I saw this news on [removed]. If this is not authorized by Tony Fisher, I feel very sorry. The factory is called [removed]. It is one of the several factories making knockoffs of the mirror cube, v-cubes. In today's announcement, they offer samples of fisher cubes for cubers to test. They claim that they will never put this product to the retail market, which I really doubt.

If this post is inappropriate, please delete it. I just want to bring it into attention.

I don't understand how these people can feel okay about what they are doing. It makes me sick.

I guess we won't know for sure until Tony responds to this thread, but I'm pretty sure these are KOs. So, this will be deleted if he doesn't approve.

- Billy

This is awful, poor Tony. He takes such pride in his original designs. And this is a design by him that every cuber knows. I just hope they don't sucseed

Technically it's not a KO since Tony didn't patent the design (or am I wrong?), but it's still not ok at all. These companies are losing all of my respect for copying other peoples designs.

Tony? Where are you? What are your thoughts on this puzzle?

Right, the Fisher Cube is so famous, that even this KO is named as "Fisher Cube". The name gives Tony Fisher some credit. But is it enough? Only Tony himself can judge it.

my search skills suck but there is a thread where Tony discusses his puzzles and which ones he doesn't want to be produced for sale.

Exactly. It's respect...not law. These would be KOs either way. A puzzle doesn't have to be patented or even mass produced for a KO to be made from it. Even though the Fisher Cube is in the grey area it is a puzzle that is synonymous with Tony Fisher. They are forever inner-twined. I always thought that the Fisher Cube should have been in the "Please don't copy to sell" section. His name is on it for God's sake!

I was about to post the link but Logan_The_Cuber beat me to it.

- Billy

Yes, these were certainly made without my consent. I don't really want to get into another massive conversation about rip-off puzzles and will simply say this-
I would still prefer it if they or anyone else didn't make the puzzle and I would certainly still object to someone putting a hand made one on the market place forum. However if this company decides to sell them I don't want it to be a taboo subject. If that happens then I won't mind if people buy them and talk about them. I just don't want to be that petty. This is different to the fake V-Cubes situation anyway. However there might be a separate issue with purchasing anything from such a company but I will leave that up to Sandy and Sausage and of course people's consciences.

I still don't have a fisher cube and kind of want one still. Tony, if I were to purchase this, could I pay pal you some money as kind of a leasing arrangement since the company making them obviously isn't giving you anything.
Yeah I know I'm being silly, but I'm somewhat serious.

-d

As instantly recognizable as the classic design is, admittedly it's not the one that I'd personally consider untouchable if I had to make a Sophie's Choice about which Fisher mods to protect. And at the very least the name will always be associated with the puzzle.

What angers me is that they're making knock-offs, and not giving credit to any of the builders whatsoever. I think that's wrong by all levels!

well, at least they didn't rename it, calling it a fisher cube still is at least giving tony something.
They really should have consented him though, but honestly I don't think it will sell well.
I know I don't really care for a fisher cube at all, I'm not sure it's appealing to that many people.

It is a bit of a grey area...
I do appreciate what you're all saying about respect and KOs, but Tony is not currentlyproducing this puzzle and I'm not aware if he has any plans in doing so. He came up with the idea, which is great, but if there is no effort to protect and develop it into a puzzle available for the many, it's hard to see a reason not to purchase a chinese version of it. There is a very big difference between having an original idea, and actually making it happen on a large scale, and it's the fundamental difference here. If every time someone came up with an original idea and just said "hey, that's my idea, I'm not going to do anything about it and I don't want anybody else exploiting it", and if things would just end there, we wouldn't have any puzzles to buy.
If Tony made an effort of producing it, may it be himself or through someone else (like Meffert's and the golden cube), then I would categorically say "do not buy a chinese replica of this" and I would be 100% behind Tony in the aim of protecting his investment (may itbe energy or money).
But it isn't the case.
I love this forum and i'm always amazed at all the wonderful things that members create, and especially their dedication, I hope you won't hate me for what I have written

EDIT: By the way, I do admit it's really lame that the guys producing the replica didn't get Tony involved at any moment

Well, yes, but the company should at least be paying fisher small royalties or something...
I mean, fisher now has to just watch as a company takes his idea... he gets nothing out of it except maybe a little publicity from the name.

