Dayan vs. V-Cube Patent Infringement

kastellorizo said:

Finally! The truth is out. That proves many many things.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

What does that even prove?

Can you answer kirjavas question(s)? It's kind of getting annoying to see you repeatedly ignoring him.

kastellorizo: if you want people to seriously consider your posts, I suggest you:
- look up the definition of "sarcastic" (it isn't the same as "insulting")
- stop saying that you were insulted (we get it already, and we don't care since everyone's been personally insulted at this point) and just respond to actual posts
- not suggest that everyone in the community has a problem just because you saw it in the actions / post quality of some deleted posts (you see, unlike twistypuzzles, speedsolving is completely public - literally anyone can quickly get an account and post here)

PS: Don't bother trying to make Kirjava look insulting/immature/trolling/mean. We know he is; in fact that (combined with other things he does) is one of the reasons he's fun to have around on the forum. I'm getting kinda bored of reading so many straight ad hominem attacks or insults, and it would really be more interesting if you stuck to actual discussion.

I can wield this ban hammer all day folks. Be advised.

I'm sorry if this is a noobish question, but how can V-Cube possibly accuse a 3x3x3 cube of copying the V-Cube design, if the V-Cube 3x3x3 doesn't even exist (yet)?

Stefan said:

Lol, you have no idea how Youtube works. You can't edit a video there.

Click to expand...

Comments are part of a YouTube video, no need to be too pedantic. The insults I was referring were in the
(removed) comments, not the authors of the video.


And at least now, I have expressed (in my previous posts) my side of the story,
and inside all the mess, some people can see my points and make a conclusion themselves.

I will now focus on eating duck rice and drinking coconut juice.
Merry Christmas from Singapore, and I mean it for everyone here.


Pantazis

kastellorizo said:

Comments are part of a YouTube video, no need to be too pedantic. The insults I was referring were in the
(removed) comments, not the authors of the video.

Click to expand...

You really should have made that more clear, that that is what you meant.
Also, 99% of youtube comments are stupid.

kastellorizo said:

Comments are part of a YouTube video, no need to be too pedantic. The insults I was referring were in the
(removed) comments, not the authors of the video.

Click to expand...

Are you serious? Youtube comments are completely anonymous and are not part of a video in any way. Furthermore, they are in no way reflective of the makers of the video - in fact, if they were removed, it means they go AGAINST the opinions of the people who made the video! It is not only in bad faith, but completely illogical, for you to have criticized the video because of some of the comments there. That's like criticizing V-Cubes because of the bad spelling on the boycott petition.

I'm amused that you keep talking about removed things. You keep complaining about comments that insulted you, but they are always gone by the time anyone asks which ones. I'm sure there's some truth in what you're saying, but you need to realize that random people can literally say anything. If you don't have a hard enough skin to be able to ignore anonymous comments, the internet might not be the best place for you.

kastellorizo said:

Comments are part of a YouTube video, no need to be too pedantic. The insults I was referring were in the
(removed) comments, not the authors of the video.

Click to expand...

I disagree about that, but ok...

Now you just need to explain how they added showing the corner similarity. Into the actual video. I mean, they were "falsely claiming there is no resemblance to the patent", right?

kastellorizo:

I wish I could quote what you had said shortly after this thread began. About "the 2 in the video insulting Verdes multiple times"

And now you're commenting on my anonymous 13-17 year old subscribers that know no better.

I'm sorry to have upset you in this way. Instead of sorting out all the insults from youtube and speedsolving, let's work on the actual patent infringement issue. You're a business owner like myself right? Please be patient on this issue, thanks!

Why was this thread opened up again? Should we rename it to "The Kastellorizo Thread" because that seems to be the main topic now.

On-topic, I do find what Tim and Stefan say about the flaw in Ebay and Paypal etc patent infringement systems important and am surprised (not really) that it's being ignored by others on here. I think Ebay for having a stupid VeRo system is about as much at fault as (if not more than?) V-Cube is with this whole fiasco. Sure, V-Cube is wrong in even taking advantage of such a flawed system, but we also gotta blame Ebay for having that flawed system in the first place. Ya, this reminds me much of the WikiLeaks issue. Could it be that we're shooting the messenger? Regardless of V-Cubes' intentions with filing a patent infringement complaint with Ebay, the point is Ebay should have in set some sort of protection for its sellers from this kind of abuse (yes I say it's abuse because I stick behind my original opinion that his claim is unfounded and motivated by the wrong reasons).

Also kinda off-topic, looking at that "VeRO for Dummies" link that Stefan posted: "Through VeRo, buyers can be more secure about their purchases (imagine you just paid $500 on a designer purse just to find it was a fake!)"

