Online since 2002. Over 3300 puzzles, 2600 worldwide members, and 270,000 messages.

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum

It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:55 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 2:56 pm
Location: New York
A new, mass produced 9x9 has just been released.
I will not be posting any links or pictures, as it is probably a KO, but it is made by a brand that has been coming out with a bunch of higher order nxnxn cubes, and is flat!


-Doug

_________________
My Youtube Channel of Custom Twisty Puzzles!
Recent videos: Master Axis Cube | 4x4x2 Solve | 3x3x3 Triangular Prism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:43 pm
Location: Shelby Township, MI. USA
If it is made by the same company which has been making other non-pillowed high order cubes than it is probably not a KO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
I'm quite sure katsmom and I can evaluate the KO-ness of said puzzle if someone wants to share some links privately in a PM.

For the record, however, I have yet to see any mass produced higher order cube that does not in some way use the Verdes design. And, frankly, most non-mass produced builds do as well.
With this use and absent any license or approval from Verdes, this site will consider them KO.

This does not necessarily make it a KO, but it means the probability is high.

Dave

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
DLitwin wrote:
... if someone wants to share some links privately in a PM.
Provided (by katsmom, as it happens).

As suspected, KO. Not sure what would make Volitar think otherwise. Regardless of any personal views on the matter, the site policy has not changed so it should be fairly clear the site would consider this KO.

Dave

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:43 pm
Location: Shelby Township, MI. USA
DLitwin wrote:
Not sure what would make Volitar think otherwise.

Why I have claimed that these are not KOs:

- The pieces are not copies of the V-Cube pieces (or patent figures for the 8x8x8 since the V-8 doesn’t exist yet). There are some similarities but there are also differences.
- The method used to hold the pieces to the core as well as the overall mechanism of the puzzle is different.
- There are no curved surfaces defined by conical cuts (as described in the V-Cube patent). There are similar looking surfaces, but they are flat, angled surfaces.
- The pieces do not match the figures, description, or claims as written in the V-Cube patent.
- The overall look of the puzzle is different.

We have seen some true KOs of V-Cubes (both the ones that are available as well as large ones that only exist in the patent so far) in which the pieces are direct copies of the pieces from the V-Cubes. Some of them are so close to the originals that they are probably remolds, the pieces may actually be interchangeable with the originals. This is simply not the case with the puzzles made by the same company making this new 9x9x9.

I have studied the V-Cube patent in details and have compared it to both the V-Cube pieces (V-6 and V-7) as well as the pieces from the puzzles in question (their 6x6x6, 7x7x7, and 8x8x8). Has anyone else done so? It is easy to see how the description and claims match the V-Cube pieces, but at the same time you can see how the pieces from these other puzzles don’t match.

So many people are quick to judge and declare them to be KOs but have they actually held one, taken it apart, and compared it to the V-Cube puzzle and/or patent? Or are they making this judgment based on a few pictures which show some of the similarities but don’t reveal the differences? “The pieces appear to wrap around each other in a way similar to a V-Cube, it must be a KO!” Did you know that this aspect of the V-Cube isn’t even really talked about in the V-Cube patent? The patent describes this area of the pieces but doesn’t really describe how the pieces interact with each other. Also, just because something looks similar doesn’t mean that it’s the same. This is the area where the V-Cube uses curved surfaces defined by conical cuts but these puzzles use flat surfaces defined by angled planes.

For a long time now I have been meaning to do a comparison photo study of a V-Cube vs one of these showing pictures of the similarities and differences, both with individual pieces and the puzzle as a whole. Unfortunately all of my puzzles are currently in storage pending a move (we have been attempting to buy a house since April and may finally be able to move this October). I still plan on doing this but it may not be until late fall or early winter before I can do it. But anyone who owns both a V-Cube and one of these should easily be able to spot the differences if they take them apart and compare them next to each other.

