I think this is very bad PR. The author comes off as very unprofessional and petty. Also, a few years ago, I spent some time drawing mandala patterns on a tabl

I think this is very bad PR. The author comes off as very unprofessional and petty. Also, a few years ago, I spent some time drawing mandala patterns on a tablet with Illustrator and rotational symmetry turned on. Most of my drawings would also match the small patterns highlighted as examples, because they are just way too generic. One of the "infringements" is a square area that was divided into top and bottom and then the bottom half was divided into left and right. If you start with a smaller circle and then divide outwards to make the outer circles have roughly the same chunk sizes, you always end up with this type of pattern. It's an artifact of larger circles having a larger circumference, not a design choice worthy of copyright. Similarly, one of the "infringements" is a ring cut into segments with rotational symmetry. In Illustrator, that's 1 manually placed line between 2 circles. Is a single brush stroke already art? Or is it just a line? But mostly, I just find it very off-putting that they state their opinion as fact: "Based on Canadian Copyright Laws the Nikken's design is a substantial copy of my work, and my copyright was infringed." ... but they did not win in court and did not collect any damages, or as they say: "The case has not been fully resolved." (which I would read as: they did not even file a case)