Knock-Off vs Real Puzzles: A Suggestion

[PharaohsVizier]

I'm confused. I'm still new, but couldn't you say DIY cubes are fakes/knockoffs of the original Rubik's Cube? Doesn't that mean if you buy a DIY cube or a C4Y cube or whatever it doesn't support Rubik's?

If that's true, then doesn't that mean that a lot of people on this forum have knockoff cubes? And then according to these guys it is morally wrong?

Please read the entire thread.

We're not concerned with knockoffs in general, I'm talking about patent infringing counterfeit products.

Fair enough, but all this talk about some knockoffs being okay, while others aren't. Again, I'm relatively new, I haven't looked into Rubik's Cubes for a long time, I've just been happily playing away with my real Rubik's until recently.

Now that I've read the entire thread, I realize you are concerning yourselves with V-Cubes. Which made me think of another point.

If some cubes are okay to counterfeit and others aren't, how are average consumers, even some more experienced ones supposed to know that? I mean how often do guys look up patent infringements on the products they buy. It seems odd to me that most knockoffs are legal except this series, and I didn't know about this at all... This certainly cannot be compared with cars where the law is pretty black and white, there is a blur. After reading this thread, it seems there are products that you guys aren't even sure if they are legal or not. That is NOT a good enough reason to boycott all fakes. Just because you guys THINK it might be illegal, or PRETTY SURE it is, you are asking people to buy a more expensive product? Perhaps it is an issue of morals, but I wouldn't follow that logic, and would probably go with the fake.

 

[PatrickJameson]

What about the plain old 3x3? Aren't all those Chinese DIYs knockoffs? Yet we're totally fine with people buying them over the official Rubik's brand.

The patent has expired.

Well there goes the entire moral argument.

 

[Bomber]

What about the plain old 3x3? Aren't all those Chinese DIYs knockoffs? Yet we're totally fine with people buying them over the official Rubik's brand.

The patent has expired.

Well there goes the entire moral argument.

I think we need to make a distinction between a knock-off and a downright illegal fake. Shelley is right, the Chinese DIYs are knock-offs: they are copying an already established idea although with an expired patent. Copying a V-Cube, however, is illegally producing a copyrighted product. It should not be allowed. It is infringing on the law.

We may have morals based on not infringing a copyright, but how do we know what copyright affects which country? We are hardly going to check the records just to see if a patent applies to our own country.

 

[daniel0731ex]

okay...what about tony fisher's puzzles?

 

[bwatkins]

It doesn't matter how much money anyone has made off of anything. If there's an active patent on the product, discussion of where to buy knockoffs of *that* product will not be tolerated on this forum.

I argee with your points, i would however like to point out that i was not attempting to argue with you earlier...just provide an economical standpoint on the situation...after your patetent/mechanism post, i see the differentiation, however i think many will still consider the idea o.k. ---> very good point though.

 

[ThatGuy]

I hope no one here is assuming just because something came out first means it's higher quality. Given, knockoff V-cubes are from China, who knows if KO V cubes are better than actual V cubes. I mean, say KO V cubes from China were cheaper, and also higher quality than normal V cubes. Would you still buy from Verdes? Are we simply assuming that knockoff V cubes will work worse? When I buy a product I generally don't care about copyright and legality, especially because selling cubes isn't so widespread, I care about how good it is. So if a knockoff is higher quality, I would be buying the knockoff. And, knockoff has a negative connotation for me. I think about a knockoff being worse quality than whatever it was knocking off. So if it were better quality, would the original product become the knockoff?

anyway, I'm just putting the other side out there, I'm not telling any of you what I actually feel about knockoffs.

 

[JTW2007]

Monkeydude: Didn't you sell 3x3 and 4x4 knockoffs yourself at Nationals?

 

[ChrisBird]

Monkeydude: Didn't you sell 3x3 and 4x4 knockoffs yourself at Nationals?

Umm... No?

I sold Mini DS, Mini C, Mini QJ 4x4, QJ 4x4 Large, 3x3x4 FF, and stickers.

