Thoughts on Rubik’s recently?

[The Pocket Cuber]

I think that Rubiks are trying to promote speedcubing to the world with a more "spectator friendly" kind of competition. What they don't realise is that
1. This is SUPER bad timing
2. They have the money to destroy the WCA and pay people like Mats and Max Park to be at the comps
And much more

Overall, I really don't like Rubik's right now, however I don't think they're trying to hurt the cubing community

 

[Tony Fisher]

Rubiks is the new Vcube.Once loved but hated by speedcubers everywhere for their greediness.

How on earth has V-Cubes been greedy? It's the KO companies that copied a legally protected design instead of spending their own money and time creating one from scratch that are greedy. V-Cubes spent an enormous amount of time and money only to have their revenue stolen. They are no different to any other normal company going through standard legal ways to protect themselves.

 

[Ronxu]

How on earth has V-Cubes been greedy? It's the KO companies that copied a legally protected design instead of spending their own money and time creating one from scratch that are greedy. V-Cubes spent an enormous amount of time and money only to have their revenue stolen. They are no different to any other normal company going through standard legal ways to protect themselves.

their cubes suck tho so who cares

 

[One Wheel]

How on earth has V-Cubes been greedy? It's the KO companies that copied a legally protected design instead of spending their own money and time creating one from scratch that are greedy. V-Cubes spent an enormous amount of time and money only to have their revenue stolen. They are no different to any other normal company going through standard legal ways to protect themselves.

There are a few ways to protect a business advantage. One that is not relevant to cubing is by monopolizing raw materials. Other ways are to make the best product and innovate, or to leverage the legal system to put your competitors out of business. Companies like Shengshou, Dayan, Moyu, Qiyi, and Yuxin have chosen the former and thereby earned the respect of cubers who are more interested in function than the more esoteric (still real, just harder to understand) concept of intellectual property. V-cubes and Seven Towns/Rubik's have thrown their lot in squarely with the litigation strategy, and for the most part ignored innovation beyond initial development.

As a side note, is there actually proof that the "knockoff" companies actually stole a design rather than developing it independently? I know that, for example, Rubik's lawsuit against theCubicle is based on the 3x3 colored grid, which is inherent to the function. V-Cubes' contention as I understand it, is based on the basic shape of the cuts, and while there are other options there are only a couple of possibilities especially if you're going to interpret it as broadly as V-Cubes has.

 

[ariissleeping]

I am more or less sharing an opinion with Dana Yi as of now. Redbull's competitions are generally will organised and also appeal to a mainstream audience. An example is their paper plane competition. However the, um, non involvement of the WCA I find quite disappointing, and the compulsory usage of the RSC is annoying.

However on Rubik's' case, I feel that they are trying to force the community onto their cubes, making themselves more money. The compulsory usage of the RSC combined with the lawsuit thing all point to their mentality being "let's get rid of the competition so the audience but ours without regarding their opinion (that our cubes are bad and no one wants to use them) so they but our cubes"

Overall, rather disappointed.

 

[cuber314159]

How on earth has V-Cubes been greedy? It's the KO companies that copied a legally protected design instead of spending their own money and time creating one from scratch that are greedy. V-Cubes spent an enormous amount of time and money only to have their revenue stolen. They are no different to any other normal company going through standard legal ways to protect themselves.

But shengshous cubes were improvements if I am not mistaken so to try and soo shengshou for creating better cubes is not very different from Rubik's

 

[Fábio De'Rose]

only to have their revenue stolen

I can only speak for myself, but I can safely assume other people, just like myself, opted for purchasing any other but V Cube's products, so as an end buyer this is far from "stealing" and more like "choosing".

But who cares about V Cubes anyway, lol. Their products are of objectively inferior quality, and have been so for a decent while now.

 

[Cubed Cuber]

Rubiks is just jealous of theCubicle and of the WCA

Why won't Rubiks just try to make better cubes at a cheaper price?
The Qiyi Qidi(https://thecubicle.us/qiyi-qidi-p-8915.html) is waaaaay better than a rubiks 2x2 at a much lower price.

 

[Tony Fisher]

As a side note, is there actually proof that the "knockoff" companies actually stole a design rather than developing it independently?

