Benchmade does not condone the Ganzo rip off of the Axis lock!

[Duane Sanders]

You can't be serious Duane.

Where exactly in their statement to you do they say they are fine with Ganzo's version of their Axis lock? Point it out.

Cuz.....in their response to me they say explicitly that they do not condone what Ganzo is doing. They even go so far as to apologize to me for the miss information I was given (you information).

You also say repeatedly that Ganzo calls their Axis lock a different name but when you go to their website they in fact call it the Axis lock. What give there Duane?

I don't know why you are spreading this misinformation. Do you just like to lie? Are you trolling? Or are a very confused person? I don't know and I don't care. The facts are what they are and you need to stop spreading misinformation that legitimizes patent theft.

They said they go after people who do copy it. Maybe you could clarify why they don't go after Ganzo for everyone. You talk like you know why.

There is a reason ganzo can sell them and others can't. Answer I got indicates it is similar and not a copy. Or according to you ganzo would not be able to sell it based on BM does go after copiers.

Just trying to get to the bottom of it like you are. I don't appreciate the troll remark. Stick to the facts.

 

[shinyedges]

They can't go after everyone who rips off their lock. it costs money and time to pursue those kind of legal matters and often the over seas producers are out of reach.

They said they go after people who do copy it. Maybe you could clarify why they don't go after Ganzo for everyone. You talk like you know why.

There is a reason ganzo can sell them and others can't. Answer I got indicates it is similar and not a copy. Or according to you ganzo would not be able to sell it based on BM does go after copiers.

Just trying to get to the bottom of it like you are. I don't appreciate the troll remark. Stick to the facts.

 

[Duane Sanders]

They can't go after everyone who rips off their lock. it costs money and time to pursue those kind of legal matters and often the over seas producers are out of reach.

I understand all of that. BM says they do go after patent copies. It would cost less than the tooling for one line to squash Ganzo.

There's more to it and part of that is the ganzo is similar, not a copy. I can come to grips with reality. They make them, they sell them, people buy them. What benchmade said is you won't buy a copy.

More information is needed on why they should not. someone has a problem with the reality of the issue and It is not me.

 

[marcinek]

I understand all of that. BM says they do go after patent copies. It would cost less than the tooling for one line to squash Ganzo.

And you know that how?

Really, you need to stop pulling "facts" out of the air. It doesn't advance the discussion at all.

 

[Duane Sanders]

And you know that how?

Really, you need to stop pulling "facts" out of the air. It doesn't advance the discussion at all.

Fact: any of us can buy a ganzo axis lock right now, BM said they stop fakes.


That's not pulling anything from the air.

 

[craytab]

Here you go.

http://community.freepatentsonline.com/wiki/when-does-a-patent-expire

"In patent law, when a priority is validly claimed, the date of filing of the first application, called the priority date, is considered to be the effective date of filing for the examination of novelty and inventive step or non-obviousness for the subsequent application claiming the priority of the first application. In other words, the prior art which is taken into account for examining the novelty and inventive step or non-obviousness of the invention claimed in the subsequent application would not be everything made available to the public before the filing date (of the subsequent application) but everything made available to the public before the priority date, i.e. the date of filing of the first application."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_right

US patents are effective from the date of filing, not date granted; the priority date is the legal date of filing.

I still think you are wrong on this. Look up the actual patent information here (RE41,259):

http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair

You will notice there is no mention of a priority date. Priority refers to protection prior to the date of issue if I am reading it right. Also notice where it says "Issue date of Patent: 04-27-2010". That seems very clear to me. You can also look up the entire history of the patent including when fees were paid and when the actual certificate of issue was mailed. Screen grab so folks don't have to go through looking it up:

 

[shinyedges]

They can't afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys or even millions fighting every rip off of their lock, spyderco is a prime example of this. They go after SOME of them.

Perhaps benchmade will eventually bring legal action on ganzo, but they primarily make knives and tools, if they allocate too much resources to fight every rip off it negatively effects profits and hurts the company. picking and choosing battles is what they do, but just because they are not currently taking action against ganzo doesn't mean they wont in the future or that what ganzo is doing is permitted.

Fact: any of us can buy a ganzo axis lock right now, BM said they stop fakes.


That's not pulling anything from the air.

 

[craytab]

Duane, BM can't go after Ganzo because THEY ARE BASED IN CHINA by a non-American Company! It is really simple.

At this point you need to prove the things you are saying. Provide the correspondence you had with Benchmade, I have and it is counter to what you said. You can email the person I talked to and ask her for clarification yourself.

You are pulling stuff out of the air. You made a huge leap from BM telling you they "go after people who copy" to "since the don't go after Ganzo it is not a copy". BM Told me it is a copy. They will tell anyone who asks. Why you have a problem understanding what they are saying and what is going on here but what does need to happen is you need to stop spread completely in accurate information.

