# Noticed a very probable "copying" in GuHong's Mechanism



## daniel0731ex (Dec 20, 2010)

So while people in the other thread are getting carried away arguing about irrevalent topics, I noticed a very suprising connection between the V-cube and the Guhong design....

Quoting from the post I made (which is being ignored completely) in the other thread:



daniel0731ex said:


> I just realized...although the Guhong have no resemblence to the V-cube 3 at all, if you look at the big V-cubes as a reduced 3x3 cube
> (as in, moving the outer layers only), the structure is very similar to the Guhong. Perhaps Verdes though the Guhong was a KO because of that?
> 
> PS: If you couldn't understand what I am saying, just look at your V-cube 5 or 7. If you glue all the small edge pieces into one single edge, and all centers into one big center, it becomes almost identical (except for some minor tweaks) to the Guhong if you could somehow make it proportional.
> ...


 

You could clearly see the similar inverted-pyramid shaped center, the slanted circular path composed of the edges and center pieces, and not to mention the stalked corner that everyone knows.



A lot of you guys noticed the resemblence in the corner stalk of the Guhong, but then it just ends there. Because people were all distracted by the blizzare design of the V-cube 3, but never realized the similarity beyond that. 


I think this is where Verdes sees the infringment of his patent; the conical structure is actually a very general concept, anyone with basic understanding of puzzle mechanisms could easily figure this out on their own. It is not right for Verdes to patent this general design in the first place.


But now I am wondering why is our dear Katt avoiding to reveal this information all along?


----------



## y3k9 (Dec 20, 2010)

Copied or not, it's still no good to take it off the market if he doesn't plan on making one himself.


----------



## Zarxrax (Dec 20, 2010)

I would disagree. In the patent it clearly refers to that as a "cone". And we can see in the image that there is indeed a cone shape.
But if you look at the inside of a guhong, is there really a cone there? Sure, there is an indention because its not flat, but a cone? I don't see it. And if its not a cone, then its not copying the v-cube mechanism, because v-cube specifically patents the cone shape.


----------



## daniel0731ex (Dec 20, 2010)

Zarxrax said:


> I would disagree. In the patent it clearly refers to that as a "cone". And we can see in the image that there is indeed a cone shape.
> But if you look at the inside of a guhong, is there really a cone there? Sure, there is an indention because its not flat, but a cone? I don't see it. And if its not a cone, then its not copying the v-cube mechanism, because v-cube specifically patents the cone shape.


 
Yes, but that's just a play one word now. What I am trying to get across is that the concept is the same as the VCUBE design.


----------



## Zarxrax (Dec 20, 2010)

I'm not trying to play on the words or whatever, I just genuinely do not see this as copying the v-cube mechanism. Maybe I simply don't understand the v-cube patent very well (it is very complicated), but it just doesn't look to me like the inside of the guhong is similar to the inside of the v-cube.


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 20, 2010)

Zarxrax said:


> I don't see it.


 
A 3x3 does not have enough layers to show a definitive cone as a 6x6 would.


----------



## daniel0731ex (Dec 20, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> A 3x3 does not have enough layers to show a definitive cone as a 6x6 would.


 
Just checking, are you with me on this one, Dan?


----------



## Edward (Dec 20, 2010)

Chris Tran modded a vcube into a 3x3. iirc it looked kind of like a huge guhong.


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 20, 2010)

daniel0731ex said:


> Just checking, are you with me on this one, Dan?


 
surprisingly yes. I already thought this though after being told by KV.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Dec 20, 2010)

Ya, I tried this already with the 5x5 and I still no. I feel that if you have to look this much for an infringement that you can barely notice in the product, it's probably not an infringement. There are probably other cubes out there that actually come closer to an infringement but they probably don't make as much money. Which, as has been noted by myself and many before, is the main, if not only, issue.