The following quotes are from the claims section of the US V-Cube patent:
Quote:
each of said pieces including three distinct parts
This is not really true of the pieces for the puzzles in question. Some have 3 distinct sections, some have 4, some have 2. The corners and center edges in particular are different than others because of the way that they interact with the core of the puzzle (which is different than the V-Cube).
Quote:
a first part that is outermost with regard to the geometric centre of the solid, the outer surfaces of said first part being either substantially planar, when they form part of the solid's external surface and are visible to the user or spherically cut, when they are not visible to the user
This is common with most puzzles (including Rubik and Eastsheen) and is not unique to V-Cubes.
Quote:
a second intermediate part
This is the most famous part of the V-Cube pieces, the area with the conical cuts. The patent has a very detailed and lengthy description of these conical cuts. The puzzles in question have a similar section but instead of conical cuts they have flat angled surfaces.
Quote:
and a third part that is innermost with regard to the geometric centre of the solid, the third part forming part of a sphere or of a spherical shell, each of said pieces having recesses and/or protrusions, such that each piece is inter-coupled with and supported by one or more neighboring pieces, and one or two spherical recesses and/or protrusions between adjacent layers are provided, the edges of each of said pieces being rounded, the assembly of said pieces being held together to form said solid on a central three-dimensional supporting cross located at the centre of the solid, the cross having six cylindrical legs, the axes of symmetry of said legs coincide with the semi-axes of said three-dimensional, rectangular Cartesian coordinate system
All of this basically describes they way that the inner most pat of the V-Cube pieces wrap under each other forming different spherical layers, all of which then meet the central shafts under the center pieces/caps. This is the part of the pieces which is most different with the puzzles in question. These layers created by pieces don’t all meet at the center pieces, instead they wrap around each other again in an unique way. The V-Cube patent makes mention of how this is the only place where cylindrical cuts are present (the center shaft under the center pieces) while the puzzles in question have multiple layers of cylindrical cuts around the central shafts.
Quote:
the assembly of said pieces being held on said central three-dimensional supporting cross by six caps, each of the caps being a central piece of a corresponding face of said solid, each of said caps having a cylindrical hole coaxial with the corresponding semi-axis of said three-dimensional, rectangular Cartesian coordinate system, each of said six caps being screwed to a corresponding leg of said central three-dimensional supporting cross via a supporting screw passing through said cylindrical hole
This describes the center pieces and how they connect to the six arm core. It also states that only these center pieces hold the other pieces in place. This is the biggest overall difference with the puzzles in question. These puzzles use a two layer center piece, with the inner layer holding the corner and center edge pieces much like a 3x3x3 and the outer layer, in conjunction with the corners and center edges, hold the rest of the pieces. There is nothing in the V-Cube patent even close to this design, it is actually more similar to the Rubik’s 5x5x5 mechanism.

Sorry for being so long winded with this, it’s just that I have been really frustrated over this issue for a while now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:37 pm
Wow....I always just looked at the similarities and thought it was a KO. Perhaps they really are just under the radar. But, frankly I doubt it. There are just so many similarities, it has to be a KO.

Does this stop me from buying KOs? No. Verdes has done very little to endear the speedcubing community, and the company in question produces better cubes.

_________________
PBs:single/Ao5/Ao12
3x3: 4.26/7.26/7.75
pyraminx: 0.89/1.87/2.19
4x4:29.29/33.53


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm
Volitar Prime wrote:
I have studied the V-Cube patent in details and have compared it to both the V-Cube pieces (V-6 and V-7) as well as the pieces from the puzzles in question (their 6x6x6, 7x7x7, and 8x8x8). Has anyone else done so?

I have kind of here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RI2OgS4gok (link contains a KO puzzle makers name, please remove if this breaks the rules). I think you are missing the wood for the trees. I have taken apart numerous genuine V-Cubes and the 8x8x8 at least is clearly a copy. Not an exact copy but enough to make it overwhelming.

Volitar Prime wrote:
The pieces appear to wrap around each other in a way similar to a V-Cube, it must be a KO!” Did you know that this aspect of the V-Cube isn’t even really talked about in the V-Cube patent? The patent describes this area of the pieces but doesn’t really describe how the pieces interact with each other.

The diagrams are part of the patent and they clearly show the wrap around. They can only interact in one way.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
Really it comes down to Claim 1 of the Verdes patent: if this puzzle falls within the scope of Claim 1 then it is a KO, if not then it isn't. Remember that all the other claims are dependent on, and therefore subsets of Claim 1. So it can't be a KO if it doesn't fall within the scope of Claim 1, and any other similarities do not matter one bit. I don't know whether this is the case, but this is the only way to judge, and nothing else matters. Either way, it's up to the mods to make this judgement.

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:43 pm
Location: Shelby Township, MI. USA
Everything I quoted was from Claim 1 and the differences I pointed out are what I feel make these puzzles unique and not in violation of the patent. There are parts of Claim 1 which I didn’t quote, including the lengthy description of the conical cuts, but since these puzzles don’t use them I didn’t find it relevant.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
Volitar, to me you have made a strong case, so perhaps the mods will reconsider, or at least explain their counter-argument...

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
KelvinS wrote:
Really it comes down to Claim 1 of the Verdes patent: if this puzzle falls within the scope of Claim 1 then it is a KO, if not then it isn't.
I believe you are confusing patent with our KO policy. There are numerous cases of puzzles violating our KO policy that do not infringe any patent (Floppy cube, for example). There are also cases where patent violation may not imply a KO violation (a disputed Chinese patent, for example, that conflicts with a recognized Verdes patent).
Violation of patent is a very strong indicator that our site will consider a puzzle a KO.
But patent is neither sufficient nor required.
Volitar Prime wrote:
Why I have claimed that these are not KOs:
First off let me thank Volitar for taking the time to write a detailed post. We do appreciate and encourage thoughtful discussion on this matter. The biggest problem with KO topics is usually the non-thoughtful and emotional ranting which isn't helpful from either side.
Volitar Prime wrote:
- The method used to hold the pieces to the core as well as the overall mechanism of the puzzle is different.
I applaud the inventiveness in different core configurations that has come in some of these designs. I wish there were a nicer way to recognize that contribution but it can't well be separated from the theft of the fundamental concept. If they had perhaps licensed use of the main design and added their differentiation it would be wonderful, but alas, that isn't likely.
Volitar Prime wrote:
- There are no curved surfaces defined by conical cuts (as described in the V-Cube patent). There are similar looking surfaces, but they are flat, angled surfaces.
I'm confused by this. Do you mean the shapes of the pieces or the sweep of the cuts? There are enough pieces that the flat areas of a number of pieces form the same cut shapes as the Verdes design.

