Assisted openers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have three assisted openers, the chive, leek, and dominator. I'll admit I got the chive first just for the surprise factor when I showed it to people. Okay, so they thought it was a cute li'l switchblade, but there was no rush to go out and buy one. The leek I got because it was a wharncliff and the dominator was a big Ti-knife. I got both for good deals and because I'm a knifenut. I know they are selling well, but I don't think they are filling the function of EDC for the majority.

Spyderco made it's reputation, cobra hoods aside, from the well-working concept of the spyderhole. It's fast, reliable, and legal in the States. Ethics aside, why would you want to dilute the brand with a "me-too" knife. Maybe you could but your stamp on it, make it really Spyderco, like the pics I've seen of your take on the butterfly knife. Maybe you could, but is it something you need to be doing? Mr. Mayton hits it on the head, original or not, you subject yourself to needless litigation.

In short, a leader in innovation does not need to follow. Keep innovating, keep original, and we'll keep buying.

Oh, and keep the collaborations coming too.

G.
 
For sure, if you start your assisted project with an instruction to your designer to come up with a mechanism as close as possible to a Kershaw patent, then you've bought yourself an expensive lawsuit and have probably been unethical. If you do things that way, it may be difficult to even make the objective determination of whether it infringes, so a court would have to decide it. I read a good definition of "ethcal" last night. It's something like, behaving ethically is doing what's right when you're not required to.
 
If you succeed in getting as close as possible (probably not the best way in any case), what's the problem. Doesn't "as possible" mean the line isn't crossed.

What I find with the Onion knives is that I don't one hand open them by any other means than the springie. I do open them two handed if I don't want to startle people, but the spring opening is pretty convenient. I'm not sure what serious use I would have for a spider hole on one of these knives. Interesting design issue.

Two things I don't like about the assisted blades are that the large ones open kinda slow. This is basicaly based on several Boas. The other thing is that the snap open seems a bit harsh (conversely) and it feels like something one shouldn't do too often. I guess a third thing is the possibility that they will all be deemed illegal.

What I would like to see is a Spider knife with an inertial deal so it can't be flipped. a weight that would jam against the blade pivot when folks attempt to open it or some such gizmo. The idea would be to make the blade silky smooth to open, and yet any law officer trying to flip it open would blow a vessle before it could be flipped. Tacticaly something like that would be more useful in providing me with the ease of one hand opening without any flipping, and it wouldn't try to get around a law so much as being fully respectful of it. My B in L is a patent attorney, you can contact us to discuss rights.
 
Smell of money aside, why bother? I've a number of "assisted" openers; including SOG Flash II and Twitch I, Kersham Random Leek and Rosy Boa, and Meyerco Cut-n-Strut. They are all fun in a "kewl factor" kind of way, but they aren't my EDCs. The Spyderhole is perfectly quick, doesn't need a safety lock, and is much less likely to arouse consternation of bystanders and/or LEOs. I think part of the assisted lure is that they are almost automatics, sort of a wink and grin factor.

I, too, would be concerned that Spyderco would come to be associated with knives many non-knife types have already labeled "switchblades." Argue legalese all day, but it only takes one lawmaker trying the issue in the court of public opinion to result in even more stupid limitations. Having Spyderco crimped by something similar would be a tragedy.

If it came down to investing in something assisted, or something requested (from the forums--eg. large Dodo, not-so-lil' temperance, Ltd' editions, customized knive service, etc) I'd vote for the latter line of investment.

Best regards.

PS: It would be interesting to do a proper (ie. lab standards) "quickdraw" comparison of a seasoned spydie user and one who's equally seasoned with an assisted opener.
 
If you succeed in getting as close as possible (probably not the best way in any case), what's the problem. Doesn't "as possible" mean the line isn't crossed.
Click to expand...

You're right -- if the design is really non-infringing, then ultimately there's no problem. I was was wrong to say that's unethical. The only thing that would be unethical would be to purposely go with an infringing design on the basis that you could dupe a court into ruling that it's non-infringing.

I agree that from the practical standpoint, the "close as possible" approach is not the best way -- it's like asking to be sued.

Of course, in our litigious society, you might be sued regardless simply because the owner of the patent has the money to bring a lawsuit against you that you can't afford to defend. :rolleyes: :mad:
 
Good input, thanx.

Actually we had no plans on the auto assists. Sorry if I gave that impression. Even If we were to do one, we would license the idea from Kershaw before we would loophole. I wasn't thinking of the assisted pieces in particular, it was just a recent example of an idea being "expanded upon".

The actual idea wouldn't matter. We loophole and re-invent as an excercise for our own play. We've always avoided the ideas of others and respected their "thing".

It seems lately, in this industry, the trend seems to be loophole or "re-invent". The "Kiss" and "Speed-safe" are two that come to mind.