Fact: any of us can buy a ganzo axis lock right now, BM said they stop fakes.

But wait? You said they called it an Axle lock, right? Even though it takes 5 seconds of typing to disprove that lie. Your story is falling apart and I am now wondering why you are doing this.

 

[shinyedges]

I already told him this in post 42... duane is a hard headed one but I don't think he has an agenda so to speak.

Maybe he has an issue with admitting he was wrong or knowing when to throw in the towel. Either way his future here will be short if he argues every battle until he's blue in the face without any thing to back it up.

Duane, BM can't go after Ganzo because THEY ARE BASED IN CHINA by a non-American Company! It is really simple.

At this point you need to prove the things you are saying. Provide the correspondence you had with Benchmade, I have and it is counter to what you said. You can email the person I talked to and ask her for clarification yourself.

You are pulling stuff out of the air. You made a huge leap from BM telling you they "go after people who copy" to "since the don't go after Ganzo it is not a copy". BM Told me it is a copy. They will tell anyone who asks. Why you have a problem understanding what they are saying and what is going on here but what does need to happen is you need to stop spread completely in accurate information.




But wait? You said they called it an Axle lock, right? Even though it takes 5 seconds of typing to disprove that lie. Your story is falling apart and I am now wondering why you are doing this.

 

[Lee48]

Ganzo sells their knives as "Ganzo" knives, not Benchmade knives. If Ganzo put a butterfly on the blade and marketed their knives as "Benchmades" they would be infringing on a legal US trademark. Under those circumstances, the knives could be impounded and destroyed once they hit the US mainland. Just like counterfeit CDs, DVDs and Calvin Klein jeans.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not an expert on patents and trademarks. I think (key word is "think", not "know") patents are handled differently from trademarks. And I presume the difference is enough to make it difficult to impossible for Benchmade to prevent a China-based company from copying their patented design. And, if the 2016 date of patent expiration is correct, what's the point anyway? Pursuing an issue that is about to expire is a waste of time, effort and money for Benchmade.

 

[craytab]

Ganzo sells their knives as "Ganzo" knives, not Benchmade knives. If Ganzo put a butterfly on the blade and marketed their knives as "Benchmades" they would be infringing on a legal US trademark. Under those circumstances, the knives could be impounded and destroyed once they hit the US mainland. Just like counterfeit CDs, DVDs and Calvin Klein jeans.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not an expert on patents and trademarks. I think (key word is "think", not "know") patents are handled differently from trademarks. And I presume the difference is enough to make it difficult to impossible for Benchmade to prevent a China-based company from copying their patented design. And, if the 2016 date of patent expiration is correct, what's the point anyway? Pursuing an issue that is about to expire is a waste of time, effort and money for Benchmade.

One of the biggest problems with going after Ganzo is that many of their sales come directly from China in small packages and are sent directly to private citizens.

 

[marcinek]

Fact: any of us can buy a ganzo axis lock right now, BM said they stop fakes.

That's not pulling anything from the air.

And that has diddlysquat to do with your "fact" that

It would cost less than the tooling for one line to squash Ganzo.

And fiurthermore, you said that BM told you

As for Axis lock and people making it. We do not license it and do not grant permission for factories or custom knife makers to make the mechanism In Their products. They are actually doing it illegally and we have Pursued a few of them. It is also important to mention That some people and brands make something That look similar but is actually not infringing on our patent."

So your claims that they go after all knives they consider fakes in is direct contradiction with what you told us they told you.

I mean you are trying to claim that since they dont go after them, they don't consider them a fake.

You pulled that out of the air.

 

[craytab]

And that has diddlysquat to do with your "fact" that



And fiurthermore, you said that BM told you



So your claims that they go after all knives they consider fakes in is direct contradiction with what you told us they told you.

I mean you are trying to claim that since they dont go after them, they don't consider them a fake.

You pulled that out of the air.

Yup. I made this point to him in the last thread. It is one of the first things you learn when Sociology or Psychology research methods. As Ice cream sales rise so does the murder rate. Does that mean ice cream is causing people to murder each other. Nope. It is what we call a spurious relationship. Just because you can buy a Ganzo ripoff doesn't mean Benchmade is fine with the ripping off the axis lock.

 

[chiral.grolim]

Here you go.

http://community.freepatentsonline.com/wiki/when-does-a-patent-expire

"In patent law, when a priority is validly claimed, the date of filing of the first application, called the priority date, is considered to be the effective date of filing for the examination of novelty and inventive step or non-obviousness for the subsequent application claiming the priority of the first application. In other words, the prior art which is taken into account for examining the novelty and inventive step or non-obviousness of the invention claimed in the subsequent application would not be everything made available to the public before the filing date (of the subsequent application) but everything made available to the public before the priority date, i.e. the date of filing of the first application."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_right

US patents are effective from the date of filing, not date granted; the priority date is the legal date of filing.

