# What the Seven Towns Copyright Covers



## cyoubx (Jun 21, 2013)

I recently got in a conversation with Seven Towns regarding the scope of their copyright on the Rubik's cube. This seemed like a relevant topic considering the sudden influx of new puzzles. There seems to a lot of confusion regarding the legality of these new cubes. Coincidentally, a Reddit post has surfaced which brings this into question.

Certainly, Seven Towns' patent has expired; this is what allows new cubes to have their mechanisms patented. However, Seven Towns also has a copyright on both the Rubik's cube and it's associated (2-D) images. Copyrights are given to works of art, be it literature or design. As the Rubik's cube fits into this category, a copyright is completely logical.

Here is the full response regarding this issue I received from Seven Towns:



> The name Rubik’s is a registered trademark in multiple classes. The 2x2, 3x3 and 4x4 Cubes are copyrighted objects as are their 2D images. In addition the 2x2, 3x3 and 4x4 Cubes are registered 3D trademarks in multiple classes in a huge number of countries. Copyright exists for most works of art or creations and the 3x3 Rubik’s Cube qualifies as it was for instance exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Copies of any original work may infringe the authors rights, even if they are not identical. Professor Erno Rubik has authorised Seven Towns to be the holder of this copyright and to have the ability to take action. Trademark protection (a separate form of intellectual property) exists where a company has used a certain name, logo or design (which can be in 3D) for a number of years to identify products or a service and where people recognise and associate the trademark with the design, image or product. Anyone else who then sells anything that might cause confusion in the mind of the buyer as to the origin of the goods or who trades off the reputation and goodwill built up over the years is infringing the trademark. Registered trademarks are more powerful and give better protection that un-registered trademarks especially where use and recognition of the trademarks are substantial.
> 
> It is true that the original patents have lapsed and in some cases new patents have been taken out by other non-authorised or unlicensed copy manufacturers. These patents may or may not be valid, but in any case the Rubik’s products do not infringe any known patent. The granting of those patents does not mean that the products are legal since the patents refer to the internal mechanism. The outside design of these “patented” cubes still usually infringe the other forms of intellectual property protection mentioned above and this results in hundreds of thousands of illegal Cubes being seized and destroyed each year by customs officers in over 40 countries.
> 
> The Rubik’s team employs over 30 different legal companies around the world to continually battle against illegal importers and illegal use of the Rubik’s name and Rubik Cube image. However it is simply not practical to take action against every single instance of infringement and therefore focus is given to the more serious and financially significant breaches of the intellectual property.



Of course, I don't want to mislead people who respond to this thread with my own anecdotes but I have some important considerations:

1. Although it is inconvenient for speedsolvers, copyright claims certainly make a lot of sense for Seven Towns as a company.
2. So a DIY kit should be fair game, right? Particularly ones with just a plastic bag for packaging, nothing would imply that the pieces assemble to become a "magic cube." For example, if I gave a DIY kit to a noncuber, he/she wouldn't have any reason to believe that the assembled product is a magic cube.

Thoughts on any of this?


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 21, 2013)

I just don't see tiny speedcube manufacturers stealing from their business. Do they realize how much the speedcubing community has done for them?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 21, 2013)

I think it's ridiculous. They say "illegal use of the Rubik’s name and Rubik Cube image" - that's not at all the situation here. Speedcubes are not knockoffs that claim to be official Rubik's cubes, with the name and image copied, produced for cheap in China. The differences are clear and obvious to anyone who would buy these cubes - the construction is different, and the brand and packaging is different and very clearly distinguishable. I think the copyright as written is overly broad, and all of this to be the equivalent of patent trolling (i.e. bullying) by a very large company who wants to get rid of its competition. Of course IANAL and I am sure that the anti-competitive nature of copyrights was entirely intentional.


----------



## emolover (Jun 21, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> I just don't see tiny speedcube manufacturers stealing from their business. Do they realize how much the speedcubing community has done for them?



I wonder how many of those millions of people bought a $17 Rubik's cube from watching Eric's or Felik's WR video.


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 21, 2013)

emolover said:


> I wonder how many of those millions of people bought a $17 Rubik's cube from watching Eric's or Felik's WR video.



I know right? Someone should talk some sense into them!


----------



## cyoubx (Jun 21, 2013)

Saying that speedcubes boost Seven Towns' sales is like saying piracy improves music sales. Possibly true but not provable. 

Inb4dayanisn'tapirate. Piracy is simply analogous to a cheap alternative. The illegality is just coincidental. Don't misread my comment.


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 21, 2013)

cyoubx said:


> Saying that speedcubes boost Seven Towns' sales is like saying piracy improves music sales. Possibly true but not provable.
> 
> Inb4dayanisn'tapirate. Piracy is simply analogous to a cheap alternative. The illegality is just coincidental. Don't misread my comment.



But they even advertise the WR solve on their website. Surely they see SOME value in it.


----------



## cyoubx (Jun 21, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> But they even advertise the WR solve on their website. Surely they see SOME value in it.



I think that's just to make cubing seem cool rather than say DaYan cubes are world-record-worthy. Noncubers would just think the WR was with a store bought. I'm not sure I see the connection you're trying to make.


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 21, 2013)

cyoubx said:


> I think that's just to make cubing seem cool rather than say DaYan cubes are world-record-worthy. Noncubers would just think the WR was with a store bought. I'm not sure I see the connection you're trying to make.



I'm trying to say that the fact that Rubik's is using speedcubing to their advantage shows that they understand that speedcubing helps their sales. This might be a reason why they should stop trying to get rid of speedcubes.


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 21, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> I'm trying to say that the fact that Rubik's is using speedcubing to their advantage shows that they understand that speedcubing helps their sales. This might be a reason why they should stop trying to get rid of speedcubes.



I think Seven Towns uses speedsolving to potentially help their sales, not Seven Towns realising speedsolving already does.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 21, 2013)

Seven Towns is certainly profiting from speedcubing as a hobby - using it as part of their advertising and acting like speedcubing competitions are related to their company. And unlike piracy, you can't really argue that a Dayan cube sale is a lost Rubik's sale, because the people who buy speedcubes are specifically looking for a speedcube, which means they wouldn't be buying a Rubik's one anyway. The whole thing is clearly a net positive for them.

Indeed, I think it's pretty clear that cubes would not be anywhere near as popular now without the effect of the speedcubing community in revitalizing the puzzle - just look at all the press for major competitions and new puzzle modifications, and for individual cubers getting on the news.


----------



## PeelingStickers (Jun 21, 2013)

The thing is, SevenTowns sponsor competitions globally, I've seen a couple Rubik's representatives at the ones I've been to, they know about these cubes and the reasons why speedsolvers choose them over their brand. I just don't see why they have to do this now and what benefits it gains them >.> I hope it's not gonna be V cubes all over again


----------



## emolover (Jun 21, 2013)

There were 7 or so videos of WR and former WR solves that had 3 million views when I searched 3x3 world record. Out of those 21,000,000 people, lets make an understatement and say that .01 of those people went out and bought a $17 Rubik's brand. This means that from those viewers alone they sold 210,000 Rubik's cubes which amounts to $3,750,000, and yet they think they are losing money...


----------



## pjk (Jun 21, 2013)

qqwref said:


> I think it's ridiculous. They say "illegal use of the Rubik’s name and Rubik Cube image" - that's not at all the situation here. Speedcubes are not knockoffs that claim to be official Rubik's cubes, with the name and image copied, produced for cheap in China. The differences are clear and obvious to anyone who would buy these cubes - the construction is different, and the brand and packaging is different and very clearly distinguishable. I think the copyright as written is overly broad, and all of this to be the equivalent of patent trolling (i.e. bullying) by a very large company who wants to get rid of its competition. Of course IANAL and I am sure that the anti-competitive nature of copyrights was entirely intentional.


Well said.

It is a very gray area. They don't specifically list which products they feel infringes on their copyright, and have provided little cooperation to the speedcubing community. Many people have tried to contact them about this issue over the years and have received little response. It is a shame that Rubik's isn't working with the community to solve the issue, but instead is gaining a bad rep. among us.


----------



## stoic (Jun 21, 2013)

It all seems wrong and overly litigious to me. 
Do Seven Towns not realise how much value they would add to their proposition if they developed an actual speedcube of their own instead of running around the world with their lawyers?