Yes, I totally agree with you

I spent a while writing this up (for Jason), and while you now have seen the point I do want my post to be out there for others:

Just because Tony didn't actively work towards getting the Fisher Cube mass produced, that does not mean he dropped his rights.

Some people would have said: "get a patent", but any creative work is protected by copyright. It would be notoriously difficult to prove in court but the Fisher Cube rightfully is his intellectual property. Saying Tony should have gotten a patent if he wanted protection is not correct!

When manufacturer X made their plans to produce the Fisher Cube, they should have asked Tony about it and offered a small royalty. I'm sure Tony would have agreed and we could all enjoy legitimate Fisher Cubes now.

Unfortunately, the manufacturer wanted to save $.50 per cube and decided to go the other way.

It's not anyone's obligation to (actively) make their ideas widely available, that would be ridiculous. Now if Tony had refused a reasonable royalty offer then things might be different but as for now I don't see a reason to consider it Tony's fault.

I'm not sure there are any rights to drop



I agree, patents are expensive and hard to protect. I attended a lecture given by the chief of the UK patent office. He said himself that most of the time things aren't worth patenting.


Of course, but it would be ridiculous to prevent the idea of ever seeing the day on the grounds that the person wished (in the name of what?) that the puzzle should not ever be produced by someone else.



Of course it's not Tony's fault, and never said it was. The only fault commited was not to include Tony in the cycle.

I agree the situation sucks a bit, but I still don't think think there is a truly valid reason to oppose the mass production of the puzzle.
Maybe we could organise some sort of fund for Tony through this site and paypal. If the puzzle is ever mass produced, I would be willing to pay the same amount again to the "Tony fund" if I purchased it. Hopefully other people on this forum would do the same. This way, everybody wins!!!

Tom, could you give us examples of mechanical devices (which a puzzle is) protected by copyright, instead of a utility or design patent? I had an impression that copyright is for creative works like literature - songs, poetry, novels, or other writings. And the protection is for verbatim use of the protected work.

Moreover, even if he had a utility or design patent, it has a maximum period during which is maintains its force. And even more, you need to pay each year to support it and confirm that you use it. If you don't, you may easily lose it thus allowing others to use it. Essentially you do lose your rights to have a monopoly on the invention.

I've seen a lot of posts saying that it's a good thing that they attached his name to it. If I were Tony, I'd be even more upset that my name was attached to my puzzle, that was being made without my consent!

This isn't being made by that guy from the Alexander star thread , is it?

I find the puzzle very acceptable. Credit was given, as it was named Fisher Cube, and on top of that, it's been over twenty years since the first was created. Patents usually don't even hold up that long.

Yes the "rights" of this puzzle were held by Tony for a while, but how long can he really hold them? His whole life? I think twenty years of design exclusivity is more then enough, especially on a relatively simple shape mod.(Simple NOW, not then ) Unless Tony has motives of having this produced, I think this is 100% ethical.



The strangest thing is the company feels it's ok producing Patented, newly released ideas(Vcubes) and selling them(although conception was over 20 years ago, ideas are new to the public), but refrains from producing a simple, unpatented, 20 year old (to the public) idea


Bottom line, this production is much much better then many of their past releases, and is definately a step in the right direction, as long as they don't star cranking out newly conceived ideas.



What say you Tony Fisher?

Even if it's not KO does not mean it's not OK. Certainly, although this cannot be considered a KO, as there's no patent, does that make it morally correct to mass-produce them against the inventor's will?

Emarx: After reading you post, I find that you are 100% right!

Tony already posted. He's the tenth post from the top.

