What the Seven Towns Copyright Covers

[SenileGenXer]

This is CBC's legal reasoning. I really feel where it's coming from but it may not be sound.

In the recent customs case they impounded a white cube, a black cube and a stickerless cube. They intend to or have destroyed all of them.

While we may want to interpet their copyright minimally they have spent years and cash on lawyers who have helped them to interpet it maximally such that they even believe they own every two dimensional picture of the cube.

You take a picture of the cube they believe they own the copyright.

They probably believe they own all 43 quintillion scrambled states even if they haven't produced a significant fraction.

 

[Eric79]

Blatant copy of CBC's facebook post on this, just getting the important part:

ONLY assembled black 3x3's with the classic rubiks cube colour scheme applied to it are in danger. Any white cube is legal and anything 2x2, 4x4 and above are legal. Apparently the colour scheme on a black 3x3 is ALL that matters.[...]

Well, there are several problems with that: 1) Not everything he says is correct. 2) Products similar to a certain degree also infringe copyrights. How far that goes - courts are asked to find that out. 3) It's not only certain colour shades or exact "looks", here too it is about the similarity - no matter the colour. Interchanging one colour with another (as Dayan did) is only a very poor solution - I highly doubt this would withstand a lawsuit. Just think of the lawsuits filed by Apple - it's all about how "similar" Samsungs products are allowed to look like. Not if they are 100% identical. Also read what the copyright say: "The RUBIK'S CUBE® in its three dimensional form [...] in any configuration, coloured or uncoloured, whether it carries the Rubik name or logo,".

Eric79, I checked out your youtube channel and your first video was a review of the Zhanchi from Lightake. You recognized the great design of the cube and shrilled shamelessly for Lightake. Was that the sort of responsibility you want the rest of us to bear as consumers?[...]

Read again what I wrote, especially the part about I liking the situation or not, and besides you mixing several things up - that already answers your question. Also, I'm not "anti-Chinese" as you just generalized - in fact I like a lot about China and am happy to have several dear chinese friends! Just saying. But I am against those "Chinese knock-off companies practices" and there are no prejudices in these regards, in terms of what I said it's facts. Apart from that of course I can honour clever design, good ideas and a shop who supplied me, all in appropriate ways - and why shouldn't I?! Oh, and I wasn't moralizing, I was giving information on the topic, based on facts. Your views on the other hand regarding Seven Towns behaviour enforcing patent and copyright law are... Did I hear sombody say "conspiracy theory"? I'm quite sure "superior design" is what Seven Towns cares the least.

Is this true? So why don't all the cube stores send the assembled cubes to us with one turn? Or checkerboard pattern with solution to fix that (for non-cubers).

[sarcasm_on]Why even employ workers to solve assembled cubes in the first place instead of leaving those cubes scrambled?[sarcasm_off]
No, it's not true because a Rubiks Cube is a Rubiks Cube - no matter if scrambled or not.

A related "funny" story: Take a look at the chinese forum, puzzle designers are bashing and accusing one another for pirating their cubes. And Bao is avoiding (I would even say he's hiding from) western press regarding interviews for years by now because he actually knows that he is infringing some copyrights and that it wasn't a good idea to talk to them about it.

 

[windhero]

Does everyone agree on the following:

1)Ordering any cube as a DIY kit does not infringe copyrights and will be not destroyed by the custom officials
2)Ordering any cubes bigger than 5x5 (cubes that have never been produced by the Rubiks company) do not infringe copyrights and will not be destroyed by the custom officials.

In short is there a way for customers to avoid having the puzzles destroyed by asking the seller to send 3x3-5x5 cubes in pieces as DIY kits?

 

[sneaklyfox]

[sarcasm_on]Why even employ workers to solve assembled cubes in the first place instead of leaving those cubes scrambled?[sarcasm_off]
No, it's not true because a Rubiks Cube is a Rubiks Cube - no matter if scrambled or not.

A related "funny" story: Take a look at the chinese forum, puzzle designers are bashing and accusing one another for pirating their cubes. And Bao is avoiding (I would even say he's hiding from) western press regarding interviews for years by now because he actually knows that he is infringing some copyrights and that it wasn't a good idea to talk to them about it.

