Seven Towns vs. Dayan - Color Scheme Copyright Infringment

[Stefan]

And that article about speed cubing and how Rubik's isn't used in it, sounds like it was written by someone who's heard the word speed-cube once.

What does that matter? I think it's a pretty good article.

EDIT: or you could just watch my unboxing I didn't have a decent camera at the time but it's obvious enough

That's it! Thanks.

 

[CarlBrannen]

I'm more familiar with patent law than copyright law but it seems that they're similar enough.

Patents infringement cases are sometimes pursued as "active inducement of infringement" which would apply to a DIY kit. Copyright law also includes "active inducement of infringement". These apply when the person who actually physically violates the patent / copyright is the buyer, but a company is helping them do this. Where you've probably seen "active inducement of infringement" in the news media is the violation of copyright law with regard to file sharing. This is how the big companies get sued when it's the individuals who actually violated the law. If you haven't seen this, here's a New York Law Journal article that describes the situation:
http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/Uploa...LLECTUAL PROPERTY/Brown,P_NYLJ_March_2010.pdf

So even if a DIY kit doesn't violate the copyright, the kit induces the buyer to violate it. Thus a DIY kit that can be assembled to a puzzle that violates the copyright law will also be covered by copyright law.

If this is correct, and if it is true that changing the colors is sufficient to avoid the copyright (which is something a court has to decide), then the way to get around the copyright is to either use different colors on the cube and to send a DIY kit with stickers with different colors. I.e.

You can google "active inducement of infringement" to learn more.

I wonder if WCA could also be liable for copyright violation by allowing copyright violation to occur at its matches.

 

[AvGalen]

How about the obvious? I don't want that color scheme because it's Rubik's, I want it because I'm used to it and am best with it. Not all schemes are equal, this one is now functionally better than others.

You want that colorscheme because you are better on it. You want a Dayan because you are better on it. That doesn't mean Dayan has the right to sell you what you want without making a deal with Seventowns. What you want and what you can get are not always the same.

The work around is so incredibly easy. Just sell cubes without stickers on it or make a deal with Seven Towns and pay them a bit.

So even if a DIY kit doesn't violate the copyright, the kit induces the buyer to violate it. Thus a DIY kit that can be assembled to a puzzle that violates the copyright law will also be covered by copyright law.

No, it won't because it can also be assembled in many other ways that don't violate the copyright law so the one that actually decides how to put the stickers on is not the seller so the seller is in the clear.

(this is not the same situation as a shirt with a fake Puma logo included because obviously that fake logo is a Trademark infringement already and the only reason to include that logo is to create a fake Puma shirt

 

[vince]

if the problem is the colour scheme... who knows, maybe selling a cube scrambled is legal!? It would be a pain to control if a scrambled cube have a certain scheme. not immediate, i think.

 

[Johnny]

Just putting in my two cents... Dayans are not a knockoff of Rubik's cubes because knockoffs are lower quality. A higher quality product is a new invention, not a knockoff.

 

[cyoubx]

Just putting in my two cents... Dayans are not a knockoff of Rubik's cubes because knockoffs are lower quality. A higher quality product is a new invention, not a knockoff.

Wut. Dat logic.

Even buying into that way of thinking, what makes DaYan cubes higher quality? Just because more people use them for speedcubing doesn't mean they're higher quality.
Rubik's brand cubes happen to be incredibly sturdy and the fact that they're hard to pop means that they're less of a choking hazard for unsuspecting toddlers.

 

[Michael Womack]

I own some Rubik's brand Cubes and allot of other cubes that have the same color scheme of the Rubik's Brand. But most of my cube that aren't Rubik's brand there sticker colors aren't the same shade as Rubik's. So I would say that Rubik's is messed up.

 

[Johnny]

Cyoubx, you're right.

But it's still not a knock off because the internal structure is different.

If Dayan's cubes are a knock off of the Rubik's brand cubes, then Rubik's brand cubes are a knock off of Pyraminx.

And OMG, I was just watching your videos. I love your channel, Cyoubx. In fact, you just responded to one of my questions on your facebook page.

 

[cubernya]

then Rubik's brand cubes are a knock off of Pyraminx

Pyraminx was made after the Rubik's brand cube

 

[Johnny]

Pyraminx was made after the Rubik's brand cube

I thought it was made before

 

[Michael Womack]

Pyraminx was made after the Rubik's brand cube

Nope before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyraminx It was the 3x3x3 Rubik's cube that Erno Rubik invented that gave the Idea to Uwe Meffert to mass produce it.

 

[qqwref]

Rubik's brand cubes happen to be incredibly sturdy and the fact that they're hard to pop means that they're less of a choking hazard for unsuspecting toddlers.

Actually, I'm not so convinced they're sturdy... the cores tend to break easily if you drop the cube (probably from the tension) and as everyone knows the stickers wear out very quickly. They certainly are harder to pop than a speedcube, but if you tighten a speedcube as much as Rubik's Cubes come out of the package, it would probably be just as unpoppable.

