Online since 2002. Over 3300 puzzles, 2600 worldwide members, and 270,000 messages.

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum

It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:48 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:31 am
Location: Greece, Australia, Thailand, India, Singapore.
Kelvin Stott wrote:
True, but a word of caution: filing a patent and understanding how they work in practice do not necessarily go hand in hand. In fact there are so many cases where patents are filed at great expense, but then the owner cannot afford to enforce them, which begs the question: why did they bother with a patent in the first place?


Yes, that can happen, but I am sure that is not the case here.


Kelvin Stott wrote:
Quite frankly, a simple design registration would be much more effective and a lot less expensive than a full patent for most puzzles...


Design trademark can be good for someone who wants to make for example a 3x3x3 mod. But for a new puzzle,
based on a unique mechanism, I believe it is worth it, especially if someone does it for more than just their worth,
and also, they satisfy certain important conditions like:

1. They can also enter the toy market
2. They are easy/cheap to manufacture.
3. They are so unique, they can impress after being tried out.
(let's call them Pantazis' rules LOL)


Pantazis


PS. The V-Cubes is a special case, as they might be complex to manufacture, and it might not be easy for them
to enter the toy market, but they are the natural extension of the most successful toy of all time, Rubik's Cube!

_________________

Educational R&D, Gravity, 4D Symmetry, Puzzle Ninja, Matrix Mech, Alien Technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:33 am
Location: Westchester, New York
if i were mr. verdez i would sue this company for all they're worth and tell 'em to take a hike and make their own puzzles not steal ideas of others

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/redroost80

R.I.P. Frank (Flambore) you will always be in my memories.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:22 pm
I still don't think this is any sort of threat to V-Cubes. Seems to me the company made it for collectors, which means the price is going to be higher than your regular everyday normal guy ('sup Lajoie) can afford or would be willing to spend the money.

Here's their target market:

*people with plenty of money to burn
*people who want a 9x9 (plenty don't and thats understandable)
*people with no qualms about buying a KO


I think thats niche enough that Verdes shouldn't sweat it. V-Cubes is the only company that could make this puzzle and not take a tremendous loss on it because V-Cubes has the name and rep to ensure they will be in business long enough to turn this monster of a puzzle profitable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
tattooed wrote:
I still don't think this is any sort of threat to V-Cubes. Seems to me the company made it for collectors, which means the price is going to be higher than your regular everyday normal guy ('sup Lajoie) can afford or would be willing to spend the money.

Here's their target market:

*people with plenty of money to burn
*people who want a 9x9 (plenty don't and thats understandable)
*people with no qualms about buying a KO


I think thats niche enough that Verdes shouldn't sweat it. V-Cubes is the only company that could make this puzzle and not take a tremendous loss on it because V-Cubes has the name and rep to ensure they will be in business long enough to turn this monster of a puzzle profitable.

I completely agree - taking someone to court in a foreign country is a serious business decision that would cost many years and many millions of dollars. Verdes has probably lost no more than a few dollars to a handful of collectors, so the following would simply not make good business sense:

RedRoost80 wrote:
if i were mr. verdez i would sue this company for all they're worth and tell 'em to take a hike and make their own puzzles not steal ideas of others

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:23 am
This certainly is outrageous. Greatness for the puzzle, though belittle the creater.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:59 am
Location: Glastonbury, CT (USA)
Kelvin Stott wrote:
tattooed wrote:
I still don't think this is any sort of threat to V-Cubes. Seems to me the company made it for collectors, which means the price is going to be higher than your regular everyday normal guy ('sup Lajoie) can afford or would be willing to spend the money.

Here's their target market:

*people with plenty of money to burn
*people who want a 9x9 (plenty don't and thats understandable)
*people with no qualms about buying a KO


I think thats niche enough that Verdes shouldn't sweat it. V-Cubes is the only company that could make this puzzle and not take a tremendous loss on it because V-Cubes has the name and rep to ensure they will be in business long enough to turn this monster of a puzzle profitable.

I completely agree - taking someone to court in a foreign country is a serious business decision that would cost many years and many millions of dollars. Verdes has probably lost no more than a few dollars to a handful of collectors, so the following would simply not make good business sense:

RedRoost80 wrote:
if i were mr. verdez i would sue this company for all they're worth and tell 'em to take a hike and make their own puzzles not steal ideas of others


Can we PLEASE refrain from making comments with no facts to back them up? I don't understand why people feel the need to do it so often.

First, arguing that Verdes is not losing a lot of money is crap, and completely off topic! The problem with this puzzle is not only that it is going to cut into Verdes' bottom line, but it is a violation of international patent (edit) laws just to make it! So no matter how you spin it, these people are breaking the law regardless of their intent.

Second, this is not their puzzle to sell! Mr. Verdes was the one who worked for YEARS to create this brilliant design, and he is entitled to do whatever he likes with his creation. These criminals who are making 9x9s have absolutely no right to do so.

Third, saying that "this is just for collectors". Has anyone actually looked into how ridiculously expensive and difficult it is to mass produce a puzzle? I've only scratched the surface by getting quotes and it already has my head spinning! I cannot imagine any practical reason why a company would spend the time and money making these to only sell to a handful of people. Companies are in business to make money, not lose it. So lets not assume that their "target market" is simply to collectors, just so we can call it "ok" and buy a 9x9.

Fourth, as an extension of the first argument, the argument that this doesn't effect the V-Cubes company is complete garbage. These sales do directly effect their profits. I don't care how you spin it, they do. If even just 100 people buy this puzzle, that is 100 people who are now far less inclined to buy a genuine V-Cubes one. Meaning the money of those 100 people is now in the hands of criminals, and not in the hands of the people who actually worked for years inventing the design. A small 100 people buying counterfeit 7x7s adds up to roughly $4,000 dollars. Are we assuming that Verdes is so rich that he can spare 4 grand without caring?

These 9x9s are wrong, and so far any argument otherwise seems to simply ban an excuse to make one feel better about buying knockoff products and stealing from V-Cubes.

_________________
Master Pentultimate Auction


Last edited by Scott Bedard on Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 12:45 pm
Location: Rochester, MN
kastellorizo wrote:
Kelvin Stott wrote:
As I said above, please do some reading and understand what patents really are and how they work before giving your opinions...