I don't understand your sarcasm as the stickers are put on after the cubes are assembled. Do customs object to assembled but unstickered cubes?

@Eric79: Do you have a moral stand on the issue because it sounds like you do. And if you do then you shouldn't be owning anything but Rubik's brands.

 

[cyoubx]

Does everyone agree on the following:

1)Ordering any cube as a DIY kit does not infringe copyrights and will be not destroyed by the custom officials
2)Ordering any cubes bigger than 5x5 (cubes that have never been produced by the Rubiks company) do not infringe copyrights and will not be destroyed by the custom officials.

In short is there a way for customers to avoid having the puzzles destroyed by asking the seller to send 3x3-5x5 cubes in pieces as DIY kits?

I think that is correct based on our interpretations of the copyright. But the copyright is so vague and broad that I'm sure a copyright case could be made for DIY/larger cubers.

 

[applemobile]

At the end of the day we ALL own at least one Rubik's brand cube right? If no other cubes exsisted would we have the same amount of cubes as we have in our collection made up purely of Rubik's brand cubes? No. If Rubik's was the only brand avaliable would I own more Rubik's brand 3x3's than I already do? No.. Case dismissed.

 

[Eric79]

I don't understand your sarcasm as the stickers are put on after the cubes are assembled.

Sounds as if you understood.

Do customs object to assembled but unstickered cubes?

It's already pointed out: "The RUBIK'S CUBE® in its three dimensional form [...] in any configuration, coloured or uncoloured, whether it carries the Rubik name or logo,". So yes, they should.

@Eric79: Do you have a moral stand on the issue because it sounds like you do. And if you do then you shouldn't be owning anything but Rubik's brands.

You're asking to judge me? Yeah, sure... anyway. Here, enjoy: What I have is a eclectic point of view and kinda mixed feelings (which is obvious from my original post). In general - what I or someone else should and shouldn't own is totally out of your judgement. Also that last sentence is wrong in so many ways... You should try being a little more open minded and tolerant considering people can have complex thoughts/opinions - complex things often just don't result in only either or.

 

[ben1996123]

so, if you order a zhanchi then you might end up with a rubik's 3x3? ok, but don't rubik's brands cost more than zhanchis?

buy 100 zhanchis
wait for 100 rubik's 3x3s to arrive
sell each one for the price of a new rubik's 3x3
profit

 

[Username]

So.... No more speedcubes? Only Rubik's brands?

 

[CarlBrannen]

As I explained in the other thread, I suspect that if a given color scheme infringes the copyright, then a DIY kit that includes those same colors might be interpreted as "induced infringement" and so would also fall under copyright rules. The rules for patents are similar:

"Since an amendment to the law in 1984 it has been an act of infringement to supply in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside the United States in a manner that would constitute infringement if carried out inside the United States. [219] That is to say one can not supply from the United States a kit of parts with instructions to assemble them to produce something which if produced in the United States would be a patent infringement."
http://www.ladas.com/Patents/Biotechnology/USPharmPatentLaw/USPhar31.html

Patents 101, does DIY Infringe?
http://glassbox-design.com/2009/patents-101-does-diy-infringe/

There's also a British case having to do with copyright violation using a kit of parts, Dorling v Honnor Marine Ltd [1965] which you can google.

 

[Username]

Is DIY kit with 7 colors a solution?

 

[qqwref]

I feel like copyright ought to be different than patents, because it is meant to apply to particular created works (as distinct from a patent which applies to objects/inventions). For instance you could not reasonably argue that a pen and a ream of paper, with the words "copy the text from Twilight" violates copyright because it contains the material and instructions to produce a copy of the text of Twilight (which is copyrighted).

I had another thought as well... Seven Towns says they have a copyright on "The RUBIK'S CUBE® [...] in any configuration". Is this invalid, in the sense that a good lawyer could argue they don't have that power? Copyright is for original works, such as novels, sculptures, pictures, films, and so on. The individual permutations of a cube should not be copyrightable because the vast majority of which have not been seen, much less created, by anyone at Seven Towns - the puzzle can certainly be put into those 4.3*10^19 positions, but they have not been actually made. Their claim seems similar to arguing that, if you sell an encyclopedia packaged with a pair of scissors, you can get a copyright on any combination of the words included therein.

