Axis Lock and its Use

Aldebaran said:
When did I say I was using anything I said to lower morals. I was pointing out a hypocrisy and nothing else. Stop applying motives to e that I have not expressed.

Are you trying to say that I support IP theft? If so, you keep ignoring things I say against it. I am trying to point out problems with the thin black lines people are drawing and trying to impose on others.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you do -- you have assured me that you do not and just today I read a post where you condemn a knifemaker for cloning -- but these arguments have been made by people who seek to justify buying knives I find distasteful. I feel like I have to point that out.
 
GermanyChris said:
But if patients didn't exist or were severely limited then that wouldn't be an issue. My name is mentioned in quite a few open source projects for code I've contributed I don't get angry that Canonical and Red Hat and others make money off my time and code but I do however lime the fact that my OS is both more stable and functional now that my code is there, and code and open source enable the worlds commerce.
Click to expand...
Big big difference between something created as OS vs something created as protected IP...
 
Personally, I am for patents. What industry would spend billions on a tech consumers are clamoring for if it was guaranteed to bring you to bankruptcy and lay offs once the tech was achieved. I worked for publicly granted scientists and saw progress move at a snails pace.

Even non-paid academics and researchers are constantly worried about security and theft of their intellectual property. Talk to PhD students about worries about ideas in their thesis being stolen by other students before publishing.

Laws can't change someone's morals, all they do is change someone's actions. I don't believe patents or trademarks in the knife industry are in the"saving people's lives" category. I see them more related to counterfeit laws that are more specific to the fashion industry.

In that "fashion industry" sense, patent and trademark law is meant more to protect the consumer who is legitimately trying to purchase a particular brand, and secondarily to protect the financial model of the company in question. I also see it as a protection of small companies trying to build the better mouse trap. Bigger companies can take a hit from changing manufacturing from sales of their other models and with logistics already in place. Think of Walmart killing off all the local stores with their penny margins.
 
Last edited:
Disclaimer: long-winded anecdote and opinions ahead!

Years back, my wife and I were in a bar in Bangkok, her sipping on a whiskey something-or-other, and me drinking my crillionth Beer Chang of the day. I had been vaguely aware of the soundtrack playing - it was a Thai band with a floaty female vocal playing acoustic rock of some stripe, but I couldn't place the tune. We talked, and admired the scene, and finally, there it was! - I was listening to a cover of the entirety of Appetite for Destruction, and it totally rocked!

Now, I am sure that, had I asked, I could have spent a dollar or two on a burned CD of that band's album, maybe at the bar, certainly at a vendor out on the street. Was the band profiteering of of GnR's artistic work? I dunno: sure, in one sense (they didn't write the songs), but not really, in another (not anymore than a cafe act taking tips on their cover of someone else's work; they weren't claiming the work as their own). Geffen likely has more of an issue with that Thai rock band than GnR ever would.

I suppose my point is that IP may be an important facet of our consumer society, but it's a nuanced and complicated thing. Blatant knock-offs lie on one end of that spectrum, 'borrowing' technology (whether its protected (Axis lock) or not (liner-lock)) is another. Think of all the different trade names for any particular steel recipe, for instance! M390 = 204P = 20CV... we know that the magic comes from Brand-X's ability to manipulate that steel to their particular advantage.

Recently, I have taken a job at a tech company that so viciously protects its IP that, well, I really can't say too much more about it... Point is, the best way to make a thing is to make that thing better than anyone else. Keep your trade secrets secret, let the imitators do their best, and, as long as you have the right formula (and a little luck), you'll come out on top (capitalism!).

I've spent another lifetime in the cycling industry, and in 2007 (if I remember right), watched Specialized (a top-tier brand known for aggressively pursuing IP infringements) literally sue the pants off of Mountain Cycle. Mountain Cycle - a Portland based company - was selling a new road bike named the Stumptown (a nickname for Portland), which Specialized claimed sounded too similar to Stumpjumper, a mountain bike that they had been marketing for many years. Legal fees, etc., put Mountain Cycle out of business. The two bikes couldn't have been more dissimilar to anyone paying attention.

Going back to another spectrum: on one end there are creative types - the ones who bring new ideas to the table, and on the other end are the thieves and liars and cheaters and counterfeiters. Somewhere in the middle are ones who realize their own limitations, and are OK with doing what they can with someone else's ideas, while never claiming those ideas as their own and giving credit where it is due.
 
GatorMedic said:
From what has been said on these forums it seems the axis lock patent ended this year or sometime recently. That makes it legally fair game to anyone. Not sure why there would be a whole bunch of people upset by its use in other brands now that its patent is expired. What makes you think there would be such a backlash on these forums about it?
Click to expand...
As far as morality goes, if Benchmade feels free to use Spyderco’s round hole, then others using the Axis Lock is karma at work...and does not nother me in the slightest, protected or not.
 
SpySmasher said:
Baffles me too. Though I don't use it as an argument to lower the moral bar.

No, that's false. The Chinese are signatories to all of the major intellectual property rights treaties since 1980. The fact that you can't enforce it in any practical way doesn't change the other fact that under international treaties to which the Chinese are signatories, these U.S. patents should be protected. This line of bullshit is spread too often by people who are looking to excuse their support of IP theft.
Click to expand...
You wouldn’t happen to drive a Ford, or GM, or Chrysler, would you?
 
ursamajor said:
As far as morality goes, if Benchmade feels free to use Spyderco’s round hole, then others using the Axis Lock is karma at work...and does not nother me in the slightest, protected or not.
Click to expand...

