# Mefferts 7x7 and Holey Cube!!!



## ConnorCuber (Feb 24, 2009)

* Meffert's 7x7 and Void Cube!*



Uwe Meffert said:


> Hi All!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Hadley4000 (Feb 24, 2009)

$42 with free shipping??? Man, I got my 7x7 the day they came out. Sooooo expensive with shipping.

I want a void cube desperately. But I'm saving money for my next tattoo now


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Feb 24, 2009)

:O so cheap  I am saving money for new C4Y 4x4 though...


----------



## crazyasianskills (Feb 24, 2009)

Newsletter
Newsletter

23. February. 2009


Subject: Puzzle News as of February 23. 2009 777 cube and Holey cube survey !!!

Hi All!

Two new Puzzles have been added to the -Reserve Limited Puzzle Edition- page, a superior quality 7x7x7
cube with an re-engineered mechanism consisting of 327 parts, for a smoother turning puzzle. Decorated

with long-lasting matt finish environmental PVC labels plus two spare label sets and a white & black
body Holey cube with tiles. See http://mefferts.com/page.php?lang=en&theme=new_puzzle_release.

I have been offered these high quality limited production puzzles and depending on this surveys outcome
will decide by the middle of next week whether to include these to our Miscellaneous Puzzles category.
The Price is US$42.00 and $14.00 respectively, which of course includes FREE Airmail shipment to
anywhere in the world where there is a Post Office, and a 7% Royalty allowance that will be placed into
a special Trust account. All the rightful Inventor has to do is contact us on [email protected] and the
royalty payment will be transferred to any nominated bank account on a three monthly basis.



The balance of the limited edition Tony Fisher Golden cubes, plus a small quantity of silver, copper
and white cubes will be available around Wednesday of next week. The black cube version with Cubesmith
chrome labels will follow around two weeks after that. The Tony Fisher Golden Egg limited edition will

be released around the middle of March in eight colors. Several other exiting puzzles are being tooled or
are in the final debugging stage, more details about these when we are closer to producing them. Also
several of the more popular out of stock items will be reproduced within the next few month. Early March
we will have these placed on our -Reserve out of Stock Items- page to determine just how many we will
need to make to satisfy everyones requirements.


Registered mail:
We have added an additional shipping option for Registered Mail to our order form at a
charge of US$2.00. As we have been informed that in some countries like Italy and Mexico parcels just
magically disappear during the holidays, or if your mail box is not secure and the parcel is stolen we are
not responsible for that as well. We only guarantee that the parcel will be delivered to the postal service
in your country. If any of the above conditions applies to you please choose the Registered Mail option to
protect your puzzle order from theft.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Feb 24, 2009)

wasn't meffert the one complaining about ripoff puzzles in the first place?!


----------



## qqwref (Feb 24, 2009)

Those 7x7s look exactly like the Chinese knockoffs and I have also heard that the Chinese ones have many more pieces than normal V-cubes. (So I think these ARE the Chinese knockoffs.) It disturbs me that Meffert is referring to them as "superior quality" and a "smoother turning puzzle"; if that's what Meffert thinks, sales are going to be quickly turned towards these puzzles instead of legitimate V-cubes. Remember that this isn't just the same situation as the first DIY knockoffs (where the factory that was making official Rubik's cubes just started making extra tuneable ones and selling them in China) - V-cubes are made in Greece.

...is Verdes at least getting compensation for this?


----------



## Unknown.soul (Feb 24, 2009)

I know, it doesn't make any sense. In an earlier newsletter:

My strategy of *providing genuine puzzles* for just 5% to 10% above the prices of illegal copies--with better
quality and packaging--is proving to be very successful. It is my sincere desire to have other original-design
puzzles included in the Mefferts Challenge line, with the inventors given full credit and receiving the full royalties due them.

However, we need to act fast while this concept is gaining momentum. In that way we can force the copy
companies out of business within a relatively short time--say two to five years--as in the end happened in
Taiwan and Korea.

I am very happy to enter into an immediate royalty agreement with the designers of any unique puzzles
that have been knocked off and will try to make a deal with the company that made the copy mold to
improve their quality and legalize their activities, with them selling the then-legal goods through my retail partners channels.

Hypocrisy?



qqwref said:


> is Verdes at least getting compensation for this?


It says that they recieve "7% Royalty allowance to the rightful Inventor", but it still makes no sense to buy replicated puzzles and give them 7% instead of buying the real one and give them 100%


----------



## daniel0731ex (Feb 24, 2009)

(meffert's 3x3 is also a ripoff)


----------



## Kian (Feb 24, 2009)

qqwref said:


> ...is Verdes at least getting compensation for this?



"The Price includes FREE shipping Via Airmail Worldwide.
and a 7% Royalty allowance for the rightful Inventor."

Seems like he will. Hopefully they can work something out.


----------



## daniel0731ex (Feb 24, 2009)

Unknown.soul said:


> However, we need to act fast while this concept is gaining momentum. In that way we can force the copy
> companies out of business within a relatively short time--say two to five years--as in the end happened in
> Taiwan and Korea.



yeah, taiwan used to be the biggest ripoff country(about 20 years ago), then comes korea, and now it's china


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Feb 24, 2009)

no one cares about the holey cube, haha


----------



## toast (Feb 24, 2009)

Color scheme is wrong on the 7x7...?


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Feb 24, 2009)

EDIT: merge.


----------



## JTW2007 (Feb 24, 2009)

Whoa! Did one of my favorite puzzle manufacturers just knock off two of my favorite puzzles in one newsletter!? I'll stick to my original void and V7.


----------



## byu (Feb 24, 2009)

toast said:


> Color scheme is wrong on the 7x7...?


 The image is impossible. Look at the red/black/blue corner and the centers


----------



## Elmo (Feb 24, 2009)

I dislike Verdes anyway. I asked nicely for a replacement piece for my V7 and got ignored...

The pieces popped way too easily when I first started playing with it. And I only needed to pop it out once to lose it entirely.

I'll hope to get a 7x7x7 after wasting my money on a V7.


----------



## toast (Feb 24, 2009)

byu said:


> toast said:
> 
> 
> > Color scheme is wrong on the 7x7...?
> ...



If you mean the one right in front, I think that's a Black/Blue/Orange.
I can't see any other corner except that one.

EDIT: Looking at the left photo, I think yellow/black are switched.


----------



## blade740 (Feb 24, 2009)

I believe Meffert will honor his agreement to the manufacturers. What this will do is get all the people who would buy knockoff 7x7's to buy them (for, like before, a little bit above what the other knockoffs are selling for) while still bringing profit to the rightful owners. Sure, it's still bad for Verdes. But the knockoffs can't be stopped. If not for Meffert, those people would be buying knockoffs at no profit to Verdes. 

Me? I'll get a V-7. The superior V-cube plastic quality is worth it, in my opinion.


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 24, 2009)

Smart, but risky strategy by Mefferts. I don't know if 7% is enough to stop V-Cubes from legal actions but it might just work.


----------



## MichaelErskine (Feb 24, 2009)

daniel0731ex said:


> (meffert's 3x3 is also a ripoff)


So is the mf8 megaminx currently supplied Meffert's but at least he's licensed to make them, unlike the Void cube or V-Cube 7 



> a 7% Royalty allowance that will be placed into a special Trust account. All the rightful Inventor has to do is contact us on [email protected] and the royalty payment will be transferred to any nominated bank account on a three monthly basis.