As for conical cuts, rotation around an axis means you really only have a few possibilities: parallel to the axis = cylindrical (Rubik's, Krell, East Sheen), converging on a point (likely the core) = Conical (Verdes).

Curved surfaces are a third option but not really relevant in the big cube world (unless I have missed something).

Looking at the cross section of any of the larger cubes you find a clear V (no pun untended) shape of the cut which, when rotated around the axis, forms the conical cut described by his design. You can approximate this perfect cone by a number of surfaces of pieces participating but ultimately it is the same thing. In fact if you look at the Verdes pieces they aren't perfect curves either. Filleting and general design considerations deviate from the ideal (look at a V5 to see non-perfect spherical shaping).

Regarding the rest of the analysis I think there are many good points made. Other discussion on the forum has mentioned that the particular language of the Verdes patent isn't always the best, and leaves it perhaps vulnerable. If it ever goes to court, this may be tested. But those using this design wouldn't bother challenging it in court when simply using the design seems to have no consequences (legally). This site's KO policy is of no real consequence to them but is a gesture of respect to the inventor where the legal system has clearly failed him.

But again, our site is not restrained by the bounds of patent. I'm not at all surprised these are the reasons Volitar doesn't feel it should be considered KO, and his opinions are well thought through. But nothing I have posted here is substantially different from how the site has considered these puzzles in the past so what I was trying to convey was that I was surprised he wouldn't qualify that he was talking about his own personal definition of KO. It's fine to disagree with the site definitions and policy but claiming this puzzle is probably not KO (and using that term on this site with no qualifiers presumes the site policy) isn't logical. Perhaps the better statement would have been "I don't think it should be considered KO".

Those of us who have been on the site since the pre-Verdes years remember the marvel that was his contribution. It's only an obvious design in retrospect, as evidenced by the decades before it where 5x5x5 was the best any mechanism could accomplish.
We honor this great contribution that has left its mark on most every puzzle since.

X-TownCuber wrote:
Does this stop me from buying KOs? No. Verdes has done very little to endear the speedcubing community, and the company in question produces better cubes.
I suppose that depends on which Verdes you mean.
Panagiotis Verdes revolutionized the speed cubing community by opening up higher order cubes and greatly improving the 5x5x5.
Konstantinos Verdes (his son) has had his own relationship with the speed cubing world that is perhaps what you are referencing. His history on this site has been turbulent in both receiving many attacks and many strong responses.

Regardless of your views of Konstantinos, I'm quite sure you've never heard from the actual inventor of the Verdes design but I think his invention should endear him to the community if they ever thought about it. Our site recognizes this gift.

Dave :)

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
Hi Dave, thanks for your response. I understand that the site's KO policy is not the same as the patent system. I also understand the need to protect the creativity of inventors who cannot afford to patent their designs. However, since Verdes *did* apply for and get a patent, surely that means qualified patent examiners have made sure the scope of Claim 1 is restricted to those features which are both novel (new) and inventive (non-obvious). So on that basis, why should the scope of the site's KO policy extend beyond these criteria?

Unless the KO policy is to give inventors rights to features which are either not new at all, or simple obvious developments from somebody else's earlier invention?

Honestly, I am not trying to cause trouble here, however I think these questions need to be answered to ensure consistency, and avoid hypocrisy and potential problems in the future...

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2000 3:17 pm
Location: Hong Kong
I have been behind the scenes here in HK with patent lawyers on more than one occasion. The opinion in HK is that these do violate the HK patent. Unfortunately, it isn't the case in China.

Fighting patent violation over there is a costly business, and quite frankly it is here as well. The numbers I heard were staggering and that wasn't for a full fight, just a small bit that was done at the toys fair. I feel for Verdes on this issue. A brilliant puzzle was made, and to continue to fight the KO companies would surely break the company (I'm just offering an opinion here, not stating a fact)

I think the least we can do is to uphold the KO policy we have if not based on law, but on respect and appreciation for what Patagonias did when he made the larger cubes.

_________________
Rox's Rambling Blog
Katsmom's Puzzling Videos


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
Fair comment, thanks Rox. Basically it comes down to respect, and that's certainly good enough for me. :D

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
KelvinS wrote:
So on that basis, why should the scope of the site's KO policy extend beyond these criteria?
Because it has been clear for decades (consider all the 3x3x3 clones from the 80's, despite patents) that the patent system does not well serve the rights of puzzle inventors. Basing our site policy on this system alone wouldn't respect designers at all.

As Rox pointed out (and I have pointed out quite a few times, try this link), the point of our policy is respect, not protection.

We can't enforce anyone approving, disapproving, purchasing, selling or playing with KO puzzles, nor do we try. But it is disrespectful to allow site resources to be used against those we value. Our KO policy, ridiculous and painful as it may be at times, is our best attempt to value those who make our hobby and community great. This is a lot of work on our part to try to make these decisions in as fair a manner as possible, but very worth while considering how much these inventors have given to our community.

