Benchmade steals the spyderhole

It's pretty telling of what a company thinks of their own product whan they disguise it as someone else's.

If BM did the right thing by getting permission this time, unlike the last time, I'll applaud them and I'd even consider buying that knife. If not, can you spell thief? B E N C H M A D E
 
Why do some people automatically assume someone stole a design when they don't know whether they actually did or not. I think it would be wise to withold judgement until the facts are found. Like maybe contacting Benchmade or Spyderco to inquire about it.
 
Just my 2 cents, and this is not my area . To this lay person I see a tradeMARK as just that a mark, symbol,image etc. the hole I see as a device as it has a function .

It would seem to me Spyderco is trying to use a trademark law to cover a function and not a symbol as the patent has run out . I think one day the round hole will be like the nail nick.


take a look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

could go either way i guess...
 
steveg30 said:
Its just a f----- hole. I don't call spyderco everytime I drill a hole. Grow up.
Click to expand...

I see you posted the exact same thing on the BM forums, in the discussion about the same topic. There is no reason to get so upset and defensive. Some of us (like several of the above posters) like to buy the work of innovators, while you are apparently happy with the work of imitators. Different strokes.;)

3G
 
Sure doesn't look like a Benchmade to me...... ;)

It's a nice knife at the price point. I take it these are Byrd competitors?


Lone Hunter said:
I think one day the round hole will be like the nail nick.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is just another step in that direction.


BENCHMADE said:
In addition, we have added a rounded thumbhole to the blade for ease of opening...
Click to expand...

Rounded? Looks "round" to me, not "rounded"

BENCHMADE said:
This blade is high carbon stainless steel cutlery grade alloy. But we simply like to refer to it as “better than the rest ”.
Click to expand...

Oh, Benchmade...... :rolleyes:
 
steveg30 said:
Its just a f----- hole. I don't call spyderco everytime I drill a hole. Grow up.
Click to expand...

In the knife business, it's theft if you didn't get permission to use it. Why is it so hard for a company to simply give credit when and where it's due? If some bag-suck at work lifted a report you put together and presented it to the bosses to get a promotion, would that be wrong? I'm amazed people don't see it that way. It's no different. I think BM makes excellent knives so it boggles my mind that they stoop to this. Did they hire some guys from Dark Ops lately?...
And I'll say again that if they did the right thing(got permission) this time I'll applaud them. Instead, you get the BM fans ignoring or down-playing what BM is doing.
 
Lone Hunter said:
Just my 2 cents, and this is not my area . To this lay person I see a tradeMARK as just that a mark, symbol,image etc. the hole I see as a device as it has a function .
Click to expand...

I'd thought about the same thing. Evidently they went over this in the trademark process. Since there are many other shapes that work just as well, by law the trademark applies. BM's own advertising has claimed that their elliptical hole works better than a round hole, more evidence other shapes work fine and the only reason to go with the round hole is to capitalize on the quality that the round hole represents. A company wanting a hole can go with an ellipse, or can slightly square up a corner, or do any number of other things.

It would seem to me Spyderco is trying to use a trademark law to cover a function and not a symbol as the patent has run out .
Click to expand...

What do people say when they see a knife with a round hole? "looks like a Spyderco". The hole is extremely associated with spyderco, and there is a definitely spyderco look. The trademark office has already ruled on the function thing. Reading the link you gave, the round hole DOES function as a brand identifier, and does NOT function as a competitive differentiator due to other hole shapes working fine.
 
steveg30 said:
Its just a f----- hole. I don't call spyderco everytime I drill a hole. Grow up.
Click to expand...

Okay, but Spyderco's trademark doesn't cover every hole in the world, so you and your drill are safe (although I think you know that, and are being deliberately obtuse). The trademark covers a big round hole in a blade, which is why when people see a round hole they associate a knife with Spyderco. That big round hole represents quality, and that representation is something Spyderco built. BM's own advertising has claimed that their elliptical hole works better than a round hole -- evidence that the only reason to go to a round hole is to cash in on the perception of quality that Spyderco and the round hole represent.

We still don't know if BM licensed that hole or not. But if not, it is trademark theft, pure and simple, despite the attempts by some BM fans to wish that away. No better than the Chinese knock-off companies.
 
I don't think that Benchmade need to "cash in on the perception of quality that Spyderco and the round hole represent".
They make a knife of high quality and have a good reputation for doing it.

Round holes do work better. I think Benchmade are finally admitting that.

I hope that there was some discussion between Benchmade and Spyderco before this design was made. It's not going to be good for the knife community if there wasn't.
 
This is only a problem if Benchmade is trying to pretend to be Spyderco. This is quite clearly not the case. I'll keep buying Spyderco and Benchmade...
 
Just a comment/question on the Skirmish/Mini Skirmish, which a lot of people accuse of stealing the hole:
The Skirmish was designed by Neil Blackwood, and if you look at his Skirmish you will see an opening hole. Would you guys still say that they are stealing from Spyderco or just trying to stay true to the original? I can see how something not designed by Blackwood is like copying a design, but when people start complaining about the Skirmish, I wonder whether it's right to bash BM for that or not.
 
