Another WAVE rip-off!!!!

John,

Yea...sorry all...Ernie too...about the little man comment. Like I said...I hate to feel like a tattle tale...and I guess I was being a bit defensive. I too have my faults. Apologies all around. Maybe I can go buy a Commander (which I've been meaning to do for some time) when my tax refund arrives. Anyway, please attribute any slights...real or imagined...to my feeling like the aforementioned tattler.

Originally posted by John Hollister
You'd think a "Nice Guy" would refrain from taking what didn't belong to him.

I'd like to think that maybe...just maybe...he thought it was "different" enough. I know I did (honestly).

Again, what is "different" enough to avoid infringement. If I had a Gunting that carried tip up...it would "wave" when it was extracted from one's pocket. (I just tried this...and it does...after a fashion.) The ramp, however, is quite different from the hook of the wave. The ramp was also designed for a specific other purpose. Would this, then, be legal? Is Cold Steel's version (previously) mentioned legal 'cause it doubles as a guard?
 
Again, what is "different" enough to avoid infringement. If I had a Gunting that carried tip up...it would "wave" when it was extracted from one's pocket. (I just tried this...and it does...after a fashion.) The ramp, however, is quite different from the hook of the wave. The ramp was also designed for a specific other purpose. Would this, then, be legal? Is Cold Steel's version (previously) mentioned legal 'cause it doubles as a guard?

Thats not at issue. What is at issue is someone having a pocket hook on a knife to open the knife as it is drawn.
 
I'm still interested in the transition point. I'm not disagreeing...I'm just generally interested in this area. Again...I accept that Ray's knife may be infringing.

So...If a blade had a guard on it that was kinda like the CRKT Carson Flipper...but on both sides...and it had a slight curvature to it...and it could be waved...would this be infringing...if the stated purpose was to serve as a handguard. I guess I'm talking more about the Cold Steel example someone mentioned. Would Lynn Thompson be safe simply 'cause the stated purpose of the wave device was not to wave...but to protect the hand?

Again, not disagreeing...I'm just trying to get a general feel from some of you legal experts...or soon to be experts...of how different something needs to be. Ultimately...I guess that's what trials are for...

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse...
 
Guess I can clarify a few things here. As one who has been involved in numerous patent cases as inventor, defender and getter-arounder of competitive products, I can speak factually on the subject. In case someone doubts my credentials, e-mail me and you can do a patent search on my name and see my list of patents. And I am not a lawyer but a mechanical engineer.
The only defendable portion of a patent is the claims, located at the end. The rest is just a nice story so that others can understand the claims. If any feature stated in the claims is omitted, then the device does not infringe upon that patent. All it takes is one omission of a feature listed in an independent claim. But mechanical equivalents are seen as the same invention also, so you can't just replace a feature with something that mechanically does the same thing. So, I could not replace the wave hook with a wire rod. But the equivalency is based on one who is skilled in the subject of the patent, in this case a knifemaker. In the end, it is usually not a jury decision but a lawyer trying to show that his client omitted one feature in the claims. Or the tactic will be to invalidate a claim by showing that a skilled knifemaker could have thought of it based on a previous knife made public before the wave.
I was hoping this would not happen to the wave because something with this much commercial value is worth protecting, and the patent could be reduced in scope by so many people disecting it. In other words, the USPO could determiine that it was too broad to begin with. I don't think I'm the first engineer with ways to legally get around the patent, but even if I added that feature to my personal knife (a CQC-6 of course), it would remain in my pocket and no one would ever see it. Except for Ernie bercause I would offer him a generous royality out of courtesy. I wish him luck.
 
But the equivalency is based on one who is skilled in the subject of the patent, in this case a knifemaker.
off-topic whine: if only that were true in the case of software...
 
glockjock,

Thanks! That's more or less what I was looking for. I'm still not sure I really understand...but It's probably as clear as it ever will be to me...

Thanks again...
 
LynnBob,
The issue of the guard is one of interpretation by a skilled knifemaker. Would a knifemaker look at the wave and say it functions primarially as a guard? No, so it is therefore unique (not seen before)and also novel (not obvious in use)if it can open a blade. It must be unique and novel to get a patent, but this would be measured by the general consensus of knifemakers. Have knifemakers historically advertised guards as being a way to open a knife? No, so the wave has no prior design or prior art which is similar. Make the wave straight and larger and you have many prior art examples. But make it as it is, compact, intergral, efficient, not obvious as to its use or function untill demonstrated, and you have a patent. The only issue left is strength of the patent and that will untimately be determined by Ernie's peers (those skilled in the art)
 
Glockjock you seem to be right on. Of course there is a lot of complicated stuff to patent law (which I will never know or understand) that could be talked about for a long time and whole textbooks written on the subject.