Sounds like a 419 scam to me! 

Throw his ass in jail


----------



## rahulkadukar (Feb 24, 2009)

Well if it does really turn smooth it is actually cheaper than a V6. I will buy it as there is free shipping too. Only hope it turns smooth


----------



## Ton (Feb 24, 2009)

msemtd said:


> daniel0731ex said:
> 
> 
> > (meffert's 3x3 is also a ripoff)
> ...



So lets ask mefferts , before accusing, maybe there is an arrangement.....


----------



## MichaelErskine (Feb 24, 2009)

Ton said:


> So lets ask mefferts , before accusing, maybe there is an arrangement.....



We await some sort of statement from Mr Verdes and Mr Okamoto. 

My disappointment with the mf8 minx still stands 





I still love solving that minx though, dammit!


----------



## Ton (Feb 24, 2009)

crazyasianskills said:


> [email protected]



Well this email address does not work, I try the feedback form on the site...


----------



## masterofthebass (Feb 24, 2009)

I asked Konstantinos, and he's not very happy... Let's just leave it at that.


----------



## Pietersmieters (Feb 24, 2009)

777: The Price includes FREE shipping Via Airmail Worldwide.
and a 7% Royalty allowance for the rightful Inventor.

Holey cube: The Price includes FREE shipping Via Airmail Worldwide.
and a 7% Royalty allowance for the rightful Inventor.

from:http://mefferts.com/page.php?lang=en&theme=new_puzzle_release

So Verdes and the Japanese Void cube inventor are getting something after all?


----------



## Ton (Feb 24, 2009)

Pietersmieters said:


> 777: The Price includes FREE shipping Via Airmail Worldwide.
> and a 7% Royalty allowance for the rightful Inventor.
> 
> Holey cube: The Price includes FREE shipping Via Airmail Worldwide.
> ...



Now I am not sure how this works, the email address [email protected] is not working. It does not feel good....I have my concerns, thats why I ask mefferts via its feedback 
form on the mefferts site...

Tony Fisher worked with Mefferts so he knows how it works


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 24, 2009)

masterofthebass said:


> I asked Konstantinos, and he's not very happy... Let's just leave it at that.


 
Let's not leave it at that. Because if he would just be "not very happy" that would mean he is not going to pursue the legal route ("not being happy" is not really grounds for an injunction)

And many people are now wondering if it would be legal to purchase these cubes AND if they might actually be better than the originals.

Verdes should post an official statement on his site


----------



## MichaelErskine (Feb 24, 2009)

I'm sure there's enough fuel here to start an entire new forum for _morally-dubious-but-perhaps-cheaper-and-perhaps-technically-superior-but-only-if--I-can-use-my-Type-A-screws-and-springs_ puzzles 

If nothing else, this interesting twist of Meffert's getting "down with the pirates" has given us plenty to gossip about.


----------



## Odin (Feb 24, 2009)

I think the V -Cube company is going to start dying now. Their monopoly is over.


----------



## masterofthebass (Feb 24, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> Verdes should post an official statement on his site



Due to legal reasons, I don't think he can.





I've got this from a "trusted source"


Anonymous said:


> I don't know if you know this , but Mefferts is a thief.
> For more than 4 years was trying to take the items to copy them.
> 
> He was blackmaling us all the time with newsletters etc
> ...


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Feb 24, 2009)

As much as I usually love and support Mefferts, I STRONGLY disagree with this decision and I honestly hope he doesn't go through with this. 
Sigh, its always sad to see someone you trust start doing illegal and morally wrong things.

Also, for those of you saying that its fine because the inventors get 7%, that really is absolutely nothing. Thats a loss of 93% because someone decided they were above the law.

I know that some idiots who lack morals see this as a great thing and will gladly buy these, but I hope that respectful people will not buy these.

PS: This is not just bad for verdes, this is bad for all of us too! Copyright laws exist partly to give an incentive to make new things. Every one of these that someone buys reduces the chance that we will ever see a v-4, v-3, v-8, or anything else.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Feb 24, 2009)

mmmm...with mefferts selling mf8 megaminxes...means that those dealextreme 4x4s and 5x5s with tiles are probably what we buy from mefferts! I am so going to stock on the 4x4s as I slowly kill them one by one...


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 24, 2009)

> Thats a loss of 93%


No, it really isn't. Verdes cannot magically create V-Cubes out of thin air so he has production, transport, marketing, personal and many other costs that he doesn't have when someone else sells it for him. 7% sounds too low for a product with that much research and such a small target market but it is realistic enough to _maybe_ get Verdes not to sue.

I am surprised that Mefferts started doing this and I really question the legallity of this all, but I think Verdes will decide not to sue

And there is no reason Verdes couldn't post an official statement on his website. He would have to be careful with the wording of it though


----------



## Ton (Feb 24, 2009)

I think we all should start to think where and how products are produced, is it a fair product? Are the people making it exploited? I never did this, I think it is a good to to start change my behavior....

Ton

btw will not happen overnight....


----------



## SimonWestlund (Feb 24, 2009)

I wonder why I didn't get that newsletter..


----------



## Dirk BerGuRK (Feb 24, 2009)

Elmo said:


> I dislike Verdes anyway. I asked nicely for a replacement piece for my V7 and got ignored...



Second. I tried to contact them for a puzzle that arrived broken with no luck. I'd buy a Mefferts. I have been very pleased with his service in the past.


----------



## Erik (Feb 24, 2009)

I think mefferts are just using V-cubes to make themselves better from it. I like mefferts for the puzzles they sell, but to sell cloned cubes like V-cubes is over the line in my opinion. I'll never buy it ever.


----------



## JTW2007 (Feb 24, 2009)

Erik said:


> I like mefferts for the puzzles they sell, but to sell cloned cubes like V-cubes is over the line in my opinion. I'll never buy it ever.



Well said. I agree.

As for the void, do we know if it's the same mechanism or not?


----------



## ExoCorsair (Feb 24, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> PS: This is not just bad for verdes, this is bad for all of us too! Copyright laws exist partly to give an incentive to make new things. Every one of these that someone buys reduces the chance that we will ever see a v-4, v-3, v-8, or anything else.



So I take it that you'd rather see monopolies? Let's have more goods and services that are supplied by single firms, right?

I'm all for this; more competition means more consumer choices and also cheaper products for us. We, as cubers (especially poorer cubers), benefit.

Also, you fail to justify your conclusion; you instead jump to it. Besides, if you need a high quality cube to set fast times, then, you just need to get faster at cubing, period.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 24, 2009)

ExoCorsair said:


> So I take it that you'd rather see monopolies? Let's have more goods and services that are supplied by single firms, right?


It's not as simple as that, unfortunately. In some cases monopolies are clearly bad for the consumer - for instance in the traditional American circumstance where a necessity (phone lines, railroads, steel, etc.) is controlled by one company or an allied group of companies which then proceeds to drive up the price as much as possible because people are "willing" to pay huge prices to get something they need.

But on the other hand sometimes a monopoly is simply the only fair way to go. Panagiotis Verdes is, as of my knowledge, the ONLY person who has designed a working 7x7 mechanism which can stand up to speedcubing. Period. He's the only one who deserves to sell 7x7s. If you have a problem with this, stealing his invention is not the moral or ethical way to go. The right way to do it is to actually offer a competing service - that is, have someone invent a new 7x7 mechanism, and produce that. I've tried - it's HARD to think of a decent mechanism... and I respect Mr. Verdes a lot for having done it.




