Assisted openers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sal Glesser

Sal Glesser

Moderator
Joined
Dec 27, 1998
Messages
11,668
I see quite a few assisted openers being advertised lately.

I know about Blackie Collins "Strut' n cut" (Which is a different concept than the Ken Onion invention).

So, how many are there and who are they? I figured you would probably know them all.

sal
 
Sal:
I know Camillus has an assisted opener called the (I think) robo-power(?) assisted opener. SOG has their S.A.T. (SOG-assisted technology) opener on their Flash models. Buck has an assisted-opener on a model, I do not remember the name of it. Benchmade has their Optimiser on their 670 Apparition model.
Jim
 
I've got a Boa here, but the BM921 opens quicker(nothing to get past).

Military still opens faster from the pocket though.
 
So when do we get to see a little Spyder on the handle of an assisted opener?
Lightning bug maybe? I'd love a knife similar to a Calypso Jr...

Ok, back on topic sorry for the hijack.
 
Camillus makes the Dominator and Aftermath. SOG makes the Flash, Blink and Twitch. Kershaw seems to have quite a few models:Chive, Scallion, Leek, Blur, Avalanche, Blackout, Whirlwind, Bump and I've probably missed a few. Buck has the Rush. I've got a Kershaw and a SOG, and while they're kind of fun I don't see the assist as a truly useful feature. In fact, from my layperson perspective I see the assist as a mechanism that may eventually fail. I can open most knives as fast or faster than an assist. I wonder how well the $50 Kershaw Blackouts sell at WalMart.
 
Hi Sal:

There was an advert in the newest Blade showing some new "Colt" and "Harley Davidson" models, which looked like Carter-designed pieces.

Best regards.
 
I have the Camillus Aftermath folder, do you remember me showing you that Sal at IWA? It is a lovelly folder! Perhaps we will see the "larger" folder from Spyderco?

As an aside, it has been argued that assisted openers would be considered illegal in the UK. It is a hole yet to be plugged... :p
 
Maybe it's just me, but I consider the Emerson Wave feature to be a totally different opening *_method_*, just as I would a thumb-disc, a flipper, etc.

:)

And to sorta go along with this thought, Mr. Glesser, would you also define "assisted" the different pivot mechanisms, such as Mr. Chew's Voodoo system, Mr. Martin's thrust-bearings, and Mr. Duncan's bearing pivot?

Also, in addition to those pieces already mentioned above by other enthusiasts, there's also Buck, with their new ASAP mechanism.

:)

Allen
aka DumboRAT
 
On the subject of "assisted openning folders", it is my own opinion that they are walking very, very close to the line where they may be defined as "switchblades". Indeed, some laws already include them as such. See, for instance, this piece from the St. Louis County, Missouri, code:
716.130 Concealed weapons--Prohibited. --A person shall not wear under his clothes, or conceal about his person any pistol, revolver, colt, billy, sling shot, cross knuckles or knuckles of lead, brass or other metal, bowie knife, razor, spring-back knife, dirk, dagger or any knife resembling a bowie knife, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon. Nothing in this section shall be so construed to prevent any United States, State, County, or City officer, or any member of the government of St. Louis County, Missouri, from carrying such weapons as may be necessary in the proper discharge of his duties. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to Section 571.094 RSMo from engaging in all acts permitted by reason of such endorsement.
Click to expand...
I know that they are talking about concealed weapons, but a "spring-back knife" in your pocket would surely qualify under most readings of that bit of the law.

It seems to me that, Kershaw's lawyers or no, the trend is toward outlawing "assisted-opening" knives and it will take an almighty effort on the part of AKTI to stop it, I'm afraid. If the current laws fail to stop them, you can bet on it that there will be laws going on the books that will do so, for the "exemption" under which these knives exist is extremely technical and not understood by the average street cop or by the average prosecutor, who want them outlawed. And the truth is that, for almost anyone who wants a folder, the current blade openning methods are fast enough without any assist, so why do we need them? It only seems to me that we are poking sticks at an already irritated lion when we buy these knives, and for no real reason.
 
what's a 'spring-back' knife? even slipjoints have a 'backspring'

I also like the dirk/dagger/bowie part. I guess a kukri or bolo is just fine :D
 
Hi Allen, I guess I should have been more clear. I am referring to a "spring" assisted opening.

I agree with you that I would not consider the "wave" an assisted opener.

Diamond cut, Neko, We have no plans at this time for a spring assisted model. This is for dialogue.

I think Allen's question is where I'm trying to go. Essentially an IP question that I' trying to sort in my own mind.

Ken Onion "invents" a concept. Essentially the use of a spring and an "over center" config to "urge" a blade to the fully open postion once opening has begun, without using a release mechanism in the handle.

the "concept" is now put into words in as many ways as was conceivable at the time. Obviously words have their limitations in IP.

The concept (which was original) was brought to market and proved to be quite successful. Then the "Smell" of somebody making money brings out a host of new ways to "serve the same concept". We've always called these IP "loopholes", and though probably legal, I'm trying to determine in my mind if this is ethical, and if it is a direction we should consider.

A dialectic on ethics of IP loopholes. If an innovatively strong company is capable of loopholing any patent in the knife industry, should they?

sal
 
I think loopholing is inevitable. As you said, when people smell money, they will try to get some of it. I personally like assited openers, but I agree with FullerH that they will probably end up being declared switchblades. To non-knifenuts, the distinction between assisted opening and a full auto is just splitting hairs.

My great fear is that assisted openers and one handers in general could get lumped together, especially knives Spyderco's Dodo or all of Benchmades Axis lock folders. :eek:
 
IMO, the smell of money is exactly what happened.

The strut-n-cut has been out for a long time but IMO the quality was not very good so no one cared. The Kershaws came out, better, and a year or two later companies are still trying to hop on the band wagon.

But, I don't see that's it's worth it. Seems to me it's a sign that a company is an innovator or a follower. Better to come up with something that is radically new.
 
Ethics. Patent law is not about ethics. It's about encouraging new inventions by protecting them for a limited time. Patent protection is limited for good reasons -- the basic idea of an assisted opening knife is absolutely positively not patentable. What is patented is the particular design of the mechanism that opens the knife. If you want to find a way to build a better mouse trap with your own assisted opening knife, it's not a form of stealing. It's an entirely ethical way of competition that encourages the evolution of the general concept and IMPROVEMENTS, and thereby benefits all of us. So have at it and make some money. Your integrity will be intact.

I don't think I'll buy one though.
 
I agree with Keith Mayton on both the purpose of patents and not wanting to buy an assisted opener. I have a Benchmade 921 and a bunch of Spydies. Who'd need an assisted opener or automatic opener when ClipIts and the 921 are available?
 
Let me elaborate. If Sal & Co. come up with an assisted design, there are exactly two possiblities: (1) the Spyderco design infringes on an existing patent; or (2) it does not infringe on an existing patent. The determination of whether it's (1) or (2) is purely objective. If it does not infringe, it's not because it's some clever lawyer's or engineer's trick. The notion of a "loophole" or a "technicality" actually have no place in the law. If it doesn't infringe then it's a legitimate new invention that advances the art. Period.

I'd also mention that close to half of all patents that are challenged in court are ruled invalid because the patents themselves are really derived directly from a substantially similar pre-existing design.

The bandwagon still has lots of room left on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top