I agree. And there are bonus points for someone who has already filed one. ;)


So do I get 25 bonus points? Besides, the pending application that Verdes has with the US Patent Office has been updated a bit because some claims have been rejected and some have been updated. But you need to go through the PAIIR search to see the correspondence there. I think the original patent that Verdes has was written very poorly because the claims were very specific. Some of that has been addressed, but I don't believe so in the China case.

_________________
CubingUSA.com - Find other cubers, be notified of upcoming competitions, and more.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:31 am
Location: Greece, Australia, Thailand, India, Singapore.
Bryan wrote:
kastellorizo wrote:
Kelvin Stott wrote:
As I said above, please do some reading and understand what patents really are and how they work before giving your opinions...


I agree. And there are bonus points for someone who has already filed one. ;)


So do I get 25 bonus points? Besides, the pending application that Verdes has with the US Patent Office has been updated a bit because some claims have been rejected and some have been updated. But you need to go through the PAIIR search to see the correspondence there. I think the original patent that Verdes has was written very poorly because the claims were very specific. Some of that has been addressed, but I don't believe so in the China case.


LOL you certainly do get a *lot* of points Bryan. :)

I agree, there have been generalized cases regarding their usage. Loopholes will always exist,
and corrections are to me made. But still, in such clear cut cases like the V-Cubes, where no other
design had even come close to a 6x6x6, making a fake 9x9x9 is sacrilege!

;)


Pantazis


PS. And Scott, thanks for presenting the mathematical perpsective. Showing those numbers can demonstrate
the grave damage that companies can suffer, especially new businesses!

_________________

Educational R&D, Gravity, 4D Symmetry, Puzzle Ninja, Matrix Mech, Alien Technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
Scott Bedard wrote:
Kelvin Stott wrote:
tattooed wrote:
I still don't think this is any sort of threat to V-Cubes. Seems to me the company made it for collectors, which means the price is going to be higher than your regular everyday normal guy ('sup Lajoie) can afford or would be willing to spend the money.

Here's their target market:

*people with plenty of money to burn
*people who want a 9x9 (plenty don't and thats understandable)
*people with no qualms about buying a KO


I think thats niche enough that Verdes shouldn't sweat it. V-Cubes is the only company that could make this puzzle and not take a tremendous loss on it because V-Cubes has the name and rep to ensure they will be in business long enough to turn this monster of a puzzle profitable.

I completely agree - taking someone to court in a foreign country is a serious business decision that would cost many years and many millions of dollars. Verdes has probably lost no more than a few dollars to a handful of collectors, so the following would simply not make good business sense:

RedRoost80 wrote:
if i were mr. verdez i would sue this company for all they're worth and tell 'em to take a hike and make their own puzzles not steal ideas of others


Can we PLEASE refrain from making comments with no facts to back them up? I don't understand why people feel the need to do it so often.

First, arguing that Verdes is not losing a lot of money is crap, and completely off topic! The problem with this puzzle is not only that it is going to cut into Verdes' bottom line, but it is a violation of international copyright laws just to make it! So no matter how you spin it, these people are breaking the law regardless of their intent.

Second, this is not their puzzle to sell! Mr. Verdes was the one who worked for YEARS to create this brilliant design, and he is entitled to do whatever he likes with his creation. These criminals who are making 9x9s have absolutely no right to do so.

Third, saying that "this is just for collectors". Has anyone actually looked into how ridiculously expensive and difficult it is to mass produce a puzzle? I've only scratched the surface by getting quotes and it already has my head spinning! I cannot imagine any practical reason why a company would spend the time and money making these to only sell to a handful of people. Companies are in business to make money, not lose it. So lets not assume that their "target market" is simply to collectors, just so we can call it "ok" and buy a 9x9.

Fourth, as an extension of the first argument, the argument that this doesn't effect the V-Cubes company is complete BS. These sales do directly effect their profits. I don't care how you spin it, they do. If even just 100 people buy this puzzle, that is 100 people who are now far less inclined to buy a genuine V-Cubes one. Meaning the money of those 100 people is now in the hands of criminals, and not in the hands of the people who actually worked for years inventing the design. A small 100 people buying counterfeit 7x7s adds up to roughly $4,000 dollars. Are we assuming that Verdes is so rich that he can spare 4 grand without caring?

These 9x9s are wrong, and so far any argument otherwise seems to simply ban an excuse to make one feel better about buying knockoff products and stealing from V-Cubes.


Sadly, you completely missed my point. What I am saying is that spending millions of dollars to sue a small company thousands of miles away in China for the sake of a few thousand dollars does not make good business sense, since the company would probably go broke so that even if Verdes won the case, he would not be able to recover his own legal expenses.

I don't believe that ANY company should steal intellectual property, but sadly many do, it's just a fact of life. In fact this has been standard practice in China for many years, however it doesn't make financial sense to go after these companies because as soon as you go after one company, it goes broke, you end up with all the legal costs but no compensation even when you win, and then another one pops up. If the big multinational companies can't stop them copying their products, then how can you expect one individual to stop them?

Think about that for a second, before you tell people they don't know what they're talking about, especially when you don't know the difference between a patent and a copyright...

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:32 am
Location: Canada
legal actions are expensive and time consuming. If Verdes goes after the illegal manufacturers it will become an expensive endevour and will end up costing him in the end.

for example:

In the 1960's Duncan Toys tried to secure the trademark for the term "Yo-Yo" by suing other companies using the term.

The U.S. court of appeals decided ultimately that the term "yo-yo" had become generic and Duncan no longer had exlusive rights to the name. as a result of the legal expenses Duncan almost went bankrupt and was forced to sell the company.

Now this is clear patent violation and not a trademark dispute but if Verdes does pursue his legal rights there is the chance that it will bankrupt him and his company. It almost makes one powerless to stop this. and if he succeeds in shutting down one company, another will spring up to take its place and he'll have to start from the beginning.

this is usually why only large corporations start legal action as they are the only businesses with the money and resources to pursue anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
Exactly my point, thank you!

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:47 pm
Location: Houston/San Antonio, Texas
I honestly haven't decided if this is really wrong or not and rather than starting another debate on it, I will ask a different question, but one that is related to why I'm even considering the fact that this 9x9x9 production might not be as horribly illegal and unethical as others seem to instantly think.