What of that is knock off?

 

[JTW2007]

I though that the QJs were knockoffs, but I could be wrong.

 

[skarian]

QJs are knockoffs of mefferts

 

[ChrisBird]

QJs are knockoffs of mefferts

False, that is a thought I had, and started.

It has since been deemed false.

 

[esquimalt1]

Chris, you own TONS of diy's. Those came from people who are making money off of something not created by them. The same thing happend to Verdes that you're complaining, happened to Erno. All because a "patent" is expired doesn't make it right to take other people's stuff and make money from it.

 

[ChrisBird]

Chris, you own TONS of diy's. Those came from people who are making money off of something not created by them. The same thing happend to Verdes that you're complaining, happened to Verdes. All because a "patent" is expired doesn't make it right to take other people's stuff and make money from it.

The patent being expired makes it fine.

If it was protected, and now is not, it is fair game.
Why?

Because if I patented a new design for an air conditioner that was much more efficient, I could use the idea for myself for the number of years it is patented.

But once it has expired, it becomes the right of anyone to use the idea as their own (if they hadn't already) because if patents lived forever, everything would cost $1000000000000+
And why is this?
They would have a monopoly on things like cars, houses, food etc.
All these things people need in order to survive, and can't live without, would mean we HAD to buy.

At some point, patents have to die and let competition in.

 

[Paul Wagner]

QJs are knockoffs of mefferts

False, that is a thought I had, and started.

It has since been deemed false.

No? When, they have the same designs as mefferts.

 

[ChrisBird]

QJs are knockoffs of mefferts

False, that is a thought I had, and started.

It has since been deemed false.

No? When, they have the same designs as mefferts.

Same factory = same design.

Same factory = not knock off.

 

[LNZ]

I think patents only last 15 years after the patent is granted.

I own two V-Cubes. And keep them in their original boxes they came in.

And on the box it says:
"All Rights Reserved. 2008-2023 Verdes Innovations S.A"

This means the V-Cubes patents last for 15 years and will expire in 2023.

 

[MichaelErskine]

But once it has expired, it becomes the right of anyone to use the idea as their own (if they hadn't already) because if patents lived forever, everything would cost $1000000000000+

:fp :fp :fp :fp :fp :fp

That's six, count 'em, SIX falcepalms I am officially issuing here from my personal limited stockpile I am rejecting your shipment of fail and suck. Please take this fascinating "discussion" off the forums or apply some credibility to your arguments... No, just take it off the forums...

Please...

Just go...

 

[puzzlemaster]

But once it has expired, it becomes the right of anyone to use the idea as their own (if they hadn't already) because if patents lived forever, everything would cost $1000000000000+

:fp :fp :fp :fp :fp :fp

That's six, count 'em, SIX falcepalms I am officially issuing here from my personal limited stockpile I am rejecting your shipment of fail and suck. Please take this fascinating "discussion" off the forums or apply some credibility to your arguments... No, just take it off the forums...

Please...

Just go...

+1

 

[ChrisBird]

I used the wrong wording.

Not 'as their own' and not such a large number, it was an exaggeration.

If someone could patent the design for the first car, and keep it forever so that only they could build and sell them. Then it turns out that everyone needs a car in order to have a smooth simple life (such as getting to work), then that original seller could change as much as they wanted, and force people to pay more since they are the only person they could get it from.

I am not exactly sure what you find 'face palm worthy' about what I said, other then the fact I exaggerated a little.

 

[brunson]

But once it has expired, it becomes the right of anyone to use the idea as their own (if they hadn't already) because if patents lived forever, everything would cost $1000000000000+

:fp :fp :fp :fp :fp :fp

That's six, count 'em, SIX falcepalms I am officially issuing here from my personal limited stockpile I am rejecting your shipment of fail and suck. Please take this fascinating "discussion" off the forums or apply some credibility to your arguments... No, just take it off the forums...

Please...

Just go...

What's wrong with his argument? That is *exactly* the rationale for patent law as it exists. Maybe you'd like to offer a counter point rather that simply ranting.