Hiero
Regular
Time for the F2 to make a comeback.
Dayan vs. V-Cube Patent Infringement
- Thread starter izovire
- Start date
cuberkid10
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,894
- Location
- Atlanta, Georgia
- WCA ID
- 2010HULL01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Eh. I think Verdes needs to man up. Store owners should be making cubes for the good of the community, not the profit. (pixel 6 does a good job at this)
Stefan
Legend
You're so cute.
some1rational
Regular
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 28
What do you think is their claim of infringement? Do you think it's about the colored/unstickered version (my only guess right now aside from the corner similarity, or lack thereof really)?
Just curious, I know you usually do not post unless your certain, haha.
Stefan
Legend
Cones.
some1rational
Regular
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 28
Last edited:
Stefan
Legend
Yes, somewhat. The conical surfaces created by that middle stem. Like this:
Last edited:
BigSams
Regular
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- Messages
- 215
It's possible that one of the reasons for this action against Guhongs is that people were planning on spending a lot on them for Christmas presents, and now that they can't, Vcubes is a likely option. I'm just speculating though. Best if people don't buy Vcubes until holiday season is over just to teach Verdes a lesson 
And also not buy future Vcube products if they do not drop the case and their arguments seem unreasonable.
And also not buy future Vcube products if they do not drop the case and their arguments seem unreasonable.some1rational
Regular
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 28
Ooo ok I see it now, for those those who are curious, read http://www.v-cubes.com/info/inventor.php for more.
It's quite technical, but I can't really comment since kastellorizo (or Verdes company for that matter) has not provided any more information about whether this is actually the case.
It's quite technical, but I can't really comment since kastellorizo (or Verdes company for that matter) has not provided any more information about whether this is actually the case.
Last edited:
xdaragon
Regular
So everyone let's boycott V-Cube products until they let us have our Dayan Guhong's and Maru 4x4's!!
ok i have to add my opinion on this.
guhong/lingyun is a 3x3 cube. the market competition for vcubes is high, as there are many 3x3 on the market. unless vcube have a significantly better product than what is currently available (or if they can produce a design at a significantly lower cost to increase volume), it wouldnt be in the companies best interest to persue production of a 3x3. i will be blunt in saying that i do not think that the dayan corner looks anything like a vcube 5 corner aside for them being stemmed. there is no reason to even fathom comparing the vcube 5 to any 3x3 cube, regardless of any similarities in ANY piece BECAUSE the reason for the piece being shaped like it is on the vcube is for a completely different reason. go after mefferts pillowed skewb. its pillowed like a 7x7 and your beloved 6b patent.
what really gets under my skin about this issue is that vcube has a monopoly on higher order cubes 6+. theoretically every cube that was purchased of higher order should have been an official vcube product. in a monopoly, you have the luxury of setting market price, which they did. now, wether their current market price is indeed reasonable and at no profit (assuming busniess costs were factored into the total profit) is based on the companies credibility of the statement (we're taking his word on this statement). for all we know, verdes could have produced them at very low cost and has far exceeded his initial capital investment. the credibility of any business is within their PNLs. how much verdes takes home could be why his business cost is so high. hes the CEO of a small monopoly. if vcube is not making profit, they have the ability to adjust the market price. will they lose customers? probably. a shift in market price on a luxury item usually excludes a higher percent of lower income demographics. but, at the same time, if someone wants a 6x6 or 7x7, they will have to buy vcube (theoretically) and in monopolies, as long as there is a consumer, there is a market. this community is the consumer, he has a market. to not have profits nor the ability to produce more of the patented items is an OBVIOUS lack of business sense. if you're broke or under because of 'business cost' a.k.a. inflated personal salaries, you either have to 1. decrease busniess cost 2. increase product margin 3. hire somone who has taken a high school econmics class... hell, 4. buy "SMALL BUSNIESS FOR DUMMIES" and read it.