ExoCorsair said:


> Also, you fail to justify your conclusion; you instead jump to it. Besides, if you need a high quality cube to set fast times, then, you just need to get faster at cubing, period.


You shouldn't be talking, you're not even sub-15 >_> Seriously, the cube DOES affect your times, it's just that in the long run practice affects your times much more. Take a new storebought and ask Harris or Yu or Erik to get a sub-10 and I bet you they'll have a much harder time than they would with one of their speedcubes. Give any fast Megaminx solver my Megaminx and I bet you they won't be getting any sub-1:30s.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Feb 24, 2009)

qqwref said:


> But on the other hand sometimes a monopoly is simply the only fair way to go. Panagiotis Verdes is, as of my knowledge, the ONLY person who has designed a working 7x7 mechanism which can stand up to speedcubing. Period. He's the only one who deserves to sell 7x7s. If you have a problem with this, stealing his invention is not the moral or ethical way to go. The right way to do it is to actually offer a competing service - that is, have someone invent a new 7x7 mechanism, and produce that. I've tried - it's HARD to think of a decent mechanism... and I respect Mr. Verdes a lot for having done it.



We'll just have to see if Mefferts indeed infringed on the patent rights, then?



qqwref said:


> [You shouldn't be talking, you're not even sub-15 >_> Seriously, the cube DOES affect your times, it's just that in the long run practice affects your times much more. Take a new storebought and ask Harris or Yu or Erik to get a sub-10 and I bet you they'll have a much harder time than they would with one of their speedcubes. Give any fast Megaminx solver my Megaminx and I bet you they won't be getting any sub-1:30s.



My comment was directed at the poster whom I quoted, who isn't sub-25 yet, apparently. At that stage, I believe that the cuber makes a significantly larger difference than the cube. I think I can say this because I could average the same on all my cubes (with their varied colors and color schemes) when I was there. Relating it to big cubes, if it takes a person five minutes to solve a 5x5x5, what difference would an Eastsheen, a Rubik's, or a V5 make? There wouldn't be really be any; the problem is with the technique.

That said, I'm not talking about top speedcubers (they all probably already have their V7's anyway); I'm talking about the average speedcuber. Not that you really care about them, right?

Also we're talking about high quality cubes. A V7 compared to a Mefferts 7x7 would probably be close to the same. I don't believe we'll be seeing something like Rubik's 5x5x5s vs. Mefferts 5x5x5s, if you remember that. Therefore, we wouldn't see extreme cases such as your examples, namely a crap cube/minx versus a speedcube/minx.

Edit: I do appreciate that you actually provide legitimate, justified reasons, though, instead of speaking in obscurities like some other posts here...


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Feb 24, 2009)

First of all Exo, what exactly do my solve times have to do with a legal and ethical debate? And for the record, I am sub-25. 
Anyway, as for how I got to the conclusion that knockoffs will seriously hurt the chances of seeing other v-cubes, its simple. Something like a v-4 would require money to make, and there would need to be some reason to believe that they would make money on it. Knockoff 7x7s steal money from the Verdes, and not only will that hurt their ability to make other cubes, but if they have reason to believe that the market will go for knockoffs coming shortly after the official ones are released, what reason would they have to make it at all?

Also, I never said that I want to see monopolies. I am fine that there is no monopoly on the 2-5 cubes. The difference is that Eastsheen/v-cubes legitimately produced a legal product, rather than stealing what someone else had already done.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 24, 2009)

I am sorry to hear about the users who received a damaged v-cube and never received a response back when contacting their support. 

I purchased the 3 v-cubes and when I got them I noticed there were stickers on all 3 that were peeling off a bit. I contacted them and they sent out replacement stickers right away. I think they did a fantastic job fulfilling the order and am very happy with their service.

I love the 5x5. The 6x6 wasn't as bad as I was expecting after things I have been hearing online. Also the 7x7 is just great. I don't try to speed solve them so I can't really comment on how well they would be for speed solving but I really enjoy solving them and I'm happy I bought them.

As for Mefferts selling knock offs I think this is really shameful. If anyone here is interested in the 7x7 I suggest you purchase it from the inventor at the v-cubes website and support them for the great product they provide.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 24, 2009)

ExoCorsair said:


> That said, I'm not talking about top speedcubers (they all probably already have their V7's anyway); I'm talking about the average speedcuber. Not that you really care about them, right?



Well, if you're not fast at big cubes, I think a V7 is pretty much a luxury, rather than a necessity. You wouldn't be missing out on being one of the best in [insert region], instead the only thing you wouldn't have is being able to play with or solve the puzzle. (Of course, if you just want to solve the puzzle but can't afford one, there are plenty of computer simulators out there to play with, with many different looks and control schemes.)

The thing is, there are a LOT of interesting puzzles out there that are a bit too expensive to be able to play with. Rubik's Domino, Master Pyraminx, Gigaminx, Pentultimate, Dino Cube... and that's just a very short list off the top of my head. Those are all interesting puzzles that are probably fun to play with and solve and practice. If you're not expecting to practice 7x7 a lot and get really good at it, I think the 7x7 really belongs in a list like that - it's just a cool interesting puzzle that you'd solve once in a while and maybe show off to some cuber friends, but that might be a bit out of your price range.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 24, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Anyway, as for how I got to the conclusion that knockoffs will seriously hurt the chances of seeing other v-cubes, its simple. Something like a v-4 would require money to make, and there would need to be some reason to believe that they would make money on it.


Other V-cubes? Probably. If you mean produced by Verdes. Didn't someone earlier mention a cloner intending to produce a 9x9x9 soon with their mechanism? Ever since the patent appeared and I saw the pictures, I had wondered whether Verdes would actually be the first to produce the new cubes, especially when Verdes took so long.

Note: As usual I'm not taking sides prematurely, just providing reality checks.


----------



## jcuber (Feb 24, 2009)

If the mefferts 7x7 really did have a better design than v-7's do, I believe that you should be able to buy it (unless it is something stupid like adjustability).


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Feb 24, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, as for how I got to the conclusion that knockoffs will seriously hurt the chances of seeing other v-cubes, its simple. Something like a v-4 would require money to make, and there would need to be some reason to believe that they would make money on it.
> ...



O yes sorry I should have noted that I did mean by v-cubes, and I am aware that it is possible for others to make cubes that haven't come out yet based solely on the designs of the other cubes and the patents. I know that who manufactures the cubes isn't important to some people, but I do feel a legal and moral obligation not to support stealing patented designs.

Edit: I'm not trying to say that I'm a moral crusader or anything, I just see that as the right thing to do, and I honestly believe that the right to patent enforcement in a critical part of society, especially in a small niche community.

Also, you may be able to get v-cubes elsewhere if the verdes were unfortunately forced to stop making them by a financial situation, but it may make inventors and builders have hesitations before introducing a new puzzle to mass production.


----------



## Unknown.soul (Feb 24, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> Didn't someone earlier mention a cloner intending to produce a 9x9x9 soon with their mechanism?



Uwe mentioned that in a newsletter.


----------



## fanwuq (Feb 24, 2009)

I have a question:

What is the point of getting a patent if it does nothing to prevent competition? Aren't patents intended to be government protected monopolies (that you have to pay and work hard to get and lasts a period of time ~30 years)?