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 21, 2013)

Seventowns have a bad rep because everyone just takes the first 2 things that comes into their minds and they make a conclusion from it:
1. I'm a speedcuber who doesn't like using Rubik's brand cubes
2. This company tell me that my cubes are illegal "but the patent has run out".
Their conclusion: Seventowns are wrong, I do not like this company and will spread the news about how horrible they are

They have various legal rights that still hold. This is quite clear from the OP and was known before. They fight with that to protect their product. Who in their right mind would not want to fight? Call it bullying or being horrible or whatever if you want, but the truth is that they have a right to defend their product.

They totally understand what the speedcubing community does for them. Trust me, I know the Seventowns people very well. They even sponsor the major competitions - they are not stupid! They don't stop small shipments of cubes that you order through the post from China - we know this from experience and from what they tell me. They will try to stop large shipments, such as any time thousands of cubes head towards a high street shop. A lot of people are aware of "real-life" shops selling non Rubik's and V-cube brands in Asia especially. These are the kinds of things they try to prevent.


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 21, 2013)

Someone should send them this poll result: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?42495-Did-you-start-on-a-Rubik-s-brand


----------



## pipkiksass (Jun 21, 2013)

I don't think they're talking about Dayan/Modu/Funs Puzzles - take a look at the boxes, that's precisely why they don't show the patent-protected 2D image of a cube, they show mechanism, individual pieces, but not the assembled puzzle. Also, they don't use the R word anywhere, it's always "magic cube".

With regard to Cyoubix OP, I don't think it's an issue of DIY/pre-assembled - pretty sure you could distribute a cube in a blank white card box, or a box with a picture of a sumo wrestler/jar of mayo/cow on it - as long as it doesn't have the R word, or a picture of the assembled puzzle.

Take a look at this for example - the key phrase is "Anyone else who then sells anything that might cause confusion in the mind of the buyer as to the origin of the goods or who trades off the reputation and goodwill built up over the years is infringing the trademark." The cube at the link above is clearly marketed using the Rubik's name, but clearly isn't Rubik's. This cube is marketed using the reputation of the Rubik's brand, and so is clearly in violation of the copywright. And took me less than 60 seconds to find with a google search. And is on Amazon, ***!!!

I think now the mechanism copywright has expired (assuming that's what OP is referring to?), none of this should affect speecdubers or the speedcubing community. Rubik's are (justifiably) trying to protect their own brand image. I'm sure they payed Mr R an absolute fortune for the copywright to the Rubik's name and design. If people market $1 crappy cubes as 'Rubik's', they will be seized and destroyed, because they're potentially damaging the "reputation and goodwill" of the company. Dayan cubes, for example, aren't marketed as Rubik's, and don't use the 2D image. There is no grounds for seizure or destruction, as they don't infringe on either element of the Seven Town copywright.

The bit that confuses me is this: "It is true that the original patents have lapsed and in some cases new patents have been taken out by other non-authorised or unlicensed copy manufacturers. These patents may or may not be valid, but in any case the Rubik’s products do not infringe any known patent. The granting of those patents does not mean that the products are legal since the patents refer to the internal mechanism. The outside design of these “patented” cubes still usually infringe the other forms of intellectual property protection mentioned above and this results in hundreds of thousands of illegal Cubes being seized and destroyed each year by customs officers in over 40 countries."

So they're implying that there are ongoing legal battles with the new patent-holders, and that the patents might not be valid. But again, it's the "outside design" that infringes on the intellectual copywright, so selling it in a box with no image of the completed puzzle should be fine, right?

Yeah, it's very inconvenient that they have a copywright on the 2D image, but I think as long as something is unambiguously NOT a 'Rubik's' cube, and doesn't bear a 2D image of the assembled puzzle on the packaging, we're all good. Aren't we?!


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 21, 2013)

@pipkiksass: My impression from the thread and links above is that ST are claiming the cube itself as the copyrighted design work, not just images of it.


----------



## pjk (Jun 21, 2013)

kinch2002 said:


> Seventowns have a bad rep because everyone just takes the first 2 things that comes into their minds and they make a conclusion from it:
> 1. I'm a speedcuber who doesn't like using Rubik's brand cubes
> 2. This company tell me that my cubes are illegal "but the patent has run out".
> Their conclusion: Seventowns are wrong, I do not like this company and will spread the news about how horrible they are


I'm not sure how others give them a bad rep, but that is not true for me. Many companies have produced puzzles with significant variation from the Rubik's cube, and have vastly improved it from a speedcubing standpoint, and Rubik's knows this. Instead of targeting the massive manufacturers of these products, they cease large shipments to re-sellers. It is a terrible way to battle the issue. When 1 re-seller gets shut down, another just opens. When 1 Paypal account gets suspended, another just opens. If a big package gets ceased, just send multiple smaller shipments. If an assembled cube is a problem, just send DIYs. This has been happening continuously among puzzle stores for years. The bad rep. comes from 0 communication toward the community or any of the people responsible for distributing these puzzles. What products exactly infringe on their copyright? The reply they gave that was posted in post #1 couldn't be anymore vague.



> They have various legal rights that still hold. This is quite clear from the OP and was known before. They fight with that to protect their product. Who in their right mind would not want to fight? Call it bullying or being horrible or whatever if you want, but the truth is that they have a right to defend their product.


Obviously they need to protect their product, but what products specifically violate their copyright? I've emailed many people at Rubik's over the last 5 years and have yet to receive a single reply. If they simply communicated with the sellers, the majority of them would likely help their cause and help protect their copyright. But the way they have handled it over the years puts all the blame on the re-sellers, and none on the manufacturers, and leaves re-sellers with little reason to support them.



> They totally understand what the speedcubing community does for them. Trust me, I know the Seventowns people very well. They even sponsor the major competitions - they are not stupid! They don't stop small shipments of cubes that you order through the post from China - we know this from experience and from what they tell me. They will try to stop large shipments, such as any time thousands of cubes head towards a high street shop. A lot of people are aware of "real-life" shops selling non Rubik's and V-cube brands in Asia especially. These are the kinds of things they try to prevent.


It is indeed very kind of the UK Rubik's people to keep the UK competition going. From what I remember, those people were very kind. I assume they aren't part of the policy violation team though, considering *everyone at the competitions they sponsor are using the same products that Rubik's says violates their patent (from my gray understanding) - no one is even using Rubik's products at these competitions that Rubik's sponsor.* 

I'm not a lawyer and don't know the exactly what can be enforced and what can't, but the underlying reason why the speedcubing community doesn't buy Rubik's products is because there are better, different, and cheaper alternatives out there. The non-speedcubing community doesn't know this, hence why they will pay twice as much for a worse product. Rubik's should be innovating, and supporting innovation, not ignoring it and then when it happens trying to enforce whatever legal rights they have. That is patent/trademark/copyright bullying, and it happens all the time. It should be eliminated.


----------



## samchoochiu (Jun 21, 2013)

emolover said:


> Out of those 21,000,000 people, lets make an understatement and say that .01 of those people went out and bought a $17 Rubik's brand.


Slightly off topic but, since when did Rubik's brand 3x3s cost $17? They're never over $10 at my local stores.


----------



## Carrot (Jun 21, 2013)

samchoochiu said:


> Slightly off topic but, since when did Rubik's brand 3x3s cost $17? They're never over $10 at my local stores.


[offtopic]
since when did Rubik's Brand cost $17? They're never under $22 at my local stores.
[/offtopic]


----------



## BrainOfSweden (Jun 21, 2013)

samchoochiu said:


> Slightly off topic but, since when did Rubik's brand 3x3s cost $17? They're never over $10 at my local stores.



I think it depends a lot on where you live. In Sweden a Rubik's 3x3 costs 140 SEK at one of the more popular and widely available places that sells them. That's about 20$


----------



## YddEd (Jun 21, 2013)

Our Rubiks brand cubes are $20-$25 :O


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 21, 2013)

Perhaps on the WCA website under rankings, the event "Rubik's Cube" should be changed to simply "3x3 Cube".


----------



## cubernya (Jun 21, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> Perhaps on the WCA website under rankings, the event "Rubik's Cube" should be changed to simply "3x3 Cube".