Dave

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:57 pm
I usually stay out of things like this and I should actually stop posting right now, but as I am lacking sleep and am a little bit complainy....

I understand the people that put in lots of work for their puzzles and think they derserve whatever for their efforts. I understand the legality of all the "intelluctual" property stuffas well. May sound a tad disrespectful I agree, but not menat in that way... since we are all finite beings and the sun will cease to spin , burn out, we will, also, cease to exist at some point in time (religious beliefs not even considered here for moment), all the arguments for and against are reallly at the base of everything, worthless.

Now, if I earn my wages and have the money to spend, I will purchase a KO puzzle, not because I want to screw the inventors out of money, but because I want the puzzle for myself. Because I suck at building actual objects, I will spend the money and buy me a puzzle. I dout very seriously that I will prevent an inventor from feeding his family for purchasing one puzzle...

That said I am a bit complainy, but felt that I needed to get that off my chest for all the KO puzzle buyers here that more than likely grit their teeth when they see another KO thread type thing... I know, they don't have to read it.... but dag nabbityou all I want a Hexaminx!

_________________
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
@Squircifer:

The site's KO policy does not (and cannot) prevent anyone from buying a KO, nor does it try to. It simply prohibits people from posting links to KOs on the site, nothing more.

Perhaps posting in a "complainy" mood is not a good idea, especially if you don't understand the situation as explained above.

:wink:

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:57 pm
KelvinS wrote:
@Squircifer:

The site's KO policy does not (and cannot) prevent anyone from buying a KO, nor does it try to. It simply prohibits people from posting links to KOs on the site, nothing more.

Perhaps posting in a "complainy" mood is not a good idea, especially if you don't understand the situation as explained above.

:wink:



Yep, just wanted to complain.... it is never a good idea to post to the net. But I have the house all to myself....and being complainyand all...

_________________
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm
Squircifer wrote:
Now, if I earn my wages and have the money to spend, I will purchase a KO puzzle, not because I want to screw the inventors out of money, but because I want the puzzle for myself. Because I suck at building actual objects, I will spend the money and buy me a puzzle. I dout very seriously that I will prevent an inventor from feeding his family for purchasing one puzzle.

There has never been any policy here telling you not to buy any puzzle you choose. So please explain the purpose of your statement other than to tell every puzzle maker here you have zero respect for them. By all means buy the KOs but why on earth would you boast about it?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 2:56 pm
Location: New York
Squircifer wrote:
KelvinS wrote:
@Squircifer:

The site's KO policy does not (and cannot) prevent anyone from buying a KO, nor does it try to. It simply prohibits people from posting links to KOs on the site, nothing more.

Perhaps posting in a "'complainy'" mood is not a good idea, especially if you don't understand the situation as explained above.

:wink:



Yep, just wanted to complain.... it is never a good idea to post to the net. But I have the house all to myself....and being complainyand all...

Some people might find that kind of language offensive. Please refrain from using it here.

-Doug

_________________
My Youtube Channel of Custom Twisty Puzzles!
Recent videos: Master Axis Cube | 4x4x2 Solve | 3x3x3 Triangular Prism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2000 3:17 pm
Location: Hong Kong
Next time I edit in constipated. :lol:

It really doesn't matter what you think personally. As Dave stated above, the policy is one of respect. By adding your post I have to wonder about the respect. If you don't respect the policies of the forum, fine. If you don't respect the builders, fine. But do you really need to tell everyone?

I also have to wonder why you feel the need to bring your 'complaininess' here. I know we've all had days where we disagree with something.....but we don't post it in that way. You think I'm happy about all the rulings? No way! I'm sure others feel the same way both for and against the policy.

It also seems to me because of your desire for a hexaminx....wonder who made that one and how much it sells for :roll: ...that you have the 'entitlement' syndrome. Great you work for your puzzles. I hate to break it to you, but so does the rest of the world! Save your pennies like the rest if you want something badly enough eventually you will get it.

But above all else, keep the language clean. We do have many many younger readers and I for one don't want us shut down for language use.

I'll stop. Consider yourself chastised.

_________________
Rox's Rambling Blog
Katsmom's Puzzling Videos


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:53 am
I don't post often. In fact, this would be my very first post, as I tend to be more of a lurker, but I feel like I need to throw in my 2 cents.

I don't quite agree with this site's view on knock offs. The rules are their (this site's) rules. This is their website, and one must have agreed to follow the rules when posting.

However, this does not stop me from reading posts, learning, and enjoying a lot of very good, mostly mature, in-depth discussions on puzzles, their creation, and such. This has got to be one of the best forums on the web for such purposes. The level of discussion and respect is very high.

I think it's pretty simple. We should use this forum as intended, and respect the rules, regardless of our own opinions on them. If someone wanted to post something that may violate the rules, they should do it in other places, not here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:57 pm
Sigh........ let me set a few things straight... if my language offended people, then my apologies. If people did not understand some of my sarcasms, then again apologies.