I guess it really is VeRO for Dummies. That was a stupid example.

einstein00 said:

I'm sorry if this is a noobish question, but how can V-Cube possibly accuse a 3x3x3 cube of copying the V-Cube design, if the V-Cube 3x3x3 doesn't even exist (yet)?

Click to expand...

A patent is mainly just a piece of paper (or some form of legal document) and keeps an idea safe. There is no need for any physical object.

PhillipEspinoza said:

I do find what Tim and Stefan say about the flaw in Ebay and Paypal etc patent infringement systems important

Click to expand...

To clarify: I don't consider it a flaw. Or at least not ebay's fault. It's not ebay's job to play judge and decide what's legal to be sold, just like it's not WCA's job to play judge and decide what's legal to be played.

PhillipEspinoza said:

I guess it really is VeRO for Dummies. That was a stupid example.

Click to expand...

How so?

Stefan said:

To clarify: I don't consider it a flaw. Or at least not ebay's fault. It's not ebay's job to play judge and decide what's legal to be sold, just like it's not WCA's job to play judge and decide what's legal to be played.

Click to expand...

I understand it is not eBay's job to play judge, but what about requiring legal notification? Would you consider the following quote a flaw? Legal notification should pretty much eliminate it. I think just flagging the items as possible fakes until legal notification has come through would help the situation (but I suppose some people would purchase counterfeit products and still raise a fuss about it).

There are other problems with VeRO. Even if an eBay seller is found innocent and the merchandise is reinstated, the record is not cleared. The eBay seller’s account will still show the claim of copyright infringement leaving the seller vulnerable to potential permanent shut down. VeRO members who make false claims again and again are not reprimanded in the least, leaving them free to bombard sellers with willy-nilly accusations as they please.

Click to expand...

Since this was written by a user that doesn't seem to have an obvious link to being in eBay administration, I'm not sure about the truth/validity behind that, but it was taken right out of the link you provided.

fatboyxpc said:

I understand it is not eBay's job to play judge, but what about requiring legal notification?

Click to expand...

What is that?

fatboyxpc said:

Would you consider the following quote a flaw?

Click to expand...

That's a flaw, yes, but it's a different issue. At least I think that Phillip wasn't talking about that but about how easy it is to get an article removed.

Stefan said:

What is that?

Click to expand...

I meant that instead of just telling eBay that you believe a product violates your patent, you have proof and can provide a document that a judge has ruled in that favor.

Stefan said:

That's a flaw, yes, but it's a different issue. At least I think that Phillip wasn't talking about that but about how easy it is to get an article removed.

Click to expand...

I agree to both.

masterofthebass said:

why would eBay take the risk of selling an item and breaking the law on the grounds that a patent holder might not be telling the truth. If they take down the item, there's no real chance of them getting in trouble under the DMCA, but if they continue to sell the item after knowing it might be a KO, they are liable for damages. Businesses like to protect themselves first.

Click to expand...

To avoid situations like the quote in my previous post (which I do agree it is a separate issue). I'd say the liability would depend on the actions they take, and how good their legal counsel is. For example, flagging items as possible fakes would be a positive step. This would let the copyright holder know how many units were sold, let the consumers know it might be a fake, and would show a good gesture to the court(s) that you are trying to run a fair as possible business without harming the seller or the copyright holder. It has been said before (and I completely agree with this) that VI should be going after DaYan, instead of eBay/resellers.

fatboyxpc said:

I understand it is not eBay's job to play judge, but what about requiring legal notification?

Click to expand...

why would eBay take the risk of selling an item and breaking the law on the grounds that a patent holder might not be telling the truth. If they take down the item, there's no real chance of them getting in trouble under the DMCA, but if they continue to sell the item after knowing it might be a KO, they are liable for damages. Businesses like to protect themselves first.

By the way, anyone who thought that picture the troll posted was of an actual V3, it was from TomZ's 3d printed version found here:

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?11450-v-cube-3x3&p=166861&viewfull=1#post166861

This is definitely off-topic, but I can't find a way to PM kastellorizo as his inbox is still full <.<
So I think I'll just drop this here..

Hey, kastellorizo, are you still in Singapore?
Free to meet up?
Or is your schedule packed?

I live in Singapore, by the way ^^

cmhardw said:

I can wield this ban hammer all day folks. Be advised.

Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Anyone following this thread can now see Thom had been banned, deservedly so, but you and the other mods coming on here like F**kin' Thor with your threats and declarations are getting a bit tiresome. Do your work quietly in the background, ban who needs banning, PM those who specifically need a warning. Otherwise, IMO these type of posts are just as immature as the ones that deserve deletion... perhaps like this one?

I disagree prostx23. Chris politely reminding the readers of this thread of the power of his awesome banhammer gives posters a final warning before he drops it upon their domes. I personally don't think Kirjava deserved a ban, but who cares. I wouldn't call Chris immature for his post, just displaying his authority (totally necessary, imo.)