This. I've always wondered why it's 2x2, Rubik's cube, 4x4, 5x5, etc. It just doesn't make much sense, besides the fact that it's the original cube.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 21, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> Perhaps on the WCA website under rankings, the event "Rubik's Cube" should be changed to simply "3x3 Cube".



And what would this actually achieve?

The thing is, 7towns have to enforce any breaches in copyright, or they lose the licence. What happened with the package is that it had to have been opened by customs, and then 7towns were contacted because it had cubes in. 7towns aren't actively scanning packages for cubes and they most likely don't want to, as they are happy enough to leave speedcubing alone as it is basically free advertising for them, and the system currently works. This is an isolated incident that has causes some serious necroposting in related threads which is beginning to stir up a lot of animosity that just isn't necessary.

TL;DR: Drop it, It's probably not going to happen again.


----------



## izovire (Jun 21, 2013)

When can I get a cyoubx 3x3? Screw this copyright stuff... this horse isn't getting any deader.

Edit: forgot to mention a Rubik's cube is $9.97 at Walmart in the US.


----------



## windhero (Jun 21, 2013)

I'm just curious on how the V-brand gets along with this so easily. Hell, they aren't trying to make speedcubes. They are trying to take over the brand and name of Rubiks cubes. 

And THEORETICALLY if they gave a **** about the so called copyright infringements, would it only apply to the cubes that Rubiks has made, aka 3x3 to 5x5? 3x3 to 5x5 DIY I can manage, but I dont want any bigger wants to be sent in pieces unless I especially ask for it ,_,


----------



## uniacto (Jun 21, 2013)

izovire said:


> Edit: forgot to mention a Rubik's cube is $9.97 at Walmart in the US.



'MURICA

It's like 11 in Washington, for some reason.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Jun 21, 2013)

MaeLSRoM. That has to enforce copyright and trademark or they lose it is exactly it. Unfortunately that's true of trademarks but not copyright

Erno Rubik chose to patent his cube and then he had to fight a great number times to get some respect regarding that. Some courts perhaps in a bit of nativism (Japan) told him no patent protection. The patent lived the course of it's life and now Seven Town supposedly bought the copyright and trademark is choosing to enforce copyright and trademarks after soo many years of dormancy? 

Trademark I think is gone. It wasn't enforced. Rubik's cube is generic word for this type of puzzle. If it were tested it might have a Kleenex problem.

Copyright is the valid issue to be talking about. What people shouldn't do is assume everything a corporation says regarding their copyright is true. Next thing you know restaurants will be extorted for singing happy birthday and we will all allow a horrific copyfraud to flourish. 

Copyright is slanted in favor of creators. Companies come by and pay the creators some amount of money then use the copyright they have bought as a huge weapon. It's a very effective one. Lets not be too casual with it. Copyright covers something a simple and expressive as a child's drawing. In a Rubik's cube the genius was in the spherical mechanism in a square cube. The stickers are labels. They are functional and have become standardized. Are they expressive at all? Is their arrangement that fantastic and expressive that it merits lifetime of legal protection?

Seven Town didn't buy the moral rights. I'm very certain you can't even sell those in the EU so I wish people would stop giving the company moral authority over the product.


----------



## BrainOfSweden (Jun 21, 2013)

The trademark Rubik's is definitely still valid. I put up a T-Shirt design on Zazzle, and just because it contained the word Rubik's in the description, it was taken down because of copyright infringement. And Zazzle allows a lot of stuff, so my guess is that Seven Towns requested it, and Zazzle had to obey the law.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 21, 2013)

PeelingStickers said:


> I just don't see why they have to do this now



What do you mean, "now"? Are they doing anything now that they haven't consistently been doing for a long long time?



SenileGenXer said:


> after soo many years of dormancy?



The ****?!



SenileGenXer said:


> In a Rubik's cube the genius was in the spherical mechanism in a square cube.



It's cylindrical, not spherical (at least in *the* Rubik's cube, their 3x3x3).
Plus Fox's 3x3x3 actually had a spherical mechanism and came years before Rubik (Gustafson's mech was spherical as well and came several more years earlier, though it was a 2x2x2).
Yeah ok, you said _"in a square cube"_, though I think the "genius" was the mechanism. Extending the outside is trivial.



kinch2002 said:


> They don't stop small shipments of cubes that you order through the post from China



I've seen a case where someone ordered a 2x2, a 3x3 and a 3x3x2 and got threatened with legal action if they don't practically immediately agree to their destruction.



BrainOfSweden said:


> my guess is that Seven Towns requested it, and Zazzle had to obey the law.



Or... Seven Towns requested it, and Zazzle just doesn't want to take the risk.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 21, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> TL;DR: Drop it, It's probably not going to happen again.


Oh, it'll happen again (and again and again). Unless someone convinces Seven Towns to be reasonable, of course.



BrainOfSweden said:


> The trademark Rubik's is definitely still valid. I put up a T-Shirt design on Zazzle, and just because it contained the word Rubik's in the description, it was taken down because of copyright infringement. And Zazzle allows a lot of stuff, so my guess is that Seven Towns requested it, and Zazzle had to obey the law.


It was taken down because of _copyright_ infringement? Unless you had an image of the cube there, that doesn't make sense. You can't copyright a word.


----------



## BaMiao (Jun 21, 2013)

qqwref said:


> It was taken down because of _copyright_ infringement? Unless you had an image of the cube there, that doesn't make sense. You can't copyright a word.



You can copyright a lot of things: Logos, melodies, slogans. Bikram yoga even copyrighted their sequence of yoga poses.

Also, remember that seven towns makes their profits from casual solvers. I think they see the influx of cheaper, better quality copies from China and elsewhere as a threat to cut in to _that_ market, and they're using whatever legal methods they have at their disposal to cut off the expansion of other brand cubes. They probably couldn't care less about the speedcubing community, since they can't convince anyone here to buy from them. Right now, we're just caught in the crossfire.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 21, 2013)

BaMiao said:


> You can copyright a lot of things: Logos, melodies, *slogans*.



_"Copyright does not protect names, titles, *slogans*, or short phrases"_
-- The U.S. Copyright Office


----------



## BaMiao (Jun 21, 2013)

Stefan said:


> _"Copyright does not protect names, titles, *slogans*, or short phrases"_
> -- The U.S. Copyright Office



Haha. My mistake.


----------



## Hershey (Jun 21, 2013)

Copyright laws are stupid.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 21, 2013)

Hershey said:


> Copyright laws are stupid.



No u


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 22, 2013)

windhero said:


> I'm just curious on how the V-brand gets along with this so easily. Hell, they aren't trying to make speedcubes. They are trying to take over the brand and name of Rubiks cubes.
> 
> And THEORETICALLY if they gave a **** about the so called copyright infringements, would it only apply to the cubes that Rubiks has made, aka 3x3 to 5x5? 3x3 to 5x5 DIY I can manage, but I dont want any bigger wants to be sent in pieces unless I especially ask for it ,_,


I think it is as easy as "V-Cubes don't mention Rubik's and they have a black face"

Basically, the Rubik's image is claimed to be so much a cultural influence that it can be protected. Very similar to "Only Disney can make Donald Duck movies". However, you can make a parody or a movie with another Duck that is wearing a pink shirt and is called Ronald.


----------



## ItsMeColby (Jun 22, 2013)

The copyright says even if it is identical it is a copyright. 1st Speedcubes are adressed as magic cubes. If a stranger picked up a Storebought and a Dayan Zhanchi for an example they could see the differences I have personally tried this at my school. I brought in a Black Zhanchi with Dayan stickers. The first thing someone said is that looks different. They said not a Rubiks cube. It is like the creator of a flat screen TV there are literally millions of flat screen designs but there is no copyright. If they want to copyright a colour scheme they can't copyright all of the blues,yellows,whites,and reds. Like cherry red o light blue not the same colour as a Rubiks brand. The rubiks cube is a magic cube that is for non speed solvers Dayan does not target Walmart or General cubes they go for speed cubers.


----------



## Cuber9991 (Jun 22, 2013)

Just guessing. Maybe Rubik's knows that they will lose if they try to sue V-Cubes. Rubik's say they are losing sales to the bigger companies. Maybe They are losing more money than we think. V-Cubes may have more money than Rubik's at the moment. If you think about it, How many people buy Rubik's brand cubes (general public and speedcubers). A majority of the people either already have a cube or aren't interested in buying one. V-Cubes however sells cubes to speedcubers on a regular basis. Many people prefer the V-Cube 5 over the SS 5x5. Also, the V-Cube 4 came out recently, within the last year. Many speedcubers want the cube to test out. This is all just a guess, I don't want anyone calling me stupid or anything because of my answer. To end this I would like to say, Go to h*** Rubik's.