now they are trying to flex on lower order cubes and they arent even in the market. imho, for what you have produced, you have the right to claim patent infringements. for what you have not produced... you have the right, but only if it is a direct and obvious similarity to the design. many people have claimed that this looks nothing like their 3x3 patent, which it doesnt. each puzzle is in its own right a different market. the only thing that he can do with a 5x5 design patent is ridicule companies that pose copywright infringements on 5x5 cubes. as far as i know, and please quote me if im wrong, erno rubiks patent for the puzzle is expired, giving any company in the world to produce a puzzle similar to the one that previously held a patent. dayan has simply made an improvement to a 3x3 puzzle. was it insipired by a patented item? no. it is a 3x3. the patent is expired. in fact, im boggled by the fact that verdes was able to patent a puzzle which was previously patented. there seems to be no significant design change done to the puzzle in verdes patent to justify the approval. does anyone else agree with this? i mean, its a 3x3 puzzle; it has a core, center pieces with caps, edges corners, stickers, its cube shaped, its solved the same way as a puzzle already created.... because of the design of the guhong, it does require you to tug the corner out, giving the illusion of interlocking pieces. however, the orignal design of a rubiks cube also follows the concept of 'interlocking pieces' ; where 12 edge pieces and 8 corners 'interlock' to form a cube shape around a 6 axis core.
i am completely astonished that verdes was able to justify a patent on a previously expired item. his patent should be
void for 3x3. he should not be able to attempt to monopolize the puzzle industry with a patent that is full of hot air.
i have a small example i used to explain to my wife about this situation. my wife created lotion. she had it patented. the patent expired. i come along and create lotion with shea butter. i patent it (which i shouldnt have been able to do, but i did). bob smartson creates lotion with goats milk. he does not patent it. he does not care if many people create goats milk lotion, as he wants as many people to enjoy the product as much as he does. i come along and have goats milk lotion removed from the market. because i patented lotion + "x".
please note that this is my personal opinion and is no way an attack on verdes or any supporters of him or vcubes.
edit: http://www.v-cubes.com/info/inventor.php is simply explaining conical shapes within the design which are created by layers of the cube allowing for the corner stock to be hidden within the layer. the 3x3 design has no layer, it is what it is.
guhong/lingyun is a 3x3 cube. the market competition for vcubes is high, as there are many 3x3 on the market. unless vcube have a significantly better product than what is currently available (or if they can produce a design at a significantly lower cost to increase volume), it wouldnt be in the companies best interest to persue production of a 3x3. i will be blunt in saying that i do not think that the dayan corner looks anything like a vcube 5 corner aside for them being stemmed. there is no reason to even fathom comparing the vcube 5 to any 3x3 cube, regardless of any similarities in ANY piece BECAUSE the reason for the piece being shaped like it is on the vcube is for a completely different reason. go after mefferts pillowed skewb. its pillowed like a 7x7 and your beloved 6b patent.
what really gets under my skin about this issue is that vcube has a monopoly on higher order cubes 6+. theoretically every cube that was purchased of higher order should have been an official vcube product. in a monopoly, you have the luxury of setting market price, which they did. now, wether their current market price is indeed reasonable and at no profit (assuming busniess costs were factored into the total profit) is based on the companies credibility of the statement (we're taking his word on this statement). for all we know, verdes could have produced them at very low cost and has far exceeded his initial capital investment. the credibility of any business is within their PNLs. how much verdes takes home could be why his business cost is so high. hes the CEO of a small monopoly. if vcube is not making profit, they have the ability to adjust the market price. will they lose customers? probably. a shift in market price on a luxury item usually excludes a higher percent of lower income demographics. but, at the same time, if someone wants a 6x6 or 7x7, they will have to buy vcube (theoretically) and in monopolies, as long as there is a consumer, there is a market. this community is the consumer, he has a market. to not have profits nor the ability to produce more of the patented items is an OBVIOUS lack of business sense. if you're broke or under because of 'business cost' a.k.a. inflated personal salaries, you either have to 1. decrease busniess cost 2. increase product margin 3. hire somone who has taken a high school econmics class... hell, 4. buy "SMALL BUSNIESS FOR DUMMIES" and read it.
now they are trying to flex on lower order cubes and they arent even in the market. imho, for what you have produced, you have the right to claim patent infringements. for what you have not produced... you have the right, but only if it is a direct and obvious similarity to the design. many people have claimed that this looks nothing like their 3x3 patent, which it doesnt. each puzzle is in its own right a different market. the only thing that he can do with a 5x5 design patent is ridicule companies that pose copywright infringements on 5x5 cubes. as far as i know, and please quote me if im wrong, erno rubiks patent for the puzzle is expired, giving any company in the world to produce a puzzle similar to the one that previously held a patent. dayan has simply made an improvement to a 3x3 puzzle. was it insipired by a patented item? no. it is a 3x3. the patent is expired. in fact, im boggled by the fact that verdes was able to patent a puzzle which was previously patented. there seems to be no significant design change done to the puzzle in verdes patent to justify the approval. does anyone else agree with this? i mean, its a 3x3 puzzle; it has a core, center pieces with caps, edges corners, stickers, its cube shaped, its solved the same way as a puzzle already created.... because of the design of the guhong, it does require you to tug the corner out, giving the illusion of interlocking pieces. however, the orignal design of a rubiks cube also follows the concept of 'interlocking pieces' ; where 12 edge pieces and 8 corners 'interlock' to form a cube shape around a 6 axis core.
