Is every cube a knock-off?

[PeterNewton]

@Lux a lot of the time, those watches are real but stolen. Like these idiots at my school tried to sell me stolen Blackberries and Ipods for 10 dollars.

 

[Stefan]

is irrevalent to the cube being a knockoff becuase it is a magnetic, bearing no relation to the mechanism of the 3x3

Ethan explicitly said "if you go by that line of thought" and thus it boils down to what the OP thinks makes one cube a knockoff of another. Which I have asked him, but he hasn't answered yet. Btw, have a look at the other two "cube precursors" mentioned on Jaap's puzzle patents page, non-magnetic 2x2x2 and even 3x3x3.

from Stefan's wikipedia link on knock-offs, it does say that "offered for sale as if they were authentic" would make it seem as though unless they are explicity trying to sell them as "Rubik's Cubes" then they arent technically a knock-off, no?

That's something I've been wondering for a while, too. I don't see how our usage of the term is compatible with what's on wikipedia.

And this authenticity issue is also where I draw a line. Normal 3x3x3s look like Rubik's because, well, there's pretty much nothing you can do about it. It's a frickin' cube cut into smaller ones. It *has* to look that way. And the box/logo/name/DIYness usually clearly distinguish them from Rubik's. Compare that to the YJ 7x7x7 with precisely copied V-cube 7 box and leaflet or the DS 2x2x2 globe looking exactly like the Rubik's one, including the stand. That stuff is completely unnecessary and clearly made to deceive.

I think Stefan Pochman has started trying to get that meanest member award again. (Hes probably going to "so what" me).

LOL, no. You made a clear point. The "So what?" doesn't mean "Nobody cares". It is a short way to ask "What do you mean? I don't see your point, can you please explain?".

 

[pwndnoobcuber]

but all the newer cubes have different designs, so they're not knock-offs

 

[Deleted member 2864]

technically, if you go by that line of thought, the Rubik's Cube itself was a knockoff

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=3655201.PN.&OS=PN/3655201&RS=PN/3655201

to my understanding, this was a magnetic 2x2

I'm pretty sure Erno Rubik was sued because he copied the idea of that 2x2.


EDIT: Nichols attempted to sue Rubik. This is what wikipedia says:

Patent disputes
Nichols assigned his patent to his employer Moleculon Research Corp., which sued Ideal Toy Company in 1982. In 1984, Ideal lost the patent infringement suit and appealed. In 1986, the appeals court affirmed the judgment that Rubik's 2×2×2 Pocket Cube infringed Nichols's patent, but overturned the judgment on Rubik's 3×3×3 Cube.[11]

 

[somerandomkidmike]

but all the newer cubes have different designs, so they're not knock-offs

I'm pretty sure if you look at a Type-C and a Rubik's DIY, they look pretty much identical. How do the designs differ in these two cubes?