----------



## cyoubx (Jun 22, 2013)

Cuber9991 said:


> Just guessing. Maybe Rubik's knows that they will lose if they try to sue V-Cubes. Rubik's say they are losing sales to the bigger companies. Maybe They are losing more money than we think. *V-Cubes may have more money than Rubik's at the moment.*



I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that that is false.


----------



## Cuber9991 (Jun 22, 2013)

cyoubx said:


> I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that that is false.



Like I said I was just guessing but it still may be true that Rubik's thinks they will lose if they try to sue V-Cubes.


----------



## Lchu613 (Jun 22, 2013)

Why doesn't Seven Towns/Rubik's just make better cubes so they can actually make some money?


----------



## BaMiao (Jun 22, 2013)

Lchu613 said:


> Why doesn't Seven Towns/Rubik's just make better cubes so they can actually make some money?



Right now, they don't have to. People who buy Rubik's brands are mostly people who don't know of any alternatives. The game they are trying to play is to limit the exposure of other brands so they can keep things the way they are.


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 22, 2013)

Lchu613 said:


> Why doesn't Seven Towns/Rubik's just make better cubes so they can *actually make some money*?



lol? They make supreme amounts of money, and adding speedcubes probably won't make them much of anything because of no market.


----------



## Lchu613 (Jun 22, 2013)

Ack, screw all those random people who buy Rubik's Brands, they're too easy to forget about even though there are millions of them

Sarcasm aside, I see your point in that. Basically they're just being a-holes.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 22, 2013)

Cuber9991 said:


> If you think about it, How many people buy Rubik's brand cubes (general public and speedcubers). A majority of the people either already have a cube or aren't interested in buying one.



This. If your family/house has one, that's enough. If you seriously get interested in the thing, you go the speedcube way. You wouldn't buy another Rubik's brand. Plus, Rubik's brand cubes are rather sturdy. I'm sure there are people who have cubes from 1981 in their family. So it wouldn't be strange for them to be making less money now than when cubes were the hype of the decade.


----------



## Cuber9991 (Jun 22, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> This. If your family/house has one, that's enough. If you seriously get interested in the thing, you go the speedcube way. You wouldn't buy another Rubik's brand. Plus, Rubik's brand cubes are rather sturdy. I'm sure there are people who have cubes from 1981 in their family. So it wouldn't be strange for them to be making less money now than when cubes were the hype of the decade.



I'm confused, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? lol


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 22, 2013)

Agreeing.


----------



## Rnewms (Jun 22, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> This. If your family/house has one, that's enough. If you seriously get interested in the thing, you go the speedcube way. You wouldn't buy another Rubik's brand. Plus, Rubik's brand cubes are rather sturdy. I'm sure there are people who have cubes from 1981 in their family. So it wouldn't be strange for them to be making less money now than when cubes were the hype of the decade.



Most people get cubes for Christmas or some other holiday and they will almost always be Rubik's brand. I highly doubt very many families own a cube from 1981, especially a young, developing family that would like to get a puzzle for their child's stocking. They have plenty of buyers; they have decreased since the 80s, but they certainly don't have a problem with sales/profits.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 22, 2013)

Rnewms said:


> Most people get cubes for Christmas or some other holiday and they will almost always be Rubik's brand. I highly doubt very many families own a cube from 1981, especially a young, developing family that would like to get a puzzle for their child's stocking. They have plenty of buyers; they have decreased since the 80s, but they certainly don't have a problem with sales/profits.



I didn't say there are *many* families with 1981 cubes. My point is just that if a family owns one and nobody is that serious about it, one cube is enough and sometimes it gets passed down. Yes, of course Rubik's brand cubes are still being bought but when there are already so many out there from before, there isn't so much need to buy a new one now.


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 22, 2013)

For most people Rubik's cubes are actually better than speedcubes because Rubik's cubes don't POP!
Just think how many normal people would complain if they had bought a speedcube and break it with every 10th wristturn.

Rubik's understands this so they made 2 types of cubes: "Storebought" and "DIY".
Most people here seem to think that Rubik's is interested in preventing DIY-alternatives but that is not the case. They are trying to prevent brand-infringment and "storebought" copies.


----------



## MatejMuzatko (Jun 22, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> Most people here seem to think that Rubik's is interested in preventing DIY-alternatives but that is not the case. *They are trying to prevent brand-infringment and "storebought" copies.*



Thank you for that information... where's the problem then? I think that most people that want a speedcube buy a DIY...


----------



## BrainOfSweden (Jun 22, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> This. If your family/house has one, that's enough. If you seriously get interested in the thing, you go the speedcube way. You wouldn't buy another Rubik's brand. Plus, Rubik's brand cubes are rather sturdy. I'm sure there are people who have cubes from 1981 in their family. So it wouldn't be strange for them to be making less money now than when cubes were the hype of the decade.



Yup. We still have an old Rubiks brand, likely from the 80's and it's a sturdy beast. Sure it turns quite awful now, but it still works, compared to my Rubiks brand from two years ago, I dropped it maybe twice, and the core is now broken. So I get your point, they don't sell as many cubes as we may think, but by eliminating the competition they maximize income. Kinda like a certain fruit company, although I'd say V-Cube is more Apple-ish, their cubes are both inferior and expensive as ****


----------



## Eric79 (Jun 22, 2013)

MatejMuzatko said:


> [...] where's the problem then? [...]


The problem is that Seven Towns doesn't do a lot on their own, regarding private consumers who order few cubes, they'd probably do nothing at all but let them have the cubes.
But as stated Seven Towns employs legal companies all around the world to do the job. And if a customs officer opens a package (or even containers), finds cubes inside and knows about the copyright (or cares about finding out if there is a copyright problem - which he should do if he does his job as meant to be), then they forward the issue to the legal company who is responsible in that country. These lawyers then have to spent time answering the requests by the customs office - and time is money. So those legal companies aren't like "Screw it, it's only 3 cubes, forward them to the customer... and present compliments!" of course they want to make money out of every possibility and that eventually is causing the problems some of us had/will have (eventually caused by yourself by importing illegal things).

Someone else before asked why they would go after us, not the producers of those copyright infringing cubes? Well, for those who are not familiar with chinese knock-off practices: Some of the manufacturers of "Magic Cubes" (or whatever else, e.g. Shoes, T-Shirts, Tablet-PCs, ...you name it) are probably aware of the fact that they are producing illegal items but simply don't care for the benefit of quickly earned money. Others probably simply ignore existing copyrights because they have their own "patent" and think they are right... A "patent" only valid in the country where it was granted - in this case usually a asian country, where you often (unfortunately?) can buy anything from authorities anyway if you bring enough money; and patents that are useless as long as the finished product still infringes other copyrights. And lastly some producers really may be not aware of the fact that there are copyrights for something like a Rubiks Cube.
So, say Seven Town employs a local lawyer to go after a specific KO-company: This lawyer then is going to inspect that facility, bringing some customs officials and policemen along with him to seize everything used to produce pirated products related to his orders. But due to corruption those companies often get to know about these visits in time - so they simply move their production facility or e.g. objectionable molds to another place. All that's left is a huge bill for all the efforts that Seven Towns has to pay with basically receiving no results. And even if someone gets caught and stuff is destroyed or taken away, they simply produce new molds and start producing again somewhere else.
As you now may realize, this procedure is not really effective... opposed to simply let custom officers do their job in the countries we live where as a result - unfortunately - we are the ones to suffer.

Do I as a speedcuber, a person being affected by all this, like the way things are? In this case, not really. But eventually it is on me as a responsible customer to be aware of what I am allowed to import and what not. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." This means if I still decide to take the risk of importing items that are illegal and I get caught, than I have to live with possible consequences.
So what to do about it? Either order from store based in the country where you lice or order DIY-Kits; I personally prefer them anyway and that usually prevents these kind of copyright problems.

anyway, in all objectivity Seven Towns is in the right doing what they do. If we like it or not. If they would not care about KO products, shops (and I'm talking about retail stores, not only internet shops) would be flooded with those 'illegal' cubes and the copyright owner could harldy make any money. That is not only true for Seven Towns but basically for any copyright owners.
And to the lawyers it usually is all or nothing, there is no difference between internet shop owners, retail store owners and consumers - they all import illegal items if they order cubes that resemble the looks of a Rubiks Cube (from the outside - as this is what is copyrighted).

