- Joined
- Dec 5, 2018
- Messages
- 1,437
I've always wondered where the negative sentiment of Microtech/Marfione [M/M] originated from...
Thanks to you, it finally makes sense.
The Marfione family seems dysfunctional, to say the least
Do you happen to own any M/M products? I've owned a handful of them, they've all been of excellent quality; but their apathy towards customers in terms of warranties have pushed me away from them (sold off all my Microtechs).
If you were to teach a law classroom, would you use this instance as a case study?
You should dedicate a thread and illuminate us laypeople about the legal quarrels occurring in the knife industry.
Serious thanks to your commitment in compiling and delivering such an enlightening, lengthy, detailed post.
Thank you for the kind words.
I don’t own any Microtech knives, and I don’t plan on buying any, mainly because of the owner, but also things like the screws and the warranty.
If I was a law prof, the Microtech/KAI thing would probably be most relevant as an example of how you analyze a situation as corporate counsel. This is entirely speculative, but I think there’s a high likelihood that KAI didn’t go after Microtech for patent infringement because the downside simply outweighed the upside. I don’t think they’d have been able to recoup enough money from Microtech to make it worth risking their patent (since it’s pretty obvious that the Matrix was a ripoff of the 0777, Microtech would basically have to argue the patent was invalid in order to win). They were able to get M/M to stop selling the infringing models with the C&D letter, which is really the primary goal, so they likely decided that was good enough of a result.
On the other side of the suit, the bonkers statements that Marfione made trying to justify his actions are good example of what not to do. CEOs, particularly ones who spent a lifetime building their companies up from nothing, can be sensitive creatures. One of the worst parts of being in-house counsel is trying to rein in someone like that. I can almost guarantee that the reason Marfione’s 5-page statement about why he ripped off KAI’s design disappeared was because the lawyers told them to pull it. Marfione also seems to try to be a bully in litigation. KAI is the only sizable party they’ve sued, mostly it’s been insignificant retailers selling knockoff Microtech OTFs. The suit against Tony Sculimbrine reeked of bullying. Tony is a criminal defense attorney, and IIRC was transitioning from the public defender to private practice around that time, which meant he didn’t really have the financial resources or legal knowledge to mount much of a defense against a relatively well-funded corporate plaintiff. IP law is lightyears away from criminal practice, so he needed to hire counsel, which is the last thing you want to do when you’re trying to start your own practice. In the end, he retracted the post (although the retraction doesn’t really read like Tony, leading me to suspect it was largely influenced by Marfione and his attorneys), plus agreed to do 700 hours of pro bono legal work over a period of years. Significantly, large portion of that work was to go to AKTI, one of the main pro-knife lobbying groups. Of course, as a manufacturer of the most frequently targeted category of knives (OTFs and Autos), Microtech stands to benefit from any headway made by AKTI in overturning restrictive knife laws.
Bonus legal content: to expand on my point about KAI not wanting to push litigation because it could jeopardize their patent, I have a very strong suspicion that the same reason explains Spyderco’s reluctance to go after anyone for infringing on the “trademark Round Hole.” Spyderco’s Spydie Hole was originally covered by a patent, which is only granted for “useful” inventions. When it lapsed, they were somehow granted a trademark, although they only apply to non-functional features. My theory is that Spyderco knows that the trademark’s validity is questionable, so it’s better for them to do licensing agreements with companies like Benchmade, rather than trying to litigate the issue and forcing Benchmade to attack the validity of the trademark. They can get the result they want (maintaining the trademark and controlling the use of the hole) without jeopardizing their ability to keep the mark.
A lawyer presenting actual evidence to back up an argument, what is the world coming to? The information is out there, but it takes actually wanting to find it. A lot of people aren’t willing to go down the rabbit hole of obscure legal issues, but that’s sort of my job.
Also, I highly doubt any knife reviewers are making enough to earn a living. Shabazz is probably the most successful, and he’s got a day job as a research scientist. As he tells it, his YouTube and Patreon combine to make enough to keep the channel going, primarily by funding new stuff to review. He raffles off review samples provided by manufacturers with the proceeds going to his local women’s shelters, so no money made there.
I think most of the prominent reviewers do it because they legitimately love talking about knives and gear.
