Dayan vs. V-Cube Patent Infringement

This thread has been re-opened for continued discussion. For those who have been banned previously, please let that serve as a reminder to keep the discussion in this thread from getting out of hand. For those who have not yet posted on this issue, be aware that this discussion is still being moderated. The clear demand for discussion on this topic has led to the re-opening of this thread.

If arguments begin to get heated, please take them to PM, and please try to keep this thread as free from personal insults toward each other as possible.

Happy cubing,
Chris
 
from what I have been seeing here, the discussion with katt is really getting carried away. It looks to me that katt seems to be avoiding the main point all along...

No offences intended, just pointing what I have observed out.
 
Does anybody actually know how a company like Verdes Innovations managed to get a company like eBay to remove the listings when DaYan has not yet been proven guilty of patent infringement? Thanks, I'm still trying to get informed about this issue.
 
Not as if it is any surprise, but I asked Pantazis in a PM several times to point out the similarities. I also asked him to show the video. All I got was how I seem to not understand what he's saying and that a lawyer would have to explain it to me. I asked several times for the video (as did Stefan) and he still avoided it in a PM. He also mentioned how that this will be decided by a judge if (and yes, he said if) it goes to court. He argued in the PM very much like he did in this thread (as such bringing up points from this thread that I didn't bring up, etc).

He said he mentioned several times (which he didn't, the same PM where he mentioned this, is the only one) about the "conical" shape of the pieces in the video if you zoom in on something, then zoom out of something else (didn't provide images, or even times in the video to specify which pieces, nor did he even say a corner or edge), then it looks similar to the V-Cube 3 Patent (which he didn't specify to which part of that patent either). I asked for images to better detail it, and he said he couldn't get me any (I asked specifically of the GuHong pieces). If he was talking about the video that izovire gave us, the video mentions the corner stems being similar, not any sort of conical shape, unless I missed something.
 
Does anybody actually know how a company like Verdes Innovations managed to get a company like eBay to remove the listings when DaYan has not yet been proven guilty of patent infringement?

"eBay removes listings when a Verified Rights Owner claims that there was a violation."
-- http://pages.ebay.ca/help/policies/questions/vero-ended-item.html

"all you need to do is download our Notice of Claimed Infringement (NOCI) form, fill it out, and fax it to eBay."
-- http://pages.ebay.ca/help/tp/vero-rights-owner.html

Download eBay's NOCI form

In short: You just need to state that you're the IP owner and that you believe the article infringes, and it's gone. You don't need to provide or even have evidence.
 
Last edited:
hi mods, can you delete that long, annoying post? thanks alot. =)

Edit : Thanks for Stefan for reminding, I totally forget
 
Last edited:
A few more points to make about the topic.

I contacted eBay shortly after my listing was pulled, and used their chat window link to talk to an eBay representative about my listing being pulled.

They confirmed that Verdes Innovations S.A. were the ones to file the complaint to eBay. I was unable to get any of my further questions answered, because they were inquiring to things that violated other peoples privacy. Most of my questions were answered with "you will need to contact Verdes Innovations for that answer".

eBay is obligated to follow thru on any sort of claim like Verdes made. It's set up like that to protect eBay from mistakes. Makes sense. I was warned by eBay that re-listing the cubes before getting a release of the claim from Verdes could result in my account being banned.


An interesting point I'd like to make on the eBay listing being removed, is that I have done that to someone before, and was very easy to do.

I DJ, and ordered a bag from a seller that was selling the newest Native Instruments bag for some midi controllers I bought that had just come out like a week before. I get the bag in, and am immediately pretty let down. It was horrible quality, and not what I had expected after hearing all the hype of how good they were supposed to be.

After doing more research on what the bag was supposed to look like, it became clear that the person I bought it from was silk-screening Native Instruments' name on bags, and selling them as knock offs.

My process was this:
I contacted Native Instruments, and told them of the suspected KO. I contacted eBay, and opened a dispute because the bag I received was a suspected KO. Within 2 hours the auction the seller had was removed. Shortly after it was removed, the seller was banned.

That was from me simply sending one message to eBay, and informing Native Instruments of the issue.

My point being, I can objectively see this from both perspectives, and I also know how simple it was for Verdes to accomplish this. I was told that they did not need to prove to eBay that they were being infringed on... only that they stated that they were the rightful people make the claim.

I still have yet to see a document from a court of law that shows what Verdes did is legal.

And to clarify on another aspect of the topic... In my video, I stated that people should consider protecting themselves from potential attack from Verdes because of the GuHong / LingYun. This is still my personal perspective. I have not heard of any cubing stores receiving a cease and desist letter from Verdes, or any other action for that matter. I was simply letting people they may want to consider wether or not they want to be on the radar if this was a only the first step from Verdes.