As Stefan said, this isn't a new problem to us cubers and after things peter out it surely sometime will come up again. This wasn't the first time.
Thinking of Seven Towns even sponsoring some of our competitions on one hand (without closely looking at the cubes we use) while going for those who infringe their copyright (everyone importing copyright infringing cubes) puts us in a grey area: It's a kind of symbiosis we all should be aware of.
Hence I think stirring up the issue thus far as some cubers recently do, here and elsewhere, some without knowing/caring about coherences or worse, without some real education regarding patents and copyrights apart from their personal conclusions proportional to what they claim, Those cubers may do even more harm than good (thinking of getting customs attention resulting in more packages getting destroyed on a regular basis, losing Seven Towns as a sponsor,... maybe a little far fetched but not too unlikely when thinking of a few naive kids telling the press during interviews at competitions).
If you simply don't like capitalism as well as it's rules - which on a very basic level are the reasons for these issues - and thus you complain and scold Seven Towns, you either live in the wrong country or you should go into politics to make some changes.

What you actually should to instead of cursing Seven Towns is throw some light on how to prevent copyright infringements by ordering the right things (not in a legal way, but in a way causing the least problems).
Again: if possible order from local stores only or limit yourself to DIY kits.


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Jun 22, 2013)

Blatant copy of CBC's facebook post on this, just getting the important part:

ONLY assembled black 3x3's with the classic rubiks cube colour scheme applied to it are in danger. Any white cube is legal and anything 2x2, 4x4 and above are legal. Apparently the colour scheme on a black 3x3 is ALL that matters. The copyright is so delicate too that even make one single turn on the cube alters the colour scheme and is now legal. THAT is how stupid this whole thing is. You can take a black 3x3 with the rubiks cube colour scheme, do an R turn on it and now it's legal.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Jun 22, 2013)

Eric79, I checked out your youtube channel and your first video was a review of the Zhanchi from Lightake. You recognized the great design of the cube and shrilled shamelessly for Lightake. Was that the sort of responsibility you want the rest of us to bear as consumers? Don't be so quick to moralize especially when your moralizing comes with some huge anti-Chinese prejudices hiding underneath.

I am a little bit educated about copyrights. They are subtle and brutal. I have felt something like manic avarice at the thought of having state sanctioned monopoly on my work but I have also seen how copyright is used by the least creative people to capture the work of the creatives. How it is extended absurdly and used to control others. How it reinforces social hierarchy among those like to follow the rules. 

I think this is a copyfight that needs to happen. You know the "rights holders" in the cubing world are trying to exert a legal monopoly to remove consumer choice. To suppress far superior designs. To hamper and if they could to destroy something very special. On some level the rights holders are big on the "Chinese are thieves" bandwagon and if the rights holders ever win our community would be in a much worse place.

Again I don't think Seven Town can buy the moral rights to the cube - don't go and mentally assign moral superiority to their case.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 22, 2013)

Kattenvriendin said:


> Blatant copy of CBC's facebook post on this, just getting the important part:
> 
> ONLY assembled black 3x3's with the classic rubiks cube colour scheme applied to it are in danger. Any white cube is legal and anything 2x2, 4x4 and above are legal. Apparently the colour scheme on a black 3x3 is ALL that matters. The copyright is so delicate too that even make one single turn on the cube alters the colour scheme and is now legal. THAT is how stupid this whole thing is. You can take a black 3x3 with the rubiks cube colour scheme, do an R turn on it and now it's legal.



Is this true? So why don't all the cube stores send the assembled cubes to us with one turn? Or checkerboard pattern with solution to fix that (for non-cubers).


----------



## SenileGenXer (Jun 22, 2013)

This is CBC's legal reasoning. I really feel where it's coming from but it may not be sound. 

In the recent customs case they impounded a white cube, a black cube and a stickerless cube. They intend to or have destroyed all of them. 

While we may want to interpet their copyright minimally they have spent years and cash on lawyers who have helped them to interpet it maximally such that they even believe they own every two dimensional picture of the cube.

You take a picture of the cube they believe they own the copyright.

They probably believe they own all 43 quintillion scrambled states even if they haven't produced a significant fraction.


----------



## Eric79 (Jun 22, 2013)

Kattenvriendin said:


> Blatant copy of CBC's facebook post on this, just getting the important part:
> 
> ONLY assembled black 3x3's with the classic rubiks cube colour scheme applied to it are in danger. Any white cube is legal and anything 2x2, 4x4 and above are legal. Apparently the colour scheme on a black 3x3 is ALL that matters.[...]


Well, there are several problems with that: 1) Not everything he says is correct. 2) Products similar to a certain degree also infringe copyrights. How far that goes - courts are asked to find that out. 3) It's not only certain colour shades or exact "looks", here too it is about the similarity - no matter the colour. Interchanging one colour with another (as Dayan did) is only a very poor solution - I highly doubt this would withstand a lawsuit. Just think of the lawsuits filed by Apple - it's all about how "similar" Samsungs products are allowed to look like. Not if they are 100% identical. Also read what the copyright say: "The RUBIK'S CUBE® in its three dimensional form [...] in any configuration, coloured or uncoloured, whether it carries the Rubik name or logo,".



SenileGenXer said:


> Eric79, I checked out your youtube channel and your first video was a review of the Zhanchi from Lightake. You recognized the great design of the cube and shrilled shamelessly for Lightake. Was that the sort of responsibility you want the rest of us to bear as consumers?[...]


Read again what I wrote, especially the part about I liking the situation or not, and besides you mixing several things up - that already answers your question. Also, I'm not "anti-Chinese" as you just generalized - in fact I like a lot about China and am happy to have several dear chinese friends! Just saying. But I am against those "Chinese knock-off companies practices" and there are no prejudices in these regards, in terms of what I said it's facts. Apart from that of course I can honour clever design, good ideas and a shop who supplied me, all in appropriate ways - and why shouldn't I?! Oh, and I wasn't moralizing, I was giving information on the topic, based on facts. Your views on the other hand regarding Seven Towns behaviour enforcing patent and copyright law are... Did I hear sombody say "conspiracy theory"? I'm quite sure "superior design" is what Seven Towns cares the least.



sneaklyfox said:


> Is this true? So why don't all the cube stores send the assembled cubes to us with one turn? Or checkerboard pattern with solution to fix that (for non-cubers).


[sarcasm_on]Why even employ workers to solve assembled cubes in the first place instead of leaving those cubes scrambled?[sarcasm_off]
No, it's not true because a Rubiks Cube is a Rubiks Cube - no matter if scrambled or not.

A related "funny" story: Take a look at the chinese forum, puzzle designers are bashing and accusing one another for pirating their cubes. And Bao is avoiding (I would even say he's hiding from) western press regarding interviews for years by now because he actually knows that he is infringing some copyrights and that it wasn't a good idea to talk to them about it.


----------



## windhero (Jun 22, 2013)

Does everyone agree on the following:

1)Ordering any cube as a DIY kit does not infringe copyrights and will be not destroyed by the custom officials
2)Ordering any cubes bigger than 5x5 (cubes that have never been produced by the Rubiks company) do not infringe copyrights and will not be destroyed by the custom officials.

In short is there a way for customers to avoid having the puzzles destroyed by asking the seller to send 3x3-5x5 cubes in pieces as DIY kits?


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 22, 2013)

Eric79 said:


> [sarcasm_on]Why even employ workers to solve assembled cubes in the first place instead of leaving those cubes scrambled?[sarcasm_off]
> No, it's not true because a Rubiks Cube is a Rubiks Cube - no matter if scrambled or not.
> 
> A related "funny" story: Take a look at the chinese forum, puzzle designers are bashing and accusing one another for pirating their cubes. And Bao is avoiding (I would even say he's hiding from) western press regarding interviews for years by now because he actually knows that he is infringing some copyrights and that it wasn't a good idea to talk to them about it.



I don't understand your sarcasm as the stickers are put on after the cubes are assembled. Do customs object to assembled but unstickered cubes?

