# Thoughts on Rubik’s recently?



## Underwatercuber (Oct 25, 2017)

As of late Rubik’s has started a lawsuit against the cubicle and announced a completion to rival the WCA. What are your thoughts on this?


I personally am pretty irked that Rubik’s isnt satisfied with the millions (probably billion) of dollars they are making and instead of doing something productive like when they collaborated with Gan they are trying to force themselves on the speedcubing community. At least that’s how I see it personally.


----------



## applezfall (Oct 25, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


> (Plus they cancelled their clock which was the only good puzzle they ever made)


the clock sucks


----------



## Sajwo (Oct 25, 2017)

it's gettin hot in here


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Oct 25, 2017)

They definitely have poor timing. The recent lawsuit has really PO'd a lot of the community. With them announcing them organizing their own comps, they basically need to have the community with them. Even if this lawsuit didn't happen, the new line of competitions would have alienated many cubers to begin with. People don't like change, despite the fact we like to say that we do.


----------



## Sajwo (Oct 25, 2017)

Ordway Persyn said:


> They definitely have poor timing. The recent lawsuit has really PO'd a lot of the community. With them announcing them organizing their own comps, they basically need to have the community with them. Even if this lawsuit didn't happen, the new line of competitions would have alienated many cubers to begin with. People don't like change, despite the fact we like to say that we do.



Actually they don't need our community at all. They are multi-billion dollar company and they can make their own community. WCA has ~80 000 competitors and I believe that Rubik's could do like 10x more than that. Results will catch up eventually in a couple of years.


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 25, 2017)

It looks to me like the Red Bull thing is more aimed at elite competitors, or at least claiming they have elite competitors (that's what Red Bull does, and they're really good at making slick videos), while WCA is focused on allowing everyone to compete. The catch is that WCA already has all, or nearly all, the elite competitors. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of people who see the Red Bull competitions (they'll get somebody to compete) and then come to WCA competitions. At least they're using the "Speedcubing" term, so people will find WCA when they look.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 25, 2017)

Sajwo said:


> Results will catch up eventually in a couple of years.


Probably not even that long if they've got the Gan sponsorees (sponsee? (is that even a word?)) along with them, and some of them showed up in the promo video.


----------



## Cubing 101 (Oct 26, 2017)

yeah i heard about that. Rubik's cubes are crappy and so is this decision.


----------



## kbrune (Oct 26, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> It looks to me like the Red Bull thing is more aimed at elite competitors, or at least claiming they have elite competitors (that's what Red Bull does, and they're really good at making slick videos), while WCA is focused on allowing everyone to compete. The catch is that WCA already has all, or nearly all, the elite competitors. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of people who see the Red Bull competitions (they'll get somebody to compete) and then come to WCA competitions. At least they're using the "Speedcubing" term, so people will find WCA when they look.



That isn't what the result will be. Elite cubers will be drawn to these sponsored comps because the money will be much bigger. Sure maybe a few will boycott them. but MONEY talks. They will go for the money. More then not. 

What happens when new people start cubing? Usually, they see someone amazing at it and decide omg i want to do that too. New cubers will go to RCSA and WCA will eventually become the smaller less relevant body.

Maybe im wrong and the RCSA will become the place where elite cubers end up. And the WCA is where beginners will get their start.. but i doubt it. RCSA would include WCA in the whole process if that's how they wanted to be. 

I'll say it again and again. This is about money. plain and simple.


----------



## Ghost Cuber (Oct 26, 2017)

kbrune said:


> That isn't what the result will be. Elite cubers will be drawn to these sponsored comps because the money will be much bigger. Sure maybe a few will boycott them. but MONEY talks. They will go for the money. More then not.
> 
> What happens when new people start cubing? Usually, they see someone amazing at it and decide omg i want to do that too. New cubers will go to RCSA and WCA will eventually become the smaller less relevant body.
> 
> ...


Someone fast should compete, win, and publicly donate all the money to the WCA


----------



## Underwatercuber (Oct 26, 2017)

Ghost Cuber said:


> Someone fast should compete, win, and publicly donate all the money to the WCA


Yessss


----------



## turtwig (Oct 26, 2017)

Once something gets big enough, people will always try to make money off of it. It's completely natural that the best cubers will be attracted to this competition. They've worked hard to get where they are, can you blame them for trying to get some extra benefits, or possibly even make a living with their skill?


