Can you copyright a new 3x3 technique?

[SenileGenXer]

Can you copyright a new technique to solve the 3x3x3? What would you think of someone who tried to do so even if the terms were generous - allowing unlimited use in solves and discussion but retained the rights to publish the technique?

Please preface you answer with IAAL (I am a lawyer) if you are an attorney. Thank you.

 

[ThomasJE]

I think you can patent magic tricks, so I don't see why not. The only problem is that everyone will be able to see what you do (which is why magic tricks aren't patented), so it may be hard to enforce.

 

[applemobile]

IANAL. Utterly rediculous. Getting the copywright would be impossible, let alone trying to enforce it.

 

[Kirjava]

the speedcubing community is (generally...) open

this would be a terrible idea and just hinder further development

why in the hell would you want to do it

 

[SenileGenXer]

You might copyright a technique in order to recoup some of the time and insight that went into it. Is it wrong to think you should be rewarded for intellectual work?

If you allow open solves and open discussion (including criticism, close alternatives, and improvements) would that be the same as the open discussion and development we have now? If you restricted printed & electronic publication of the whole thing to only those you thought willing to return a percent of royalties is that open enough? If you allowed not for profit printed and electronic publication provided they give proper credit? If you restricted youtubers from posting walkthroughs unless they give proper credit and a nice puzzle is that too onerous? If you allowed speedsolving.com unlimited publication?

 

[rj]

I think that whoever created the method should get credit. I'm not sure how that would work, but that's pretty much what we do already.

 

[applemobile]

I think that whoever created the method should get credit. I'm not sure how that would work, but that's pretty much what we do already.

Like the way Jessica Fridrich invented CFOP?

 

[rj]

Like the way Jessica Fridrich invented CFOP?

Most people call it CFOP now for a reason. I at least recognize the other people who worked on it too.

 

[Kirjava]

You might copyright a technique in order to recoup some of the time and insight that went into it. Is it wrong to think you should be rewarded for intellectual work?

You should be doing it for the love of what you're doing. Producing new content is it's own reward.

This is a terrible terrible thread.

 

[stoic]

If you could (and it's hard to imagine you could) surely you would have to:
A. Prove it hadn't been invented before
B. Avoid all known substeps or submethods along the way to solution - so no comms, EO, CF, F2L etc. etc. etc.?

 

[mark49152]

If you really want to cash in on your amazing new method, keep it a secret, then publish it as a book, if you can find a publisher, and see how many of the cubers on here rush out to pay for a copy. Just don't give up your day job.

 

[That70sShowDude]

Just keep it a secret. Problem solved. For example, Felix Lee kept his pyraminx method secret from the time he started cubing until a few months ago.

 

[a small kitten]

Soon-to-be attorney.

You most likely cannot copyright a cubing technique (at least not in the United States). Sec. 102(b) of the Copyright Act states that copyright protection does not extend to a process, system, method of operation, concept or principle. It is highly likely that a cubing technique will fall into one of these categories.

You can most likely copyright a book describing the technique, but the copyright protection will only extend to the expression of your idea in the book and not to the method itself. See Baker v. Selden, which is an informative case. If this happens, people will be prohibited from copying your book directly. But, they will be able to use the method you mention in the book as they please.

Patent law is most likely not going to help you either. To get a patent, you have to satisfy many statutory requirements (statutory subject matter, utility, novelty and nonobviousness). A cubing technique will most likely fail every one of these requirements except utility.

Further, prosecuting a patent is usually a time-consuming and expensive endeavor. Patent prosecution has to make economic sense. You don’t automatically get money when you secure a patent. The money comes from individuals or entities that pay to purchase or license your product. You can also get money if you sue for infringement. Assuming that your patent is granted by the Patent Office, you’ll make money off of charging people to use your method. If they don’t pay up, you’ll sue them for infringement in hopes of recovering. Nobody serious in our community would ever consider charging others or suing fellow cubers for turning the faces of a puzzle in a particular fashion. As a result, you'll end up paying a great deal to get a patent but not derive any economic benefit.