- Billy

Briefly,
If it is to be produced I prefer it to have the name Fisher Cube so people will always know who originally made it.
Also, I have not stopped making them though with so many puzzles I do not get round to them very often.
Whatever my rights (or lack of them) over this puzzle I think that it is sad that people with the ability to produce a puzzle whether it's bigcatjones or this Chinese company, can't simply come up with their own designs. It's not exactly hard. Original puzzles are so much better since they avoid any bad feelings which potentially affect sales and they establish and build the reputation of the creator. It really surprises me that people even bother copying others. It's not exactly like making fake Rolex Watches.
Lastly, I honestly don't want any sort of fund or payments but thank those suggesting it.

I know. Alot has been said since his first post, and I just wanted a deeper scope of Tony's view.



Thank you Tony.

I agree, original puzzles or old, non-mass-produced-anymore puzzles are much better than copying existing puzzles...
people on this forum and people like oskar make them all the time, and they tend to sell like there's no tommorow!

I was trying to search for the deleted reference in the top post and google offered me this:


I applaud Tony for designing such an iconic fridge and starting the whole customised fridge craze.

It is ironic that the one thing about the Fisher Cube that COULD be legally protected now after 20 years is the name "Fisher Cube" as a well established trademark, yet that's the one thing Tony seems happy HAS been copied without consent.

I am far from happy but they are Fisher Cubes whether they are fake or not. It's about pride as much as anything. At least people who buy them will know It is my puzzle.

Tony, I was just suggesting that you might want to keep "Fisher" as your own trademark for puzzles which you have built personally, not just those which you originally designed but were copied by others. At least this way you can maintain some distinctive brand for the puzzles you build yourself, but by allowing others to copy the name Fisher, this becomes a generic description of a certain type of puzzle, no matter who built it. I would seriously advise you to think whether this is what you really want, but it is your decision.

Kelvin has a good point there. It is the same reason why the Rubik brand is fiercely defended by Seven Towns.
Quality over quantity.




Pantazis

You guys obviously know more about this stuff than me so I may be wrong here but this is my thinking-
If we look at just the Fisher Cube. Say over the next five years lots and lots of them are produced and sold around the world as Fisher Cubes. Little Jimmy from New Zealand is into puzzles but not enough to know who I am or about the forum. However he buys a Fisher Cube and really likes it. He now knows the name Fisher and one day when he's searching ebay or perhaps You Tube he finds my puzzles and realises his Fisher Cube was originally made by me. Isn't this better than probably never linking the two together and simply assuming I'd just made a copy if he ever saw a real Fisher Cube? Although I am strongly opposed to it's production isn't there an upside that it promotes my name and puzzle making? I guess the Fisher Cube is the only one where this would happen since none of the others contain my name in the title. If my Golden Cube was ripped off it would simply be called Golden Cube and not Tony Fisher's Golden Cube so I don't see how protecting my name would help.
I am asking questions here not arguing by the way.

Actually, your thinking is not wrong. Both me and Kelvin are constantly thinking of the benefits of the mass
market. That is, if a huge company releases the Fisher Cube, you would surely be entitled to some royalties.
And since it is the mass market, little Jimmy would find out about the Fisher Cube the right way.

From what I have seen, you are not interested (so far) in mass producing the Fisher Cube. However, if this
3x3x3 mod becomes popular and a company mass produces it, you should ask some legal advice for how to
get your deserved credit and royalties. For example, the chinese company seems to give credit, but no royalties.
Had this happened in USA or Europe, they could not be able to get away with it. In China things get more complex.


Pantazis

Because there has been no consensus reached on how long someone can keep their own design theirs (ie 2 years, 5 years etc), then for the sake of going for the best option, for now we are going to have to say that the Fisher Cube design (or any other inventors design) is theirs (Tony's in this case) indefinitely, or until Tony releases a comment otherwise.

So in short... revealing links to this new unauthorised Fisher Cube will be considered a violation of the KO policy.