----------



## y3k9 (Dec 20, 2010)

Watch, it's gunna turn out it's the corner stalking.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 20, 2010)

I can see a resemblance - definitely more of a resemblance than to the V-3 - but I don't think the GuHong is copied. I can easily see how the ideas of basing a 5x5 off an internal 3x3 and making a 3x3 with a 'smaller' 3x3 mech inside could have been developed independently, although I can also see how it could have been copied and then improved.

PS: Would a design that was borrowed from a different interpretation of a cube, and then significantly modified, still count as an infringement? I haven't read the full text of the patent but it looks like it is specifically giving designs for the various sizes.


----------



## Zarxrax (Dec 20, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> A 3x3 does not have enough layers to show a definitive cone as a 6x6 would.


If there aren't enough layers to really show it, then how can you say for sure that its there?


----------



## Edward (Dec 20, 2010)

So like I found the pics (from Chris Tran's blog)
Do you mind me posting them here?


----------



## RCTACameron (Dec 20, 2010)

That definitely looks like a guhong.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 20, 2010)

Hmm... it does look like a GuHong. How do patents work? The patent in question is to stop 6x6s stealing the idea, not 3x3s. Does it still apply?
Just askin'


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 20, 2010)

Wow, I haven't seen that thing in quite a long time.

It looks nicer than I remembered. (x


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Dec 20, 2010)

Whoa, that totally reminds me of a Guhong...


----------



## Stefan (Dec 20, 2010)

Um, ok... Are you guys all suddenly saying it does look like a GuHong referring to the 5x5x5 or that 6x6x6? The latter looks pretty much like the V-3 drawings, so how does it look like the GuHong but the V-3 drawings don't?


----------



## daniel0731ex (Dec 20, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> surprisingly yes. I already thought this though after being told by KV.


 
Err...who's that?

So are you saying I'm not the first person in the universe to figure this out?


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 20, 2010)

lol KV = Konstantinos Verdes.


----------



## Dene (Dec 20, 2010)

daniel0731ex said:


> Err...who's that?
> 
> So are you saying I'm not the first person in the universe to figure this out?


 
Have you read any of the posts in the threads at all? Mr. Stefan clearly mentioned the cone early on.


----------



## Carrot (Dec 20, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Um, ok... Are you guys all suddenly saying it does look like a GuHong referring to the 5x5x5 or that 6x6x6? The latter looks pretty much like the V-3 drawings, so how does it look like the GuHong but the V-3 drawings don't?



I couldn't agree more with you (except if you added "I like peanutbutter") 

I woul say that the modded v6 definitely looks like the V3, but not like the GuHong.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 20, 2010)

The Modded V6 definitely looks a lot like a GuHong, but I don't think it looks much like Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 of page 24 on the patent that izovire linked to in the previous thread (found here for ease of clicking to see the comparison). I think the corner actually looks a lot more like a 2x2 (Eastsheen, ShengShou) corner shell more than it does a GuHong. I haven't seent his full patent before, I've only seen the Figure 3 images. However, Figure 4 images do show some similarities, but those are for 3x3, not 4x4 (and I'm unsure if a claim can be made against different order of cubes, as I do not understand a lot about the specifics about patents).


----------



## daniel0731ex (Dec 20, 2010)

Dene said:


> Have you read any of the posts in the threads at all? Mr. Stefan clearly mentioned the cone early on.



Err, I guess not. People were all carried away with irrevalent stuff like proverty, world hunger, and Hitler. So I didn't bother to look at them...



Odder said:


> I couldn't agree more with you (except if you added "I like peanutbutter")
> 
> I woul say that the modded v6 definitely looks like the V3, but not like the GuHong.


 
Because, it IS based on the V3. But that's not what I am talking about here, I'm referring to the outer layer of the V5.




fatboyxpc said:


> The Modded V6 definitely looks a lot like a GuHong, but I don't think it looks much like Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 of page 24 on the patent that izovire linked to in the previous thread (found here for ease of clicking to see the comparison). I think the corner actually looks a lot more like a 2x2 (Eastsheen, ShengShou) corner shell more than it does a GuHong. I haven't seent his full patent before, I've only seen the Figure 3 images. However, Figure 4 images do show some similarities, but those are for 3x3, not 4x4 (and I'm unsure if a claim can be made against different order of cubes, as I do not understand a lot about the specifics about patents).