In summary, you’re probably not going to get much protection for your ideas unless you keep them a secret. However, secrecy is generally discouraged in our community. Also, most people in our community lack the expertise and know-how to fully develop polished, novel, usable methods. We exchange ideas in hopes that other people (like Kir) can help out or shoot down the method in a beautifully offensive but truthful manner.

Wide dissemination as early as possible is preferred here. But, you are free to do whatever you please. I think seeking IP protection is out of the question, though.

 

[Stefan]

You might copyright a technique in order to recoup some of the time and insight that went into it. Is it wrong to think you should be rewarded for intellectual work?

How are you going to get rewarded by copyrighting it? I mean, realistically?

 

[SirWaffle]

How are you going to get rewarded by copyrighting it? I mean, realistically?

You could make people buy the algs and sue those who pass them out without prior permission. (I am kidding)

 

[Michael Womack]

I would say Yes and no. The yes part is only if it will have a major effect on the cubers to really help them get allot faster. As for the no part it's not that super necessary to patent it.

 

[Akiro]

Soon-to-be attorney.

You most likely cannot copyright a cubing technique ...

I think asmallkitten said it all... You have your answer there. ^^

 

[pipkiksass]

This is an interesting, but wholly pointless, thread.

As ASK said, you could copyright the material surrounding your method, but a patent would be the only way to protect the intellectual property (i.e. the method itself). HOWEVER in order to establish a patent, you need evidence that you have created a method that is genuinely innovative, and in no way derivative. Which would be nigh on impossible in speedcubing.

As he also said, enforcement of a patent is INCREDIBLY expensive. I'm not sure how a new method would be financed, presumably by selling the idea to people?! In the Google age, this isn't really a sustainable business model. There's pretty much no money in cubing, barring the small amounts of prize money doled out at major championships. If you were to establish a patented method, it would have to be good enough to be used by the best in the world to win championships in order for you to be able to attempt to make viable claims against anyone. And then you'd need to be able to prove that the method they used was wholly yours. As soon as an alg used is not part of your method, your claim fails.

Due to the nature of the speedcubing community, and the historic free exchange of ideas and methods, I don't believe any patent lawyer would even consider an application.

Having said all that, why would you ever EVER want to do such a thing? Surely if you can design a method that is so revolutionary that you would want to patent it, all the credit you could want to receive would be to be immortalised alongside Jessica Fridrich, Gilles Roux, Lars Petrus, et al. as a great innovator who has given back to the cubing community? Rather than the miserly git who forced people to pay to use his method!

 

[Ollie]

Just think of trying to copy a chord sequence in music. You just...can't.

EDIT: @Senile guy, on that note (oh I'm a poet) share with us your secret method please

 

[Dapianokid]

I can't believe someone asked this. Your enhancements and techniques and vision and new contributions to the cubing world have always been excellent, SGXer... But THIS is not something I appreciate. Look,s Valk uses VLS, a method most people don't use, but it's not like it's his "secret weapon."

I don't owe Lars Petrus 50 cents every time I use his method, and Jessica Fridrich isn't entitled to the RIGHTS of a method any more than you should be.
Credit? Credit can slip past. There's plenty to go around. But credit can be good and negative. I think the TICT method sums that up. World class cuber makes up HORRENDOUS method with only the purpose of the joke of the TICT method. Result? A few laughs from the community. Nothing more. He's not going to copyright the use of the T-perm to solve the edges.

Michael Conard won't copyright the use of his 2x2 method.
The inventor of TCLL (DANGIT I can't remember the name) will not copyright his, though he keeps it under tabs and hidden so as to give him time to work on it. Don't blab about your method or technique if you don't want others to know. Inevitably, people will still find out.

I want to troll now.

Can you copyright a new way of breathing?