In fact, you guys have pushed me to dust off my Patent Law textbook and look up a few things. Just to clarify more on what Glockjock said--in legal talk, he was talking about the Doctrine Of Equivalents which states basically -- a patentee may invoke this doctrine when there is not outright duplication, but when the device in question performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way to obtain the same result. This is usually a jury question.

However... Glockjock also mentioned the nature of the patent. Patents can be characterized by a court into weak, intermediate, and strong patents. I think Glockjock was worried that the Emerson wave patent could be found to be weak or intermediate (too broad in Glockjock's words), therefore making it susceptible to a challenge in court. This is usually a Judge determined question.

Well... that's my legal two cents on this one. If I find more that applies I will chime in. Oh...BTW, just took delivery of my first Emerson -- miniCQC7B. May get it customized. But I also like it just the way it is.

JT
 
JTurner,
Thanks for more clarity. My non-legal interpretation of these matters comes from hearing (not speaking) the jargon over and over. I personally was also trying to stress that it is pretty sleezy to use loopholes like putting a hole in a blade and then making one hairline cut to the spine to prevent paying royalties to Spyderco. Its not really a hole anymore when you do this. But any knife buff can appreciate the inventiveness of the hole in the blade or the wave. It is a shame to we cannot reward creativity witout legal involvement.
 
LynnBob, no problem man

Also, FYI, from Ernest on 02/22/01

Quote Ernest Emerson:
I am going to respond to the subject of the aftermarket “wave” feature being discussed here on the forums. At the same time I am going to address a couple of other issues that have come up recently that are somewhat related. I know that by responding to this I will undoubtedly draw some flak due to the passion that members of the forum have for their interest in knives and all related subjects. It is nice to know that there is certainly no apathy amongst the forum members and I believe that this energy and interest is usually a window on the overall profile of each individual. It is refreshing to know that such enthusiasm still exists. Anyway, at the risk of offending one, many, or all, here goes.

The self-opening feature or “wave” as, it is called by many, is a patented and owned invention of Emerson Knives. This also covers add-on waves. For the archives – the very first Commander knives were designed with an add-on wave feature. There were two reasons for this. Number one, it was the quickest way to prototype the feature and actually try it on an existing knife. Number two, when I was working on the original design for the Navy SEAL teams, I first offered it as an add-on feature so they could use it or not according to their contract need or requirements. They declined stating and I paraphrase, “Ernest keep it simple – make it a part of the knife. We don’t want to fiddle around with crap like that.” No problem.

Now just so you all know some more about it. We have been approached by two other “inventors” of the add-on wave who basically had contracts ready to go for licensing and royalties. Needless to say, they were informed that the idea and/or invention was not theirs and that we own both add-ons and integral remote opening features. Both of these incidents took place within the last two years. Sorry folks, but we were there about 3 ½ years ago.

John
 
For those of you who expressed support for me on this issue or at least were willing to believe that maybe my intent wasn't an outright rip off of Emerson's Wave(R) design, I thank you. For the rest of you who were willing, even anxious, to see this vile miscreant sued within an inch of his life and maybe farther I would tell you the same thing I told Ernest Emerson himself this afternoon had any of you bothered to ask me.

Emerson, by the way, is a gentleman and I very much appreciate the fact that he took the time to call me himself rather than have a lawyer do it. The first thing we agreed on is there is too much useless litigation going on. It is my opinion that the only people who really benefit from it are the lawyers.

We discussed the patent concept in general. Thirty years ago, when I was in college, patents seemed more specific to me than they do now. Then, you could patent a toaster because of the exact way you built it but you could not patent the concept of toasting bread. That's why there are a lot of toasters on the market, all patented, all built differently, and yet they do the same thing.