No, no, NO! First the Guhong does not look like the V3 at all. Second the modded V6 is exactly what the V3 looks like, wtf are you talking about?


----------



## Stefan (Dec 20, 2010)

daniel0731ex said:


> the Guhong does not look like the V3 at all.


 
You don't know what _"the V3"_ looks like (the patent drawings just show one possible implementation, and the actual official product has not been shown (built?) yet).


----------



## Carrot (Dec 20, 2010)

daniel0731ex said:


> Because, it IS based on the V3. But that's not what I am talking about here, I'm referring to the outer layer of the V5.


 
Are you blaming me for posting something that has nothing to do with the OP?


----------



## Whyusosrs? (Dec 20, 2010)

> No, no, NO! First the Guhong does not look like the V3 at all. Second the modded V6 is exactly what the V3 looks like, wtf are you talking about?



Confusing... So from the first post, the V5 looks like a guhong(by your reasoning). Many people have said that the V5 illustration in the first post looks like the modded V6 posted later on in the thread. So we can assume that your illustration is what the modded V6 would looks like but just not as large. But from your first statement in this quotation the guhong does not look like a V3. Even though from your second statement in this quotation, the V6 looks exactly like a V3. So the modded V6 looks like a V3 which looks nothing like a guhong but the modded V6 looks exactly like a guhong. So the guhong looks like a modded V6 which looks exactly like the V3 but the guhong does not looks like the V3. Furthermore, the V3 looks exactly like the modded V6 which looks like the guhong but the V3 does not look like the guhong even though it looks like the modded V6 which looks like the guhong.

Here's my illustration.


----------



## daniel0731ex (Dec 20, 2010)

Stefan said:


> You don't know what _"the V3"_ looks like (the patent drawings just show one possible implementation, and the actual official product has not been shown (built?) yet).


 
Well, the final product obviously would have minor tweaks to the details (like, for example the drawing of V-5's cross-section in the patent documentm showed that the "big center-piece" forms a perfect trapizoid, even though the final product have a flat edge at the very top), but the basic concept is still the same thing (assuming VCUBE is not trashing their patent and uses the conical design instead). The V3 will have the winged center and edge pieces inlaying into the corner piece.

The Guhong uses the conical structure to make maximum interior radius reduction possible (which you could see as a problem on the A4's fragile corner piece). V-cubes also uses the same concept for their big cubes.


----------



## daniel0731ex (Dec 20, 2010)

Whyusosrs? said:


> Confusing... So from the first post, the V5 looks like a guhong(by your reasoning). Many people have said that the V5 illustration in the first post looks like the modded V6 posted later on in the thread. So we can assume that your illustration is what the modded V6 would looks like but just not as large. But from your first statement in this quotation the guhong does not look like a V3. Even though from your second statement in this quotation, the V6 looks exactly like a V3. So the modded V6 looks like a V3 which looks nothing like a guhong but the modded V6 looks exactly like a guhong. So the guhong looks like a modded V6 which looks exactly like the V3 but the guhong does not looks like the V3. Furthermore, the V3 looks exactly like the modded V6 which looks like the guhong but the V3 does not look like the guhong even though it looks like the modded V6 which looks like the guhong.
> 
> Here's my illustration.


 
big V6 ≡ V-cube 3
Guhong ≠ V3
V5 outer layer ≡ Guhong


----------



## Stefan (Dec 20, 2010)

daniel0731ex said:


> The V3 will have the winged center and edge pieces inlaying into the corner piece.



How do you know?


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 20, 2010)

Stefan said:


> How do you know?



you didn't see the picture posted in the other thread?