I haven't heard of Verdes perusing any cubing stores for the infringement issue. Perhaps the cubing stores took action to be on the safe side, and Verdes doesn't need to go any further... or perhaps Verdes never planned on taking any action past the eBay listing removals. We have no information from Verdes, so can only speculate.

As far as I know, there is no legal justification for Verdes pulling all the eBay auctions. eBay owns PayPal (or other way around, not sure) and it is in my best interest to not list the cubes on my site, since I use PayPal for all of my sales transactions. Therefor if action is taken against my PayPal, they could stop my business completely. A few out-of-country cubing stores are still selling the cubes from what I was reading yesterday, and a few USA based ones... I'm not sure if Verdes can or will go after them for this, but again, I am not willing to take that risk based on PayPal attacks that Verdes has made on other stores... namely SpeedCubeShop. (He has video information on this, so I believe it is ok to mention.)

Lastly,
I have sent 2 emails to Verdes, with a 3rd to follow tomorrow requesting information on their actions. I have not received a reply.
And thank you Chris for re-opening this thread. I hope to see some good come of it.

- Pixel -
 
Last edited:
I still have yet to see a document from a court of law that shows what Verdes did is legal.

Regarding what they did on ebay: They don't even have to be right about the infringement. They just have to reasonably *believe* they're right. That's what they state in ebay's form.
 
A

* Afghanistan
* Algeria
* Andorra
* Angola
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Argentina
* Armenia
* Azerbaijan

B

* Bahamas
* Bahrain
* Bangladesh
* Barbados
* Belarus
* Belize
* Benin
* Bhutan
* Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
* Bosnia and Herzegovina
* Botswana
* Brunei Darussalam
* Burkina Faso
* Burundi

C

* Cambodia
* Cameroon
* Cape Verde
* Central African Republic
* Chad
* Chile
* Colombia
* Comoros
* Congo, Republic of the...
* Costa Rica
* Côte d'Ivoire
* Cuba

D

* Democratic People's Republic of Korea
* Democratic Republic of the Congo
* Djibouti
* Dominica
* Dominican Republic

E

* Ecuador
* El Salvador
* Equatorial Guinea
* Eritrea
* Ethiopia

F

* Fiji

G

* Gabon
* Gambia
* Georgia
* Ghana
* Grenada
* Guatemala
* Guinea
* Guinea-Bissau
* Guyana

H

* Haiti
* Honduras

I

* Iceland
* Iran (Islamic Republic of)
* Iraq

J

* Jamaica
* Jordan

K

* Kazakhstan
* Kenya
* Kiribati
* Kuwait
* Kyrgyzstan

L

* Lao People's Democratic Republic
* Lebanon
* Lesotho
* Liberia
* Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
* Liechtenstein

M

* Madagascar
* Malawi
* Malaysia
* Maldives
* Mali
* Malta
* Marshall Islands
* Mauritania
* Mauritius
* Micronesia, Federated States of...
* Mongolia
* Montenegro
* Morocco
* Mozambique
* Myanmar

N

* Namibia
* Nauru
* Nepal
* New Zealand
* Nicaragua
* Niger
* Nigeria

O

* Oman

P

* Pakistan
* Palau
* Panama
* Papua New Guinea
* Paraguay
* Peru

Q

* Qatar

R

* Republic of Moldova
* Rwanda

S

* Saint Kitts and Nevis
* Saint Lucia
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
* Samoa
* San Marino
* Sao Tome and Principe
* Saudi Arabia
* Senegal
* Serbia
* Seychelles
* Sierra Leone
* Solomon Islands
* Somalia
* Sri Lanka
* Sudan
* Suriname
* Swaziland
* Syrian Arab Republic

T

* Tajikistan
* Thailand
* Timor-Leste
* Togo
* Tonga
* Trinidad and Tobago
* Tunisia
* Turkmenistan
* Tuvalu

U

* Uganda
* United Arab Emirates
* United Republic of Tanzania
* Uruguay
* Uzbekistan

V

* Vanuatu
* Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of...
* Viet Nam

WXY

* Yemen

Z

* Zambia
* Zimbabwe
^
list of countries in which V-CUBE™ technology is not protected by patents



______________________________
Cubemir = нехаризматический безбожничек

You left out the Vatican. The pope can use a GuHong.

Personally, I think it's missing a key part in the mechanism from the patent drawing, which is the protruding parts coming out of the center piece. I understand V Cubes' position, but I fail to see how the GuHong even fits into the patent, besides that the corner is a little similar.
 
Last edited:
I'll be fine with V-Cubes shutting down Dayan GuHongs IF they will freaking come out with the remaining V-Cube 2-11's that he has patents on. If the GuHong IS similar enough to deserve copyright infringment, the one Verdes makes would work AND sell just as well IF IT WOULD COME OUT..
 
Back
Top