As for not respecting a puzzle maker... should I? Have you as a puzzle maker done anything for me to give you respect? Just making a puzzle that I like does not equate to having nor desrves my respect. Sorry if you or anyone else here does not agree with me. Respect is earned, not a given thing.

As for my syndrome... okay. I already have a hexaminx that I built myself. That was the sarcasm thing.

If my opinion offended people then okay, I can live with that and I will not apologize. Everyone is so touchy about KO's, I voiced my opinion and got whacked for it.

_________________
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
Squircifer wrote:
As for not respecting a puzzle maker... should I? Have you as a puzzle maker done anything for me to give you respect? Just making a puzzle that I like does not equate to having nor desrves my respect. Sorry if you or anyone else here does not agree with me. Respect is earned, not a given thing.

You say you want certain puzzles, but you would prefer to buy them on the cheap after the designs have been taken without permission from the original inventors/designers. Again, that's fine, your business, but why rub it in the face of the designers? Isn't that like buying stolen goods off the back of a lorry, and then bragging about it to the original owners from whom the goods were taken? Just think about that for a second, and you may understand the response you got.

That's the point here - respect for the people who have invented, designed and created the things that *you* want.

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:57 pm
KelvinS wrote:
Squircifer wrote:
As for not respecting a puzzle maker... should I? Have you as a puzzle maker done anything for me to give you respect? Just making a puzzle that I like does not equate to having nor desrves my respect. Sorry if you or anyone else here does not agree with me. Respect is earned, not a given thing.

You say you want certain puzzles, but you would prefer to buy them on the cheap after the designs have been taken without permission from the original inventors/designers. Again, that's fine, your business, but why rub it in the face of the designers? Isn't that like buying stolen goods off the back of a lorry, and then bragging about it to the original owners from whom the goods were taken? Just think about that for a second, and you may understand the response you got.

That's the point here - respect for the people who have invented, designed and created the things that *you* want.



I'm not rubbing anything in anyones face, just stating my opnion. My personal point that I would buy a KO if it was a puzzle I wanted bad enough.

_________________
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Jarrow, England
The KO policy on this site has been thought about, analysed, revised, argued over ad infinitum. We have settled on something which, in general, we all agree on. The most important word here is RESPECT.
Squircifer wrote:
As for not respecting a puzzle maker... should I? Have you as a puzzle maker done anything for me to give you respect? Just making a puzzle that I like does not equate to having nor desrves my respect. Sorry if you or anyone else here does not agree with me. Respect is earned, not a given thing.
Over the years, the many puzzle makers who frequent this forum have earned the respect of all twisty puzzle fans. If you really want to understand this, just spend a few days reading some threads, and I'm sure that you will see that the respect has been earned.
zephylynx wrote:
However, this does not stop me from reading posts, learning, and enjoying a lot of very good, mostly mature, in-depth discussions on puzzles, their creation, and such. This has got to be one of the best forums on the web for such purposes. The level of discussion and respect is very high.
This simply sums up this forum for me. I have read and/or posted on other forums, and the quality of posts can very quickly degenerate into disgusting abuse. This forum is different, and I want to keep it this way. So, Squircifer, although I agree with your right to think what you want, please understand that if you make it public on this forum you will not automatically deserve our respect and we will respond accordingly.

_________________
My Shapeways Shop: http://www.shapeways.com/shops/gus_shop

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:57 pm
Gus wrote:
So, Squircifer, although I agree with your right to think what you want, please understand that if you make it public on this forum you will not automatically deserve our respect and we will respond accordingly.


Not a problem. And I will make it public on this forums, seems no one else will.

_________________
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Jarrow, England
Squircifer wrote:
Not a problem. And I will make it public on this forums, seems no one else will.
No one else needs to! Nothing has to be "made public", there is no secret conspiracy here. I suspect you are Trollng.

_________________
My Shapeways Shop: http://www.shapeways.com/shops/gus_shop

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm
Can I smell some bridges burning?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 2:56 pm
Location: New York
Tony Fisher wrote:
Can I smell some bridges burning?

We're not all in London...

-Doug

_________________
My Youtube Channel of Custom Twisty Puzzles!
Recent videos: Master Axis Cube | 4x4x2 Solve | 3x3x3 Triangular Prism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:57 pm
let em burn let em burn.

_________________
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 2:56 pm
Location: New York
Skrillex & Damian (Jr. Gong) Marley- Make It Burn Dem (Official Video)

_________________
My Youtube Channel of Custom Twisty Puzzles!
Recent videos: Master Axis Cube | 4x4x2 Solve | 3x3x3 Triangular Prism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
I think we've diverged off topic quite far enough.

If you can't give credit and respect to those who create things you enjoy (and somewhat by definition people on this forum are here because they enjoy puzzles, and designers create these puzzles), I don't know what would earn your respect.

But this is a rhetorical question. Further posting in this direction won't be appreciated as it wastes Sandy's disk space and bandwidth and gives the community nothing, so let it end here.

There is no requirement to display respect on this forum. But there is no requirement for this forum to expend its resources on your disrespect.

Dave

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:57 pm
I wish to thank all of you for your love and support, making my time here a wonderful experience. You guys are the best.