Tony Fisher is an icon in the puzzle building world, the fact that this hasn't happened yet it simply mind boggling. Maybe that's a pretty pessimistic perspective but I mean, if you're going to knock off a basketball shoe, you rip off a pair of Jordan's (obviously, I haven't watched a NBA in forever).

Anyways, I like Tony's outlook on it, he just wants his name mentioned with the puzzle so credit is given if only in name. In any account, I'm sticking to my own morals when it comes to this sort of thing and not buying blatant knock offs.

Recently a lot of smack has been given to C4Y for their practices but if you only buy original designs, they will only make/sell original designs because it just won't make good business sense to do otherwise. Sorry if that takes it off topic but I just think people should use a little logic and reason when it comes to this sort of thing and make purchases that help the community instead or hurting it. These companies have the ability to give us puzzles we all want, buy originals not copies but don't boycott those who ignorantly produce knock offs, if we don't buy them, they won't continue to make them.

Tony, I am not a professional expert in intellectual property, but I have learned a lot by reading up on the subject and by talking to professional patent agents, so this is what I would recommend, you have very little to lose:

Go and talk to a patent agent. All the good ones offer one hour free consultation, and you can talk to as many like this as you want, with no obligation and nothing to lose. Ultimately, I suggest that you ask one of them to draft and send an official letter demanding some reasonable royalties for using your trademark. Patent agents are expensive to hire, but this should take no more than one hour and cost no more than a couple hundred quid. But if you are not too greedy with your royalties, the company should accept, if they would still like to use your name without the risk of being sued. Otherwise they will have to change the name but then this would only strengthen your own distinctive brand, or you could even ask the patent agent to fund a lawsuit themselves if they believe they have a strong case, like the lawyers do with accidents in the US.

Either way, you have nothing to lose by talking to a professional, as long as you make sure the initial consultation is free. You will even learn quite a bit about intellectual property for free. But please don't allow KOs to attach poor ethics and quality - and possibly safety - to your own name!

kelvins Idea sounds good, if I had a puzzle to protect, I would do what he just said.

I have mixed feelings about this. Of course it's not good to buy a KO puzzle, but on the other hand, assuming the sizing is right, the pieces could be easily swapped out with a regular cube to make an Octagon Barrel and a Star Cube...

Thanks.
Naturally I am not going to reveal personal financial details of my puzzle making but I will say this very long sentence. I believe as a semi professional low volume puzzle maker who merely wants to earn an hourly wage that matches my low paid regular job, none of the options presented are financially worth pursuing. That includes those by Kastellorizo on other threads. If I set out all the figures as I would for a financial adviser I believe everyone would agree. The only realistic option would be to totally change my puzzle making habits which are what to me make the hobby/business so enjoyable.
Having said that there is another option which today I have already started to pursue. I cannot share it yet but it won't cost me a penny and may partly solve the situation.

Whatever it is you think of doing, go for it. The worst thing you can do in this situation is to do nothing and pretend it never happened.

can someone post a picture? i would never buy one im just interested

Its sad this is happening, even worse now that the ones Im seeing around dont even have the Fisher Cube name attached to them.

Tony, one more idea, perhaps this is what you are already thinking of:

You could offer to license out the use of your signature on these KOs in return for some royalties? This way you would get full credit both in name as well as some compensation; plus the KOs would then have your endorsement so they would no longer be KOs. This would be an easy Win-Win for both you and the KO company, so they should be willing to go along with this, without any fight.

Just a thought, but might be worth trying?

It's difficult for me to comment until things are sorted out and I can make some clear statements. However I believe there will be a time in the not too distant future that people will be able to buy a legit factory made Fisher Cube with my name on it.

This just made my day

Awesome! I really want one since my first attempt was... lets just say unsuccessful. Cant wait for a real Fisher Cube!

Is this the next Meffert puzzle?

Wouldn't that be wonderful

This is super-duper great news. I really hope to see this puzzle soon

Tony, on your originals, are the edges square, or are they rectangular?