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 26, 2017)

kbrune said:


> That isn't what the result will be. Elite cubers will be drawn to these sponsored comps because the money will be much bigger. Sure maybe a few will boycott them. but MONEY talks. They will go for the money. More then not.
> 
> What happens when new people start cubing? Usually, they see someone amazing at it and decide omg i want to do that too. New cubers will go to RCSA and WCA will eventually become the smaller less relevant body.
> 
> ...



You are probably mostly right. On the other hand, two things: first, WCA is better positioned to track and ratify world records. I don't know what non-Red Bull affiliated RSA events will look like, but the Red Bull part WCA would be well served to recognize single speedsolve times (and OH, but without inspection there are unlikely to be many world class times). Outside of that, since Guinness has recognized WCA times they really can't retroactively invalidate them. I would like to think that there is still a slight possibility of some cooperation. The second issue is puzzles other than 3x3: Rubik's-Gans has decent 3x3 hardware, and now Gans has a 2x2 as well, but they're so far behind on big cube hardware it's not even funny. Without opening up to non-rubik's branded hardware there is virtually no chance that they can expand to other puzzles. 



Ghost Cuber said:


> Someone fast should compete, win, and publicly donate all the money to the WCA


If only I was fast.


----------



## GenTheThief (Oct 26, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> they're so far behind on big cube hardware it's not even funny.


I actually think it's funny how bad their 5x5 is.
I laugh (and shudder), remembering when it was my only one.


----------



## kbrune (Oct 26, 2017)

turtwig said:


> Once something gets big enough, people will always try to make money off of it. It's completely natural that the best cubers will be attracted to this competition. They've worked hard to get where they are, can you blame them for trying to get some extra benefits, or possibly even make a living with their skill?



Of course! Making money from your cubing skills isn't a bad thing. Im not oppose to that at all. I just don't think Rubik should get away with taking all the work that the ppl who poured their blood sweat and tears into making the cubing scene what it is today for free. While raking in all the cash. 

How much profit has the WCA made off of cubing since it's inception??





One Wheel said:


> You are probably mostly right. On the other hand, two things: first, WCA is better positioned to track and ratify world records. I don't know what non-Red Bull affiliated RSA events will look like, but the Red Bull part WCA would be well served to recognize single speedsolve times (and OH, but without inspection there are unlikely to be many world class times). Outside of that, since Guinness has recognized WCA times they really can't retroactively invalidate them. I would like to think that there is still a slight possibility of some cooperation. The second issue is puzzles other than 3x3: Rubik's-Gans has decent 3x3 hardware, and now Gans has a 2x2 as well, but they're so far behind on big cube hardware it's not even funny. Without opening up to non-rubik's branded hardware there is virtually no chance that they can expand to other puzzles.



I hope you're right. But they made a deal with Gan cause they were far behind in the basic hardware. I think they'll just do the same in a year or 2 for the rest of the cube sizes once they sink their claws into the introductory events.


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 26, 2017)

kbrune said:


> I hope you're right. But they made a deal with Gan cause they were far behind in the basic hardware. I think they'll just do the same in a year or 2 for the rest of the cube sizes once they sink their claws into the introductory events.



I'll be getting my popcorn ready for the day when Rubik's tries licensing a higher order cube in V-cubes jurisdiction.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 26, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> I'll be getting my popcorn ready for the day when Rubik's tries licensing a higher order cube in V-cubes jurisdiction.


Plot twist: they license it from V-Cube.


----------



## tx789 (Oct 26, 2017)

Big companies like making money without caring much about ethics. They will appear to care for PR reasons.


I still think there is a chance of this failing but it is too early to tell.


----------



## Max Cruz (Oct 26, 2017)

Is there not a thread already?


----------



## DhruvA (Oct 26, 2017)

I think maybe rubiks will disappear like vcubes


----------



## Ronxu (Oct 26, 2017)

DhruvA said:


> I think maybe rubiks will disappear like vcubes


Reasonable.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 26, 2017)

DhruvA said:


> I think maybe rubiks will disappear like vcubes


Vcubes didn't disappear, they just became irrelevant to cubers.