@Eric79: Do you have a moral stand on the issue because it sounds like you do. And if you do then you shouldn't be owning anything but Rubik's brands.


----------



## cyoubx (Jun 22, 2013)

windhero said:


> Does everyone agree on the following:
> 
> 1)Ordering any cube as a DIY kit does not infringe copyrights and will be not destroyed by the custom officials
> 2)Ordering any cubes bigger than 5x5 (cubes that have never been produced by the Rubiks company) do not infringe copyrights and will not be destroyed by the custom officials.
> ...



I think that is correct based on our interpretations of the copyright. But the copyright is so vague and broad that I'm sure a copyright case could be made for DIY/larger cubers.


----------



## applemobile (Jun 22, 2013)

At the end of the day we ALL own at least one Rubik's brand cube right? If no other cubes exsisted would we have the same amount of cubes as we have in our collection made up purely of Rubik's brand cubes? No. If Rubik's was the only brand avaliable would I own more Rubik's brand 3x3's than I already do? No.. Case dismissed.


----------



## Eric79 (Jun 22, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> I don't understand your sarcasm as the stickers are put on after the cubes are assembled.


Sounds as if you understood.


sneaklyfox said:


> Do customs object to assembled but unstickered cubes?


It's already pointed out: "The RUBIK'S CUBE® in its three dimensional form [...] in any configuration, coloured *or uncoloured*, whether it carries the Rubik name or logo,". So yes, they should.


sneaklyfox said:


> @Eric79: Do you have a moral stand on the issue because it sounds like you do. And if you do then you shouldn't be owning anything but Rubik's brands.


You're asking to judge me? Yeah, sure... anyway. Here, enjoy: What I have is a eclectic point of view and kinda mixed feelings (which is obvious from my original post). In general - what I or someone else should and shouldn't own is totally out of your judgement. Also that last sentence is wrong in so many ways... You should try being a little more open minded and tolerant considering people can have complex thoughts/opinions - complex things often just don't result in only either or.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 22, 2013)

so, if you order a zhanchi then you might end up with a rubik's 3x3? ok, but don't rubik's brands cost more than zhanchis?

buy 100 zhanchis
wait for 100 rubik's 3x3s to arrive
sell each one for the price of a new rubik's 3x3
profit


----------



## Username (Jun 22, 2013)

So.... No more speedcubes? Only Rubik's brands?


----------



## CarlBrannen (Jun 22, 2013)

As I explained in the other thread, I suspect that if a given color scheme infringes the copyright, then a DIY kit that includes those same colors might be interpreted as "induced infringement" and so would also fall under copyright rules. The rules for patents are similar:

"Since an amendment to the law in 1984 it has been an act of infringement to supply in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside the United States in a manner that would constitute infringement if carried out inside the United States. [219] That is to say one can not supply from the United States *a kit of parts with instructions to assemble them* to produce something which if produced in the United States would be a patent infringement."
http://www.ladas.com/Patents/Biotechnology/USPharmPatentLaw/USPhar31.html

Patents 101, does DIY Infringe?
http://glassbox-design.com/2009/patents-101-does-diy-infringe/

There's also a British case having to do with copyright violation using a kit of parts, Dorling v Honnor Marine Ltd [1965] which you can google.


----------



## Username (Jun 22, 2013)

Is DIY kit with 7 colors a solution?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 22, 2013)

I feel like copyright ought to be different than patents, because it is meant to apply to particular created works (as distinct from a patent which applies to objects/inventions). For instance you could not reasonably argue that a pen and a ream of paper, with the words "copy the text from Twilight" violates copyright because it contains the material and instructions to produce a copy of the text of Twilight (which is copyrighted).

I had another thought as well... Seven Towns says they have a copyright on "The RUBIK'S CUBE® [...] in any configuration". Is this invalid, in the sense that a good lawyer could argue they don't have that power? Copyright is for original works, such as novels, sculptures, pictures, films, and so on. The individual permutations of a cube should not be copyrightable because the vast majority of which have not been seen, much less created, by anyone at Seven Towns - the puzzle can certainly be put into those 4.3*10^19 positions, but they have not been actually made. Their claim seems similar to arguing that, if you sell an encyclopedia packaged with a pair of scissors, you can get a copyright on any combination of the words included therein.


----------



## CarlBrannen (Jun 22, 2013)

I agree that they can't copyright all possible configurations of a Rubik's cube. I don't see how they can copyright an image they haven't created. I could be wrong on this. For example, if you had a copyright on a picture of a car, I'm pretty sure that someone else can't import a jigsaw puzzle with that picture on it even though the puzzle pieces themselves do not constitute the image (and ignoring the picture on the box).

As far as the difference between copyright and patent protection in the area of induced infringement goes, for the case of patents, it's written into the law. For copyrights, the ruling is a result of case law. That is, for patents it was decided by the US congress, for copyrights it was decided by the court system.

The situation is more serious than people think. Seven Towns could send a letter to the WCA requiring them to quit allowing the use of copyright violating cubes in their contests. I don't see that WCA would have any alternative than to instantly comply. That would mean that a lot of people would have to resticker their main 3x3 cube.

On the other hand, how could someone say that the typical non-Rubiks cube stickers violate the copyright? Some of the ohe ones I've seen in competition were so ratty that you could just barely identify the color of the face. They certainly don't look like a new Rubik's cube. Maybe you could avoid the copyright by using stickers that were circular instead of square. But I think these sorts of questions would have to be decided by a court. Seven Towns can always threaten to sue you even if they don't have a case.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 23, 2013)

A good humorous example of how copyright can definitely be taken too far.

http://www.magnus-opus.com/
(Hope you've paid royalties on all those tunes you've played!)

Just because a company claims a certain level of rights definitely does not automatically make it so.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 23, 2013)

Mike Hughey said:


> A good humorous example of how copyright can definitely be taken too far.
> 
> http://www.magnus-opus.com/
> (Hope you've paid royalties on all those tunes you've played!)
> ...


Hilarious idea. However, take a look at their Correspondence section. The point APRA makes is quite relevant to our discussion - much as Magnus Opus can't copyright all telephone tone "melodies" just by having an algorithm which can generate them, Seven Towns shouldn't be able to copyright depictions of all cube permutations just by owning the rights to a puzzle which can generate them.


I also had another thought about the copyrightability of unstickered cubes (that is, assembled cubes with no stickers, not the 6-color stickerless cubes). If Seven Towns has copyright of a depiction of an unstickered cube, they have copyright of a depiction of a cube cut into 3 (roughly even) slices along each face axis. But this is a very simple design that has almost certainly been drawn before Rubik developed the cube. If there is a sufficiently old depiction, then there is prior art that is in the public domain, which means that a depiction of an unstickered cube should not be copyrightable. And if Seven Towns does have a trademark/copyright for their particular color scheme, then an unstickered cube with a set of 6 (or 7) sticker sheets is by no means induced infringement, as the cube can be stickered in one of many color schemes and there is no included instruction telling the user to use the copyrighted one.


----------



## cyoubx (Jun 23, 2013)

For the 2x2 copyright, does this count?


----------



## tx789 (Jun 23, 2013)

they want a monopoly but that will never happen. Rubik brand are terrible cubers will never use them after switching to a speedcube. They see speed cubers as lots of people not buying their product and lots of money loss. You can't have a monopoly in speedcubing. V-cubes had one kind of until shengshou's took over.


----------



## pipkiksass (Jun 23, 2013)

Theoretically, if you popped two edges and swapped them, leaving the cube in an unsolvable state, would that get around the copyright? I'm sure a half-decent lawyer could argue that the copyright states 'all its states', and that state cannot be achieved using the rubik's mechanism, and so isn't representative of the copyright image or intellectual property.

Maybe distribute cubes like that - easier than restickering or sending out DIYs.


----------



## CarlBrannen (Jun 23, 2013)

So Seven Towers sponsors cubing championships that use cubes that are in violation of their copyright.

I wonder if that weakens their legal position in enforcing their copyright. (I'm not a lawyer.)

My feeling on this is that the reason companies like Dayan avoid lawsuits by Seven Towers is that Dayan has less money available to pay expensive lawyers. Patent and copyright lawsuits are incredibly expensive. No one wants to get involved in one except the lawyers.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 23, 2013)

Funny how every few months/years when this pops up, hysteria ensues and people go wild and angry and discuss possible solutions to the problem that doesn't actually exist.



cyoubx said:


> For the 2x2 copyright, does this count?



