From cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu Fri Dec 18 11:33:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: from sun28.aic.nrl.navy.mil (sun28.aic.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.84.38]) by mc.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1-mod) with SMTP id LAA24449 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:33:50 -0500 (EST) Precedence: bulk Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu Message-Id: <002c01be2a01$f6ba7020$7ac4b0c2@home> From: roger.broadie@iclweb.com (Roger Broadie) To: Cc: "Nicholas Bodley" , "Charlie Dickman" Subject: Re: Newer mechanism? (Was: Re: re-assembling a 2x2x2?) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 21:11:22 -0000 Nicholas Bodley wrote (17 December 1998) > > Would really *love* to know whether there is a newer and different >mechanism. As a somewhat casual student of these mechanisms, I've >come to realize that for all "sizes", more than one mechanism is >possible. > According to the reports on the patent case brought against Ideal for infringement of the Nichols patent (Moleculon Research Corp v. CBS, Inc) there were two Ideal 2x2x2 cubes, both sold as the Rubik's Pocket Cube, but one from Taiwan and one from Japan. The Japanese version used an internal sphere, which could well be the version with the Philips screw referred to by Charlie Dickman, since it sounds like the inside of a 4x4x4. The Taiwanese version is less clearly described - the internal faces are said to form a tongue and groove mechanism - but probably also had an internal spider like the conventional 3x3x3 - is this Nicholas Bodley's version? Incidentally, by the time the case had been up and down to the Appeals court a couple of times, the final decision, in 1989, was that just these two forms infringed the patent. The 3x3x3 and 4x4x4 were held not to infringe. Roger Broadie