What if a mass produced 13x13 cube was released tomorrow. Some individual studied the mechanism of V-cubes, figured out the pattern, and produced a 13x13 cube by extending the same pattern out to 13.
Illegal?
Unethical?
Both?
Neither?
I personally think the answer is neither but i want to see what others think. Try to keep it civilized please.

Peace,
Matt Galla

Briefly, I am thinking this may be ok because the producer clearly didn't directly mold a V9 because they aren't even out yet (Unless he somehow got his hands on a prototype and then did - in which case I totally agree: illegal and unethical) While the multi-layered design pattern that Verdes uses is pretty nifty, I don't think you can say he invented it. He DISCOVERED it. I believe that there is more or less really only one natural way of designing, say, a 9x9x9 and as long as this other producer had to design his puzzle around that pattern himself, I have trouble seeing what he did wrong, other than adding some competition to what would otherwise be a monopoly - but competition is good. If you disagree with any of this, please explain why and I will listen, but do so in a civilized manner please (I keep saying this because I realize I seem to be against everyone on this issue)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
This is actually very simple: if it infringes the claims of a patent in any way then it's illegal. But as discussed above, whether anything can be done about this is a different matter.

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:47 am
Location: near Utrecht, Netherlands
Allagem wrote:
I don't think you can say he invented it. He DISCOVERED it. I believe that there is more or less really only one natural way of designing, say, a 9x9x9 and as long as this other producer had to design his puzzle around that pattern himself, I have trouble seeing what he did wrong, other than adding some competition


I disagree. I don't think Verdes's design is inherent at all. There are a gazillion ways a 9x9x9 could be created.

I think saying he discovered the mechanism is incorrect. When the radio was discovered (bad example, but okay) somebody got a patent for it. Now you might say that is unfair as the radio is the only way of communicating without a physical wire and no patent should be awarded, but then, what can a patent be awarded for? The essence of patents is that if someone spends time discovering something the community pays them back by granting them the rights to their discovery.

While MAYBE the V-mechanism is inherent to bigcubes, Verdes spent time and money discovering (/optimizing) it. It would be unfair if anybody could just take it from him, which clearly is the case as the pictures match the patent near exactly.

_________________
Tom's Shapeways Puzzle Shop - your order from my shop includes free stickers!
Tom's Puzzle Website


Buy my mass produced puzzles at Mefferts:
- 4x4x6 Cuboid for just $38
- Curvy Copter for just $18
- 3x4x5 Cuboid for just $34


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
Allagem wrote:
I honestly haven't decided if this is really wrong or not and rather than starting another debate on it, I will ask a different question, but one that is related to why I'm even considering the fact that this 9x9x9 production might not be as horribly illegal and unethical as others seem to instantly think.
Well I think it is fairly well established that it is illegal. Look at the Verdes patents and it is pretty clearly covered.
Allagem wrote:
What if a mass produced 13x13 cube was released tomorrow. Some individual studied the mechanism of V-cubes, figured out the pattern, and produced a 13x13 cube by extending the same pattern out to 13.
Mr. Verdes stopped at 11 because beyond that there was a theoretical limit mentioned long ago in a post by Panatazis. If someone were to solve this and use that solution, inspired by the V-Cubes design, I can see no patent infringement. Mr. Verdes' claims stop at 11 by his choice (motivated by the design constraints, so it seems), so I think 13 would be fair game.

As for ethics, that gets a bit more sticky, but in the case you describe still not too bad. You describe using the "pattern" and extending it. If that were possible I would think it would be polite to discuss the matter with Mr. Verdes and talk with him about why he stopped and how your particular approach solves whatever reason he had for not pursuing higher. Perhaps a reason is just the fact that past a certain point injection molding something with so many unique pieces is not feasable to market at any reasonable price.
Allagem wrote:
because they aren't even out yet (Unless he somehow got his hands on a prototype and then did - in which case I totally agree: illegal and unethical) While the multi-layered design pattern that Verdes uses is pretty nifty, I don't think you can say he invented it. He DISCOVERED it. I believe that there is more or less really only one natural way of designing, say, a 9x9x9 and as long as this other producer had to design his puzzle around that pattern himself, I have trouble seeing what he did wrong, other than adding some competition to what would otherwise be a monopoly - but competition is good. If you disagree with any of this, please explain why and I will listen, but do so in a civilized manner please (I keep saying this because I realize I seem to be against everyone on this issue)[/size]
Whether or not Mr. Verdes has built a 9x9x9 to copy is besides the point: His patent defines any other 9x9x9 as illegal and unethical.

As for "discovered": You could apply that argument to any invention. What makes it any more "natural" than the Krell or East Sheen designs? It is superior, but who is to say another better mechanism is impossible? Perhaps it just needs to be "discovered". I won't say it was impossible for someone else to come up with a design like this, but no one in 25 years since the Rubik's cube did. Saying he "discovered" it makes it sound like it was something sitting around waiting to be found. Such language doesn't give proper credit and respect to the ingenuity of the creator.

As for a monopoly, that is what Patent law is all about: Giving a limited monopoly to encourage inventors to go through the trouble and expense of developing new products. Without it, who would bother? You spend all the time money and effort to create something and every other manufacturer gets it for free. They then can beat you on price because they don't have to recuperate all that investment. That isn't good competition at all.

Dave

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:59 am
Location: Glastonbury, CT (USA)
Kelvin, I was really more responding to the person that you were quoting, and this comment.
Quote:
Verdes has probably lost no more than a few dollars to a handful of collectors

Not the part about filing lawsuits against people. I never mentioned lawsuits anywhere in my post.

And I apologize for the word slip any saying copyright when I meant patent, I can see how that might have been confusing. But I know that I am not the first or last person to mix up words.

_________________
Master Pentultimate Auction


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
Thanks Scott, I appreciate that you didn't mention lawsuits, but you quoted my post which was entirely about the cost of lawsuits and then took that one line out of context, which is why I said you missed my point.

Anyway, I think the consensus view on this thread is that the puzzle is almost certainly illegal (only a court can judge for sure), but then there is very little you can do about it without taking a huge financial risk to sue, compared with the sales taken by the knock-offs, even if this amounts to many thousands of dollars. Case closed.

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:31 am
Location: Greece, Australia, Thailand, India, Singapore.
A nice reminder...