Count how?


----------



## cyoubx (Jun 23, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Count how?



Sorry, that was a poor response to qqwref's comment regarding a cube cut into slices along each face axis.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 23, 2013)

cyoubx said:


> Sorry, that was a poor response to qqwref's comment regarding a cube cut into slices along each face axis.



I kinda suspected that, but on the other hand, Rubik's 2x2x2 came out well before 2007, so that didn't make sense.


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 24, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Funny how every few months/years when this pops up, hysteria ensues and people go wild and angry and discuss possible solutions to the problem that doesn't actually exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Count how?


First try for finding previous art should always be this
I haven't found anything relevant about cubes yet, but pyraminx is safe


----------



## JF1zl3 (Jun 24, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Theoretically, if you popped two edges and swapped them, leaving the cube in an unsolvable state, would that get around the copyright? I'm sure a half-decent lawyer could argue that the copyright states 'all its states', and that state cannot be achieved using the rubik's mechanism, and so isn't representative of the copyright image or intellectual property.
> 
> Maybe distribute cubes like that - easier than restickering or sending out DIYs.



I very much like this idea, if it must come to this.


----------



## 1LastSolve (Jul 3, 2013)

From what I know, this doesn't affect White Cubes since the IMAGE is copyrighted. I'm not 100% Sure, but it may work, because I bought a DaYan PanShi (White) and Seven Towns didn't destroy it.
I am 100% Sure that D.I.Y Kits aren't affected by the copyright, and this has been confirmed by many people.

EDIT: 4 x 4 & Up are COMPLETELY unaffected.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 3, 2013)

1LastSolve said:


> From what I know, this doesn't affect White Cubes since the IMAGE is copyrighted. I'm not 100% Sure, but it may work, because I bought a DaYan PanShi (White) and Seven Towns didn't destroy it.
> I am 100% Sure that D.I.Y Kits aren't affected by the copyright, and this has been confirmed by many people.\
> 
> EDIT: 4 x 4 & Up are COMPLETELY unaffected.



Right, if you murder someone and nobody finds out, must mean it's legal.


----------



## 1LastSolve (Jul 3, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Right, if you murder someone and nobody finds out, must mean it's legal.



What the...... That was completely randumb.


----------



## Olji (Jul 3, 2013)

Not really, customs doesn't check every package that enters, just because they didn't check your package doesn't mean it would not be affected by this.

I don't really see how they would be able to check every package that enters any country, that would require too much resources to pull off.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 3, 2013)

1LastSolve said:


> What the...... That was an incredibly accurate summary of my nonsensical uneducated reasoning



fixed that for you


----------



## jayefbe (Jul 3, 2013)

1LastSolve said:


> What the...... That was completely randumb.



Not at all random, nor dumb. Your Panshi arrived because it wasn't one of the very small minority of packages that are opened by customs. 

Also, unless you have verified sources for your information, don't just post your opinions as facts (white cubes are ok, 4x4 and up are unaffected, DIYs are fine). The copyright laws are sufficiently vague, and the way they are enacted are so arbitrary, that all of those cubes could be confiscated just as easily.


----------



## noob (Jul 4, 2013)

emolover said:


> I wonder how many of those millions of people bought a $17 Rubik's cube from watching Eric's or Felik's WR video.


Haha I did except it sucked so I got mad and smashed it and I have two dayans coming along the way but I heard that customs are destroying all dayans so I'm a bit nervous...



emolover said:


> There were 7 or so videos of WR and former WR solves that had 3 million views when I searched 3x3 world record. Out of those 21,000,000 people, lets make an understatement and say that .01 of those people went out and bought a $17 Rubik's brand. This means that from those viewers alone they sold 210,000 Rubik's cubes which amounts to $3,750,000, and yet they think they are losing money...


But $3,750,000 for a huge company Seven towns would mean nothing :/


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jul 4, 2013)

1LastSolve said:


> From what I know, this doesn't affect White Cubes since the IMAGE is copyrighted. I'm not 100% Sure, but it may work, because I bought a DaYan PanShi (White) and Seven Towns didn't destroy it.
> I am 100% Sure that D.I.Y Kits aren't affected by the copyright, and this has been confirmed by many people.
> 
> EDIT: 4 x 4 & Up are COMPLETELY unaffected.



All my cubes came fine and nobody destroyed them and they're mostly black. It doesn't mean anything.


----------



## MaikeruKonare (Jul 4, 2013)

If they ban china from using rubik color scheme, we will buy chinese cubes and rubik stickers and APPLY THE STICKERS TO THE CHINESE CUBE. Rubik doesn't realize how them doing this only hurts the speedcubing community, as we will have to buy stickers.


----------



## 1LastSolve (Jul 4, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> Not at all random, nor dumb. Your Panshi arrived because it wasn't one of the very small minority of packages that are opened by customs.
> 
> Also, unless you have verified sources for your information, don't just post your opinions as facts (white cubes are ok, 4x4 and up are unaffected, DIYs are fine). The copyright laws are sufficiently vague, and the way they are enacted are so arbitrary, that all of those cubes could be confiscated just as easily.



Ahhh.... Now I see what Stefan did there LOL.

I should have explained where I got the info from...

Okay, first, 4 x 4's. Calvin Fan (according to CBC) stated that he has never had a problem with Seven Towns, because he Only sells 3 x 3 D.I.Y Kits.
Now, If Calvin never had a problem with Seven Towns, but he sells Assembled 4 x 4's/Other big cubes to MASSIVE amounts of people, I think it's safe to assume that 4 x 4's are safe.

2nd, White Cubes. Like I said, I'm not 100% Sure about white cubes, but I've heard in multiple places that White Cubes are safe. I don't exactly know where, but I've heard it
from multiple people. Many of my friends and I have bought White Cubes, and it never got affected. Like I said, I don't know if this one is true. From what I know, a Image of the Rubik's Cube
is patented, and Rubik's Cubes are Black, unlike White cubes.

3rd, D.I.Y Kits. Calvin Fan, (According to CBC again) weren't an issue because Calvin Fan only sells D.I.Y Kits for 3 x 3's, and NONE of his sold cubes were taken, so it's safe to assume that is safe.

What I said up there was admittedly a Statement backed up with poor information when I could have backed it up with better information. I should have thought a bit more before posting it, and put better information into it.


Final Comment: I'd rather say an incorrect statement or statement without backup, look like a fool because of the way people reply on it, and learn something from it than not learn anything by keeping silent. So correct me, because It'll make me more educated about this stuff.


----------



## cannon4747 (Jul 4, 2013)

My view on this after reading this thread (which is much more mature than the other one btw) is that any 3x3x3 mechanical turning puzzle cube is considered a copyright infringement by Seven Towns and under most copyright law. Taking it apart or changing colors will not change that. There are no loopholes, every package opened by customs is subject to the judgement of that specific customs worker who opened it. We run a risk by purchasing cubes from other countries. The online stores within our own countries also take this risk, but they take it for us so that we don't have to (directly).

Overall, we hate it but it's just something we're gonna have to deal with unless Seven Towns and the major speedcube manufacturers actually start negotiating and come to some sort of agreement. It would also help for them to get involved with community discussion and not just leave us to suffer without knowing what's actually going on. But hey, that's capitalism. I can't fault them for trying to defend their product.

My opinion of this whole issue has changed many times in an attempt to be unbiased, so don't criticize me based on past posts showing apparent contrary opinions.


----------



## Coolster01 (Jul 4, 2013)

I bought a ShengShou Aurora from wallbuys. Will it get destroyed?  It's been 2 weeks and it's not here. That's normal from China, riiiggghhht?

EDIT: assembled and black :/


----------



## jayefbe (Jul 4, 2013)

1LastSolve said:


> Ahhh.... Now I see what Stefan did there LOL.
> 
> I should have explained where I got the info from...
> 
> ...




First, spreading misinformation is always bad. If you're unsure of anything, if it's information based on rumors or from unverified sources (like CBC, for example!) than make it abundantly clear that the information shouldn't be treated as fact. 

CBC is not a reliable source.