i am completely astonished that verdes was able to justify a patent on a previously expired item. his patent should be
void for 3x3. he should not be able to attempt to monopolize the puzzle industry with a patent that is full of hot air.
i have a small example i used to explain to my wife about this situation. my wife created lotion. she had it patented. the patent expired. i come along and create lotion with shea butter. i patent it (which i shouldnt have been able to do, but i did). bob smartson creates lotion with goats milk. he does not patent it. he does not care if many people create goats milk lotion, as he wants as many people to enjoy the product as much as he does. i come along and have goats milk lotion removed from the market. because i patented lotion + "x".
please note that this is my personal opinion and is no way an attack on verdes or any supporters of him or vcubes.
edit: http://www.v-cubes.com/info/inventor.php is simply explaining conical shapes within the design which are created by layers of the cube allowing for the corner stock to be hidden within the layer. the 3x3 design has no layer, it is what it is.
Last edited:
Andreaillest
Premium Member
Well good thing I have my trusty Guhong with me now. Personally I feel the Guhong's design is different from v-cubes and it's a shame that they might not be available in the future. Funny that YJs are still being sold on ebay...
All about the money...
All about the money...
r_517
Premium Member
Guhong vs V3
i really don't think they have significantly similarity that can be defined as a KO
Stefan
Legend
Yes, that plus their patents claiming "the use of said conical surfaces constituting the innovation and the improvement".
Thanks for asking the question, btw, and asking it so properly that I could reply with a single word like I wanted to. If that indeed is their basis or at least a significant part of it, then you can see it can be conveyed with a single short word and there is no excuse for Verdes/Pantazis to not do so. Again, I must suspect the reason for refusing is to have others, like x-cube, fall into their trap.
TheMachanga
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,441
- Location
- Chicago, Illinois
- WCA ID
- 2010LECH01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
It seems like patenting the use of the cone structure is pretty general in my opinion.
Drake
Regular
Aaahhh, what's is the fun off cubing in that? Puting all other brand out of the way... When there is almost no point.
HavoCentral
Premium Member
It wasnt meant to be taken literal, I was just stating that the v cubes patent looks alot like a rubiks brand, which has been patented previoulsy, even though it expired.
Sa967St
Not A Moderator
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 3,793
- Location
- Waterloo, ON, Canada
- WCA ID
- 2007STRO01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Haha. I was about to add that to the list of sayings for the Pochmann Magic 8-Ball, but it's been added months ago.
Stefan
Legend
Cool, you found my secret second reason for wishing to express it with that one simple word
(not joking, I did think of that)But simple and general as it is, on his page he goes on and on about it and how it was the crucial and unifying thing for him in building the larger cubes, and the patents claim it as "the innovation and the improvement". That's why I believe this is what they're after. The Dayans don't look like the V-3 and I can imagine they were not copied from Verdes (and claiming it is overbearing and mischievous) but an adjustment to Rubik's mechanism, but they do have conical surfaces. No idea whether that's enough to make it an infringement (with the pieces actually looking very different and with the stems/cones only solving a "problem" for larger cubes). I'm sure Verdes/Pantazis will show us a judge's decision or equivalent very soon. Not. (They'll more likely keep resorting to claiming and bullying)
bobthegiraffemonkey
Veteran
I support the V-cubes patent. I respect them for making a new, better mechanism available. I like my set of V-cubes (even if I had to modify my V5 and V6, it baffles me why the V5 was bumpy and didn't have rounded pieces). I have no intention of buying a Maru 4x4 or other cubes which are blatant KOs of the V-mech. I have also bought 3 Guhongs, one of which is my main speedcube. As far as I can tell, it is pretty different from the V3 (doesn't matter if it has been released or not), and I had no issue with buying it. Trying to ban people from selling it without any notice is just silly, and reasonably unfounded. If you want to stop people selling it, it helps if people think there is an issue, or you let people know exactly why you have a problem.