----------



## ExoCorsair (Feb 24, 2009)

Ethan, for the same reasons that qqwref introduced them.



fanwuq said:


> What is the point of getting a patent if it does nothing to prevent competition? Aren't patents intended to be government protected monopolies (that you have to pay and work hard to get and lasts a period of time ~30 years)?



Competition is not bad.

Patents are supposed to protect your rights for X years so that you exclusively profit from them, such that only you profit from your research and development.

It's pretty much to ensure that you're profiting from your investment in R&D.

Meanwhile, other firms would need to come up with other ideas to compete if they want a piece of the market pie. If it happens, then the consumer benefits from lower prices (ideally) and a choice in what items he/she purchases.


----------



## Odin (Feb 24, 2009)

I cant wait to but a Mefferts "Holey" cube and a Mefferts 7x7x7.


----------



## crazyasianskills (Feb 24, 2009)

Kinda off topic, but why was my thread put into Connorcuber's thread? I'm pretty sure I made mine first. I don't really care, just wondering what happened.


----------



## Paul Wagner (Feb 24, 2009)

ill wait for feedback to buy.


----------



## ConnorCuber (Feb 24, 2009)

crazyasianskills said:


> Kinda off topic, but why was my thread put into Connorcuber's thread? I'm pretty sure I made mine first. I don't really care, just wondering what happened.



Actually, i made mine first (not trying to gloat, they were just a couple minutes apart) and they were merged, because they're pretty much the same thread.


----------



## DavidCalvo (Feb 24, 2009)

Why is Konstantinos Complaining now?

He has done many bad things too, like using all the Rubik's brand created "world" for his own profit, without paying an unique Euro.

Of course, now he's the damaged, and he has to complain. Well deserved.


----------



## crazyasianskills (Feb 24, 2009)

ConnorCuber said:


> crazyasianskills said:
> 
> 
> > Kinda off topic, but why was my thread put into Connorcuber's thread? I'm pretty sure I made mine first. I don't really care, just wondering what happened.
> ...



Gotcha that makes sense. I guess I didn't see yours.


----------



## byu (Feb 24, 2009)

V-Cube has a monopoly, right now at least. But if you look at their website with new items they are thinking about a V2, V3, etc. up to V11. A 7x7x7 from Mefferts doesn't take away the monopoly that V-Cube has, I don't think there are any other mass producers of 6x6x6 cubes, and eventually up to 11. I think the design and concept of how V-Cube makes their cubes is very good, and I would be willing to buy a V3 possibly the day it comes out (if it ever does)


----------



## qqwref (Feb 24, 2009)

DavidCalvo said:


> Why is Konstantinos Complaining now?
> 
> He has done many bad things too, like using all the Rubik's brand created "world" for his own profit, without paying an unique Euro.
> 
> Of course, now he's the damaged, and he has to complain. Well deserved.



...

First: "using all the Rubik's brand created "world" for his own profit"? Check the V-cube website, I challenge you to find even one mention of "Rubik's". Same thing for the advertising. You would have to be an idiot to believe that V-cubes are official Rubik's merchandise. People purchase V-cubes not because they are like Rubik's cubes, but because they are sturdy, complex, and beautiful puzzles. Don't like the cubes? Don't buy one.

Second: "without paying a unique Euro"? I assume you're referring to the technique of making molds and prototype puzzles, and getting patents, for free. Think you could teach me how?

Third: Blatant, explicit support of theft makes you as bad as the thief in my eyes. Perhaps one day when you grow up you will learn about what adults call "morality" and "ethics".

Finally: Using the same logic as you, if all of your money and cubes got stolen, you'd deserve it. After all, you've gained fame and friends, and possibly prize money, using "the Rubik's brand created "world"" for your own profit. So have fun and I hope you get what you deserve.


----------



## byu (Feb 24, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Check the V-cube website, I challenge you to find even one mention of "Rubik's".





V-Cubes Website said:


> *A brief chronicle from Inventor’s mouth:*
> 
> “The whole story began in 1981, when for the first time I saw and held in my hands a Rubik’s Cube. I felt great admiration for this astounding invention and I instantly became a fanatic fan of this puzzle..."


----------



## qqwref (Feb 25, 2009)

I should've been more precise - what I meant was that the cubes are nowhere claimed to be Rubik's products, so they are not at all riding on the coattails of the Rubik's Cube. (Note that people are more open to twisty puzzles because of the cube's popularity, but this does not mean that twisty puzzle manufacturers somehow owe something to Rubik.) Of course P. Verdes was a fan of the Rubik's Cube, there's no way he would have tried to make higher-order mechanisms if he wasn't


----------



## DavidCalvo (Feb 25, 2009)

I've nothing else to say or to argue. I don't want to start a dispute with any of you, since it makes NO SENSE AT ALL, although some of you would defend Konstantinos, for a bunch of v-cubes (and you are in your total right, and I have nothing against, of course). Anyway, there is much more issues involved you might not know.

http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=148679#p148679


----------



## d4m4s74 (Feb 25, 2009)

I already have a V-7 and I've made reservations for the meffert's "clone"
If mefferts is exactly the same, I'll just stick with verdes for my next bigcubes
if mefferts has the same mechanism but is better, I'll still stick with verdes
if mefferts has a superior cube with another mechanism, I'll switch to mefferts for my bigcubes


----------



## MichaelErskine (Feb 25, 2009)

d4m4s74 said:


> I already have a V-7 and I've made reservations for the meffert's "clone"


I fear that Meffert's are are counting these as votes of approval.


d4m4s74 said:


> If mefferts is exactly the same, I'll just stick with verdes for my next bigcubes
> if mefferts has the same mechanism but is better, I'll still stick with verdes
> if mefferts has a superior cube with another mechanism, I'll switch to mefferts for my bigcubes



Apparently the mechanism is exactly the same - a total rip-off of the V-Cube 7. Here's an owner showing a partially disassembled puzzle...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_g_LDSs-Z0


----------



## MTGjumper (Feb 25, 2009)

I don't agree with Mefferts copying the V-cube mechanism, considering the time and effort that was put into it by Verdes. It makes the 3x3 mechanism look incredibly simple.

(This post had more content before I realised I was an idiot )


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 25, 2009)

ExoCorsair said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > PS: This is not just bad for verdes, this is bad for all of us too! Copyright laws exist partly to give an incentive to make new things. Every one of these that someone buys reduces the chance that we will ever see a v-4, v-3, v-8, or anything else.
> ...


Are you sure this will lead to more consumer choice?
If I were a puzzle builder that has a plan for creating a revolutionairy and fun puzzle that will cost me 50000 Euro to invest before I can even sell 1......I wouldn't do it if I knew I would only see a Return-On-Investment of 30000 before somebody creates a clone (needing an investment of only 15000).


----------



## panyan (Feb 25, 2009)

Drucifer said:


> I purchased the 3 v-cubes and when I got them I noticed there were stickers on all 3 that were peeling off a bit. I contacted them and they sent out replacement stickers right away. I think they did a fantastic job fulfilling the order and am very happy with their service.



i got the set of three as well and the v6 and v7 had badly aligned stickers, some were coming off, some were fully of, etc. I contacted them and after weeks of sending photos back and forth they eventually sent my one set for my v7 and that wasn't even cut to size - i was disappointed


----------



## MichaelErskine (Feb 25, 2009)

panyan said:


> i got the set of three as well and the v6 and v7 had badly aligned stickers, some were coming off, some were fully of, etc.