----------



## Raumaan Kidwai (Oct 26, 2017)

"Thank you and f**k rubik's " -- Feliks, 2017

Yeah they're not gonna get any world class cubers.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 26, 2017)

Raumaan Kidwai said:


> "Thank you and f**k rubik's " -- Feliks, 2017
> 
> Yeah they're not gonna get any world class cubers.


Source?


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 26, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Source?


Somebody posted it on reddit, but I'm not convinced it's legit.


----------



## Raumaan Kidwai (Oct 26, 2017)

It was on his instagram, lemme pull it up.


----------



## Micah Walker (Oct 26, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> I'll be getting my popcorn ready for the day when Rubik's tries licensing a higher order cube in V-cubes jurisdiction.


O, boy!! I'm getting excited! the hype is for real!


----------



## Raumaan Kidwai (Oct 26, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Source?





One Wheel said:


> Somebody posted it on reddit, but I'm not convinced it's legit.




https://www.instagram.com/p/BaJz3hzF14p/?hl=en&taken-by=thecubicle.us


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 26, 2017)

Raumaan Kidwai said:


> https://www.instagram.com/p/BaJz3hzF14p/?hl=en&taken-by=thecubicle.us



I stand corrected. Good for Feliks.


----------



## turtwig (Oct 26, 2017)

kbrune said:


> Of course! Making money from your cubing skills isn't a bad thing. Im not oppose to that at all. I just don't think Rubik should get away with taking all the work that the ppl who poured their blood sweat and tears into making the cubing scene what it is today for free. While raking in all the cash.
> 
> How much profit has the WCA made off of cubing since it's inception??



What heinous act are they doing that they're going to 'get away' with? They're not taking anything away from the WCA, why does it matter if they're going to make more money? If anyone becomes interested in cubing after watching this competition, they're probably going to find out about the WCA and participate in its competitions. Obviously Red Bull and Rubik's are taking advantage of what the WCA has created, but so far I think this competition will be mutually beneficial so I don't think it's a bad thing.


----------



## pglewis (Oct 26, 2017)

turtwig said:


> What heinous act are they doing that they're going to 'get away' with?[..]



I personally consider it heinous that they're making a legal attempt to shut down TheCubicle (and by extension, all similar retailers). I consider it bordering on heinous that they're insisting on one manufacturer for events. And I now believe if they had their way they'd dissolve the WCA and take over as the official body for the sport.


----------



## turtwig (Oct 26, 2017)

pglewis said:


> I personally consider it heinous that they're making a legal attempt to shut down TheCubicle (and by extension, all similar retailers).



I was referring to something heinous about this competition. I agree that trying to create a monopoly in the cubing market is horrible, but I think that's a separate issue. I understand that many people are angry at Rubik's for its recent controversy, but I don't think that just because one of its actions was bad, that everything it does is then automatically bad.



pglewis said:


> I consider it bordering on heinous that they're insisting on one manufacturer for events.



If you're referring to the Red Bull competition where one can only use a Rubik's Brand, then you should really rethink the issue. Google's definition of heinous is "utterly odious or wicked". How is Rubik's making certain rules that you don't like at it's own competition heinous? Murdering an innocent person is heinous, forcing people to use a Rubik's brand at a competition run by Rubik's is not heinous.

I've not been caught up on everything that has been happening with Rubik's, so if you were referring to something else (specifically if Rubik's stated that it wanted people to only use Rubik's brand puzzle at WCA competition), feel free to disregard this.



pglewis said:


> And I now believe if they had their way they'd dissolve the WCA and take over as the official body for the sport.



We can speculate all we want, but I won't judge them for anything they haven't done, and I would advise that other do the same.


----------



## MiaSponseller (Oct 26, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


> As of late Rubik’s has started a lawsuit against the cubicle and announced a completion to rival the WCA. What are your thoughts on this?
> 
> 
> I personally am pretty irked that Rubik’s isnt satisfied with the millions (probably billion) of dollars they are making and instead of doing something productive like when they collaborated with Gan they are trying to force themselves on the speedcubing community. At least that’s how I see it personally.


