Sit down and get ready for some legalese:
I spoke with our legal affairs department administrator. We discussed the issues you have brought up. In May, 1981 Mr. Glesser filed for a patent which became 4,347,665. You can find it at any Patent Depository Library or on the internet at the Patent and Trademark office site.
The patent claims are worded as follows: .....said enlarged portion on said blade is provided with a lateral facing depression adapted to be physically engaged by the flesh of the user's (had a couple of beers yet?) thumb to effect single-handed pivoting of said blade into its operative position. Claim 1, ppg 6. The interpretation here is that a blade with depression that may be used to engage the flesh of the user's thumb... a deep enough depression becomes a through hole. The industry has generally followed this lead as well as several custom makers (see a Spyderco Good Guys magazine add). Some people have said that there was prior art established, and that Mr. Glesser simply reappropriated something to create his opening system. The patent office uses this terminology: if one skilled in the art can come up with the concept as anticipated by previous art, it is not patentable." Evidently they did not feel this was an issue in the '665 case, blessing the concept with a presumed correctness that no one has yet felt the strength to challenge in court. The patent term ends in Sept., 1999. The logistics of protecting the patent for the last few months of its term are formidable and not cost effective. Spyderco's "Good Guy" advertisements call the public's attention to the entities that have acknowledged the patent though some form of contract.
What will happen to the hole after September? Spyderco returned to the Patent and Trademark Office requesting the Office to register the Roundness of the hole as one of our Federal marks, along with Spyderco and the Bug. They obliged, assigning registration number 2,033,317.
What this means: We will be able to protect the Roundness of the hole so long as we continue to us it as a trademark (there are some basic rules for this), keep the maintenance fees paid and aggressively keep the infringers from it. A trademark is a different bird than a patent. A patent is valid and enforceable against any infringer at any time even if we've passed over one infringer and prosecuted another. Trademarks require a bit more effort. A mark is a reputation that an inanimate form (sketch, combination of letters, 3-D form etc.) represents before the public. The representation must be maintained. Hence even a small infringement must be addressed, or the mark immediately starts to be diluted as the public becomes aware of the infringement and hence (potentially or ultimately) confused. This is similar to the public use issue with a piece of land. Allow a path to be created across your land, and sooner or later it can be claimed to be the public's right to us it. Another issue, there are no discussions about prior art with a trademark, only that your organization has to show having added significant meaning (in the public's eye) to the inanimate representation, and at that time (as defined by a number of PTO standards, in which you are have the burden of proof to not be in violation of (have you had your second beer yet?)) no one else is using it as a mark. As you can imagine, after all of this work and expense, the "round hole" (and the "Bug", and "Spyderco") will be exclusive and around for a long time to come.
I have a copy of the "Good Guys Ad" that lists the manufacturers/individuals that are choosing to "honor our idea" with our permission.
If you would like to call me, I can fax this to you, as the only form I have it in is a hard copy, with no particluar reference as to where it appeard. I do know it is current as of 1998.
WHEW!
This better count as several posts and make me a member or someone's gonna be crying, and it wont be me! =)
Danelle
------------------
The brain is a wondrous thing, I admit,
but please, keep it away from me