It's already been pointed out, but "priority right" has to do with who filed a patent first in one country and the time they have to file that same patent in other countries to secure international protection - the time limit is usually <1 year, clearly not relevant to the current discussion. Once they DO file in other countries within that time-frame, those applications reference back to the original application and its filing date = the "priority date".

 

[marcinek]

Yup. I made this point to him in the last thread. It is one of the first things you learn when Sociology or Psychology research methods. As Ice cream sales rise so does the murder rate. Does that mean ice cream is causing people to murder each other. Nope. It is what we call a spurious relationship. Just because you can buy a Ganzo ripoff doesn't mean Benchmade is fine with the ripping off the axis lock.

Its more than spurious, its wrong according to what he claims they told him.

They said, of the infringing makers/models, they have pursued a few of them.

That means there are a majority of infringements that they have not pursued.

I mean, its what he told us they said.

That does not mean that if they have not pursued a maker, what they are doing is OK with them.

I don't know where he is pulling that one from.

He is refuting his own argument.

 

[Duane Sanders]

Duane, BM can't go after Ganzo because THEY ARE BASED IN CHINA by a non-American Company! It is really simple.

At this point you need to prove the things you are saying. Provide the correspondence you had with Benchmade, I have and it is counter to what you said. You can email the person I talked to and ask her for clarification yourself.

You are pulling stuff out of the air. You made a huge leap from BM telling you they "go after people who copy" to "since the don't go after Ganzo it is not a copy". BM Told me it is a copy. They will tell anyone who asks. Why you have a problem understanding what they are saying and what is going on here but what does need to happen is you need to stop spread completely in accurate information.




But wait? You said they called it an Axle lock, right? Even though it takes 5 seconds of typing to disprove that lie. Your story is falling apart and I am now wondering why you are doing this.

First thing that's off with your screen shot is you are looking at the patent for a lock BM does not use. The patent number for the BM axis lock is 5,737,841.

Look up what that one says. It lists the application date, and issue date and maintenance fees.

You're applying a patent for an apple to an orange.

 

[craytab]

It's already been pointed out, but "priority right" has to do with who filed a patent first in one country and the time they have to file that same patent in other countries to secure international protection - the time limit is usually <1 year, clearly not relevant to the current discussion. Once they DO file in other countries within that time-frame, those applications reference back to the original application and its filing date = the "priority date".

Thanks, I knew it didn't make sense in this case.

Its more than spurious, its wrong according to what he claims they told him.

They said, of the infringing makers/models, they have pursued a few of them.

That means there are a majority of infringements that they have not pursued.

I mean, its what he told us they said.

That does not mean that if they have not pursued a maker, what they are doing is OK with them.

I don't know where he is pulling that one from.

He is refuting his own argument.

What he is saying makes Benchmade and this forum look bad while at the same time making Ganzo look good. I don't get why he is doing it but I hope I have provided enough evidence to counter his wildly inaccurate claims.

 

[craytab]

First thing that's off with your screen shot is you are looking at the patent for a lock BM does not use. The patent number for the BM axis lock is 5,737,841.

Look up what that one says. It lists the application date, and issue date and maintenance fees.

You're applying a patent for an apple to an orange.

My goodness man. Could you get anything else more wrong? The patent you are showing is in the same family but not current. I don't know what your BM knives say on them but the 810 I have right in front of me says RE41259: http://www.google.com/patents/USRE41259 Which is the current patent.

My information is accurate. Yours is just wrong. when you talk smack you may want to fact check a little bit. How many more Strikes Duane?

 

[marcinek]

What he is saying makes Benchmade and this forum look bad while at the same time making Ganzo look good. I don't get why he is doing it but I hope I have provided enough evidence to counter his wildly inaccurate claims.

I don't know and don't care what his motivation is, honestly.

I just see someone making a claims not backed up by evidence (that it would cost less than the tooling for one line to squash this Chinese company through the legal system), and also making a claim that is contradicted by evidence that he gave himself.

Its odd.

Whatever. Dude wants to buy knives with "shady" locks...that's on him, not anybody else. Free country.

 

[Duane Sanders]

My goodness man. Could you get anything else more wrong? The patent you are showing is in the same family but not current. I don't know what your BM knives say on them but the 810 I have right in front of me says RE41259: http://www.google.com/patents/USRE41259 Which is the current patent.

My information is accurate. Yours is just wrong. when you talk smack you may want to fact check a little bit. How many more Strikes Duane?

https://www.google.com/patents/US57...ved=0CBsQ6AEwAGoVChMIq7_m2PLWyAIVyeMmCh3N_wKW

Your number is a continuation. Not a patent number. Read the paragraph after description. Notice the priority date is still 1996.

You gave us a continuation number after the maintenance fee was paid. The patent number to the continuation number you gave is still the same. It does not update the patent fresh and new to 2010.

That number is not a patent number or an application number.