They pretty obviously are (we waited over 20 years for a cube bigger than a 5x5x5 and almost immediately almost identical designs were released) but it doesn't actually matter. Under an internationally agreed law the company that proves itself to be the first has the sole rights to make it. Any reputable company will do their own patent searches before producing a new product. Should that product already exist they wouldn't produce it and have no legal right to anyway. The law doesn't make a distinction between "I just copied it" and "I thought of it too, honest gov". If people think this law is wrong then they should get into politics and seek to change it. BTW quality of the product or slight changes are not sufficient to nullify patent law.

 

[Mike Hughey]

There is a very big difference between what V-Cubes did and what Rubik's did. V-Cubes' behavior is very much in the spirit of patent law. Patents are intended to protect a design for a short time, so the inventor can recoup their initial research investment. V-Cubes loses all rights to pursue the issue once the patent expires - probably 17 years.

On the other hand, Rubik's' patent expired quite a while ago. They are trying to misuse copyright and trademark laws to try to protect something that should only be patentable. Rubik's' behavior is absolutely reprehensible - it perverts the law. They've had their chance to collect on the design - that ended when the patent expired.

 

[pglewis]

They pretty obviously are (we waited over 20 years for a cube bigger than a 5x5x5 and almost immediately almost identical designs were released) but it doesn't actually matter. Under an internationally agreed law the company that proves itself to be the first has the sole rights to make it. Any reputable company will do their own patent searches before producing a new product. Should that product already exist they wouldn't produce it and have no legal right to anyway. The law doesn't make a distinction between "I just copied it" and "I thought of it too, honest gov". If people think this law is wrong then they should get into politics and seek to change it. BTW quality of the product or slight changes are not sufficient to nullify patent law.

I'm curious if you've filed any patents for puzzle designs, there are puzzles that bear your name after all. And if so, I'm curious how the licensing works, at least, as much as you're willing to divulge

 

[cuber314159]

There is a very big difference between what V-Cubes did and what Rubik's did. V-Cubes' behavior is very much in the spirit of patent law. Patents are intended to protect a design for a short time, so the inventor can recoup their initial research investment. V-Cubes loses all rights to pursue the issue once the patent expires - probably 17 years.

On the other hand, Rubik's' patent expired quite a while ago. They are trying to misuse copyright and trademark laws to try to protect something that should only be patentable. Rubik's' behavior is absolutely reprehensible - it perverts the law. They've had their chance to collect on the design - that ended when the patent expired.

But how close can the deaigns be to each other, surely vcube can't patent the idea of big cubes, surely they can only patent their specific design of the pieces as capitalist societies rely heavily on innovation and improvement of products, and competition encourages this and prevents monopoly in the market.

I'd far rather qiyi monopolise the cube market by having the best cubes than Rubik's shutting down cube manufacturers.

 

[Mike Hughey]

It is absolutely true that patent law is limited by the specificity of the ideas patented. So a changed design can potentially bypass the patent. That sort of thing is worked out in court, so V-cubes might lose cases they bring against other designers based on that. But at least the V-Cubes cases are within the spirit of the patent laws. The Rubik's cases are not.

 

[qwr]

Ebay just took down a listing of mine for a 4x4 Qiyi "Rubik's cube" . Weirdly enough they took it down after it was sold and I already shipped it out. All my other listings only say "cube" or "magic cube" so those were probably generic and safe, and it is my fault for listing it as a Rubik's cube when it is not Rubik's brand. But this aggressive trademark enforcement leaves me with a bad impression.

 

[TheSlykrCubr]

Ebay just took down a listing of mine for a 4x4 Qiyi "Rubik's cube" . Weirdly enough they took it down after it was sold and I already shipped it out. All my other listings only say "cube" or "magic cube" so those were probably generic and safe, and it is my fault for listing it as a Rubik's cube when it is not Rubik's brand. But this aggressive trademark enforcement leaves me with a bad impression.

We're gonna have to be careful if we wanna sell on ebay/amazon in the future

 

[cuber314159]

To be fair, just don't list cubes as 'Rubik's' anyway, it's not good for the community even if they don't try to take the listings down.