 

[cyoubx]

Actually, I'm not so convinced they're sturdy... the cores tend to break easily if you drop the cube (probably from the tension) and as everyone knows the stickers wear out very quickly. They certainly are harder to pop than a speedcube, but if you tighten a speedcube as much as Rubik's Cubes come out of the package, it would probably be just as unpoppable.

I was contrasting reviews from a Rubik's brand and some of the speedcubes we use. The general public tends not to like speedcubes very much since they fall apart relatively easily and the ability to tension a speedcube isn't inherently obvious to general consumers.

But yes, I understand your point.

 

[Apansy]

Dayan and other vendors should just leave the puzzle un-stickered (stickers come in the package) and then the user can sticker it however they want. I know it is inconvenient, especially for higher ordered puzzles, but that is one reasonable way to work around it. If Seven Towns wants to start a law suit against every individual that uses their colour scheme, then they would be fighting thousands of people. The puzzle vendors could even sticker 4 sides of the puzzle and leave the last 2 'up to you'.

 

[CarlBrannen]

No, it won't because it can also be assembled in many other ways that don't violate the copyright law so the one that actually decides how to put the stickers on is not the seller so the seller is in the clear. (this is not the same situation as a shirt with a fake Puma logo included because obviously that fake logo is a Trademark infringement already and the only reason to include that logo is to create a fake Puma shirt

Unfortunately, my read of copyright and patent law is that the purpose of the "inducement" rules is that they're there so people don't get around copyright law exactly the way you're describing. It's not enough that a DIY can be assembled in such a way that it is not a copyright violation. It also has to be the case that the DIY kits are not purchased with the intention of making them into copyright violating cubes. To show that this is the case, all they have to do is go on youtube and look at the footage of world champion solvers using Seven Towns' copyrighted color scheme on cubes that Seven Towers did not license or sell.

If Seven Towns did want to pursue DIY kits, they could argue that a DIY with Seven Towns colors is simply an obvious way of avoiding copyright law (that is, making it impossible to stop because it's committed by thousands of individuals instead of a single company). Pretty much any US judge will agree with them. Look at the case law on this, the legal principle is that it is illegal to assist other people in violating copyright law.

 

[cyoubx]

Pretty much any US judge will agree with them.

Why the U.S.?

 

[sneaklyfox]

Wait... so our speedcubes are in fact illegal? Really?

 

[JasonK]

Why the U.S.?

I was wondering this too... Seven Towns is based in the UK isn't it? I have no idea how different UK and US law are in this area, but it's probably a bad ideato assume things just because they're true in America.

 

[sneaklyfox]

I was wondering this too... Seven Towns is based in the UK isn't it? I have no idea how different UK and US law are in this area, but it's probably a bad ideato assume things just because they're true in America.

I don't think CarlBrannen was assuming anything by talking about US judges. I think he only mentioned it because he's in the US and so he would be more familiar with US law than any other country's laws.

 

[CarlBrannen]

Why the U.S.?

I've never done any patent work anywhere but the US. Can't say what copyright law would be like elsewhere. I know that european patent law is significantly different from US, or at least it used to be. Last I heard the US was being brought to the more usual standard. The issue had to do with "first to file" versus "first to invent".

Wait... so our speedcubes are in fact illegal? Really?

From what I've seen they are.

I think there's a very good reason why Seven Towns doesn't push it. In fact I'm a little surprised that they bother with packages with one or two cubes at the border to a retail customer. If I were them I'd only bother with mass shipments to businesses.

If they made a stink about it at the world cubing contest, for example, the whole story would get traction world-wide.

The inevitable result would be that millions of people would learn that there are other cube makers than Rubik and that there were ways to buy them. Dayan would start selling off-color cubes to US stores. It could end up cutting into Seven Towns' control of US retail market.

As it is, they risk having the story get out every time they mess around with an end user. I can't imagine why they'd do that. The risk / reward is incredibly negative. The last thing they want is for Walmart to be selling a Dayan non-Rubiks cube.

----

One of the things I'd like to do is to make up a few million speed cube advertising stickers. They would give the names of the world's best speed cubes and tell the reader to buy them on the internet. We pass them out at each cubing contest for free. When you get back home, you drop by Walmart and add these stickers to all their Rubiks cubes. Uh, of course I'm kidding, this would get us in trouble, the point is that getting reporters to talk about the fact that speed cubers don't use Rubiks cubes would be roughly equivalent to going into Walmart and putting a sticker on each Rubiks cube saying "you're a loser if you buy this cube."

The thing I find really annoying about this is that the usual reason for claiming that copyright law is in the interests of consumers (it's not, it's in the interest of copyright holders, obviously) is that it protects consumers from cheap knock-offs. But in this case, the copyright violators make a product which is far superior. So I don't think that Seven Towns would win in the court of public opinion on this. I just can't imagine why they would push it. It could be a big disaster for them.