Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 455 posts

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#371

Post by jerf »

gorbachev wrote: post #340
Retric wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't get a copyright on simple geometric shapes, they would need something bizarre looking to not have been created in the past. Further, stones are both tiny and shiny so people can't really tell what they look like. A more realistic option is use nanoscale etching to get unique colors. Much like those blue butterfly wings that don't use pigment.

They could patent the process of cutting that shape though, if it's sufficiently complicated.

But again, that will only hold for some bizarre new shape. Anything using existing techniques and any cuts you can't plausibly claim copyright on will still be fine, and that's going to be almost everything.

If de Beers wants to patent and copyright some bizarre foamy cut of a diamond that does some exotic thing, that's fine, but it's not going to be "a diamond ring" as most people think of them.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#372

Post by nradov »

sametmax wrote: post #355
nradov wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with you on Bowman v. Monsanto so I fail to see what was unethical there. In fact Vernon Bowman intentionally violated a contract that he voluntarily entered into so it seems clear he was the unethical party.

Legality and ethics are very different things.

Not at all. US law is pretty much in line with the national consensus on ethics (although perhaps not with your personal ethics). There are occasional discrepancies but when the national consensus undergoes major shifts the laws are usually revised accordingly within a few decades.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#373

Post by CydeWeys »

hessenwolf wrote: post #299
jjeaff wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually not my understanding. I have heard that most man-made stones are nearly flawless (at least when it comes to occlusions). Some processes have actually started introducing "fake" occlusions just to make them impossible to distinguish from the natural variety.

Nah, you need all sorts of quality grades for drilling, polishing, etc.

No you don't. Those aren't the hard parts. You use the same high quality, industrial machines to cut and polish synthetic diamonds as you do natural diamonds, and you get the same result. The only quality grades that make sense are color and perfection for natural diamonds, or maybe cutting grades for antique hand-ground diamonds that weren't done well.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#374

Post by CydeWeys »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #245
propogandist wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slogan "a diamond is forever" is one of the most successful marketing campaigns of all time. It encourages people to voluntarily limit circulation of a rock that's mined by the tonnes, whose supply is carefully controlled to keep profits high. The links they've made with the slogan to love also helps keep the money flowing.

It is deviously brilliant. Play on people's emotions, equate a diamond with "till death do us part", make it almost shameful to even consider reselling that stone. Is there any other product where resale is "voluntarily" limited like that?

It's widely considered one of the best marketing campaigns of all time, and used frequently as a case study in business school, for good reason.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#375

Post by SilasX »

bdavisx wrote: post #43
SilasX wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

De Beers has a way of monopolizing markets, so it may be difficult to find a provider of an unstamped synthetic.

No, it won't: https://www.alibaba.com/countrysearch/CN/cvd-diamond.html

“Monopoly” doesn’t mean there are literally no alternatives.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#376

Post by op00to »

astura wrote: post #303
test6554 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is "trying" to be less stupid. But selling my wife's diamond rings and buying cubic zirconia replicas at this point feels like a very stupid move even though I know I will net a bunch of money up front, I hear divorces are very expensive.

She's better off holding onto them because selling the won't actually net you "a bunch of money upfront," the resale market for diamond rings is incredibly poor. Personally, I just didn't even bother buying an engagement ring (or wedding ring for that matter) because it's a "tradition" that means literally absolutely nothing to me. My husband doesn't care that I don't want jewelry and he prefers to not wear a wedding…

I used my (deceased) grandmother's engagement and wedding bands. I paid a few hundred bucks to get them repaired and cleaned up (they needed work after ~60 years of wear) and am very happy. They're about 1/4 the size of my wife's friends rocks, but they got a big rock and we got a lot closer to a down payment on a house.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#377

Post by jagger27 »

Borealid wrote: post #285
oblio wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Platinum is a boring metal, visually, difficult to distinguish by eye from steels, aluminum, and titanium. Platinum has very low reactivity so it doesn't rust, corrode, whatever easy, unlike the others. That's why it's considered valuable, because it looks almost the same after a lot of time.

Anodized aluminum and titanium don't rust - and if by whatever means you DO allow them to oxidize, the oxygen-bound outer layer forms a protective barrier against further rusting. Neither of those metals becomes structurally weaker in any meaningful way over time due to oxygen exposure.

Platinum is significantly heavier than titanium, steel, and aluminum which adds to its perceived value.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#378

Post by CydeWeys »

19235982958329 wrote: post #190
stuntkite wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Star Trek frequently discussed things being slightly off when replicated. Troy wanted "real" chocolate when in a seriously bad mood. Picard kept cases of real caviar for special occasions. I mean, it's a writing trope designed to point out that they are far away from home and play with the concept that scarcity creates value and thus is interesting to human(oid)s. The ideals of a moneyless society by virtue of just b…

Since you bring up crypto as a source of scarcity in storing transactional value, I guess my crankiness compels me to note that there isn't a final say on computational resource asymmetry yet either, and is just as valid of a hope as the Star Trek replicator eliminating physical scarcity or more mundanely as the lessening grip of a diamond cartel. Right now there's currently a (publicly) huge 'security' margin on the…

The PoW algorithm can be changed to become harder if necessary, though. There have already been several upgrades over the life of Bitcoin and this is another one that people are anticipating might become necessary in the future.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#379

Post by joecool1029 »

What a shit headline.

The former president of the US branch of the world's largest synthetic diamond producer once told me personally, that she expected their market to get destroyed once De Beers started to shift focus over to synthetics. They had the head start but didn't dare undercut the cartel that much.

This is just De Beers moving forward on that roadmap which has involved the shutdown of mines and price fixing to keep the price of synthetics and natural diamonds propped up. They've done a very good job of keeping synthetics within 80% or so the price of a natural diamond.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#380

Post by jagger27 »

ISL wrote: post #199
nradov wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never mind about jewelry and fashion. Cheap synthetic diamonds would open up a host of industrial applications. Bring on "The Diamond Age".

When the Diamond Age arrives, it's going to be amazing. For a sneak peek, look up "diamond-like coatings", already in use in physics experiments and industry.

One diamond crystal smartphone screen for me, please.
Post reply on HN