eBay Shutting Down Rubik's Cube Knockoff Sales Due To Patent Infringement Claim (Not From Rubik's Maker)
from the keeping-track dept
Bram Cohen, who's known for doing quite a bit of 3-dimensional puzzle design, alerts us to the news of eBay shutting down a bunch of auctions over some Dayan Guhong and Lingyun puzzles. The Dayan Guhong and Lingyun puzzles are, basically, quite similar to the traditional Rubik's Cube, but designed to work a bit easier. You can see a video explaining the Guhong, which shows how it's faster than a traditional Rubik's cube.Now, there are two separate, but equally interesting points of discussion here. The first is that eBay is apparently getting into the patent enforcement business. This case involved the use of eBay's Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Program, which is usually used by trademark owners to get counterfeits and such removed from eBay. I was unaware of it being used over patents until this case, and that's a lot more troubling. A trademark claim is a lot easier (though, still not perfectly easy in many cases) to judge. A patent claim is a lot more difficult. Is eBay really claiming to be able to determine if a product on eBay infringes on someone else's patent? And then is willing to kill auctions because of it? Furthermore, if the patent holder is really upset, shouldn't it be going after those who are actually selling the cubes in question, rather than having eBay get in the middle?
The other issue is that there's even a patent for this at all. The patent in question, 7,600,756, is somewhat well known in puzzle circles, in that it covers similar cube puzzles that go beyond the traditional Rubik's 3x3x3 all the way up to 11x11x11. Even if you believe that everything from 4x4x4 to 11x11x11 are unique and patentable, it does seem to be a bit of a stretch to claim that the 3x3x3 is patentable. There are some differences in how the patent holder, Panayotis Verdes, designed his 3x3x3 from the original Rubik's, but it was a design innovation (making certain parts spherical instead of cylindrical) that many toy puzzle designers came up with independently at about the same time (which would suggest "obviousness" and thus make it not patentable). Related to all of that, the company holding this patent, V-Cube, is not even making a 3x3x3, though it is making a variety of other cubes. So it's basically trying to kill off the sales of the standard 3x3x3 cubes, even though they don't compete with V-Cube.
Of course, the history of Rubik's Cube is full of patent battles as well. It all kind of makes you wonder, what's wrong with just letting puzzle makers come up with cool puzzles and then letting them compete in the market?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: patents, puzzles, rubik's cube
Companies: dayan, ebay, v-cube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ebay as patent examiner.....
I thought that was what Federal judges were for.
This is by far the cheapest way to have your patent enforced- at essentially no cost.
Much less than a patent attorney. That would cost $25,000, at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviousness is questionable, but brokenness might be guaranteed
Many can come up with something without it being "obvious" to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Surely, if you have 10 engineers, only one, the brainiest one, need come up with it and without having thought it was obvious.
To me that several came up with something can suggest that patent law is broken in not respecting independent creation and in picking such a low bar to innovation (non-obviousness to PHOSITA) that even if we had a higher bar we'd still have multiple parties coming up with the invention independently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please stop writing about patents
Unfair business practice. Many states have these types of laws. In general, it would be unfair for someone to copy what someone else created without the permission of the inventor. Please stop writing about patents. If you haven't figured it out by now, you never will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please stop writing about patents
Competition. Many working economies encourage competition. In general, it would be unfair to block competitors from competing in an open market when it improves the overall economic outlook for all participants. Please stop commenting on free markets. If you haven't figured it out by now, you never will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where did you get that from? They make it rather clear that they don't judge infringement claims at all. Besides ebay's help pages, I suggest "VeRO for Dummies", it's a good read.
"making certain parts spherical instead of cylindrical"
Conical. Not spherical.
"that many toy puzzle designers came up with independently at about the same time"
Name one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cause prosecuting infringement-unaware sellers is so much nicer than just preventing the sales?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a patent, trademark!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a patent, trademark!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a patent, trademark!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]