Mine weren't quite so bad on my V-Cube 7 but there was definitely a problem with quality control in the early days with gaps in the 2-part pieces and stickers all over the place.

I haven't seen any recently produced/bought V-Cubes.


----------



## abr71310 (Feb 25, 2009)

I think that since V-cube did invent the mechanism (and hopefully thus the patents / copyrights that came with it), he should have full legal rights over what he decides to do with it.

If Meffert's decides to completely rip off the mechanism design and attempt to sell it without Verdes's prior knowledge, he should rot it hell. We have copyright laws in action for a reason.

I took a side, I won't fully stick to it if I'm logically flawed somewhere (I doubt I am in this case), but I'm just saying, from a Canadian Law perspective, this is totally out of line.

7% Royalty that you have to ASK FOR?
Also not in the copyright / royalty laws.

In order to even put it on the market you have to ask permission of the original inventor and work out a deal BEFORE you sell it.

If Verdes puts in a lawsuit, may he win the entire company.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Feb 25, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> Are you sure this will lead to more consumer choice?



In the short term, we'll see more products from which the consumer can choose. 

...Already we have the Chinese 7x7x7s and V-Cubes, no?


----------



## ExoCorsair (Feb 25, 2009)

There was a post in the TP forum recently saying that the survey was taken down... which it has been.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Feb 25, 2009)

ExoCorsair said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > Are you sure this will lead to more consumer choice?
> ...



It's very unfortunate when people make the wrong choices based on short term happiness rather than long term gain. Knockoffs discourage inventors from taking the time, effort, and money to put things on the market. For whatever reason twistypuzzles appears to be down for me right now, but earlier today the inventor of the void cube, the master pyraminx, the floppy cube, and many others has said that based on that mefferts email, he is immediately ceasing plans to mass produce puzzles such as the master pyraminx and the pyracue, which are both puzzles he has been talking with Meffert about producing.


----------



## panyan (Feb 25, 2009)

^darn.....


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 25, 2009)

msemtd said:


> panyan said:
> 
> 
> > i got the set of three as well and the v6 and v7 had badly aligned stickers, some were coming off, some were fully of, etc.
> ...




I just got mine recently and here is a picture of all three of the v-cubes. Other than a few stickers that peeled off some they are great. This picture was taken by a friend.


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 25, 2009)

ExoCorsair said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > Are you sure this will lead to more consumer choice?
> ...


Short term: yes
Long term: I really don't think so

Let's compare this to medicine: Doing enough research to cure a major disease might cost 10,000,000,000. If the resulting medicine would be used by 100,000,000 people every dose would have to cost at least 100. Production of that medicine might cost only 5 per dose
That means that a copy-cat could bring that medicine on the market for 10 and still make a big profit while the original manufacturer would need to sell it for at least 105 to break even.
In the short term, it would be very beneficial for the copy-cat (and all the sick people) to only pay 10. This would mean that the original manufacturer goes bankrupt.
In the long term, nobody is going to do research because of the fear for bankrupcy

(this example is looking purely from a financial point of view. Let's not get into a moral discussion about the balance between so many healthy people and 1 bankrupt manufacturer)


----------



## ExoCorsair (Feb 25, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> It's very unfortunate when people make the wrong choices based on short term happiness rather than long term gain.



It's unfortunate that people care about their own happiness instead of society's gain, you mean.

Which has its own slew of problems, but it would still have other problems if it weren't that way.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Feb 25, 2009)

ExoCorsair said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > It's very unfortunate when people make the wrong choices based on short term happiness rather than long term gain.
> ...



Well assuming that you would be interested in buying puzzles that aren't out yet, I mean both personal and societal long term gain.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 25, 2009)

Wait, so I just tried the link in the original post again and the Holey cube and the Mefferts 7x7 are no longer on the page. Did they update it and remove it or am I just having a bad day?

http://mefferts.com/page.php?lang=en&theme=new_puzzle_release


----------



## Paul Wagner (Feb 25, 2009)

the question isnt is it good too have a knowckoff the question is is it good, does it blend?


----------



## ExoCorsair (Feb 25, 2009)

Drucifer said:


> Wait, so I just tried the link in the original post again and the Holey cube and the Mefferts 7x7 are no longer on the page. Did they update it and remove it or am I just having a bad day?
> 
> http://mefferts.com/page.php?lang=en&theme=new_puzzle_release



Read the thread? http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=141071&postcount=71



AvGalen said:


> Let's compare this to medicine: Doing enough research to cure a major disease might cost 10,000,000,000. If the resulting medicine would be used by 100,000,000 people every dose would have to cost at least 100. Production of that medicine might cost only 5 per dose
> That means that a copy-cat could bring that medicine on the market for 10 and still make a big profit while the original manufacturer would need to sell it for at least 105 to break even.
> In the short term, it would be very beneficial for the copy-cat (and all the sick people) to only pay 10. This would mean that the original manufacturer goes bankrupt.
> In the long term, nobody is going to do research because of the fear for bankrupcy
> ...



While we're speaking in hypothetical situations, let's compare to software. My company spends 1M currency units in labor/development/everything else. The actual software itself is irrelevant. It could be a game, or some office application, or some development tool. This software experiences wide usage. Distribution costs, say, 1 unit per transportation/license/disc/everything else. My pricing, as long as it is significantly greater than 1 unit is irrelevant.

Of course it gets pirated and cracked; as a result, a bunch of people get this software for free. Or people make copies and distribute copies of them. Either way, I make money off one copy out of all those people using them.

Does this mean I stop producing software? No, because there will always be people that legitimately purchase this software (such as, individuals, schools, government, other companies). Also, my company has the option to continuously develop this software, making it better than the illegal copies, thereby giving people a reason to buy it.

In the meanwhile, open source software or some cheaper alternative comes up and steals some of my customers. Look, consumer choice.

The fact is, the original product will generally be better than knock-offs (another example: retail World of Warcraft versus WoW private servers).

That said, while my example addresses yours, the puzzle industry is significantly smaller than either industry, and therefore I don't think either example really applies.


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 25, 2009)

> Also, my company has the option to continuously develop this software


Only if you cover your initial 1M currency units. Just like in my example the medicine-industry can only keep making medicine if they can cover their research-and-development-costs.
I think V-Cubes will have a very hard time surviving and will not be able to cover R&D for future products


----------



## qqwref (Feb 25, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> earlier today the inventor of the void cube, the master pyraminx, the floppy cube, and many others has said that based on that mefferts email, he is immediately ceasing plans to mass produce puzzles such as the master pyraminx and the pyracue, which are both puzzles he has been talking with Meffert about producing.


*** you, China.



ExoCorsair said:


> My pricing, as long as it is significantly greater than 1 unit is irrelevant.
> ...
> Does this mean I stop producing software? No, because there will always be people that legitimately purchase this software (such as, individuals, schools, government, other companies).


I see you've already realized why your analogy doesn't work: puzzles cost A LOT more than software. Sure, writing the software is expensive - but that's already done for puzzles, and even for software it's a one-time cost. Now comes the production. Molds are expensive, getting a factory is expensive, plastic is expensive, stickers are expensive, labor to put the puzzles together is expensive. And that's BEFORE you have even sold anything! Each V7 probably costs 30 euros to make and you have to make maybe a thousand before you can put them on the market. If it costs you virtually nothing to produce software (at the most it'll be the cost of CDs and packaging which is like $2 per copy, i.e. nothing), you have no reason NOT to produce, even if there is huge piracy going on. If you have software which isn't crap, trying to put it out in the marketplace is practically guaranteed to make you money.