IIRC this issue has been settled and Benchmade got the appropriate permission to do that.
 
ursamajor said:
As far as morality goes, if Benchmade feels free to use Spyderco’s round hole, then others using the Axis Lock is karma at work...and does not nother me in the slightest, protected or not.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you quoted my post for your response to this thread... I have no knowledge if the round hole is patented or who patented it. Benchmade has been using it for years so I'm sure if it was patent protected by Spyderco then Spyderco would have gone after them. But like I said, I don't know if a round hole is patented or for that matter if a thumb stud is/was patented.
 
I don't have a problem with people using other people's general design ideas or specific features after the patent has expired. It is wrong to violate patent laws or to blatantly copy a design and try to pass it off as an original. Personally, I hope other companies start to use the axis lock because it's a great lock and Benchmade has had the exclusive rights to it for long enough. It was wrong for someone else to use the axis lock (by name or not) before the patent expired. But, any sympathy I might have had for Benchmade because of other companies legally using the axis lock was lost by their use of the spydie hole.
 
This is all based on hearsay but seems to be relatively accurate.

The round hole was first patented, and then trademarked.

Way back when for their early knives the one company was searching for a maker to build their blades. The second maker entered into an agreement to do this. Coming away from that the second maker felt they were given the rights to use the hole on their own blades for as long as they chose to do so. The first maker doesn't agree but they also tend to take the high road and don't air this out in public.

The landscape was very different then for knife making and the first maker along with the round hole also brought the pocket clip to the table. In their day they were supplying those clips to their competitors like Cold Steel for example and others. I think that really led to a lot of the cross production and collaboration you still see today. And no doubt to some of the weird competitions between makers that we see today.
 
ursamajor said:
The reason I ask, is that the big 3 blatantly ripped off Kearns’ intermittent wiper invention. It was so bad, that he ended up having a mental breakdown over it.
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah. I think they made a movie about that.
 
I'd still like some clarification on why it's been ok for Shirogorov to use the axis lock without permission:rolleyes:.

~Chip
 
Aldebaran said:
With your logic, people should not buy from Spyderco. They support a company in China that were/are making fakes, copies and IP theft, by having knives made for Spyderco.
Click to expand...

Wonder if some clones originated from American companies outsourcing jobs to international makers?

Would anyone be surprised if some product went out the back door from the same line, just rebranded?
 
91bravo said:
If I invented something, I surely wouldn't want anyone else out there to use my invention for economical gain. That's why I would get a patent...
Click to expand...

Your inventions belong to the government now comrade. Please enjoy your bonus .200 kg ration of bread and 1/2 ply toilet paper.
 
WValtakis said:
I'd still like some clarification on why it's been ok for Shirogorov to use the axis lock without permission:rolleyes:.

~Chip
Click to expand...

Here is what I have managed to hear so far, i was wondering the same thing

Apparently because they did it only once on a folder made in very small batches that was a clone of a then recently discontinued Benchmade. This small batch was done as the request of a group of Russian knife enthusiasts to make up for the discoed Benchmades. Apparently this, along with the fact they sold them for an astronomical price makes it ok.
 
Lapedog said:
Here is what I have managed to hear so far, i was wondering the same thing

Apparently because they did it only once on a folder made in very small batches that was a clone of a then recently discontinued Benchmade. This small batch was done as the request of a group of Russian knife enthusiasts to make up for the discoed Benchmades. Apparently this, along with the fact they sold them for an astronomical price makes it ok.
Click to expand...

First let me say i'm excluding Fakes (using the other makers mark) and only talking about use of patented ideas without license.

The base logic here seems to be
  1. What was the extent of the infringement (Limited)
  2. Is the infringing product substantially similar to the patented product (Yes)
  3. Did the infringing product compete with the patent holders products (Arguable)
In the case of Shirogorov, it sounds like the extent was limited to one set of knives. However, it was substantially similar to the patented product.

You could make arguments on both sides about it competing with Benchmade, both on price and it being discontinued. I would argue that it did to a limited extent compete the Benchmade brand products.

Overall the infringement is there, but minimal.

I would ask what people would think about a Chinese design based on the Shirogorov? I would think it would fall into the same category?

Reguarding Ganzo, is really competing with Benchmade? Is the person who would spend $200 the 940 instead buying a Ganzo knife?
 
Last edited:
I've never heard of "Ganzo" before but if a third party has in fact been blatantly infringing on Benchmade's patent for several years, and Benchmade is aware of the infringement, and Benchmade has not made any efforts to block "Ganzo" through a cease and desist or other means, then most courts would argue Benchmade has lost their intellectual property protection. US courts do not like selective enforcement of IP and unless the IP holder aggressively goes after any infringer, the courts will not uphold lawsuits against selective infringers.

This is why Disney and other big entities will go after even a child who decided to print up Mickey Mouse shirts to sell on a street corner. If Disney did not aggressively pursue action against even the smallest infringer, they lose their ability to go after big infringers.

That said, the knife community generally is one who dislikes people who steal IP and even if someone cannot be successfully sued for infringing on the IP, the market place may boycott the item and it won't sell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top