or some combination of these. Emoji, according to this article, is not so protected.
According to original the sentence, Lego is protected. The introductory phrase makes clear that Lego is unlike the unprotected emoji.
And in answer to the side comment by the OP, the bidding is apparently for the treatment or pitch. This is a presentation by an author, usually a screenwriter or producer, who has crafted the outline of a story which is protected by copyright and certain other laws, even though the subject of that treatment (in this case the emoji) is not protected. The character of Abraham Lincoln is not protected, but a pitch or treatment for a movie about Honest Abe (such as Lincoln as a zombie killer) could be.
Unlike like, say Lego, there are also no underlying rights here to purchase
The collocation 'unlike like' is pretty nonsensical as is 'like, say'. The sentence is really poorly written. Here's what it actually means:
Unlike with Lego for example, there are also no underlying rights here to purchase...
or
Unlike in the case of Lego for example, there are also no underlying rights here to purchase...
Apart from that I agree entirely with bib's answer.
This isn't really an English question: there is no conceivable single way in which anything can be both unlike Lego and like Lego, so the question is only which of the two words represents the journalist's mistake. Fortunately, it is quite an easy question to answer. Does the Lego company have intellectual property rights(patents, copyrights, and the like) which had to be respected when making The Lego Movie or whatever it was called? Yes, as a quick internet search or a request to Lego's lawyers would reveal. Is there a company that has similar rights over emojis? Evidently not. So if you remove the extraneous like, the sentence makes perfect sense.