1. It is beyond my mind why people cannot realise that is both unethical and illegal to make a fake 9x9x9.
Which part you people do not understand? The existing patent? The fact that just because the original designer
has not made it, still makes it illegal? Ugh...

2. About the lawsuits. This is *exactly* what the October laws will do, i.e. make it easier to resolve such issues
for the original designers, and make it a nightmare for the copycats. If you have not read my post with the
appropriate link, please READ it, and ONLY THEN re-reply. I repeat, we are not in the 80s anymore. Ugh Nr2...
(Link : viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12933 )

3. Using loopholes of existing laws (which can then be patched), is not an excuse for such money oriented causes.
The original designer's business could need EVERY single cent which is lost to the criminals, especially when a
business is in a fragile state in the first few years. Ugh Nr3...



Pantazis

_________________

Educational R&D, Gravity, 4D Symmetry, Puzzle Ninja, Matrix Mech, Alien Technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm
kastellorizo wrote:
1. It is beyond my mind why people cannot realise that is both unethical and illegal to make a fake 9x9x9.


I wish you had worded that differently.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 6:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:31 am
Location: Greece, Australia, Thailand, India, Singapore.
Tony Fisher wrote:
kastellorizo wrote:
1. It is beyond my mind why people cannot realise that is both unethical and illegal to make a fake 9x9x9.


I wish you had worded that differently.



Fair enough, there are so many points that have to be filled every time, that it is almost
impossible to keep track on what is specifically meant.

So... to the point. The above sentence should had the part "for profit" added at the end.
(that is my personal opinion, which agrees with yours, but we also need to consider that
some countries do not even allow possession of fake ones for profit or not - because sadly,
it can create loopholes to the system which can be used by the same criminals).


Pantazis

_________________

Educational R&D, Gravity, 4D Symmetry, Puzzle Ninja, Matrix Mech, Alien Technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
kastellorizo wrote:
Tony Fisher wrote:

I wish you had worded that differently.


Fair enough,


I guess Tony refers to his fake 9x9x9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJIEBB9ry_E

Thomas

_________________
Image
My mods | My other hobby: www.unused-prince-tickets.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Nowhere in particular.
This is the way I see it:

First off, whether Verdes invented the mechanism or not, he patented it. If you don't think the whole thing is wrong, would you want someone producing knockoffs of your product? Verdes has worked long and hard to find a way to make these higher order puzzles. And what have these producers done? Broken the law by violating his patent, and then copied the drawings from his patent.

Pros: The 9x9 is now a turnable, tangible puzzle that is up for sale

Cons: The entire thing is illegal, and will badly hurt the V-Cube Company when they step up to produce the 9x9.

If you think pirating movies is wrong, then realize that the people who made the movie you'd be pirating wouldn't miss the money you didn't spend on the movie. Hundreds of thousands of copies would still sell, and maybe 5,000 people would pirate a copy. V-Cubes isn't some giant movie company. If just 100 people bought knockoffs over V-Cubes, it'd set the company back a lot.

These are just my views on the whole thing. I've been keeping up on the topic for a while now, and finally decided I'd post my thoughts.

Good luck Mr. Verdes! :)

_________________
~Kapusta

PB: At home (In Competition)
2x2 1.xx (2.88)
3x3 11.xx (15.81)
4x4 1:18.26 (1:24.63)
5x5 (3:00.02)
6x6 4:26.05 (6:34.68)
7x7 6:38.74 (9:48.81)
OH (35.63)

Current Goals:
7x7 sub 6:30
4x4 sub 1:10


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:31 am
Location: Greece, Australia, Thailand, India, Singapore.
Thomas wrote:
kastellorizo wrote:
Tony Fisher wrote:

I wish you had worded that differently.


Fair enough,


I guess Tony refers to his fake 9x9x9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJIEBB9ry_E

Thomas



LOL I forgot about that!!!!
(but surely, there is no patent infringement for that beauty, which is the only CUBIC 9x9x9 in existence!)


Pantazis

_________________

Educational R&D, Gravity, 4D Symmetry, Puzzle Ninja, Matrix Mech, Alien Technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:39 am
remember the recent X-men movie, Wolverine?

the bootleg was out in the market some time before the movie was officially released.

after the release of the actual movie, many still flock to cinemas to catch it.


people still like real stuff. =)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm
Thomas wrote:
kastellorizo wrote:
Tony Fisher wrote:

I wish you had worded that differently.


Fair enough,


I guess Tony refers to his fake 9x9x9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJIEBB9ry_E

Thomas


I did indeed. It was not meant as a serious statement.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:16 pm
The way I see it you get what you pay for. If you buy a chinese knock-off, your going to get a chinese knock-off, and with that you are taking money away from the hard working inventors who deserve it. If you buy a genuine product you get a genuine product, knowing that it is well built and backed buy well tested customer service, and that all the money is going to the hard working individuals who deserve it.

It all comes down to the fact that if no one buys the knockoffs, they wont make them.

_________________
"God does not play dice with the universe."~Albert Einstein
"Einstein, don't tell God what to do."~Neils Bohr

http://www.youtube.com/user/336616


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:59 am
Location: Glastonbury, CT (USA)
336616 wrote:
The way I see it you get what you pay for. If you buy a chinese knock-off, your going to get a chinese knock-off, and with that you are taking money away from the hard working inventors who deserve it. If you buy a genuine product you get a genuine product, knowing that it is well built and backed buy well tested customer service, and that all the money is going to the hard working individuals who deserve it.

It all comes down to the fact that if no one buys the knockoffs, they wont make them.


The problem though, is that clearly people are buying knockoffs, are buying a lot, and it doesn't look like they have any plans in changing. The fact that all of these new puzzles are being made / ripped off is proof that there is clearly quite a bit of money to be made by counterfeiting. It's really a sad fact.

_________________
Master Pentultimate Auction


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:57 am
Location: Στο Κάστρο του Αγίου Γεωργίου
Scott Bedard wrote:
336616 wrote:
The way I see it you get what you pay for. If you buy a chinese knock-off, your going to get a chinese knock-off, and with that you are taking money away from the hard working inventors who deserve it. If you buy a genuine product you get a genuine product, knowing that it is well built and backed buy well tested customer service, and that all the money is going to the hard working individuals who deserve it.

It all comes down to the fact that if no one buys the knockoffs, they wont make them.