_________________
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:43 pm
Location: Shelby Township, MI. USA
DLitwin wrote:
I'm confused by this. Do you mean the shapes of the pieces or the sweep of the cuts? There are enough pieces that the flat areas of a number of pieces form the same cut shapes as the Verdes design.

As for conical cuts, rotation around an axis means you really only have a few possibilities: parallel to the axis = cylindrical (Rubik's, Krell, East Sheen), converging on a point (likely the core) = Conical (Verdes).

Curved surfaces are a third option but not really relevant in the big cube world (unless I have missed something).

Looking at the cross section of any of the larger cubes you find a clear V (no pun untended) shape of the cut which, when rotated around the axis, forms the conical cut described by his design. You can approximate this perfect cone by a number of surfaces of pieces participating but ultimately it is the same thing. In fact if you look at the Verdes pieces they aren't perfect curves either. Filleting and general design considerations deviate from the ideal (look at a V5 to see non-perfect spherical shaping).

Sorry that I haven’t responded in so long (and it is sad to see the direction this tread has gone). Things are crazy with buying, selling, and moving between homes right now.

The references to conical cuts in the patent are only used in two places (general description and Claim 1), both describing surfaces of the middle area of the individual pieces. No were in the patent does it talk about a conical shaped plane through the puzzle for the pieces to move.

I’m not sure why it wasn’t included, maybe it was something deemed obvious or not unique. For example, take a hypothetical corner cubie with a simple cylindrical rod connecting directly to the center of the puzzle. In order for this piece to be rotated around any axis it would require a conical shaped path through the puzzle for the connecting rod to pass through. But this simple design is not part of the V-Cube and something that the patent doesn’t consider.

There is actually surprisingly little text about the assembled puzzle and/or how the pieces interact with each other in the patent. Most of it is in describing how the center pieces connect to the core and how they alone hold the puzzle together (which, as I stated above, does not apply to the puzzles in question which are very different in this regard). Instead the details (in both the general description and Claim 1) deal specifically with the geometry of the individual pieces.

Unfortunately I don’t have a picture handy which I could use as reference so I will attempt to be as descriptive as I can. Take any piece (except for the center caps/axis) from a V-Cube and hold it so that the cubie (the outer part of the puzzle) is at the top and the part that forms the spherical shells in the core is at the bottom. In the patent, the cubie portion is described as part 1 and the spherical shell portion is part 3. Part 2 is the area in between where non-corner and non-center slice pieces typically have a series of bends in them that allow the pieces to sort of wrap around the pieces from the center slice and/or the pieces next to them. The pieces bend outward and then down towards the center of the puzzle, and finally back inward (this last section is part 3 of the piece). It is the surfaces on the small section going down toward the center of the puzzle which has the curved surfaces defined by the conical cuts. It’s really not much, especially on the pieces closest to the center slice. The corners and center slice pieces also have this part with the curved surfaces defined by the conical cuts but are not as complex since these pieces don’t have the extra bends to wrap them around others.

Describing that small portion of the individual pieces is the only reference to conical cuts in the patent.

The puzzles in question get around violating this portion of the patent by not using curved surfaces defined by conical cuts in this way. Instead the similar surfaces are flat. And yes, given enough of these in an assembled puzzle you get an approximation of a conical surface through the puzzle. But like I’ve said, the patent doesn’t cover that.

There are actually 11 claims in the patent. Claim 1 is all about the geometry of the pieces (as stated above). Claims 2 through 5 talk about the shape of the puzzle. Essentially Claim 2 mentions that V2 through V5 are regular cubes, not-pillowed (this is not unique to V-Cubes). Claim 3 mentions that V7 through V11 are pillowed (this may be unique to them, but obviously doesn’t apply to the cubes in question). Claims 4 and 5 are about the V6, one for non-pillowed one for pillowed. I’m not sure why they did specific claims for the V6 even though I know that they had planned to release both. I think they could have just covered both cases with Claims 2 and 3.

Claims 6 and 7 give the equations for calculating the number of moving and/or visible pieces for odd (Claim 6) and even (Claim 7) puzzles. This isn’t unique to V-Cubes.

Claims 8 through 11 are all pretty much identical to each other (each one references one of Claims 2 through 5) and only mentions that springs with screws are used to hold the pieces together. I find this one odd since the V5, V6, and V7 don’t use screws.

I still find it odd that the V2 and V3 don’t match the patent and may not be protected by it.

I would love to see this discussion continue in a thoughtful, constructive fashion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:37 pm
Here is a picture to illustrate the above post.
Attachment:
100_6302.JPG
100_6302.JPG [ 1.7 MiB | Viewed 6813 times ]


V-cube is on the left KO is on the right. As (I hope) you can see the part of the edge that holds the piece under the center is curved on the V-cube and flat on the KO.