Just because you don't know of any white cubes that have been confiscated does not mean they can't or won't. How many cases do we even know of having occurred within the last few months? ONE?! So of the ONE confirmed event, there weren't any white cubes confiscated. That tells us absolutely NOTHING about whether or not white cubes will be affected. Ditto for DIY. 

Again, the copyright laws are sufficiently vague, and on top of that, the law is applied in a seemingly arbitrary manner. Anyone saying "x is affected and y isn't" don't know what they're talking about, because, at this point, nobody does. Again, I've only heard of the single instance of a cube being destroyed. Absolutely no hard and fast conclusions can be made from that information.


----------



## BrainOfSweden (Jul 4, 2013)

Coolster01 said:


> I bought a ShengShou Aurora from wallbuys. Will it get destroyed?  It's been 2 weeks and it's not here. That's normal from China, riiiggghhht?
> 
> EDIT: assembled and black :/



Since Wallbuys is a cheap wholesale store, it's pretty normal, my mini 2x2's from dealextreme took over a month iirc. If there's any trouble with customs, you should be informed. And if you only ordered one cube, I find unlikely that customs will even open the package.


----------



## cannon4747 (Jul 4, 2013)

It seems that the copyright laws are vague enough for ST to seem like they have the rights to the product regardless of whether or not they do. Nobody is willing to spend the massive amounts of money to contest their claim, so this will go on as long as ST decides it should.


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 4, 2013)

Lots of pointless speculation on this thread. Seven Towns are never going to come out and say "sure if your plastic's pink or stickers are purple we're OK with it." Also nobody really cares about tiny individual shipments to consumers - they are just caught in the crossfire. 

The best thing to do is just exercise a bit of common sense. Don't buy $100's of stuff in one shipment - it's more likely to attract attention and you have more to lose.


----------



## 1LastSolve (Jul 4, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> First, spreading misinformation is always bad. If you're unsure of anything, if it's information based on rumors or from unverified sources (like CBC, for example!) than make it abundantly clear that the information shouldn't be treated as fact.
> 
> CBC is not a reliable source.
> 
> ...



k Imma stahp listening to CBC



Coolster01 said:


> I bought a ShengShou Aurora from wallbuys. Will it get destroyed?  It's been 2 weeks and it's not here. That's normal from China, riiiggghhht?
> 
> EDIT: assembled and black :/



If it was taken, then you should have a notice in the mail. If not, its just slow shipping or the post office or airmail losing the item. There may be something else than happened.


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Jul 4, 2013)

Two weeks only? Haha.. just wait a bit longer


----------



## cannon4747 (Jul 5, 2013)

Just that it says 2 weeks doesnt actually mean 2 weeks... my first experience with a chinese wholesale site was with lightake buying the ss v1 (piece of crap, but thats irrelephant) and it took over 2 months. I wouldn't worry unless its like 4 months... lol


----------



## Stefan (Jul 6, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> Anyone saying "x is affected and y isn't" don't know what they're talking about



x = "A tiny minority (of our puzzles/shipments)"
y = "the vast majority"

That should work


----------



## pjk (Jul 16, 2013)

I sent another email out a few weeks back asking what products specifically infringe on their products, and recently received this response (the first one I've ever received):


> All black cubes with 2, 3, 4 or 5 parts are often infringing our designrigts. Please see www.rubiks.com for all our genuine Rubik Cubes.



A vague, unhelpful answer unfortunately. I'm not sure how they expect the community to help them with this issue with so little support from their end.


----------



## JasonK (Jul 16, 2013)

pjk said:


> I sent another email out a few weeks back asking what products specifically infringe on their products, and recently received this response (the first one I've ever received):
> 
> A vague, unhelpful answer unfortunately. I'm not sure how they expect the community to help them with this issue with so little support from their end.



Wait, so they think that *every* black 2x2, 3x3, 4x4 and 5x5 infringes on their copyrights? Jeeeesus...


----------



## stoic (Jul 16, 2013)

They're definitely keeping it as loose as they can but at least we appear to have confirmation that white cubes *shouldn't* be affected...thanks pjk


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Jul 16, 2013)

If shades of the colours are affected, guess what. No black n3x3s should be affected since the colours are more dull


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 16, 2013)

JasonK said:


> Wait, so they think that *every* black 2x2, 3x3, 4x4 and 5x5 infringes on their copyrights? Jeeeesus...


NO, they say that 


> _All black cubes with 2, 3, 4 or 5 parts are *often *infringing our designrigts. Please see _www.rubiks.com_ for all our genuine Rubik Cubes._


Learn to read before you call Jeeeesus



ellwd said:


> They're definitely keeping it as loose as they can but at least we appear to have confirmation that white cubes *shouldn't* be affected...thanks pjk



It might appear that way, but even that cannot be the conclusion from their statement. They never said that white is legal or illegal.

Their statement is something like "shooting someone is often illegal. Please check when killing is legal by yourself"
(white cubes might be like stabbing something)

This is basically Seven Towns PR+Legal giving a technically correct answer without saying anything useful as pjk nicely pointed out.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 16, 2013)

pjk said:


> > All black cubes with 2, 3, 4 or 5 parts are often infringing



How is that mix of "all" and "often" supposed to make sense? All such cubes are infringing, but only often, not always? So the same cube can both infringe and not infringe, depending on... what?


----------



## vcuber13 (Jul 16, 2013)

sounds like this


----------



## BaMiao (Jul 16, 2013)

Sounds like they're being intentionally vague about what is covered. They're not dumb enough to show their cards before the betting takes place. Keep in mind that these laws are not cut and dry. They have some idea of what they think the copyright should cover, and they have some idea of what they can reasonably argue in court, and these two things are not necessarily the same.

Giving information on what they could potentially litigate would only give their rivals opportunity to get around those restrictions.


----------



## CubezUBR (Aug 16, 2013)

i cba to read all these pages so forgive me but if i got a 2x4x4 from somewhere assembled and stickered and in a box that dosent mention the "r word" anywhere on it. will it be seized. if so thats complete and utter BS. RUBIKS' DOSENT EVEN MAKE 2x4x4's!!! how are we going to buy any twisty puzzle other than 3x3x3, 4x4x4 and all the other bad products from rubiks. i think that as long as a cube dosent say R..... on it it is fine and if its not even something rubiks make then no questions asked... complete and utter BS

*also,*
has anyone got reliable evidence that a cube has been destroyed by customs yet?


----------



## AlexMaass (Aug 16, 2013)

CubezUBR said:


> i cba to read all these pages so forgive me but if i got a 2x4x4 from somewhere assembled and stickered and in a box that dosent mention the "r word" anywhere on it. will it be seized. if so thats complete and utter BS. RUBIKS' DOSENT EVEN MAKE 2x4x4's!!! how are we going to buy any twisty puzzle other than 3x3x3, 4x4x4 and all the other bad products from rubiks. i think that as long as a cube dosent say R..... on it it is fine and if its not even something rubiks make then no questions asked... complete and utter BS
> 
> *also,*
> has anyone got reliable evidence that a cube has been destroyed by customs yet?



It will probably not be seized if it is shipped from within your country, but I cannot say for sure if it will be siezed if it is an international shipment though because it depends on what country, customs procedures and the like. Btw, I have a feeling you meant *2x2x4*, in which case Rubik's did make 2x2x4s (they may still be idk for sure) though I'm not too sure of that .


----------



## CubezUBR (Aug 16, 2013)

AlexMaass said:


> It will probably not be seized if it is shipped from within your country, but I cannot say for sure if it will be siezed if it is an international shipment though because it depends on what country, customs procedures and the like. Btw, I have a feeling you meant *2x2x4*, in which case Rubik's did make 2x2x4s (they may still be idk for sure) though I'm not too sure of that .


no, i didnt mean 2x2x4, i meant 2x4x4 http://twistypuzzles.com/cgi-bin/puzzle.cgi?pkey=1709.


----------



## YddEd (Aug 18, 2013)

CubezUBR said:


> i think that as long as a cube dosent say R..... on it it is fine and if its not even something rubiks make then no questions asked... \


Fangshi Shuang*R*en?
Shengshou Au*r*o*r*a?


----------



## AlexMaass (Aug 19, 2013)

CubezUBR said:


> no, i didnt mean 2x2x4, i meant 2x4x4 http://twistypuzzles.com/cgi-bin/puzzle.cgi?pkey=1709.


I was just checking because I had a feeling that you meant it.


----------