Honestly, I'm not super happy what Rubik's is doing. I understand sort of that they want people to buy their cubes. But most people usually buy their cube first before buying from the cubicle or wherever they get their speedcubes. they make quite a bit of money from selling their normal 3x3s at $11 or $12.


----------



## pglewis (Oct 27, 2017)

turtwig said:


> ... if you were referring to something else (specifically if Rubik's stated that it wanted people to only use Rubik's brand puzzle at WCA competition) ...



I can't find solid verification of this as a fact, but it's my understanding that the WCA and Rubik's could not reach an agreement due to that very stipulation. AFAIK, we've reached the end of sponsorship for WCA events from Rubik's Brands and the WCA is working to replace it with a more stable choice(s).

Bottom of: http://madrid2018.cubecomps.com/



> About sponsorship, we will make a great effort in getting a *strong main sponsor not related with puzzles*. More about this follows in the next and last section.





turtwig said:


> We can speculate all we want, but I won't judge them for anything they haven't done, and I would advise that other do the same.



It's pure speculation, and that's always dangerous, but I don't consider it wild speculation and it's based on their actions to date as I understand them:

They've tried to stop all other 3x3s by attempting to enforce their trademark as if it were a patent; their patents are long expired. They lost that case in the EU and they're currently testing it in the US, specifically against TheCubicle. The language of what they're demanding would stop TheCubicle from selling non-Rubik's 3x3s at the very least, if not outright put them out of business. They've attempted to get the WCA to require "Rubik's Brand only" (I would assume only applied to 3x3) and failing that they're now starting their publicity campaign for their own "World Championship".

It's a clear pattern from recent actions and it keeps me from being able to conceptually divorce the Cubicle lawsuit from the event.


----------



## CornerCutter (Oct 27, 2017)

Raumaan Kidwai said:


> https://www.instagram.com/p/BaJz3hzF14p/?hl=en&taken-by=thecubicle.us


Awesome, that's great!


----------



## kbrune (Oct 27, 2017)

turtwig said:


> I was referring to something heinous about this competition. I agree that trying to create a monopoly in the cubing market is horrible, but I think that's a separate issue. I understand that many people are angry at Rubik's for its recent controversy, but I don't think that just because one of its actions was bad, that everything it does is then automatically bad.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You introduced the word heinous to the ideas posted. And to be honest it's normal for ppl to use exaggerated words to describe everything. Throwing in a definition and trying to call someone out on it is petty. Guaranteed you've done it too.

What Rubik is doing probably wont end the WCA and will absolutely grow the speedsolving community if they're successful. I've never argued against that specifically. What I can't stand, is that now, after over a decade, They've decided it's time to cash in on the growing cube market. Everything they're doing points to this profit motive. For PR reasons im sure they'll play nice when it suits them. But it's very apparent that they really don't care about a whole lot more then the future bottom line.

Forcing ppl to use only Rubik's product at their own event may not be labeled heinous. But it certainly isn't necessary to secretly organize Championships that are bigger and better then anything the world has seen. They can easily use WCA competitions to promote their products. sponsor the best solvers like moyu, and cubicle etc... Get your cubes in the hands of the best and let the product speak for itself. It's obvious they want more then being a viable product. They're making up for lost time by throwing their weight around while they can. 

In the end i don't think this will blow up the WCA and end it. I just feel that Rubik's wants their position. And I'm not ok with how they're doing it. The WCA should be the organization that has Big Money sponsored championships. 

Anyway. my 2 cents..


----------



## turtwig (Oct 27, 2017)

kbrune said:


> You introduced the word heinous to the ideas posted. And to be honest it's normal for ppl to use exaggerated words to describe everything. Throwing in a definition and trying to call someone out on it is petty. Guaranteed you've done it too.