For puzzles, it is so expensive to start mass production that, if you are not certain you will recoup the investment, you're not going to produce the puzzles at all. That's a HUGE loss to the puzzle community, which is why we need to foster an environment where puzzle makers can mass-produce original puzzles without having to worry about whether they will even make the money back. For software - who cares if you make your investment back? You already HAVE the code, and it can be copied an infinite amount of times for free. If you put it on the web and sell access to the full version, it doesn't even cost you anything. The community loses literally nothing if there is piracy, because _it is always worth it for you to put your software on the market._ Again: no amount of piracy will prevent the community from being able to buy your software, but it doesn't take that much to prevent the community from being able to buy a puzzle.

Put yourself in the Verdes' shoes. You have an awesome design for a puzzle, but it'll cost you $50,000 to produce. Are you going to do it? No, you won't, unless you are certain you'll make at least that much back. And if you know your product will be immediately pirated, and then sold for cheaper despite the fact that it's the same thing, you're probably not going to even TRY to mass-produce the puzzle. Your awesome designs will sit in a box forever.

I hope you can get sub-1:20 with an Eastsheen.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Feb 25, 2009)

exo, how about instead of hypothetical situations that are completely different from the current situation, we focus on something that has already resulted from this.



Katsuhiko said:


> I am raging.
> I have not approved.
> I sent the mail of the protest to Mr. Meffert a little while ago.
> 
> ...



This one situation has already cost the community at least two potential puzzles, why support knockoffs and cost it more?

Edit: Also, good luck trying to dropkick a puzzle with hollow pieces and cheap plastic


----------



## Odin (Feb 25, 2009)

I really don’t see why every one is having such a big problem with mefferts/the Chinese ripping of the V-Cube mechanism/puzzle. 3x3x3 DIYs did the same exact thing to the "Rubiks Cube". (Sets up flame shields)



Paul Wagner said:


> the question isnt is it good too have a knowckoff the question is is it good, does it blend?



I almost fell off my chair laughing when I saw your post!


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Feb 26, 2009)

Odin said:


> I really don’t see why every one is having such a big problem with mefferts/the Chinese ripping of the V-Cube mechanism/puzzle. 3x3x3 DIYs did the same exact thing to the "Rubiks Cube". (Sets up flame shields)



No they didn't. DIY cubes are a modification on an expired patent. Even if the patent was still out there, it may have been hard for rubiks to take any action, because the differences in the mechanism may be enough to make them legal. 
These cubes are ILLEGAL knockoffs of an existing and valid patent. There is no logical reason to believe that there are any real changes to the mechanism.
If you read some previous posts, a few people have explained that buying these fakes will help to insure that new and awesome puzzles (like the master pyraminx) will never see the market.

If you are fine with breaking the saw, forcing someone who has devoted much of his time and money into helping you get awesome cubes into bankruptcy, and ensure that new puzzles are never mass produced, then go ahead and buy the knockoffs. Just don't do it and think that its's no big deal.


----------



## bundat (Feb 26, 2009)

Actually, the Void cube has no patent, and I personally feel more sorry for Okamoto than for Verdes.

People are reacting more over this compared to the 3x3 DIYs as rip-offs because Rubik's has already obviously broken even (and even more obviously, being internationally famous, very rich, and all), whilst these individuals have put out a lot of work and investment, and they are already getting pirated even before they can reap the rewards of their hard work, or even just break even.


----------



## bamman1108 (Feb 26, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Odin said:
> 
> 
> > I really don’t see why every one is having such a big problem with mefferts/the Chinese ripping of the V-Cube mechanism/puzzle. 3x3x3 DIYs did the same exact thing to the "Rubiks Cube". (Sets up flame shields)
> ...



You COMPLETELY missed his point. Your first two paragraphs imply that legal issues are the reason that these knockoffs should not be produced, and you are 100% wrong because the patent is pending in China.

Second, you have no proof that the mechanism is an exact replica. If the mechanism is different, then it is not a knockoff. His 3x3x3 uses a different internal structure, thus it is not a Rubik's 3x3x3 knockoff. If it is, then his 5x5 cube is also a knockoff of the Rubik's professor cube, and buying his product takes away from Erno Rubik's profits, who spent time creating its structure. this is not true, however, so the Chinese product is genuine unless you can buy one, take it apart, and show me that it is the SAME on the inside as the V7.

I believe Verdes is much, much more deserving of a profit, since he has spent more time and effort to create a quality product, which he produced out of a passion for cubes, unlike the Chinese manufacturer (most likely). Of course, by the same logic, Rubik's brand 3x3x3 cubes deserve more profits than any DIY brand. The only difference between these two cases is that most people here have already bought DIYs, and believe that they are of better quality (for speedsolving). Being used to DIYs for so long has caused most of us to see absolutely no moral issues in buying a Chinese 3x3x3 knockoff.



bundat said:


> People are reacting more over this compared to the 3x3 DIYs as rip-offs because Rubik's has already obviously broken even (and even more obviously, being internationally famous, very rich, and all), whilst these individuals have put out a lot of work and investment, and they are already getting pirated even before they can reap the rewards of their hard work, or even just break even.



I agree with this statement 100%. This is the only reason why I will buy a V-cube instead of the Chinese 7x7x7 (which won't be now, of course )


----------



## Unknown.soul (Feb 26, 2009)

bamman1108 said:


> the Chinese product is genuine unless you can buy one, take it apart, and show me that it is the SAME on the inside as the V7.


I think you missed my post in the other thread: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=140221&postcount=71


----------



## bamman1108 (Feb 26, 2009)

Unknown.soul said:


> bamman1108 said:
> 
> 
> > the Chinese product is genuine unless you can buy one, take it apart, and show me that it is the SAME on the inside as the V7.
> ...



I guess that's what I asked for  .

Unfortunately, these cubes arent illegal, _yet_.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Feb 26, 2009)

@qqwref:

I don't see that much of a difference between that scenario and the one you had mentioned earlier; only the puzzles in the situation that they're aren't mass produced would be even more of a luxury, no?

Also, taking it out on China? Why not the individuals/companies producing these knock-offs? Why not human greed, or capitalism?

And how did you know that I don't have a V5? 
(I do, however, have a V7 and a V6.)


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Feb 26, 2009)

bamman1108 said:


> You COMPLETELY missed his point. Your first two paragraphs imply that legal issues are the reason that these knockoffs should not be produced, and you are 100% wrong because the patent is pending in China.


Please provide proof that there is a patent pending. Last might I spoke to the producer or the fake 7x7s. She claimed that they had a patent. She refused to show me or direct me to any proof.



bamman1108 said:


> Second, you have no proof that the mechanism is an exact replica. If the mechanism is different, then it is not a knockoff. His 3x3x3 uses a different internal structure, thus it is not a Rubik's 3x3x3 knockoff. If it is, then his 5x5 cube is also a knockoff of the Rubik's professor cube, and buying his product takes away from Erno Rubik's profits, who spent time creating its structure. this is not true, however, so the Chinese product is genuine unless you can buy one, take it apart, and show me that it is the SAME on the inside as the V7.