The problem though, is that clearly people are buying knockoffs, are buying a lot, and it doesn't look like they have any plans in changing. The fact that all of these new puzzles are being made / ripped off is proof that there is clearly quite a bit of money to be made by counterfeiting. It's really a sad fact.


We have ~1,200 members here. Of these, most might tend to not buy knock-offs, but I guess that there are thousands of people around the world who are now in the situation I was in during the early eighties: not knowing about knock-offs, even not knowing who is holding patents.
So all the discussions here are for a very small number of potential buyers. That's a reality all the well-meant and correct informations given here on the forum cannot eliminate.
(all the uncounted non-members who visit this forum as guests cannot change the load - who of these is doing a google search for "patents violation 9x9x9 cube" before eventually buying one?)

_________________
...................Image..................
http://cube.helm.lu - http://gallery.helm.lu


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 3:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:31 am
Location: Greece, Australia, Thailand, India, Singapore.
Georges wrote:
Scott Bedard wrote:
336616 wrote:
The way I see it you get what you pay for. If you buy a chinese knock-off, your going to get a chinese knock-off, and with that you are taking money away from the hard working inventors who deserve it. If you buy a genuine product you get a genuine product, knowing that it is well built and backed buy well tested customer service, and that all the money is going to the hard working individuals who deserve it.

It all comes down to the fact that if no one buys the knockoffs, they wont make them.


The problem though, is that clearly people are buying knockoffs, are buying a lot, and it doesn't look like they have any plans in changing. The fact that all of these new puzzles are being made / ripped off is proof that there is clearly quite a bit of money to be made by counterfeiting. It's really a sad fact.


We have ~1,200 members here. Of these, most might tend to not buy knock-offs, but I guess that there are thousands of people around the world who are now in the situation I was in during the early eighties: not knowing about knock-offs, even not knowing who is holding patents.
So all the discussions here are for a very small number of potential buyers. That's a reality all the well-meant and correct informations given here on the forum cannot eliminate.
(all the uncounted non-members who visit this forum as guests cannot change the load - who of these is doing a google search for "patents violation 9x9x9 cube" before eventually buying one?)



What Georges said is correct. There are many customers who don't know and will never know about all these.
This is why we are trying to arise some awareness for at least the puzzlers who are visiting this forum.
But the main "battle" will be against the distributors who are *supposed* to be aware of those and still selling fakes.
And hopefully those October rules will make things easier than before. And for this, we shall see, we are just three
months away.


Pantazis

_________________

Educational R&D, Gravity, 4D Symmetry, Puzzle Ninja, Matrix Mech, Alien Technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm
Something to drool over until we get the real genuine thing.
THIS IS NOT REAL OR A HOAX. IT'S SIMPLY PHOTOSHOPPED.


Attachments:
photoshop 999.jpg
photoshop 999.jpg [ 76.07 KiB | Viewed 4156 times ]

_________________
Image
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:31 am
Location: Greece, Australia, Thailand, India, Singapore.
Well, it is easy anyway to find a 9x9x9:

Just turn 6x6x6 upside down!

:mrgreen:


Pantazis

_________________

Educational R&D, Gravity, 4D Symmetry, Puzzle Ninja, Matrix Mech, Alien Technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:55 am
Location: WA, USA
Tony Fisher wrote:
Something to drool over until we get the real genuine thing.
THIS IS NOT REAL OR A HOAX. IT'S SIMPLY PHOTOSHOPPED.


aww, but Tony! It looks so real!! :P

_________________
"This is Pretty off-topic"

"You are actually more off topic than me, you mentioned something on topic in the Off Topic forum."

"You more so for discussing the on-topic "off-topic" topic in the off-topic forum."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:55 pm
Location: U.S.
kastellorizo wrote:
Well, it is easy anyway to find a 9x9x9:

Just turn 6x6x6 upside down!

:mrgreen:


Pantazis


i wish things worked that way....lol

_________________
My Mods


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:33 am
Location: Westchester, New York
Quote:
i wish things worked that way....lol


I would love that to happen.. just turn the 6x6x6 upside down to the other side, and it magically changes to a 9x9 :D! :solved: :scrambled:

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/redroost80

R.I.P. Frank (Flambore) you will always be in my memories.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm
RedRoost80 wrote:
Quote:
i wish things worked that way....lol


I would love that to happen.. just turn the 6x6x6 upside down to the other side, and it magically changes to a 9x9 :D! :solved: :scrambled:


Yes but every time you flipped it over to see the other side it would change back. You would have to lift it carefully above your head. And how would moves on one affect the other? If the 9x9x9 is solved would the 6x6x6 automatically be solved also? But if you solved the 6x6x6 first I can't see the whole of the 9x9x9 being solved also. There are just too many factors to be considered here.....

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 9:58 am
Tony Fisher wrote:
RedRoost80 wrote:
Quote:
i wish things worked that way....lol


I would love that to happen.. just turn the 6x6x6 upside down to the other side, and it magically changes to a 9x9 :D! :solved: :scrambled:


Yes but every time you flipped it over to see the other side it would change back. You would have to lift it carefully above your head. And how would moves on one affect the other? If the 9x9x9 is solved would the 6x6x6 automatically be solved also? But if you solved the 6x6x6 first I can't see the whole of the 9x9x9 being solved also. There are just too many factors to be considered here.....


Tony you just fried my brain ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:22 pm
Scott Bedard wrote:
Kelvin, I was really more responding to the person that you were quoting


I stand by my comment that this is not near a threat enough to pursue legal action. The other quote you mentioned wasn't mine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:47 pm
Location: Houston/San Antonio, Texas
DLitwin wrote:
Allagem wrote:
I honestly haven't decided if this is really wrong or not and rather than starting another debate on it, I will ask a different question, but one that is related to why I'm even considering the fact that this 9x9x9 production might not be as horribly illegal and unethical as others seem to instantly think.
Well I think it is fairly well established that it is illegal. Look at the Verdes patents and it is pretty clearly covered.
Allagem wrote:
What if a mass produced 13x13 cube was released tomorrow. Some individual studied the mechanism of V-cubes, figured out the pattern, and produced a 13x13 cube by extending the same pattern out to 13.
Mr. Verdes stopped at 11 because beyond that there was a theoretical limit mentioned long ago in a post by Panatazis. If someone were to solve this and use that solution, inspired by the V-Cubes design, I can see no patent infringement. Mr. Verdes' claims stop at 11 by his choice (motivated by the design constraints, so it seems), so I think 13 would be fair game.