----------



## Stefan (Dec 20, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> you didn't see the picture posted in the other thread?


 
I did. Again: That's just one possible implementation. I don't know what Verdes is actually doing, but since they claim the GuHong is a V-Cube, their V-3 *could* end up being a GuHong.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 20, 2010)

I did not say the V3 looks like the GuHong, in fact I said they look quite different than the figure 3 images in the V-Cubes patent page(s). The GuHong looks so similar to the Modded V6 though. It's actually interesting that you brought that up, because I was going to take pictures for my previous post, but my camera was dead so it was charging, until now.

Here are the pictures, to me it looks quite a bit like that Modded V6, and it looks quite a bit different than page 24, Figure 3 images (of the link I included in my last post).


----------



## daniel0731ex (Dec 20, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> I did not say the V3 looks like the GuHong, in fact I said they look quite different than the figure 3 images in the V-Cubes patent page(s). The GuHong looks so similar to the Modded V6 though. It's actually interesting that you brought that up, because I was going to take pictures for my previous post, but my camera was dead so it was charging, until now.
> 
> Here are the pictures, to me it looks quite a bit like that Modded V6, and it looks quite a bit different than page 24, Figure 3 images (of the link I included in my last post).


 
Ok, sorry. What I am saying is that the modded V6 is like the V3 but not the Guhong.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 20, 2010)

Why do you say it is not like the GuHong? The corners have longer stems on the GuHong, and the edges in the modded V6 have a weird piece on each side of it, otherwise they look insanely similar (to me, anyhow). Did you take a look at the pictures I took of an inverted first layer? The pictures didn't come out as clear as I hoped, but I was hoping they'd be enough to show the similarities. I can try again if you want. Also, did you look at the link for the European Patent that izovire linked to, and reference the Figure 3 images? The Figure 4 images are actually pretty similar, and the Figure 5 are somewhat as well, which is why I specific Figure 3.


----------



## ColdFactor (Dec 20, 2010)

Why isn't Verdes going after the knock off big cubes that have clearly stolen his design?


----------



## daniel0731ex (Dec 20, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Why do you say it is not like the GuHong? The corners have longer stems on the GuHong, and the edges in the modded V6 have a weird piece on each side of it, otherwise they look insanely similar (to me, anyhow). Did you take a look at the pictures I took of an inverted first layer? The pictures didn't come out as clear as I hoped, but I was hoping they'd be enough to show the similarities. I can try again if you want. Also, did you look at the link for the European Patent that izovire linked to, and reference the Figure 3 images? The Figure 4 images are actually pretty similar, and the Figure 5 are somewhat as well, which is why I specific Figure 3.


 
:fp

the wings makes a huge difference, it's a completely different concept.

I am saying that the V6 picture shows the inner layer of the big cube, which bears the same concept as the V3, while the Guhong is rather similar to the outer layer of V-big cubes.

Guhong - outer layer
V3 - inner layer


----------



## daniel0731ex (Dec 20, 2010)

Ok I changed my opinion now (on whether if Dayan copied VCUBE design or not). The conical structure is a very general concept, anyone with basic understanding of puzzle mechanisms could easily figure this out on their own. It is not right for Verdes to patent this general design in the first place.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 20, 2010)

daniel0731ex said:


> It is not right for Verdes to patent this general design in the first place.


 
Patent offices around the world seem to disagree.


----------



## Dene (Dec 20, 2010)

Oh ya because SO MANY PEOPLE also figured out the idea in the 30 years that Rubik's cubes have been around.


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 20, 2010)

It was even said somewhere that Pangiotis didn't even bother looking into the mechanism because he was sure that someone had thought of it already. Apparently that didn't happen and we are where we are today because of it.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 20, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> he was sure that someone had thought of it already. *Obviously* that didn't happen


 
Change that to "Apparently". Verdes didn't show the world for 18 years, maybe others thought of it and kept quiet just like he did.


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 20, 2010)

I concur.


----------