These days, I'm not so sure that interpretation still applies. The Patent Office seems willing to grant much broader patents. My stance on the Pocket Hook was basically this: I was already making them when the first announcement about the Wave(R) appeared in Blade magazine. To me, the Pocket Hook looked like a better idea because it was not built into the blade. That might make it different enough to not infringe on Emerson's patent, I thought. At any rate, I figured I'd keep making them until someone told me to stop. Let me also clarify one point: I said I was already making the Pocket Hook - I didn't say I was making it before Emerson made the Wave(R), only that I was making it before he announced the Wave(R). It takes a long time to get a patent so I assume he had the design considerably in advance of the announcement and very possibly before I came up with the Hook. That's OK too. Alexander Bell got to the patent office only an hour or so ahead of the OTHER guy that invented the telephone. Same thing with Marconi and the radio. Happens all the time, no big deal.

I knew that just because I was making them before Emerson announced his patent did not mean I could continue to do so if the Pocket Hook was in fact violating the patent. We discussed how some overseas companies run around looking for good ideas like that that are not yet patented and then go and patent the idea themselves. That may seem unfair to some people but it is legal and I know that. I fully expected that someday that very thing would probably happen to the Pocket Hook but I don't care. I still think it's a good idea but I never intended to patent it myself. Patents are too expensive and take a long time and I just don't care enough to do it.

So, while I came away from our conversation still not 100% sure if Mr. Emerson considered the Pocket Hook an infringment of the Wave(R) patent I did find out about a new patent, as yet unannounced, for a removable type of Wave(R) device. That patent, even I can see I would be violating so I readily agreed to cease and desist making the Pocket Hook. I do look forward, however, to seeing the Emerson version to see if he found a way to make it attractive because I agree with the guy who said it was ugly. That it is - but it works soooo good!

For what it's worth, I think the Pocket Hook is a great idea but the truth is it was not easy to sell to customers. It was very hard to get the idea across to strangers about how it worked and how cool it was. Over the last 3 or 4 years I probably sold fewer than a dozen to strangers who had never actually seen one. Most of the ones you see on my website were made for people who know me and have handle the knives equipped with the Hook. Further, they aren't that easy to make so I'm not going to miss them much. I had already stopped selling them in California and Massachusetts because I came to believe they might violate the switchblade law there.

For those of you who feel that Emerson might need your help in protecting his interests, if you'd care to check my website in a few days you'll find a disclaimer there that will say something to the effect that although you may see the Pocket Hook in the pictures for a while yet, it will no longer be available.

Again, I'd like to publicly thank Mr. Emerson for the gracious way that he handled this issue (almost apologetic actually). Given the chance, two reasonable people can usually solve their differences without resorting to the courts.

In conclusion, if you like my designs and want a high quality handcrafted folder at a reasonable price please check out my website. If you want a Pocket Hook or similar device, then see Mr. Emerson. He makes good knives too....
 
Originally posted by LynnBob


I have to admit...part of my problem is that I feel like a tattle tale...and that was not my intention over at Glock Talk in the thread listed below. (It's actually a pretty interesting thread. Check it out. Also, if y'all haven't checked out the entertaining off topic posts in the General Non-Glocking forum at GT...you are really missing something.) I kinda hope this is not where ROSANGHAL heard of Ray Rogers. Sigh!

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59360

Sigh! I feel so dirty. Like a weasel. Sigh!


Not to worry LynnBob

I did not find out about Mr. Rogers from your post on Glocktalk. I actually saw a photo of one of his knives somewhere else. It was a small photo and I noticed the attachment on the spine of the blade that jumped out at me. When I went back to see that photo again it was gone and I started trying to figure out if it was what I thought it was. A Wave copy.

I did see your post though but I would have found it anyways but you weren't the reason I found out about Mr. Rogers' knives.

Ross T.
 
Ray, do NOT be so defensive. You make nice-looking knives. But facts are facts. You SHOULD HAVE had that conversation with Mr. Emerson BEFORE infringing on his patent.
Just as you said (and I wonder if there is anything not said), Mr. Emerson IS a gentleman and is not going to file suit. Safe to say, Emerson would have prevailed, and whatever negotiations you and Ernie had made Ernie feel comfortable in nit suing you. While I have NEVER commented or offered my opinion on behalf of Emerson, if Historical data means anything, the disclaimer you are printing IMHO WAS NOT an option. No way will Ernie Emerson EVER allow the wave to be used without his express knowledge and consent. Especially in your case where you made no attempts to try to use a legal loop-hole.
I wish you luck sir, and if you find your business seriously thretening Ernies, while his patent is valid, I would bet a STEAK DINNER the next time will probaly not be so cordial................wolf
 
Back
Top