As for ethics, that gets a bit more sticky, but in the case you describe still not too bad. You describe using the "pattern" and extending it. If that were possible I would think it would be polite to discuss the matter with Mr. Verdes and talk with him about why he stopped and how your particular approach solves whatever reason he had for not pursuing higher. Perhaps a reason is just the fact that past a certain point injection molding something with so many unique pieces is not feasable to market at any reasonable price.
Allagem wrote:
because they aren't even out yet (Unless he somehow got his hands on a prototype and then did - in which case I totally agree: illegal and unethical) While the multi-layered design pattern that Verdes uses is pretty nifty, I don't think you can say he invented it. He DISCOVERED it. I believe that there is more or less really only one natural way of designing, say, a 9x9x9 and as long as this other producer had to design his puzzle around that pattern himself, I have trouble seeing what he did wrong, other than adding some competition to what would otherwise be a monopoly - but competition is good. If you disagree with any of this, please explain why and I will listen, but do so in a civilized manner please (I keep saying this because I realize I seem to be against everyone on this issue)[/size]
Whether or not Mr. Verdes has built a 9x9x9 to copy is besides the point: His patent defines any other 9x9x9 as illegal and unethical.

As for "discovered": You could apply that argument to any invention. What makes it any more "natural" than the Krell or East Sheen designs? It is superior, but who is to say another better mechanism is impossible? Perhaps it just needs to be "discovered". I won't say it was impossible for someone else to come up with a design like this, but no one in 25 years since the Rubik's cube did. Saying he "discovered" it makes it sound like it was something sitting around waiting to be found. Such language doesn't give proper credit and respect to the ingenuity of the creator.

As for a monopoly, that is what Patent law is all about: Giving a limited monopoly to encourage inventors to go through the trouble and expense of developing new products. Without it, who would bother? You spend all the time money and effort to create something and every other manufacturer gets it for free. They then can beat you on price because they don't have to recuperate all that investment. That isn't good competition at all.

Dave


So the main issue here is that this 9x9x9 as far as anyone can tell matches the design pictures as described in the patent? Fair enough, but i doubt this is an IDENTICAL copy of something yet to made. What if someone made a 9x9x9 tomorrow using a different mechanism and then releases that to the public? If the mechanism is different enough, is it legal? I'm thinking it must be because it already exists (Rubik's vs. Eastsheen) We don't consider Eastsheen a KO do we?
If I may assume the above point is true, then where do we draw the line between a legally different mechanism and an illegal KO? If it becomes a question of inspiration (If one designs a 9x9x9 because they were inspired by a V7) then isn't that how Eastsheen first came around. I have no proof, but it makes logical sense that someone realized a 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 could be constructed better (differently) after purchasing one and so designed what is now Eastsheen.

I think this can also be considered similar to the whole Gigaminx and Teraminx evolution. Unless I'm mistaken, Tyler Fox first designed the gigaminx. Then at some point, Drew (dunno if he was the first or not) decided to make a gigaminx, off of which he based his well-known Teraminx. I don't know the details of whether or not Drew had seen Tyler's design, but if so, I think it's fair to say Tyler's design influenced Drew in making his Teraminx - a puzzle that is currently being sold on Bedardpuzzles correct? Does this make Drew's Teraminx a knockoff? Of course not, because Tyler never had a patent claiming ownership of his Gigaminx design or claiming a future Teraminx design (as far as I know?) Suppose that Tyler DID have a patent though, does that mean any Teraminx design based off of his Gigaminx design is illegal?

The ONLY difference between the above proposed scenario (with Tyler's hypothetical patents in existence) and this 9x9x9 situation is the details in how similar Drew's design is to Tyler's design / how similar this 9x9x9 design is to the verdes design? Correct? (Please correct me if there is some huge gap in my logic) Now then this all boils down to an opinion on how much different a design has to be to not infringe on patent claims, right? But how can we possible claim legal rights or infringements over an opinion?????? :?
If even one judge thinks this 9x9x9 design is different enough from the proposed V9 design, who do you think would win this in an official trial?

Again, I am still open to this issue and willing to hear other's thoughts on this. You don't even have to agree with my conclusion, as long as I have made someone out there hesitate a second longer before condemning this (I don't want to use the word inventor here) builder's hard work to produce a fantastic puzzle regardless of its legal issues.

Peace,
Matt Galla


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:57 pm
there is a gap in your logic. Tyler purposely denied me any information on either the V1 or V2 gigaminx to inspire me to create my own mech, which turned out to be both stable and unique.

In terms of the teraminx, i followed the V-cubes patent for those more than anything (didn't discover the v-cubes patents until after the 1.5 gx was done)

Besides, there is no comparison to eastsheen or rubiks as the patents for rubiks are expired. there is a live patent for the V-mech, so also naturally, if the chinese 9x9x9 used a new mech then nothing would be wrong with it

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:14 pm
Location: Orange County, CA
Allagem wrote:
I think this can also be considered similar to the whole Gigaminx and Teraminx evolution. Unless I'm mistaken, Tyler Fox first designed the gigaminx. Then at some point, Drew (dunno if he was the first or not) decided to make a gigaminx, off of which he based his well-known Teraminx. I don't know the details of whether or not Drew had seen Tyler's design, but if so, I think it's fair to say Tyler's design influenced Drew in making his Teraminx - a puzzle that is currently being sold on Bedardpuzzles correct? Does this make Drew's Teraminx a knockoff? Of course not, because Tyler never had a patent claiming ownership of his Gigaminx design or claiming a future Teraminx design (as far as I know?) Suppose that Tyler DID have a patent though, does that mean any Teraminx design based off of his Gigaminx design is illegal?

(Please correct me if there is some huge gap in my logic)

Peace,
Matt Galla


This is like saying VCubes should be persecuted for making a v5 when Rubiks is making a Professorcube. The design gap between Drew and Tyler's first gigaminxs (v1.5 and v1 respectively) is so huge that it is a non-issue in ethics. And furthermore, the Teraminx uses a completely different mechanism than both of them. It uses the V mech, which is usually covered in a patent. However the dodecahedral shape yields completely different geometry within the mechanism, and is not covered (Verdes himself has verified this).