I used the word 'heinous' because you said that they were going to 'get away' with something. I think that people are really overreacting to this, as if something deeply wrong is happening (regarding the competition, not the lawsuit or anything else). I probably shouldn't have criticized pglewis for using the word 'heinous' as I used it first, but I would've even say that Rubik's forcing people to use their products at their competition is even bad, so I was surprised that he pointed that out as an example of Rubik's being 'heinous'. (Note: I was referring to Rubik's and Red Bull forcing competitors to use Rubik's Brand at their competition in my post, which is apparently not what pglewis actually meant. I would agree what he was actually talking about is bad, but I was of course responding to what I originally believed he said.)



kbrune said:


> What Rubik is doing probably wont end the WCA and will absolutely grow the speedsolving community if they're successful. I've never argued against that specifically. What I can't stand, is that now, after over a decade, They've decided it's time to cash in on the growing cube market. Everything they're doing points to this profit motive. For PR reasons im sure they'll play nice when it suits them. But it's very apparent that they really don't care about a whole lot more then the future bottom line.



I don't think that Rubik's only doing it for the money is a terrible thing either. I don't think one has to want to help someone to help them. For example, most people's employers probably don't care a lot about them personally, but that doesn't mean the bosses aren't helping their employees when they provide them a job. I think it's the same thing here: even if Rubik's doesn't care about the cubing community, doesn't mean that them pursuing their selfish goals won't help us.



kbrune said:


> I just feel that Rubik's wants their position. And I'm not ok with how they're doing it. The WCA should be the organization that has Big Money sponsored championships.



Should the WCA be the only organization that is allowed to hold big competitions? Why is that? Because they were the people who grew the cubing community? It seems to me like your logic is similar to that of Rubik's when they're suing other cube companies. After all, Erno Rubik probably spent a lot of time inventing the cube and later growing his company. If other cube companies are allowed to sell their own cubes, why can't Rubik's make their own competitions?


----------



## pglewis (Oct 27, 2017)

turtwig said:


> I probably shouldn't have criticized pglewis for using the word 'heinous' as I used it first



No worries. I was continuing the use of hyperbole for mild humorous effect and didn't respond to that bit because it isn't really germane to points of view we were sharing. 



turtwig said:


> I don't think that Rubik's only doing it for the money is a terrible thing either.



I agree. I said elsewhere that this is _just_ an attempted money-grab on the part of Rubik's Brands. My problem isn't them making money from this event. If it weren't for their one-trick-pony act of trying to demand a monopoly on the 3x3s you and I use I'd say "hell yeah, I hope they need bulldozers and a fleet of container ships to transport the cash they rake in". 



turtwig said:


> even if Rubik's doesn't care about the cubing community, doesn't mean that them pursuing their selfish goals won't help us.



I believe their goals have clearly been defined as "there can be only one" when it comes to 3x3 hardware. If they were to succeed in that would you consider it worth the exposure? 



turtwig said:


> Should the WCA be the only organization that is allowed to hold big competitions? Why is that? Because they were the people who grew the cubing community? It seems to me like your logic is similar to that of Rubik's when they're suing other cube companies. After all, Erno Rubik probably spent a lot of time inventing the cube and later growing his company. If other cube companies are allowed to sell their own cubes, why can't Rubik's make their own competitions?



There is so much good that can/could come out of this. Under other circumstances I could be very excited about the prospects. Some of the things like going head-to-head seems kind of silly to me, but I understand it from a spectator standpoint. As an analogy, baseball has the home-run derby during the All-Star game every year. It's not an "official" event that counts towards stats or anything and it can be very entertaining to watch.

Also, this is entirely a matter of principle for me. My lookahead is so bad that being forced to use an RSC isn't going to hurt _my_ average.


----------



## kbrune (Oct 27, 2017)

turtwig said:


> It seems to me like your logic is similar to that of Rubik's when they're suing other cube companies.



Good point. I am quite one sided on that concept. Any company or organization is free to hold any size competition. 

I'm just loyal to an organization that was founded out of passion rather then one bullying markets for money I suppose.

I can't help but want great things for the WCA.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Dec 31, 2017)

Rubiks is the new Vcube.Once loved but hated by speedcubers everywhere for their greediness.


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Dec 31, 2017)

I think that Rubiks are trying to promote speedcubing to the world with a more "spectator friendly" kind of competition. What they don't realise is that
1. This is SUPER bad timing
2. They have the money to destroy the WCA and pay people like Mats and Max Park to be at the comps
And much more

Overall, I really don't like Rubik's right now, however I don't think they're trying to hurt the cubing community


----------



## Tony Fisher (Dec 31, 2017)

1001010101001 said:


> Rubiks is the new Vcube.Once loved but hated by speedcubers everywhere for their greediness.