There's a pretty goodchance Mr. Blackwood got permission to use the Round Hole and that 's fine. Spyderco has stated they'd grant permission to custom makers in limited quantities. I don't Bm is either.
 
Well, it's kind of inconceivable that Spyderco would feel its market was being harmed by a custom maker using their stuff. 600 dollar knives just aren't in the same shopping category as a Spyderco.
 
flipe8 said:
There's a pretty goodchance Mr. Blackwood got permission to use the Round Hole and that 's fine. Spyderco has stated they'd grant permission to custom makers in limited quantities. I don't Bm is either.
Click to expand...
My point is, Benchmade is using Blackwood's design, so is that still grounds for accusing Benchmade of outright stealing Spyderco's hole? Should they (Benchmade) have gone against what Blackwood may have had to say about the design and stick a thumbstud in there instead? For that particular knife, I'm not so sure I would agree with all those accusing Benchmade of stealing the spyderhole because it is just part of the original design. For this knife (the Vex), I'll wait and see what Spyderco has to say before I jump to any conclusions.
 
Joe Talmadge said:
Do you know this for sure, or are you guessing, SFK? Spyderco has said they will not license the round hole to other companies. I don't think Spyderco or Benchmade have commented on whether BM licensed it.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing, that's what I said in the title. I would hope BM would be above stealing designs that are clearly not their own. When did Sal say he wouldn't license the round hole? I thought I saw him say, not that long ago, that Boker had been given permission.:confused:

Frank

edit- Gave the Spyderco forum (both here and the Spydie homepage) a look and no word yet from Sal on either.

edit#2- I forgot about the Skirmish, I was just thinking of the original AFCK
 
ehhh said:
Just a comment/question on the Skirmish/Mini Skirmish, which a lot of people accuse of stealing the hole:
The Skirmish was designed by Neil Blackwood, and if you look at his Skirmish you will see an opening hole. Would you guys still say that they are stealing from Spyderco or just trying to stay true to the original? I can see how something not designed by Blackwood is like copying a design, but when people start complaining about the Skirmish, I wonder whether it's right to bash BM for that or not.
Click to expand...

Been beat to death a hundred times over, but...

Who held a gun to Benchmade's head and forced them to send the Skirmish into production with the round opening hole? They could have used their superior ambidextrous oval thumb-hole opener, correct? But wait, that would compromise the original design by a maker who did not get the license from Spyderco to use the round hole in the first place, right? Well, shame on Mr. Blackwood and shame on Benchmade for turning a blind eye.

I think Benchmade spoke loud-and-clear when they stopped paying for the license to use the Spyderco round opening hole on the early AFCK's and switched to the current oval hole.


Edit:
flipe8 said:
There's a pretty goodchance Mr. Blackwood got permission to use the Round Hole and that 's fine. Spyderco has stated they'd grant permission to custom makers in limited quantities. I don't Bm is either.
Click to expand...

Just for clarification, Mr. Blackwood never recieved permission to use the Spyderco round hole. See Sal's comments from an earlier thread. It's a very good read.
 
Joe what to me seems confusing is this ." if a feature gives a competitive advantage which is not related ENTIRELY to it function as a brand identifier, it can not be trademarked".

Is the round hole entirely about brand id ? I see it as no. It was made as a way to open a knife.In fact Spyderco first tried roughing up the sides of the blades, then making small indentations, then they finnaly just made a hole all the way through. They were not looking for a brand id, just a way to open a knife.

The fact that they first got a patent for it tells me Spyderco saw it first as a device , and only a trademark after the patent was running out.

Anywho, Spyderco is one of my favorite knife co. and if it was my call they could keep it for themselves for ever.
 
symphonyincminor said:
Been beat to death a hundred times over, but...

Who held a gun to Benchmade's head and forced them to send the Skirmish into production with the round opening hole? They could have used their superior ambidextrous oval thumb-hole opener, correct? But wait, that would compromise the original design by a maker who did not get the license from Spyderco to use the round hole in the first place, right? Well, shame on Mr. Blackwood and shame on Benchmade for turning a blind eye.

I think Benchmade spoke loud-and-clear when they stopped paying for the license to use the Spyderco round opening hole on the early AFCK's and switched to the current oval hole.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Blackwood wanted the hole to stay in the design, and Benchmade probably wanted a nice custom looking knife. I don't really know, but if I was a company contracting a custom maker, I would probably listen to the maker. I think those are valid reasons for keeping the hole. But I didn't know that Blackwood didn't have permission, so yeah that does seem like bad business. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
Trademark law is Trademark law, and whether we like it doesn't mean diddly-squat. The fact is that Spyderco has been given a Tademark for the hole and anyone else using that Trademark has to get permission to do so. If Benchmade did so, good. If they didn't, shame on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top