Received: from uunet.UU.NET (TCP 30003106601) by AI.AI.MIT.EDU 10 Jun 88 15:45:09 EDT Received: from enea.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14) with UUCP id AA12671; Fri, 10 Jun 88 15:44:07 EDT Received: by enea.se (5.57++/1.71) id AA25607; Fri, 10 Jun 88 21:33:32 +0200 (MET) Received: by kuling.UU.SE (4.40/SMI-3.0DEV3) id AA21284; Fri, 10 Jun 88 15:12:51 -0100 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 15:12:51 -0100 From: kuling!starback@uunet.UU.NET (Per Starb{ck) Message-Id: <8806101412.AA21284@kuling.UU.SE> To: cube-lovers@ai.ai.mit.edu In-Reply-To: BECK@ardec-lcss.arpa's message of Fri, 3 Jun 88 09:56:08 EST Subject: Early patents In his taxononomy of cube items (<880603095608.2080015B041@ardec-lcss.arpa>) Pete Beck (pbeck@ardec.arpa) wrote: > TAXONOMY for RUBIK'S CUBE ITEMS (5/26/88 REV) > > 0. CUBE PATENTS > 0.1 US PATENT#3,081,089, william Gustafson, 1958 > 0.2 Frank Fox, 1970 > 0.3 US PATENT# , LARRY Nichols, 1972 > 0.4 HUGARIAN PATENT, ERNO RUBIK, 1975 > 0.5 JAPANESE PATENT, Terutoshi Ishige, 1976 > ... I only knew about 0.4 (of course) and 0.5 (mentioned for instance in Singmaster's Notes). Could anyone inform me about 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 please. Are they the normal 3x3x3-cube, or not? -- Quote: "Life is but a ramble! Let flipism chart your ramble!" Per Starback starback@kuling.UU.SE Karlsrogatan 13:H33 or S-752 38 UPPSALA starback%kuling.UU.SE@uunet.UU.NET SWEDEN