Since the forumites are astute and intelligent, I wanted to know what you thought.

sal
 
I believe it would be a mistake for Spyderco to go the assisted opener route myself.

I believe in the not too distant future that assisted openers will be considered as restricted by most every state as "switchblades" or auto openers.

Many have moved in that direction currently or are looking at the situation at the very least and will come on board with their own restrictions as other states continue to restrict them under statutes.

One of the best companies with a very large following already [ Spyderco ], due to the designs and spyder hole in the blade, would not need to follow other companies who have made attempts to satisfy consumers looking for something that will get the blade into action once accessed.

The "hole" has proven to be one of the simplest and easiest opening methods of all times.

Brownie
 
Yeah, I think the "assisted openers" are pretty cool from a mechanical perspective. From a legal perspective though, it's a dead end. :(
 
No mater how you try to slice it into pieces it is still wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you . Legal or not it is still dis honest and shows poor character.You can try to justify it any way you want and it is still going to be dishonest. Most of you justifying the actions of others are only doing it because it isn't your stuff that is bieng taken but rather someone elses there for it isn't as important.If it were your stuff your opinions would be different.
 
Mr. Onion,

I fully sympathize. The only assisted opener I own is a Kershaw Blackout (a gift from my Father-in-law) and I have no need for others' rendition of your invention (though if you can make a non-assisted lefty Blackout, that'd be cool!).

It irritates me to no end that an otherwise topnotch knifemaker is using one of your design patents and one of Spyderco's trademarks on one his more popular folding knives and that the reaction is either favorable to the maker for lifting your and Sal's respective intellectual property or hostile because the little sin is being brought to light.

In the end, thieves create better locks, but you and Sal have my condolences for the pain in the meantime.
 
I admit I love my Leek and my Flash 2, but they're good knives without the assisted opening. I'll admit the Leek is but a Vapor without it but it's not the selling point of these models, not for me anyway. Okay maybe on the Leek the initial attraction is the opening but after you have it for a while you appreciate the thought that went into the overall design.

At any rate the fastest opening knife in my hands is still a well built manual.
 
Sal,
I respect what you do, and all this company works towards. You build an excellent product. You have stated that the company is in no way thinking of making an assisted opener, and I believe that is a wise decision.

One of the things that attracts me to Spyderco, is pure functionality. There is no gimmicks when it comes to these knives. They just perform. I hope all innovations in the future will keep the above in mind, and never steep into what is "hip" at the moment.
-Kevin
 
This wont make me any friends in the knife Industry, but to me "Assisted Opening" is Ken Onion's idea no matter what.. Looking for loopholes is not the way we should do things. Playing on words, and re-inventing things already invented is NOT an honorable route, to my way of thinking...


Take Care
Trace Rinaldi
www.thrblades.com
www.shivworks.com
 
Mr. Glesser,
I am deeply impressed that you at the head of a company and in a competitive market are still considering ethics. I hope I will be able to work for a company which assumes a similar stance.

My $0.02: Pursuing loopholes is both unethical and, in the long run, detrimental to an innovative company as it focusses the creative energies on a lesser task, the finding of a loophole rather than the creation of something new.

However, being currently in academia and fundamental science, there is very little that I would consider perfect (except maybe the Lil' T...just kidding, I can wait for the Lil' T II). To improve an existing design even if the improvement may seem small I would always consider both ethical as well as innovative. For the lack of a better example: to introduce an intercooler to a turbo charged diesel engine must surely have seen as a minor and rather obvious modification, but the effect is a rather significant one.
 
To play devil's advocate:

I own a few assisted openers. But honestly the Speedsafe mechanism is the best by far and is completely different from any of the others I have seen and handled. But if Ford makes a car that can fly, next year Chrysler will have one too.

Really besides the fact they have assisted opening is there anything that makes a SOG Blink anything like a Kershaw Chive? Is the Dominator a clone of the Bump? Not really. Buck and Case both make 3 blade stockmans but no one accuses Buck of stealing Case's design.

One of my favorite quotes is by F.J. Hale : "Just because I thought of it doesn't mean that you can't use it too."

Think of all the things you do everyday like driving a car to work that someone else originally thought of. I didn't invent the idea of using a car to drive to work. I don't know who did. I'm glad they didn't patent it or I'd have to walk to remain ethical.

I'm darn sure glad whoever invented bathing didn't get the rights to it and make the rest of us buy a license.

The point is that I think Kershaw has every right to the Speedsafe mechanism as it is a very specific way to accomplish assisted opening. But they can't claim the idea of assisted opening as their domain. Yes they pioneered the idea that is true.

But when you put the various brands of assisted openers side by side and evaluate the knives solely on their ability to be opened quickly using the assisted opening mechanism, the Kershaw wins every time. Being the original and still the best is better for cementing your share of the market than any patent law. For instance Victorinox doesn't sue Wegner and Spyderco doesn't sue Camp USA for using their ideas, they defeat them with superior products because they know how to.