See the post below yours.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Feb 26, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Please provide proof that there is a patent pending. Last might I spoke to the producer or the fake 7x7s. She claimed that they had a patent. She refused to show me or direct me to any proof.



You have no proof either. It's all hearsay.

Edit:
Patent abstract found:
http://search.cnpat.com.cn/Search/E...IN>+TI&px=desc&pxoption=&pageNo=1&MaxPageNo=1
http://ensearch.sipo.gov.cn/sipoens...2408e442d45b9479846b8462d46aa46ea4492416f4721


----------



## bamman1108 (Feb 26, 2009)

Application number: 10/555,013
*Publication number: US 2007/0057455 A1 *
Filing date: May 13, 2004



uspto said:


> Treaties and Foreign Patents Since the rights granted by a U.S. patent extend only throughout the territory of the United States and have no effect in a foreign country, an inventor who wishes patent protection in other countries must apply for a patent in each of the other countries or in regional patent offices. Almost every country has its own patent law, and a person desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for patent in that country, in accordance with the requirements of that country.



Sorry for being so anal about this. I have no support for the Chinese manufacturer of the 7x7x7, they are legal as of now. BTW, this is the only patent application I could find online. There could easily be more, but several google searches under the application number, publishing number, US patent number, and application title gave me no results for me. If you can find the chinese patent, Mr. Meffert might reconsider making his product available.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 26, 2009)

Verdes has patents in many countries. Of course the USA one only affects products in the USA. My 7x7 box (from Oct. 2008) says EP1599261 covers most of Europe, then there is HK1086212 for _Hong Kong_ (i.e. where Meffert is), 23956 for Egypt, 2320390 for Russia, 116890 for Singapore, 2005/08909 for South Africa, 79699 for Ukraine...
Then the pending ones, 20004241790 for Australia, PI 0410204-5 for Brazil, 2522585 for Canada, 200480013109.3 for _China_, 2151/KOLNP/2005 for India, W-00200503110 for Indonesia, 171549 for Israel, 2006-530607 for Japan, 10-205-7021428 for Korea, PA/a/2005/011887 for Mexico, 20055913 for Norway, 1-2005-502042 for the Philippines, 10/555,013 for the _USA_.

My dad informs me that under international patent law, patents (even pending patents) illegalize the knockoffs at basically every stage. You can get someone for producing knockoffs, selling knockoffs, and even owning (!!!) knockoffs if they are doing it in a country you have a patent in. But basically - yes, it's illegal in China... but I wonder whether fighting it would be more expensive than being pirated in the first place.


----------



## bamman1108 (Feb 26, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Verdes has patents in many countries. Of course the USA one only affects products in the USA. My 7x7 box (from Oct. 2008) says EP1599261 covers most of Europe, then there is HK1086212 for _Hong Kong_ (i.e. where Meffert is), 23956 for Egypt, 2320390 for Russia, 116890 for Singapore, 2005/08909 for South Africa, 79699 for Ukraine...
> Then the pending ones, 20004241790 for Australia, PI 0410204-5 for Brazil, 2522585 for Canada, 200480013109.3 for _China_, 2151/KOLNP/2005 for India, W-00200503110 for Indonesia, 171549 for Israel, 2006-530607 for Japan, 10-205-7021428 for Korea, PA/a/2005/011887 for Mexico, 20055913 for Norway, 1-2005-502042 for the Philippines, 10/555,013 for the _USA_.
> 
> My dad informs me that under international patent law, patents (even pending patents) illegalize the knockoffs at basically every stage. You can get someone for producing knockoffs, selling knockoffs, and even owning (!!!) knockoffs if they are doing it in a country you have a patent in. But basically - yes, it's illegal in China... but I wonder whether fighting it would be more expensive than being pirated in the first place.



I remember hearing that the patent was pending in China, which is why I raised the argument in the first place really, but is a pending patent really still in effect?


----------



## Erik (Feb 26, 2009)

qqwref said:


> I hope you can get sub-1:20 with an Eastsheen.



I want to take that challenge  keep an eye out on youtube.
But seriously, I think we should help V-cubes the best we can by not buying any of the knockoff **** from mefferts. Sadly it's very unlikely nobody will buy them at all. 
I hope the mefferts 4x4 are not also 'stolen'? :S


----------



## DavidWoner (Feb 26, 2009)

bamman1108 said:


> Second, you have no proof that the mechanism is an exact replica. If the mechanism is different, then it is not a knockoff. His 3x3x3 uses a different internal structure, thus it is not a Rubik's 3x3x3 knockoff. If it is, then his 5x5 cube is also a knockoff of the Rubik's professor cube, and buying his product takes away from Erno Rubik's profits, who spent time creating its structure. this is not true, however, so the Chinese product is genuine unless you can buy one, take it apart, and show me that it is the SAME on the inside as the V7.



First of all, Erno Rubik did not invent the 4x4 or 5x5 cube. The design for the original Rubik's revenge was purchased from Peter Sebesteny, and the Rubik's Professor cube patent was purchased from Udo Krell. Both EastSheen 4x4 and 5x5 are patented by Chen Sen Li, and obviously the V-Cube patents are owned by Verdes. These illegal 7x7 copies do not have their own patent, so you cannot group them in with these other cubes.




> I believe Verdes is much, much more deserving of a profit, since he has spent more time and effort to create a quality product, which he produced out of a passion for cubes, unlike the Chinese manufacturer (most likely). Of course, *by the same logic*, Rubik's brand 3x3x3 cubes deserve more profits than any DIY brand. The only difference between these two cases is that most people here have already bought DIYs, and believe that they are of better quality (for speedsolving). Being used to DIYs for so long has caused most of us to see absolutely no moral issues in buying a Chinese 3x3x3 knockoff.



You can hardly use the same logic. You are operating under the false belief that DIYs are just mindless copies of Rubik's brand 3x3s with screws and removable caps. I'm sure a rather great deal of time went into creating many of the different types of DIYs, and it certainly shows. Many have strikingly different designs (type AII and AIII) and are clearly different even though they use the same base structure. 

If Rubik's wants people to buy their products, they need to get with the times and start selling something worth buying. I shouldn't have to hope that my storebought turns out to be good and not a piece of crap. I should know what I'm buying. I bought two old Type A's for Christmas, and if I had not stickered one differently I wouldn't be able to tell them apart. The same should be true for all out-of-the-box products, but sadly it is not.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 26, 2009)

About their patents:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site:v-cubes.com+patents


----------



## MichaelErskine (Feb 26, 2009)

Vault312 said:


> You can hardly use the same logic. You are operating under the false belief that DIYs are just mindless copies of Rubik's brand 3x3s with screws and removable caps.


Some DIYs *are* just mindless copies of Rubik's brand DIYs.


----------



## Ton (Feb 26, 2009)

Ton said:


> msemtd said:
> 
> 
> > daniel0731ex said:
> ...



I received a very extensive email explaining what happened and the intension of Uwe Meffert. As I expected he is trying to help the inventors as I understand his ideas, he wants to stop illegal copy cats by
working with companies that have legal patents in China for the puzzles
they are copying. This is in short the China market and is a different legal playground, from this mail to me Uwe Meffert acts in the best interest of Mr Verdes and Katsuhiko Okamoto. At the same time I understand that Mr Verdes and Katsuhiko Okamoto are not happy that there are companies that produce copies. 

It think it is also in the best interest of Mr Verdes and Katsuhiko Okamoto, that we do not interfere and accuse all the people involved.


