Banning the use of knock-offs in competition

[Dene]

Due to recent incidents, a few people were discussing the legality of banning the use of certain KO cubes in a competition if a sponsor wished. The question that needs to be answered is: could an organiser ban the use of a particular brand of cube (obviously I'm talking about the GuHong 3x3) to comply with the wishes of a sponsor (or just for the sake of it)?

A few things that were brought up in the discussion:
Regulation 2a2 states that: Any person may be a competitor during a competition, if he: meets the competition requirements, which must be clearly announced before the competition.
Could a requirement be no KOs?

3m) All puzzle and puzzle part brands are allowed, as long as the puzzles comply with the other WCA regulations.
Does 2a2 overrule or is it irrelevant?

And for some reason this regulation still exists:
8c) A closed competition may be open (courtesy of WCA Board) to: persons with a specific nationality. No other distinctions are allowed to declare a competition closed.
Does excluding certain brand of cubes count as closing a competition (thereby ruling it out as a possibility)?


Peoples opinions would be nice, but really I would like a solid answer to this question.
Obviously this would only be an issue if the situation actually occurred, and I would think that most delegates would tell the sponsor to put up with it or go away, but I cannot guarantee this and an answer to this problem would ensure no issues of this sort occur.

[DanCohen]

My thought is that a rule that is not in the regulations (i.e. a competition requirement of no KOs) cannot supersede a rule that is already in the regulations. This means that 3m will overrule anything that an organiser tries to pass off as 2a2. I just don't see how things made up outside the regulations can trump things explicitly stated within them.

Closed competitions are about the competitor, not the puzzles they use. That rule is based on restrictions regarding the persons involved, and has nothing to do with the actual puzzles themselves.

[Radu]

I agree with Dan and he pointed it out very well!

The organizer has nothing to do with the WCA Regulations. He is just the organizer, who should take care of the technical stuff (timers, venue, sponsors, volunteers, etc.)

The regulations are...regulations and the Delegate must follow them strictly and take care during the competition that they are followed. I don't see any power that the organizer has here over the regulations.

If a case like this would happen, where the organizer insists to ban a certain puzzle, which I hope will not happen, I think the Delegate should go as far as claiming the competition unofficial. Business companies should have nothing to do with our rules! 3m) is very clear in my opinion.

[MadsMohr]

The current wording in the regulations makes it legal to compete with a puzzle that is illegal due to patent infringement. The patent owner could go after the competitor for purchasing an illegal product or the organizer/WCA for allowing it to be used. But any results made with such a puzzle should be counted as official under WCA regulations.

I the case of the GuHong, correct me if I'm wrong, I think that GuHong's has only been ruled illegal by eBay and not by any official law instance. So currently it's only a claim that hasn't been tested in court.

The WCA should in my opinion continue it's policy of brand neutrality until this claim has been tested.

[DanCohen]

In any respect, I don't think that buying a KO product has been actually outlawed. I think most rulings that are due to patent infringement are directed towards merchants and manufacturers, rather than consumers. Because of this, I don't think the WCA can be held responsible for anything related to KOs, as they do not sell/manufacture the cubes.

[MadsMohr]

A patent is a "negative" right that can enable the patent owner to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission. The extent of this right depends on the country and the result of a civil lawsuit.