_________________
PBs:single/Ao5/Ao12
3x3: 4.26/7.26/7.75
pyraminx: 0.89/1.87/2.19
4x4:29.29/33.53


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:47 am
Location: near Utrecht, Netherlands
As far as I can see the pieces are still shaped very much a like. The conical cut is still there, as well as the "wings" on the edge. The only difference is the spherical surface transformed flat (or cylindrical). Even if only some patented elements are used, there can still be infringement. As far as we know, the only reason the surface is flat rather than spherical is because the company skimped on mold making costs.
While I don't agree with the KO policy 100%, I do not think a case can be made this puzzle is in the clear.

_________________
Tom's Shapeways Puzzle Shop - your order from my shop includes free stickers!
Tom's Puzzle Website


Buy my mass produced puzzles at Mefferts:
- 4x4x6 Cuboid for just $38
- Curvy Copter for just $18
- 3x4x5 Cuboid for just $34


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
Now that I have seen the photo, I can see just how similar the parts are, regardless of whether the specific features of the patent have been infringed. It looks like they copied everything, but made just one small change to avoid the patent. So while it does not technically infringe the patent I can see why it is still considered to be a KO.

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:47 am
Location: near Utrecht, Netherlands
KelvinS wrote:
It looks like they copied everything, but made just one small change to avoid the patent. So while it does not technically infringe the patent I can see why it is still considered to be a KO.
No, this is not the case. You can't avoid the patent by making one small change. A patent consists of many individual claims and you only need to infringe a single one.

_________________
Tom's Shapeways Puzzle Shop - your order from my shop includes free stickers!
Tom's Puzzle Website


Buy my mass produced puzzles at Mefferts:
- 4x4x6 Cuboid for just $38
- Curvy Copter for just $18
- 3x4x5 Cuboid for just $34


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:43 pm
Location: Shelby Township, MI. USA
X-TownCuber wrote:
Here is a picture to illustrate the above post.
Thanks for posting the picture. Would it be possible for you to also post some pictures of other pieces such as the corners and some of the inner/center pieces which would show more of the overall differences between the puzzles?

TomZ wrote:
No, this is not the case. You can't avoid the patent by making one small change. A patent consists of many individual claims and you only need to infringe a single one.
My argument is that they didn't infiringe on any of the claims. At least none of the claims (or portions of the claims) that are actually unique/novel to the V-Cubes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
TomZ wrote:
KelvinS wrote:
It looks like they copied everything, but made just one small change to avoid the patent. So while it does not technically infringe the patent I can see why it is still considered to be a KO.
No, this is not the case. You can't avoid the patent by making one small change. A patent consists of many individual claims and you only need to infringe a single one.

Tom, I am afraid that is incorrect. Claim 1 is always the broadest, covering the entire scope of the patent, and includes all subsequent claims, which are dependent subsets of Claim 1. Take a look at the claims after Claim 1 and you will see that they all start with "A [puzzle/widget] AS CLAIMED IN [some preceding claim(s)], WHEREIN [specific example(s) of preceding claim(s)]". This is how all patent claims must be written, otherwise the patent claims more than one invention and must be split into separate patents by law. So no single claim can be infringed without also infringing Claim 1. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about here. :wink:

In fact the best way to think about patent claims is like a Venn diagram, where Claim 1 defines the entire scope of the invention, while all other claims may overlap or be subsets of each other, but they all lie fully within the scope of Claim 1.

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:37 pm
Center edges (V-cube in white):
Attachment:
100_6309.JPG
100_6309.JPG [ 1.54 MiB | Viewed 6632 times ]

Notice how outer part and the mechanism are closer together on the V-cube.
Center corners:
Attachment:
100_6315.JPG
100_6315.JPG [ 1.57 MiB | Viewed 6632 times ]

the webbing on the KO makes the piece lighter and saves the company money.
Wing edges:
Attachment:
100_6312.JPG
100_6312.JPG [ 1.42 MiB | Viewed 6632 times ]

The bottom of the KO has flares that make it so that you can't take the piece out if you pry with a screwdriver.
both cubes with a 2x2x5 section removed:
Attachment:
100_6316.JPG
100_6316.JPG [ 2.03 MiB | Viewed 6632 times ]


Attachments:
100_6318.JPG
100_6318.JPG [ 1.7 MiB | Viewed 6632 times ]

_________________
PBs:single/Ao5/Ao12
3x3: 4.26/7.26/7.75
pyraminx: 0.89/1.87/2.19
4x4:29.29/33.53
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
Thanks for all the pictures. Clearly this is a blatant copy of the V-cube mechanism, including the design of all individual parts, even if the dimensions and angles are slightly tweaked here and there.

