Why must people insist on trying to fix what ain't broken? I'm honestly not seeing any real advantage over a more conventional blade here. Especially when he's touting this as a "replacement" for a handgun for bodyguards. I could be wrong, but in most areas where guns are heavily restricted, armed professionals like bodyguards get an exemption.
The points he illustrates as "non lethal" striking points are actually very likely to cause skull fractures if you hit someone with it, turning it lethal in a hurry. He also talks about the blade "popping open" when using a folded knife as an impact weapon. I honestly don't know how a folder's going to suddenly pop open when I've got a grip on it that prevents the blade from opening.
Then he talks about a "rare and devistating" knife combat style. I could be biased, but if I hear the words "rare and devistating" I start tuning out: odds are its some kind of "Rex-kwon-do" made up BS. The rule of commonness: uncommon things are uncommon for a reason. Also gun distarms are "painful finger submission holds"? The intent of a gun disarm is to get the weapon away from your opponent. If you apply it like a submission, you're REALLY doing it wrong: done properly, a gun disarm will result in the other guy having broken fingers and possibly a very badly sprained wrist/elbow, etc.
Other issues: multiple locking positions (we already mostly agree that folders are less than ideal as SD weapons; adding a lock that likely is weaker than the standard locks in use isn't going to be beneficial); the sheer size of this thing is a detriment, especially given how small the cutting surface appears to be. This whole thing just smacks of an answer in search of a question and all I have to ask is "why?".