Benchmade steals the spyderhole

Collecting and using knives for so long I have seen so many knife companies use other companies ideas on their own knives it doesn't even matter anymore...How about this...If Spyderco's knives are so good than why not let Benchmade use their "hole" whether it was asked for or not...If Spyderco is that good than peopkle will still pick spyderco knives over benchmades right? Or is the "hole" one of their best attributes to their knives? Doesn't make much sense to me...At least I don't see it as being a big deal...I am wondering if Sal even cares about this at all? Maybe he sold the idea to benchmade? How can anyone say that benchmade stole the idea without backing up their claims with facts?
 
severedthumbs said:
Spyderco got permission from Emerson to use the wave. They did not just start using it. The ignorance in this thread is just astounding.:thumbdn:

Wether you agree with it or not if a trademark is used with out permission it is theft, period!
Click to expand...

This is another curious area where knife nuts get religious.

I'm curious why Spyderco didn't get permission from Queen Cutlery, instead?

2mgnr7a.gif
 
I just thought of something...maybe its not a perfect cirlce? Even if Spyderco owns a patent on the circle hole design in the blade...the circle could be off just a weeeeeeeeeeee bit and that would make it an oval right? Then what? Possible Technicality?
 
severedthumbs said:
Well if you and Benchmade think it is an overly broad trademark you need to take that up with Spyderco and court. If you don't agree with something you don't just steal it! So regardless if you think the trademark is overly broad or not it is still Spydercos property and unauthorized use is stealing no matter how you look at it.
Click to expand...

The onus is on the trademark holder to defend, not on a third party defender or critic. And it isn't stealing, particularly if the holder cannot, or willnot defend it.

Must it be repeated that we don't know what Spyderco's legal status is with Benchmade on this issue.

severedthumbs said:
Also of importance Harley Davidson was never granted the trademark on the sound of the engine, they actually withdrew the application, while Spyderco has been granted the trademark for years now.
Click to expand...

Holding a trademark for years does not make it immune to challenges. Or criticism.
 
Shecky, brfore that patent ran out in 1987, did Spyderco make a knife that looked like that? That patent is only for a knife that looks exactly like the one pictured.
 
shecky said:
And it isn't stealing, particularly if the holder cannot, or willnot defend it.
Click to expand...

Can you explain that one to me, please? To me, that is like saying it isn't stealing if you take something as long as the other person doesn't report it to the police.
 
Keith Montgomery said:
Shecky, brfore that patent ran out in 1987, did Spyderco make a knife that looked like that? That patent is only for a knife that looks exactly like the one pictured.
Click to expand...

Indeed. However, that strange protrusion on the pivot end of the blade sure looks like, what, can it be?!?! A wave!

The idea was there in 1973. From Queen Cutlery. Was this not intellectual property then, too, even if that particular function was not patented? Would this not make Emerson's claim on the invention "unethical", a term some knife nuts like to throw out? Would it not violate the spirit of intellectual property, if not the intention?
 
cutlerylover said:
I just thought of something...maybe its not a perfect cirlce? Even if Spyderco owns a patent on the circle hole design in the blade...the circle could be off just a weeeeeeeeeeee bit and that would make it an oval right? Then what? Possible Technicality?
Click to expand...

Anyone care to comment on this? :confused: :(

I would also like to add that I am not taking either side, I like both companies as well as dozens of others...I am just throwing my thoughts out there...I don't have a "favorite" knife company, I love them all!!! Too many great knives out there to decide...Each company has its good models and its flops in my opinion so I don't pick one company over another...
 
Keith Montgomery said:
Can you explain that one to me, please? To me, that is like saying it isn't stealing if you take something as long as the other person doesn't report it to the police.
Click to expand...

You got it about right. The trademark holder is responsible for defending their property. If they don't, they can actually legally lose it, as it would be considered abandoned.

Then again, Congress has been heavily lobbied in recent years by software and entertainment companies, and the law has gotten much more stringent, even draconian in some cases.
 
It is definitely correct that if Benchmade did not get permission to use the hole, then it is up to Spyderco to defend their Trademark.
 
Come on guys...can't we agree to dissagree? These kinds of threads always get too personal and individuals get "attacked" personaly...it ends friendships...lol like a cival forum war...Spyderco guys VS. Benchmade guys...lol!
 
Keith Montgomery said:
The hole is no longer patented, so that really doesn't matter. If it was still patented, the difference in the hole would have to be substantial to not be a patent infringement.
Click to expand...

Thanks Keith for clearing that up, I guess your right...it would have to be significantly different in order to not be considered a copy...
 
I guess your right again...I just didn't see an end to this one...I guess we will get the facts eventually and some of us will just feel stupid while others go into denial...lol
 
shecky said:
Indeed. However, that strange protrusion on the pivot end of the blade sure looks like, what, can it be?!?! A wave!
Click to expand...

Interesting, but it wasn't patented as a feature for opening a folding knife. The patent was for the ornamental design of the knife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top