EVERHART@arisia.dnet.ge.com (Glenn Everhart 215 354 7610 (8*747 7610) GE Aerospace Technology) (06/12/90)
So there's an example of someone who tried a different mechanism for the Rubik cube? Thanks for the info. However, patent law is rather different from copyright law in this area and can claim to cover ideas. What is covered is determined by the claims (which I haven't seen...I have no interest in making such a beast ;-)). Sometimes very broad claims get made. Many of these are thrown out (a patent must not be obvious; there are some other rules of thumb). Others not. I've seen some perfectly silly patents, and a ruling that a patent is infringed may not be the same as one that the patent is valid, since the validity issue may not arise. In any case, it wasn't clear to me (not having looked at a Rubik cube for a while) that it was covered by patent rather than copyright. That the issue was adjudicated by patent rather than copyright tends to support my position that different guts mean no copyright problems. (Different paint on the outside, however would not mean this.) Thanks for the history fill-in on the matter. Just a clarification: "it looked like the original would never work"??? You're referring to the magnetic kludge as unworkable, I presume? glenn