Your broken logic cannot hide the fact that this "builder" or creator of this 9x9x9 is illegally using a patent to create a knockoff cube that is intended to be sold. It is dishonest, and unethical. The mechanism is clearly a ripoff of Verdes's design.

_________________
-Garrett


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:00 pm
Just as an aside.

What if Konstantinos himself was to purchase this chinese 9x9, and use it to create the molds of the "Genuine" V9, with higher quality plastics and the like? What would this new puzzle, then be considered?


Certainly sounds like a good way of stiffing the copycats, while saving your own money.

What would you guys consider a re-xeroxed 9x9?



EDIT: A legal, genuine, "knock-off" of an illegal knock-off?

_________________
Sanity is only the commonly accepted level of insanity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:59 am
Location: Glastonbury, CT (USA)
I don't think that is likely to happen at all...

That would be like V-Cubes paying a chinese counterfeiter to violate their patents, lol.

_________________
Master Pentultimate Auction


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:47 pm
Location: Houston/San Antonio, Texas
Drewseph wrote:
there is a gap in your logic. Tyler purposely denied me any information on either the V1 or V2 gigaminx to inspire me to create my own mech, which turned out to be both stable and unique.

In terms of the teraminx, i followed the V-cubes patent for those more than anything (didn't discover the v-cubes patents until after the 1.5 gx was done)

Besides, there is no comparison to eastsheen or rubiks as the patents for rubiks are expired. there is a live patent for the V-mech, so also naturally, if the chinese 9x9x9 used a new mech then nothing would be wrong with it


Ah, I didn't realize the Gigaminx and Teraminx were so different in design, that is a fair point. I both expected and agree with Tyler's wish for you to make your own mech. I was also unaware of the rubik's patent expiration. Good argument :lol:

Garrett wrote:
Your broken logic cannot hide the fact that this "builder" or creator of this 9x9x9 is illegally using a patent to create a knockoff cube that is intended to be sold. It is dishonest, and unethical. The mechanism is clearly a ripoff of Verdes's design.


I also agree with this, if we can absolutely prove that he used the verdes design patent (my argument is moving more and more away from this isolatted incident and more and more towards a set of guidelines for future occurences)

I think in this case it is clear enough that this mechanism matches the patent pictures, but I'm still unsure of this exact line. Consider these four cases:
-1- If a designer views the patent of a future prototype, and then designs his own, following the pictures to the best of his ability, is it a KO?
-2- If a designer purchases a similar puzzle (ex. 7x7x7) and takes it apart to see how it works, and then modifies that design himself to construct an arguably different puzzle, unaware that there were pictures/details of such a design elsewhere, and his design somewhat resembles the patent but with minor differences, is it a KO?
-3- If a designer sees the exterior of a puzzle, and then figures out his own design but with the intention of matching the exterior of the puzzle he viewed, and just so happens to strike remarkable close to the patented version, is it a KO? Better yet, were his efforts futile? (I believe this actually occured with a man from somewhere in South America with the Rubik's 4x4x4 design if someone feels like doing more research)
-4- Finally, if two designers design the exact same puzzle with very similar mechanisms, unaware of eachother's work, does that make one (perhaps whoever attempted to get the patent second) a KO?

I believe the first case is a KO while the last case should be considered two fair competitors, but I think the other two cases are more a shade of grey. There is a chance (albeit slim) that this 9x9x9 designer falls not into case 1 as so many assume, but into case 2, which in my mind is still debateable.
Regardless, I think we should come up with concrete answers for cases 2 and 3.

Thank you everyone for their input, I'm nearly resolved :)

Peace,
Matt Galla

PS I still don't even know who the designer is so I am not trying to defend anyone, in case anyone was starting to think that :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:31 am
Location: Greece, Australia, Thailand, India, Singapore.
Allagem, I will remind my reminders (which was posted just above!), because it seems some people do not read them:


"A nice reminder...

1. It is beyond my mind why people cannot realise that is both unethical and illegal to make a fake 9x9x9.
Which part you people do not understand? The existing patent? The fact that just because the original designer
has not made it, still makes it illegal? Ugh...

2. About the lawsuits. This is *exactly* what the October laws will do, i.e. make it easier to resolve such issues
for the original designers, and make it a nightmare for the copycats. If you have not read my post with the
appropriate link, please READ it, and ONLY THEN re-reply. I repeat, we are not in the 80s anymore. Ugh Nr2...
(Link : viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12933 )

3. Using loopholes of existing laws (which can then be patched), is not an excuse for such money oriented causes.
The original designer's business could need EVERY single cent which is lost to the criminals, especially when a
business is in a fragile state in the first few years. Ugh Nr3...
"
"

Moreover, as said, you cannot compare this to puzzles which have an expired patent, the case is DIFFERENT.
In some countries, even the personal possession of a puzzle with an active patent, is ILLEGAL.

And for God's sake: it *IS* a Verdes mechanism, you only need a SINGLE LOOK to realise it.
Is it possible to read the patents carefully next time before making dangerous assumptions?
(criminals ALWAYS make the pieces slightly different to give them an excuse that their "design" is "new").

Thanks.


Pantazis


PS. Regarding the Drew's designs, he politely asked (through me) Verdes, and Verdes replied that he is not
interested in non-cubic shapes. I respect Drew for doing the right thing ethically, even though he didn't need to.
Sadly, neither me nor Verdes have yet the power to manufacture Drew's designs. Hopefully in the future,
we could do something nice together. The patent is for CUBIC ONLY.
PS2. Even if two different people found the same mechanism at the same time (which is not the case for
the V-Cubes), the first one who files and gets the patent has the full rights to it. A patent costs a LOT, and there
is a good reason for it. Any stellations, truncations, division of pieces, or any topologically "different" ways of
constructing the same mechanism which appears in an existing active patent, is simply a COPY, a FAKE, an ILLEGAL ITEM.

