Benchmade steals the spyderhole

[Joe Talmadge]

I do not see any problems with this. Spyderco used the Emerson Wave feature on their Endura.

Spyderco worked with Emerson and got permission to use the wave. They didn't take Emerson's intellectual property, they did the right thing. You make a good point in showing that Spyderco did things the right way.

... and again, we still don't know the story here with the Vex, but Spyderco's use of the wave is above-board for sure.

 

[shecky]

It could prove to be very, very expensive for Benchmade. If they win, it will open up the use of the hole to all other knife companies.

It could also be very expensive for Spyderco, even if they win. This would be a good reason for them to pick their fights carefully. Spyderco already has lots of goodwill among consumers, fighting tooth and nail could cost them some of this and make them look petty.

 

[cutlerylover]

I will hopefully have some answers sent to me from both Spyderco and Benchmade by mid afternoon tomorrow...I will post their responses here word for word...

 

[Joe Talmadge]

If I were Benchmade I would argue that the picture of the Spyder on the blade is a trademark as is the Butterfly on the blade of a Benchmade. The hole is simply an opening device and that is not covered under a trademark. That is covered under a patent.

On the other hand, it's already precedent that a hole or series of holes can be trademarked. Spyderco can make a pretty convincing case that the single large hole is easily associated with Spyderco. The hole has a functional use as well, but again, easy enough to show that other shape holes are functional too. The first thing I'd do, were I Spyderco, is trot out Benchmade's old ads stating that their elliptical hole works better.

My guess is that even if Spyderco wanted to they could not do anything about it. I heard rumors that they took Benchmade to court over the use of the hole in the Skirmish and lost. If that rumor is true then Spyderco can't do jack.

I hadn't heard that. You'd think a ruling as important as this would be better-known. I do think, despite my previous posts, that this isn't totally clear-cut for Spyderco (I probably overdid it on the tone a bit). Obviously, BM's lawyers think they can defeat Spyderco's trademark.

 

[shecky]

I'd be interested to hear that rumor either validated or debunked. I've read it on the forums a few times and am reluctant to consider it at all until we get some credible info on that issue. (No offense, CaptainM)

It's funny, but my objection to Spyderco's use of the round hole as a trademark is probably legally weak at best, and based on my sense of fairness, that a circle is the default shape made when drilling a hole in metal or any material, and as such, is too generic to serve as a trademark. To me, it would be like trademarking the brass color of brass bolsters. I feel a trademark should be required to be just a little more distinctive.

That said, I think it was perfectly valid as a patent, presuming no prior art, either as a round hole, or any hole in the blade for that matter, intended as a means of opening.

 

[Artfully Martial]

Let's just say that Benchmade is borrowing the spyderhole for awhile.

 

[cutlerylover]

Let's just say that Benchmade is borrowing the spyderhole for awhile.

Thats a good way of putting it!

 

[flava]

Yeah, the beating must stop

 

[Hawkings]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Z

HAAAHHH Man thats priceless :thumbup:

 

[3Guardsmen]

If it weren't for Spyderco (and Sal Glesser), the tactical, folding knife industry would not have had pocket clips and one-handed, thumb-hole opening blades, as Sal & Spyderco invented the ideas and brought them to market first. Sal & Spyderco have been very good to Benchmade, even allowing them to license their Patented (Patent now expired) Spyderco hole on two models of knife, the AFCK and the Eclipse/Assent series, back when Benchmade was fairly new on the block.

A majority of the innovative designs Spyderco has brought to market have been "in house" designs. Whatever "outside" designs Spyderco has used, they have done so always with payment, permission, and/or credit. The same can not be said for several other major manufacturers.

It is very hard, especially for people who are new to this community and hobby, to understand just how innovative Spyderco has been over the years. In today's production folding knife market, materials like G10, Titanium, and ATS-34 are commonly seen, as are one-handed thumb-hole openers and pocket-clips. However, Spyderco was the very first production knife company to bring all of these things to market, along with inventing the pocket-clip and thumb-hole. You must remember, that in 1981 (when Spyderco introduced its "C01 Worker" model), nobody had seen a one-handed, thumb-hole opening, folding knife with a pocket clip, and thanks to a huge gamble taken by Sal Glesser and Spyderco, we have now these innovations!

Spyderco knives have been associated worldwide, since 1981, with a very distinct, perfectly round hole in the blades of their knives. In my opinion, and that of the Patent & Trademark Office of the United States of America, it is a perfectly fitting and well deserved Trademark, belonging solely to Spyderco Knives Inc.

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?

1) Because it is a Trademark that is legally owned by Spyderco Knives Inc.

2) Perhaps you're right. Maybe Sal sold his company, Spyderco, too, unbeknownst to all of us, to Benchmade?

The manner in which you prefaced your post is very telling. You stated, "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.."

I do not see any problems with this. Spyderco used the Emerson Wave feature on their Endura. I think this is going to be a great knife


:jerkit:

Spyderco, as they always have, obtained permission from Ernest Emerson himself to use his Patented (Pat. # 5.878.500) "wave" feature on the Enduras & Delicas. In addition, Spyderco pays royalties to Emerson, and prints his name and the Patent # on the blades of the knives that use the "wave" feature. Anything else you'd like to add or imply!?!

3G

 

[V-1]

I do not see any problems with this. Spyderco used the Emerson Wave feature on their Endura. I think this is going to be a great knife


:jerkit:

The BIG difference being that Spyderco licensed the wave concept from Emerson. Each and every waved Delica/Endura blade has Emerson's name and patent # etched on it.

One way is done above board with integrity and one is not. Pretty simple concept really.

