# Is every cube a knock-off?



## cubemaster13 (Jan 26, 2010)

I was just thinking about this when i was bored. Technically, the Rubik's 3x3 was the original, so every other cube invented after it (excluding Rubik's brand) are knock-offs. So really people shouldn't complain about having a knock-off puzzle. Cause really if you think about it all your puzzles are knock-offs. Just give it a thought. Thanks


----------



## PHPJaguar (Jan 26, 2010)

Rubik's patent expired awhile ago.


----------



## hyunchoi98 (Jan 26, 2010)

Did the 4x4 and 5x5 patent expire?

Definetly a knockoff = YJ 6x6, 7x7, 9x9, 11x11


----------



## cubemaster13 (Jan 26, 2010)

oh... i didnt no that


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 26, 2010)

I think the 4x4 was patented in the early 80s, making it quite possible that it had expired. perhaps that is why there were all these rubik's based 4x4s coming out last year?


----------



## cubemaster13 (Jan 26, 2010)

ok... well i feel stupid now...


----------



## Stefan (Jan 26, 2010)

cubemaster13 said:


> the Rubik's 3x3 was the original, *so every other cube invented after it* (excluding Rubik's brand) *are knock-offs*.


Why?



PHPJaguar said:


> Rubik's patent expired awhile ago.


So what?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jan 26, 2010)

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

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


----------



## PHPJaguar (Jan 26, 2010)

cubemaster13 said:


> ok... well i feel stupid now...


Don't.


StefanPochmann said:


> PHPJaguar said:
> 
> 
> > Rubik's patent expired awhile ago.
> ...


With all due respect, I thought that the definition of a knock-off cube was a brand that had been based off of/completely copied from a patented design. Illegal knock-offs, anyway. So I suppose it depends on whether you consider legal copies of a mechanism knock-offs. Is that what you are getting at?


----------



## Lux Aeterna (Jan 26, 2010)

PHPJaguar said:


> cubemaster13 said:
> 
> 
> > ok... well i feel stupid now...
> ...



This. It isn't a technical legal term, it's the sort of word you'd use to describe $5 Rolex watches being sold in New York out of some guy's briefcase. I can't personally tell them apart from real ones, and god only knows where he got them. They might even work just as well as the real ones, but he still closes the briefcase and walks off when the flashing lights show up.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 26, 2010)

PHPJaguar said:


> I thought that the definition of a knock-off cube was a brand that had been based off of/completely copied from a patented design.



Where did you get that definition? Doesn't sound like any of these:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/knockoff
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knockoff
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/KNOCKOFF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockoff


----------



## idpapro (Jan 26, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> technically, if you go by that line of thought, the Rubik's Cube itself was a knockoff
> 
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=3655201.PN.&OS=PN/3655201&RS=PN/3655201



to my understanding, this was a magnetic 2x2


----------



## Stefan (Jan 26, 2010)

idpapro said:


> this was a magnetic 2x2



So what?


----------



## idpapro (Jan 26, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> idpapro said:
> 
> 
> > this was a magnetic 2x2
> ...





Ethan Rosen said:


> technically, if you go by that line of thought, the Rubik's Cube itself was a knockoff
> 
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=3655201.PN.&OS=PN/3655201&RS=PN/3655201



he is stating that this person first invented the rubiks cube, what i am saying is that what he said


Ethan Rosen said:


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


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


----------



## Zubon (Jan 26, 2010)

I think you can separate the knockoff problem into two categories:

Moral and Legal

Sometimes even if they are not breaking any laws, knockoffs can be thought of as being morally wrong. Using loopholes or copying someones design before they had time to ensure proper legal protection of their ideas etc.

As for the Rubik's 3x3 mechanism, I think it had it's fair run. The original inventor has no control over it now so I don't think DIY 3x3s are wrong in the slightest (legally or morally).


----------



## Tyrannous (Jan 26, 2010)

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


----------



## Muesli (Jan 26, 2010)

IMO this is akin to people selling fake band merchandise outside concerts. You never see police moving them on because they have better things to do. I believe that the problem is entirely moral, as if a product is doing well enough to warrant other companies copying them then surely they are successful enough. The Rubik's Cube still sold millions of items even with hundreds of KO cubes around, and they are still selling.

The V-Cube situation is a bit different though. V-Cubes have fallen behind the pack somewhat. They've lost their grip on the market by delaying their 8-9-10 and 11 layered cubes. They have only themselves to blame for the cubes that copy their mechanism.


----------



## Thomas09 (Jan 26, 2010)

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


----------



## briandanielsen (Jan 26, 2010)

Thomas09 said:


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



I smiled , could not help it...


----------



## Owen (Jan 26, 2010)

Yes, and lamps are knockoffs because the shade can turn.


----------



## PeterNewton (Jan 26, 2010)

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


----------



## Stefan (Jan 26, 2010)

idpapro said:


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


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



Tyrannous said:


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


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

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



Thomas09 said:


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


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


----------



## pwndnoobcuber (Jan 26, 2010)

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


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Jan 26, 2010)

idpapro said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > technically, if you go by that line of thought, the Rubik's Cube itself was a knockoff
> ...



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


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



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


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Jan 28, 2010)

pwndnoobcuber said:


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



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


----------