_________________

Educational R&D, Gravity, 4D Symmetry, Puzzle Ninja, Matrix Mech, Alien Technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
Just to add to the history here, Adam (PuzzleMaster42) created his Gigaminx after Tyler but before Drewseph. He didn't reveal the mechanism until recently (he gave me permission to post about my Gigaminx master repair and finishing of a set of his masters). His also chose a V-Cubes inspired design.
allagem wrote:
I also agree with this, if we can absolutely prove that he used the verdes design patent
Really, you need to do a bit more reading before making a claim like this. It is very, very, very obvious with only a look. It isn't responsible to imply it is in question as it might lead those who have not looked to question what is not really up for debate.
allagem wrote:
I think in this case it is clear enough that this mechanism matches the patent pictures, but I'm still unsure of this exact line. Consider these four cases:
The exact line would be decided in court. But based on your cases:
allagem wrote:
-1- If a designer views the patent of a future prototype, and then designs his own, following the pictures to the best of his ability, is it a KO?
The term "Knock off" is not well defined. One might say it is a direct reproduction of a physical object. One might say it is a non-exact reproduction of a physical object. One might say it is an exact or inexact replica of an abstract design.
Does it matter in this case if we call the clearly illegal and unethical infringement of the Verdes patent a "Knock off" or not?
allagem wrote:
-2- If a designer purchases a similar puzzle (ex. 7x7x7) and takes it apart to see how it works, and then modifies that design himself to construct an arguably different puzzle, unaware that there were pictures/details of such a design elsewhere, and his design somewhat resembles the patent but with minor differences, is it a KO?
Again the term "Knock off" isn't really important here. That applies more to non-patented puzzles. Still, knowing or not knowing about pictures in a patent doesn't change infringement. Copying from a disassembled cube is no better than from drawings. Not even knowing about the patent doesn't mean it does not infringe.
If the improvements are significant it may qualify for a different pattent. That is for a court to decide. There is nothing remotely different about this 9x9x9 (from the pictures) to distinguish it from the Verdes patent.
allagem wrote:
-3- If a designer sees the exterior of a puzzle, and then figures out his own design but with the intention of matching the exterior of the puzzle he viewed, and just so happens to strike remarkable close to the patented version, is it a KO? Better yet, were his efforts futile? (I believe this actually occured with a man from somewhere in South America with the Rubik's 4x4x4 design if someone feels like doing more research)
Ethically that is fine, but it still infringes. Aleh came up with and built a 4x4x4 identical to the Péter Sebestény design (but with 19mm cubies) used by the Rubik's before ever seeing one. He did not steal the design, but he could not have manufactured and sold it as a patent already existed.
allagem wrote:
--4- Finally, if two designers design the exact same puzzle with very similar mechanisms, unaware of eachother's work, does that make one (perhaps whoever attempted to get the patent second) a KO?
Again, "Knock off" is a term that doesn't seem to apply here, it generally applies to copying of existing produced puzzles. In this case you have independent creation (which happens, see above) and the first to get the patent awarded wins.
allagem wrote:
I believe the first case is a KO while the last case should be considered two fair competitors, but I think the other two cases are more a shade of grey. There is a chance (albeit slim) that this 9x9x9 designer falls not into case 1 as so many assume, but into case 2, which in my mind is still debateable.
Regardless, I think we should come up with concrete answers for cases 2 and 3.
What we call a Knock off or not doesn't really matter so much in the context of this thread. I think it would be good to come up with better language for outside-of-patent situations outside of this thread. Feel free to start that thread.

Dave :)

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:11 am
Location: Oregon, USA
kastellorizo wrote:
In some countries, even the personal possession of a puzzle with an active patent, is ILLEGAL.


Pantazis, were you referring to a particular case or a particular country? In most jurisdictions an inventor must initiate some sort of action to enforce his patent rights. A valid patent doesn't ordinarily make it "illegal" to own an infringing object, but it certainly gives the inventor the right to act against the infringer. (Citations: Australia, USA)

I helped my employer litigate one of my patents in 1996 and was surprised to learn the infringement hadn't broken any laws, and hence couldn't be prosecuted as a crime. (Admittedly, that might have been unique to the circumstances of that particular case.) But they were liable for punitive damages ("punishment money") because evidence emerged that they had been aware of the infringement and incorporated countermeasures into their product to disguise it. (I think the legal term was mala fides)

But regardless of whether posession is "illegal" Mr. Verdes has legal rights in those regions where patents have been issued, including the ability to block sales and imports. I wonder if unjust enrichment laws might apply, too.

_________________
See my blog about 3D printing puzzles at MySD300


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:31 am
Location: Greece, Australia, Thailand, India, Singapore.
VeryWetPaint wrote:
kastellorizo wrote:
In some countries, even the personal possession of a puzzle with an active patent, is ILLEGAL.


Pantazis, were you referring to a particular case or a particular country? In most jurisdictions an inventor must initiate some sort of action to enforce his patent rights. A valid patent doesn't ordinarily make it "illegal" to own an infringing object, but it certainly gives the inventor the right to act against the infringer. (Citations: Australia, USA)

I helped my employer litigate one of my patents in 1996 and was surprised to learn the infringement hadn't broken any laws, and hence couldn't be prosecuted as a crime. (Admittedly, that might have been unique to the circumstances of that particular case.) But they were liable for punitive damages ("punishment money") because evidence emerged that they had been aware of the infringement and incorporated countermeasures into their product to disguise it. (I think the legal term was mala fides)

But regardless of whether posession is "illegal" Mr. Verdes has legal rights in those regions where patents have been issued, including the ability to block sales and imports. I wonder if unjust enrichment laws might apply, too.



Yes, "particular case" sounds more appropriate. It is not easy to describe many things in the same message,
the topic needs a lot of analysis (which is why lawyers are needed LOL).

;)


Pantazis

_________________

Educational R&D, Gravity, 4D Symmetry, Puzzle Ninja, Matrix Mech, Alien Technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:02 am
I would like to say I have some moral objections to a chinese company stealing Mr. Verdes' patents, but not because the law says it's wrong. The government is NOT a moral authority. Some people give "it's wrong 'cause it's illegal" as an argument, I think that's unintelligable. Law does not dictate morality.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
Good point, law is supposed to reflect morality because morality dictates law, but that doesn't mean law dictates morality, and the latter is much broader in scope, more subjective and less clearly defined.

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9*9*9
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm
luke1984 wrote:
I would like to say I have some moral objections to a chinese company stealing Mr. Verdes' patents, but not because the law says it's wrong. The government is NOT a moral authority. Some people give "it's wrong 'cause it's illegal" as an argument, I think that's unintelligable. Law does not dictate morality.


Yes. I tend not to mug old ladies since it is wrong, not because it is illegal.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Forum powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group