 

[CarlBrannen]

I agree that they can't copyright all possible configurations of a Rubik's cube. I don't see how they can copyright an image they haven't created. I could be wrong on this. For example, if you had a copyright on a picture of a car, I'm pretty sure that someone else can't import a jigsaw puzzle with that picture on it even though the puzzle pieces themselves do not constitute the image (and ignoring the picture on the box).

As far as the difference between copyright and patent protection in the area of induced infringement goes, for the case of patents, it's written into the law. For copyrights, the ruling is a result of case law. That is, for patents it was decided by the US congress, for copyrights it was decided by the court system.

The situation is more serious than people think. Seven Towns could send a letter to the WCA requiring them to quit allowing the use of copyright violating cubes in their contests. I don't see that WCA would have any alternative than to instantly comply. That would mean that a lot of people would have to resticker their main 3x3 cube.

On the other hand, how could someone say that the typical non-Rubiks cube stickers violate the copyright? Some of the ohe ones I've seen in competition were so ratty that you could just barely identify the color of the face. They certainly don't look like a new Rubik's cube. Maybe you could avoid the copyright by using stickers that were circular instead of square. But I think these sorts of questions would have to be decided by a court. Seven Towns can always threaten to sue you even if they don't have a case.

 

[Mike Hughey]

A good humorous example of how copyright can definitely be taken too far.

http://www.magnus-opus.com/
(Hope you've paid royalties on all those tunes you've played!)

Just because a company claims a certain level of rights definitely does not automatically make it so.

 

[qqwref]

A good humorous example of how copyright can definitely be taken too far.

http://www.magnus-opus.com/
(Hope you've paid royalties on all those tunes you've played!)

Just because a company claims a certain level of rights definitely does not automatically make it so.

Hilarious idea. However, take a look at their Correspondence section. The point APRA makes is quite relevant to our discussion - much as Magnus Opus can't copyright all telephone tone "melodies" just by having an algorithm which can generate them, Seven Towns shouldn't be able to copyright depictions of all cube permutations just by owning the rights to a puzzle which can generate them.


I also had another thought about the copyrightability of unstickered cubes (that is, assembled cubes with no stickers, not the 6-color stickerless cubes). If Seven Towns has copyright of a depiction of an unstickered cube, they have copyright of a depiction of a cube cut into 3 (roughly even) slices along each face axis. But this is a very simple design that has almost certainly been drawn before Rubik developed the cube. If there is a sufficiently old depiction, then there is prior art that is in the public domain, which means that a depiction of an unstickered cube should not be copyrightable. And if Seven Towns does have a trademark/copyright for their particular color scheme, then an unstickered cube with a set of 6 (or 7) sticker sheets is by no means induced infringement, as the cube can be stickered in one of many color schemes and there is no included instruction telling the user to use the copyrighted one.

 

[cyoubx]

For the 2x2 copyright, does this count?

 

[tx789]

they want a monopoly but that will never happen. Rubik brand are terrible cubers will never use them after switching to a speedcube. They see speed cubers as lots of people not buying their product and lots of money loss. You can't have a monopoly in speedcubing. V-cubes had one kind of until shengshou's took over.

 

[pipkiksass]

Theoretically, if you popped two edges and swapped them, leaving the cube in an unsolvable state, would that get around the copyright? I'm sure a half-decent lawyer could argue that the copyright states 'all its states', and that state cannot be achieved using the rubik's mechanism, and so isn't representative of the copyright image or intellectual property.

Maybe distribute cubes like that - easier than restickering or sending out DIYs.

 

[CarlBrannen]

So Seven Towers sponsors cubing championships that use cubes that are in violation of their copyright.

I wonder if that weakens their legal position in enforcing their copyright. (I'm not a lawyer.)

My feeling on this is that the reason companies like Dayan avoid lawsuits by Seven Towers is that Dayan has less money available to pay expensive lawyers. Patent and copyright lawsuits are incredibly expensive. No one wants to get involved in one except the lawyers.

 

[Stefan]

Funny how every few months/years when this pops up, hysteria ensues and people go wild and angry and discuss possible solutions to the problem that doesn't actually exist.

For the 2x2 copyright, does this count?

Count how?