How on earth has V-Cubes been greedy? It's the KO companies that copied a legally protected design instead of spending their own money and time creating one from scratch that are greedy. V-Cubes spent an enormous amount of time and money only to have their revenue stolen. They are no different to any other normal company going through standard legal ways to protect themselves.


----------



## Ronxu (Dec 31, 2017)

Tony Fisher said:


> How on earth has V-Cubes been greedy? It's the KO companies that copied a legally protected design instead of spending their own money and time creating one from scratch that are greedy. V-Cubes spent an enormous amount of time and money only to have their revenue stolen. They are no different to any other normal company going through standard legal ways to protect themselves.


their cubes suck tho so who cares


----------



## One Wheel (Dec 31, 2017)

Tony Fisher said:


> How on earth has V-Cubes been greedy? It's the KO companies that copied a legally protected design instead of spending their own money and time creating one from scratch that are greedy. V-Cubes spent an enormous amount of time and money only to have their revenue stolen. They are no different to any other normal company going through standard legal ways to protect themselves.



There are a few ways to protect a business advantage. One that is not relevant to cubing is by monopolizing raw materials. Other ways are to make the best product and innovate, or to leverage the legal system to put your competitors out of business. Companies like Shengshou, Dayan, Moyu, Qiyi, and Yuxin have chosen the former and thereby earned the respect of cubers who are more interested in function than the more esoteric (still real, just harder to understand) concept of intellectual property. V-cubes and Seven Towns/Rubik's have thrown their lot in squarely with the litigation strategy, and for the most part ignored innovation beyond initial development. 

As a side note, is there actually proof that the "knockoff" companies actually stole a design rather than developing it independently? I know that, for example, Rubik's lawsuit against theCubicle is based on the 3x3 colored grid, which is inherent to the function. V-Cubes' contention as I understand it, is based on the basic shape of the cuts, and while there are other options there are only a couple of possibilities especially if you're going to interpret it as broadly as V-Cubes has.


----------



## ariissleeping (Jan 2, 2018)

I am more or less sharing an opinion with Dana Yi as of now. Redbull's competitions are generally will organised and also appeal to a mainstream audience. An example is their paper plane competition. However the, um, non involvement of the WCA I find quite disappointing, and the compulsory usage of the RSC is annoying. 

However on Rubik's' case, I feel that they are trying to force the community onto their cubes, making themselves more money. The compulsory usage of the RSC combined with the lawsuit thing all point to their mentality being "let's get rid of the competition so the audience but ours without regarding their opinion (that our cubes are bad and no one wants to use them) so they but our cubes"

Overall, rather disappointed.


----------



## cuber314159 (Jan 2, 2018)

Tony Fisher said:


> How on earth has V-Cubes been greedy? It's the KO companies that copied a legally protected design instead of spending their own money and time creating one from scratch that are greedy. V-Cubes spent an enormous amount of time and money only to have their revenue stolen. They are no different to any other normal company going through standard legal ways to protect themselves.


But shengshous cubes were improvements if I am not mistaken so to try and soo shengshou for creating better cubes is not very different from Rubik's


----------



## Fábio De'Rose (Jan 2, 2018)

Tony Fisher said:


> only to have their revenue stolen



I can only speak for myself, but I can safely assume other people, just like myself, *opted* for purchasing any other but V Cube's products, so as an end buyer this is far from "stealing" and more like "choosing".

But who cares about V Cubes anyway, lol. Their products are of objectively inferior quality, and have been so for a decent while now.


----------



## Cubed Cuber (Jan 2, 2018)

Rubiks is just jealous of theCubicle and of the WCA

Why won't Rubiks just try to make better cubes at a cheaper price?
The Qiyi Qidi(https://thecubicle.us/qiyi-qidi-p-8915.html) is waaaaay better than a rubiks 2x2 at a much lower price.


----------



## Tony Fisher (Jan 2, 2018)

One Wheel said:


> As a side note, is there actually proof that the "knockoff" companies actually stole a design rather than developing it independently?