 

[ghostrider]

WARNING This is what I feel is a good point..lol

If we are talking about the hole as being a mechanism than wouldn't that go the same for lokcing mechanisms? If so who has the lockback patent? Or the linerlock patent? They must be pretty upset at all the people using their idea huh...?

Spyderco paid Michael Walker for use of the liner lock during the period of the patent, and they still give credit to Michael Walker when they use that type lock. I don’t know about the patent period of the frame lock and mid lock, but I do know that Spyderco credits Chris Reeve with the frame lock, and it’s pretty well known that Al Mar helped Sal Glesser get his start in the knife business.

Another difference is that because they used it almost exclusively during the patent period, they were able to prove a case for a trademark. As Mr. Glesser explained, the trademark had to be earned. Spyderco had to prove their case before being awarded the trademark.

Yeah, but you have to admit too many companies use both mechanisms to have any of the patents hold up right? Wouldn't that mean that dozens and dozens of knife companies including all of our favorite ones would be in violation? What about the thumbstud? I could go on and on...Inserts, lanyard holes, scroll work, liners, blade shapes, serrations? Who has the rights to these ideas? Everyone uses them...

That's assuming there ever was a patent for such items.

I know that Spyderco paid Michael Walker for his lock design during the patent period, so that isn’t an issue. I’m guessing that the patent for the other locks you mentioned have run out, so you point is just kind of pointless on that point.

All the other features that you mentioned could also have probably been patented (I’m guessing), but eventually patents run out. I would imagine that if someone were to put the same feature on all their knives produced, then they might also have a case for a trademark. Just because everyone uses them doesn’t make it right. Some people just don’t care about right and wrong.


Regardless of whether or not they can legally use the round hole; Benchmade should at least credit Spyderco with the round hole. It’s the right thing to do.

As to the byrd comet, and the Schrade hole: While I do see a similarity in appearance, as a person who has used the byrds I truly believe that the comet would work better due to it’s larger hole, and the fact that it is placed better. Had the byrd comet shown a stronger resemblance to the Schrade hole, then I would probably start a thread on the Spyderco forums asking if they had permission.

 

[Cougar Allen]

Once again, I see a lot of speculation on legal issues, mostly from people who don't seem to know much about it. A few facts (which you might as well continue to ignore) ...

A trademark and a patent are not the same thing.

Patents can be licensed.

Patents expire.

Lockbacks and liner locks were both invented a long time ago. The Roman Empire had no patent office, and even if they had been patented the patents would have expired.

Michael Walker invented the ball detent, an improvement on the liner lock. He patented it, but his patent has expired.

That's all moot as far as we're concerned -- legal issues don't get settled on Bladeforums. I'm still wondering if people will buy it. If Chevrolet put a logo of a prancing horse on a Camaro would it sell?

How do the die-hard Benchmade fans feel about buying a Benchmade with a round opening hole?

Do the die-hard Spyderco fans want to buy this knife? It's not a Spyderco....

What about the people who like both brands? Do you like that knife? Do you like it better this way than you would if it had an oval opening hole?

 

[flipe8]

I think it's a really cool looking knife , but there's no way I'd buy it if BM didn't get permission to use the Round Hole. In my own little mind, I'd be encouraging the "theft" and actually taking away form Spyderco. Can't help it, it's the way I see it. If you knowingly buy stolen goods, you're no better than the thief. This may be over-simplifying the subject at hand, but morally that's how it is for me.

 

[flipe8]

A trademark and a patent are not the same thing.

There seems to be a lot of forumites whom can't or won't accept this.

 

[flipe8]

How do the die-hard Benchmade fans feel about buying a Benchmade with a round opening hole?

If you like it, maybe you have a deep, dark ,little secret desire to actually be a Spydie fan .

 

[samhain73]

The BIG difference being that Spyderco licensed the wave concept from Emerson. Each and every waved Delica/Endura blade has Emerson's name and patent # etched on it.

One way is done above board with integrity and one is not. Pretty simple concept really.

Spyderco won't even make a framelock without giving credit to Chris Reeves!
Obviously Spyderco's buisness ethic is not called into play here. The problem is, is it wrong that Benchmade took the hole without asking? If that is indeed what they did then yes, it lacks buisness ethics. BUT....think about where you work? Can any of you really say that in your work expericence, you have not seen many things done by management, the corparate office, or just co-workers that tested or even broke any sense of ethics? It just seems that in the buisness world, that ethics are not even a factor anymore, just $$. Until people frown on greed and the allmighty dollar in general, this kinda thing will happen forever. Because it always has. Spyderco is just old fasioned, and some of us apriciate that.

 

[Artfully Martial]

The idea of owning an idea is really amusing. Impossible, yes, but, in an inpractically comical way.

I think I'll buy one for several family members too.

 

[TorzJohnson]

Once again, I see a lot of speculation on legal issues, mostly from people who don't seem to know much about it.

Just as every ship has a Sea Lawyer, and every prison block has a Jailhouse Lawyer... every Spyder hole infringement thread has its share of Knife Lawyers.

 

[The Mastiff]

I'm a person that has bought both companies knives. If Benchmade has, as it turns out used the Spyderhole without permission, I would never buy any benchmade product with a hole in it. In addition I'd have to rethink buying any benchmade product as I 1) won't encourage theft, and 2) wonder why benchmade has to stoop so low as to do business like this. If they are, I wouldn't trust ANY product of theirs any more.

If there is going to be litigation both companies would have been instructed by their lawyers to not do just what the posters here are calling for them to do. Make statements in public at places like this.

I read in a magazine that Sal & his company helped Benchmade get started in the business by contracting out to Les Dessasi"s ( Spelling?) shop. If that story is true what a fitting way to pay back someone that helped you get a start. Steal their property. Sarcasm/off JL