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:43 pm
Location: Shelby Township, MI. USA
Hmm, I've never actually seen their 5x5x5 before (I only have their higher order ones). This one does look a lot closer to the V-Cube (but still might not really be in violation) than the others which have the 2 layer centers where the corners and center edges connect to the core as a sort of internal 3x3x3 which I'm not seeing here. All of my puzzles are currently in storage, when I get them out (in a month or so) I will try to take pictures of their 7x7x7 which has a lot more differences from the V7 than this puzzles is from the V5.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
I saw a 9x9 thread pop to the top of the list in the recent post column to the right so decided to take a peak. Now I don't see the post that put it there but this has been an interesting read regardless.
Gus wrote:
The KO policy on this site has been thought about, analysed, revised, argued over ad infinitum. We have settled on something which, in general, we all agree on. The most important word here is RESPECT.
As a designer, I've expressed concerns and disagreements with the sites KO policy in the past. But I understand the intent and the desire to "respect" the designers and that intent and desire is appreciated. Still its a complicated issue and as the site most of the time doesn't have all the facts I have concerns if its the best thing for the site at times considering the effort and time required by the moderators and I'm still not sure it couldn't get the site into legal issues in some certain circumstances. But I'm convinced those making the calls have their heart in the right place.
Squircifer wrote:
As for not respecting a puzzle maker... should I? Have you as a puzzle maker done anything for me to give you respect? Just making a puzzle that I like does not equate to having nor desrves my respect. Sorry if you or anyone else here does not agree with me. Respect is earned, not a given thing.
Ok... tell me how exactly does one "earn respect as a puzzle maker"? Is it not by making good puzzles? Are you saying you like "bad" puzzles? And in my mind most puzzles designers go far and above just making good puzzles. This is the most open community that I know. Designers share their tips and secrets and bend over backwards to help other designers and we do this very openly. So may I ask just what is your expectation? If I could offer you my puzzles at KO prices I'd be very happy to... I just don't have the means to mass produce my own puzzles.
Gus wrote:
Over the years, the many puzzle makers who frequent this forum have earned the respect of all twisty puzzle fans. If you really want to understand this, just spend a few days reading some threads, and I'm sure that you will see that the respect has been earned.
I couldn't agree more.
zephylynx wrote:
However, this does not stop me from reading posts, learning, and enjoying a lot of very good, mostly mature, in-depth discussions on puzzles, their creation, and such. This has got to be one of the best forums on the web for such purposes. The level of discussion and respect is very high.
I agree. I too have been on other forums but this is by far my favorite. And I believe its the group of people here that make that so.
Squircifer wrote:
I wish to thank all of you for your love and support, making my time here a wonderful experience. You guys are the best.
Ok... I have a brother which is bipolar, schizophrenic, etc. Some switch was tripped in his head in his late 20's and he's never been the same since. So my first reaction to this last post is did someone get back on their meds? Actually I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy so I'd prefer to think you were just being sarcastic over that but I hope you were being serious.

Anyways... just my 2 cents,
Carl

_________________
-
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
wwwmwww wrote:
But I'm convinced those making the calls have their heart in the right place.
We try, and are happy if those efforts are noticed :)
wwwmwww wrote:
Squircifer wrote:
I wish to thank all of you for your love and support, making my time here a wonderful experience. You guys are the best.
Ok... I have a brother which is bipolar, schizophrenic, etc. Some switch was tripped in his head in his late 20's and he's never been the same since. So my first reaction to this last post is did someone get back on their meds? Actually I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy so I'd prefer to think you were just being sarcastic over that but I hope you were being serious.
Carl, Squircifer has addressed that quote here.

Dave

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:06 pm
Personally I'm not a 100% supported of the KO Policy but I think we can all agree at least the 5x5 is pretty much a KO, but what about higher order cubes then? I'm mainly talking about the 6x6. The pieces between the 6x6 KO and the V-6 are pretty much as similar as the 5x5's were, but the V-6 has the horrid clicking mechanism. While the KO 6x6 does not, does that fact pretty much mean that the mechanism is different,which makes the 6x6 not a KO? Also I think it's hard to classify puzzles to be KO when V-Cubes has not produced them yet, they changed their design on the 3x3, so what's stopping them from doing it again , especially if they had the clicking mechanism in all of their even layered puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:09 pm 
I agree with the last guy that I personally do not 100% agree with the KO policy as my morals are not in the same place as others. However, this is not my site, this site is a privilege and not a right. That's why you have to be accepted and cannot just join anytime you want. I have learned in the past that DLitwin and others have final say here, and because I have not been trusted to have that power, I should really just do what I'm told here as far as respect goes. I encourage others to do the same =)


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: 9x9
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
Aether13 wrote:
Personally I'm not a 100% supported of the KO Policy but I think we can all agree at least the 5x5 is pretty much a KO, but what about higher order cubes then? I'm mainly talking about the 6x6. The pieces between the 6x6 KO and the V-6 are pretty much as similar as the 5x5's were, but the V-6 has the horrid clicking mechanism. While the KO 6x6 does not, does that fact pretty much mean that the mechanism is different,which makes the 6x6 not a KO? Also I think it's hard to classify puzzles to be KO when V-Cubes has not produced them yet, they changed their design on the 3x3, so what's stopping them from doing it again , especially if they had the clicking mechanism in all of their even layered puzzles.
All of these issues have been addressed in previous threads so I'll recommend you spend some time reading backwards in time to get good context on this matter. A good start is to search for the word "respect" with me as an author.

CrazyBadCuber makes a good point in that agreement with the policy isn't a requirement of forum membership but I would hope that disagreement isn't something that interferes with anyone's enjoyment of the site. There is a wealth of value on our forum other than discussion of the fine points of what does or does not constitute IP infringement.

As this was already a bump this topic should probably not get more traffic.

Dave

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Puzzlemad and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Forum powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group