They pretty obviously are (we waited over 20 years for a cube bigger than a 5x5x5 and almost immediately almost identical designs were released) but it doesn't actually matter. Under an internationally agreed law the company that proves itself to be the first has the sole rights to make it. Any reputable company will do their own patent searches before producing a new product. Should that product already exist they wouldn't produce it and have no legal right to anyway. The law doesn't make a distinction between "I just copied it" and "I thought of it too, honest gov". If people think this law is wrong then they should get into politics and seek to change it. BTW quality of the product or slight changes are not sufficient to nullify patent law.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 2, 2018)

There is a very big difference between what V-Cubes did and what Rubik's did. V-Cubes' behavior is very much in the spirit of patent law. Patents are intended to protect a design for a short time, so the inventor can recoup their initial research investment. V-Cubes loses all rights to pursue the issue once the patent expires - probably 17 years.

On the other hand, Rubik's' patent expired quite a while ago. They are trying to misuse copyright and trademark laws to try to protect something that should only be patentable. Rubik's' behavior is absolutely reprehensible - it perverts the law. They've had their chance to collect on the design - that ended when the patent expired.


----------



## pglewis (Jan 2, 2018)

Tony Fisher said:


> They pretty obviously are (we waited over 20 years for a cube bigger than a 5x5x5 and almost immediately almost identical designs were released) but it doesn't actually matter. Under an internationally agreed law the company that proves itself to be the first has the sole rights to make it. Any reputable company will do their own patent searches before producing a new product. Should that product already exist they wouldn't produce it and have no legal right to anyway. The law doesn't make a distinction between "I just copied it" and "I thought of it too, honest gov". If people think this law is wrong then they should get into politics and seek to change it. BTW quality of the product or slight changes are not sufficient to nullify patent law.



I'm curious if you've filed any patents for puzzle designs, there are puzzles that bear your name after all. And if so, I'm curious how the licensing works, at least, as much as you're willing to divulge


----------



## cuber314159 (Jan 2, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> There is a very big difference between what V-Cubes did and what Rubik's did. V-Cubes' behavior is very much in the spirit of patent law. Patents are intended to protect a design for a short time, so the inventor can recoup their initial research investment. V-Cubes loses all rights to pursue the issue once the patent expires - probably 17 years.
> 
> On the other hand, Rubik's' patent expired quite a while ago. They are trying to misuse copyright and trademark laws to try to protect something that should only be patentable. Rubik's' behavior is absolutely reprehensible - it perverts the law. They've had their chance to collect on the design - that ended when the patent expired.


But how close can the deaigns be to each other, surely vcube can't patent the idea of big cubes, surely they can only patent their specific design of the pieces as capitalist societies rely heavily on innovation and improvement of products, and competition encourages this and prevents monopoly in the market.

I'd far rather qiyi monopolise the cube market by having the best cubes than Rubik's shutting down cube manufacturers.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 2, 2018)

It is absolutely true that patent law is limited by the specificity of the ideas patented. So a changed design can potentially bypass the patent. That sort of thing is worked out in court, so V-cubes might lose cases they bring against other designers based on that. But at least the V-Cubes cases are within the spirit of the patent laws. The Rubik's cases are not.


----------



## qwr (Dec 5, 2020)

Ebay just took down a listing of mine for a 4x4 Qiyi "Rubik's cube" . Weirdly enough they took it down after it was sold and I already shipped it out. All my other listings only say "cube" or "magic cube" so those were probably generic and safe, and it is my fault for listing it as a Rubik's cube when it is not Rubik's brand. But this aggressive trademark enforcement leaves me with a bad impression.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Dec 5, 2020)

qwr said:


> Ebay just took down a listing of mine for a 4x4 Qiyi "Rubik's cube" . Weirdly enough they took it down after it was sold and I already shipped it out. All my other listings only say "cube" or "magic cube" so those were probably generic and safe, and it is my fault for listing it as a Rubik's cube when it is not Rubik's brand. But this aggressive trademark enforcement leaves me with a bad impression.



We're gonna have to be careful if we wanna sell on ebay/amazon in the future


----------



## cuber314159 (Dec 5, 2020)

To be fair, just don't list cubes as 'Rubik's' anyway, it's not good for the community even if they don't try to take the listings down.


----------