A lot of people are saying right now: "Well what's the difference between someone making an assisted opener and not paying Kershaw for the idea and someone making a one handed opener and not paying Spyderco for the idea?"

Simple. Spyderco cannot claim the idea of a one handed opening knife as their exclusive domain, but they do have every right to blades with a hole in them as a very specific way of accomplishing one handed opening.

Unfortunately the law says Spyderco only has rights to the Spyderhole, which is not at all fair because the idea of putting a hole in the blade is a very specific one that shouldn't require further explanation.

I'm not saying that if I was a knife maker I would imitate everything else that's out there instead of being original. I'm just trying to show the other side of the coin that you can only patent a very specific method or mechanism and not an idea.
 
I'm glad Spyderco isn't planning on making an "assisted opener."

Anthony wrote:

"My great fear is that assisted openers and one handers in general could get lumped together, especially knives like Spyderco's Dodo or all of Benchmades Axis lock folders."

I have to agree with this. It might spell "trouble" some day. Not that that should be the case. It just might BECOME the case, though. :(

I have a Scallion and I like it. It's cool. The only time I've carried it was to show others my new, cool knife. I could stand to get a Leek, too, but like someone else does, it's because I like Wharnecliffes and it may be the best "assisted" sized blade. The last one would be the multicolor Boa, but that's just for the pretty colors!

As for speed of opening, the safety on the Scallion slows one down considerably. Unless a more intuitive safety is devised for a larger knife, the assist just seems to me to be slowing the process down.

I have the orange plastic Blackie Collins assisted opener, er... "letter opener," too. Guess why I have that one?

Orange!

Cheap!

Cool!

Oh, I wanted another new knife, too! Assisted openers? Ho-hum. :)


Thanks for postulating and thinkerizing, Sal! Keep that mind nimble!

Karl
 
Sure Thom, go ahead. I thinkered it up on my own but I'm sure someone else has probably thunk it up before, too.

Karl
 
I'd rather see a Spyderco with a fast-manual-action mechanism, such as a flipper (or who knows what else Spyderco might innovate) than an assisted-opening mechanism.

I would love to own an assisted opener myself (it was hard to resist buying the Heat), but more for the "toy" factor than anything else. Unfortunately, the legal situation is difficult enough that adding the assisted-opening factor just isn't worth it in my book.

What would be more useful would be a fast manual opening knife that would be clearly outside the definition of a "gravity knife" in all states. This would require that it does not rely on inertia to open the blade. (Don't know if this is possible.)

Regards,
cds1
 
While I agree that ripping off an idea is dishonest, I also believe that all is fair (legally permitting) in innovation and immitating. I'll try to explain as well as I can to not sound like a hypocrit.

New ideas of all sorts happen all the time, regardless of what we're talking about. But new ideas spawn improvments on themselves, and not necessarily from the originator.

Knife company X innovates a new, brilliant way of opening a knife. Takes the community by storm. The consumers are amazed. All the other companies are thinking "Why didn't we think of that?" Companies Y and Z take the idea, put their own twist on it, and sell it as their own. Is this ethical?

Sure.

How "ethical" something is is directly related to the age of the concept. Mr. Onion's Speed Safe is new and brilliant (all due congratulatory respect). But it's just one more way to open a knife. Go back far enough, and everybody's a copycat.

Who invented the folding knife? Wasn't Spyderco. Who invented the lock-back? Wasn't Spyderco. Who invented serrations? Wasn't Spyderco. You don't see Filippino knifemakers pissed off at Benchmade for stealing their idea of opening a knife. Dozens of companies make coil-sprung plungelock automatics. Many companies use thumb holes (although not perfect circles, which I guess is trademarked) like Spyderco as opening methods. Chris Reeve may have invented the frame lock, but it itself was derrived from the liner lock. And both are simple adaptations of something Mr. Newton figured out centuries ago. How does one patent 2 chunks of metal touching each other preventing either to move?

Yes, companies are copying Ken's assisted opening principle. But he didn't invent the spring.

In the end, different methods of opening a knife, locking it shut, etc are simply interpretations and utilizations of physics...and who invented physics? In the end, a knife is just a wedge, one of the 5 simple tools. And who invented the wedge?

"Innovations", in the end, aren't much more than new uses of old ideas and principles. And, as is usually the case, innovations get copied, and improved upon. If company X comes up with something new, and company Y takes the idea, improves upon it, and makes a better product, or alters it to cater to a different crowd, then more power to them. Spyderco might be able to claim to having realized the concept of a 1-handed opener, but they didn't invent the hand, or the knife.

Ken Onion invented the assisted opener. And he should forever be remembered and honored for it (I love my rainbow Leek). But to say that nobody can ever (at least for 25 years when the patent expires) use, alter, or build upon his idea...well, that just sounds silly to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top