----------



## lqc (Feb 26, 2009)

in case some have not seen the page...


----------



## Bryan (Feb 26, 2009)

Let's hope V-Cube amends their claims like they did on the US Patent, because the original claims were just terrible. The claims of the patent are what are enforcible. The claims themselves specified the number of pieces that each puzzle had, so by changing that, you avoid the claim altogether.

This is why those 1-800-Patent people suck. From the patent lawyers' perspective, the narrower the claims, the easier it is for a file, but that limits the scope of the invention. The broader the claims, the harder it may be to file (with more objections, etc with the USPTO), but the better of a patent you have.

When the V-Cube patent was first published, I e-mail them and told them about this, but they didn't listen.


----------



## MichaelErskine (Feb 26, 2009)

Ton said:


> This is in short the China market and is a different legal playground, from this mail to me Uwe Meffert acts in the best interest of Mr Verdes and Katsuhiko Okamoto. At the same time I understand that Mr Verdes and Katsuhiko Okamoto are not happy that there are companies that produce copies.
> 
> It think it is also in the best interest of Mr Verdes and Katsuhiko Okamoto, that we do not interfere and accuse all the people involved.



I do hope that Uwe Meffert resolves this amicably - the ball is in his court. He really shouldn't have made this announcement without the express consent of the other two puzzle creating parties. Perhaps he solicited but failed to get a positive response. To then decide to force the issue by going ahead regardless is a folly.

With respect to the discussions going on in this forum, over on the TwistyPuzzles forum, on the Chinese bbs.mf8.com.cn forums, and probably others besides -- we can only guess at what is really going on; it's all conjecture until the information gets out. But you can see how this has affected those who love the twisty puzzles and in what high regard the creators are held. At the end of the day we are faced with the spectre of personal gain casting a shadow over morality and as puzzles gain popularity I can only expect things to get worse unless those who care speak out against it.

There. I said it


----------



## jonny guitar (Feb 26, 2009)

I feel for both these original inventors but I am not even a little bit surprised that this has taken place. As my moniker implies, I am a guitar player and with guitars, amps, and especially effects pedals, the practice of stealing designs/reverse engineering circuits is the norm; one guy makes a great product and it is stolen by every other company (some tweak the circuit very slightly with a part that really doesn't change the sound but some are just exact copies). In this case it is easy to support the original guy but in everyday life it gets hard....think about generic drugs, certain no-name products etc.


----------



## jcuber (Feb 26, 2009)

New newsletter at www.mefferts.com .

Everything isn't nearly what it seemed, mefferts is trying to help verdes (or so they say).

After reading the letter, I say screw chineese patents, this is clearly just a loophole found in chineese patent law. Still, verdes should have gone into more detail with the patent explaination.


----------



## Unknown.soul (Feb 26, 2009)

jcuber said:


> mefferts is trying to help verdes (or so they say).



That small 7% commission still doesn't reimburse Verdes.


----------



## jcuber (Feb 26, 2009)

It's better than nothing, but the big issue is the chineese patent.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Feb 26, 2009)

jcuber said:


> New newsletter at www.mefferts.com .
> 
> Everything isn't nearly what it seemed, mefferts is trying to help verdes (or so they say).
> 
> After reading the letter, I say screw chineese patents, this is clearly just a loophole found in chineese patent law. Still, verdes should have gone into more detail with the patent explaination.



http://translate.google.com/transla...立方体逻辑玩具&ipc=A63F9/08(2006.01)I&sl=zh-CN&tl=en

That patent seems to say that Mr Verdes does in fact own the patent, and therefore Mefferts is either ill informed or lying.


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 26, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> jcuber said:
> 
> 
> > New newsletter at www.mefferts.com .
> ...



Where does that say that Mr Verdes got the patent? I only see a request/application for the patent but no "patent granted" anywhere. And the description is indeed very short and much less detailed than the others we saw before. The message from Mefferts might not be a pleasant one, but I think he knows what he is talking about


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Feb 27, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > jcuber said:
> ...



Sorry, I didn't explain my post well. This is a translated version of the sink that Meffert gave.



meffert said:


> And Mr. Chan’s company now is the legal owner of the China Patent for the full V cube series 2,2,2 to 11,11,11 cubes in China and is the only one that has the legal right to sue other local factories if they infringing his patents. See the China patent office website below.
> 
> http://search.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/zljs/hyjs-yx-new.jsp?recid=CN200480013109.3&leixin=fmzl&title=立方体逻辑玩具 &ipc=A63F9/08(2006.01)I



Contrary to what he claims, that link does not state that Mr. Chan owns the patent.

Also, this was posted at TP


verdes said:


> Dear Pantazis,
> 
> Please inform the forum(s) that our patent which is extensive and thorough as the European,
> is going to be issued in the next 2-3 months in China as well. Two months ago we had the approval from the examiner.
> ...


----------



## jcuber (Feb 27, 2009)

So that means that Mr. Chan's claim is complete (I will let the filters get this) bull ****, and he probably said that to discourage people from looking into it further? Anyone who makes a v-cube knockoff should rot in hell. 

I feel better that I finally stated my opinion on this.


----------



## Markus Pirzer (Feb 27, 2009)

jcuber said:


> New newsletter at www.mefferts.com .
> 
> Everything isn't nearly what it seemed, mefferts is trying to help verdes (or so they say).
> 
> After reading the letter, I say screw chineese patents, this is clearly just a loophole found in chineese patent law. Still, verdes should have gone into more detail with the patent explaination.



Do you really think the patent explanation is to short? At least the European patent seems to be very detailed:
http://v-cubes.com/pdf/European_patent.pdf
I don't think that it is possible to describe the V-Cubes more detailed than in that one.


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 27, 2009)

Markus Pirzer said:


> jcuber said:
> 
> 
> > New newsletter at www.mefferts.com .
> ...


The CHINESE patent explanation is to short. I don't understand why they didn't use the European patent explanation. The Chinese won't take the European explanation into account at all


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Feb 27, 2009)

According to someone on TP, that is just an introduction to the patent, and the full patent is 78 pages long
http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/download/file.php?id=9859


----------



## deco122392 (Feb 27, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> According to someone on TP, that is just an introduction to the patent, and the full patent is 78 pages long
> http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/download/file.php?id=9859



hahaha heh... wow haha wow every single time i look at the patents im always blown away by there sheer amazingness... i just dont understand how there can be anyway,anyway at all to find a loopwhole that legaly permits the sale of these cubes by anyone other then the v-cubes company... its so detaild and... i just dont believe that its rite to sell knock off v-cubes even if they find a legal way to do so. (yes im finally putting my 2 cents in after waiting and reading)


----------



## ExoCorsair (Feb 27, 2009)

One thing that bothers me about the Mefferts newsletter is that this Mr. Chan person is never really identified before being mentioned (i.e. what is his company).

That and the second red paragraph makes little sense to me (mostly because of this Mr. Chan person).


----------



## jcuber (Mar 1, 2009)

Mefferts megaminx now on reserve out of stock items page- enter e-mail adresses everybody! this is what decides how many they will make!


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 25, 2009)

can someone show me a photo of a mefferts 7x7


----------



## jcuber (Jun 25, 2009)

They won't be sold, but they looked almost exactly like a white v-7.


----------



## Kubinator97 (Jun 25, 2009)

Picture?? (need 1o characters)


----------

