Benchmade using spyderhole?

[ghostrider]

The hole patent expired. So is life and get over it.

Such hostility.

Who is taking issue with a violation of the patent? The issue is over the Trademark and has nothing to do with the patent other that the failure to credit the originator.

Now it is a trademark issue.

As brought up elsewhere, there may be a legal basis for interpreting the trademark as improper (as the hole provides utility)…

That doesn't excuse them from theft of intelectual property. That's what you have when you use someone's idea without giving him or her credit for the idea (and that is most assuredly what it happening here, even if Spyderco gave them permission).

…

If that were found to be the case, somehow I don't think the knife making world would be greatfull for the opening up of the feature to other knives (but I bet they would add the feature to their lines post-haste).

So, from what I can gather, Benchmade claims in their adds that their oval hole is better than the Spyderhole, and now they intentionally sell their customers something that they consider to be an inferior product? And this is just because they want to attack someone else’s Trademark in a nefarious way. Wow! The rationalization to excuse dishonest behavior seeks no bounds (and this isn't just dirrected at you orthongonal, for it seems to be a common theme in these debates). I wasn’t paying attention to the BM adds before so if they didn’t make that claim then my above statement wouldn’t apply, excepting that not giving credit is still dishonest. And please don’t anyone try to use the “it’s just a circle/hole” argument, because that is just a lie. If it were just a circle/hole, then BM wouldn’t be using it.

Here’s the thing:
The common theme in these threads has been that nobody is complaining about Benchmade using the Spyderhole, but that people have taken issue with BM using the Spyderhole dishonestly (because they aren’t giving credit to the originator, and possibly using a Trademark without permission). And, other people have attacked the calls for honesty, and integrity.


The other poster was right when he intimated that this is an indicator of the moral decline of our society. I truly believe that this has less to do with legality and more to do with people wanting to justify their own lack of morality and integrity, because even if BM were acting within the legal requirements, what they are doing is still unethical because they aren’t crediting the originator. This concept is so basic that most people learned this when they had to write their first research paper or book report in school.

Someone once said that the mediocre tend to try to tear down the superior.

P.S.
For those of you who plane to buy one to offset the protest of others boycotting, you can also buy one in my place untill such time as we hear that they are doing it under liscense, and the credit Sal Glesser for his inovative idea.

 

[The Deacon]

The hole patent expired. So is life and get over it.

Now it is a trademark issue.

As brought up elsewhere, there may be a legal basis for interpreting the trademark as improper (as the hole provides utility).

If that were found to be the case, somehow I don't think the knife making world would be greatfull for the opening up of the feature to other knives (but I bet they would add the feature to their lines post-haste).

Legally the question would not be whether the hole provides utility, but whether a round hole provides greater utility than a hole of any other shape. Painting a tractor provides utility, but painting it a certain shade of green still infringes John Deere's trademark.

The unfortunate truth though is that defending a trademark in court can be very expensive and the chances of your case being heard by a judge who is well versed on trademark law are very slim. That however does not make infringing it "right". And the question then becomes, if a company's ethics allow it to do something like this, can you really trust them to back their products up?

 

[orthogonal1]

Such hostility.

Who is taking issue with a violation of the patent? The issue is over the Trademark and has nothing to do with the patent other that the failure to credit the originator. That doesn't excuse them from theft of intelectual property. That's what you have when you use someone's idea without giving him or her credit for the idea (and that is most assuredly what it happening here, even if Spyderco gave them permission). So, from what I can gather, Benchmade claims in their adds that their oval hole is better than the Spyderhole, and now they intentionally sell their customers something that they consider to be an inferior product? And this is just because they want to attack someone else’s Trademark in a nefarious way. Wow! The rationalization to excuse dishonest behavior seeks no bounds (and this isn't just dirrected at you orthongonal, for it seems to be a common theme in these debates). I wasn’t paying attention to the BM adds before so if they didn’t make that claim then my above statement wouldn’t apply, excepting that not giving credit is still dishonest. And please don’t anyone try to use the “it’s just a circle/hole” argument, because that is just a lie. If it were just a circle/hole, then BM wouldn’t be using it.

Here’s the thing:
The common theme in these threads has been that nobody is complaining about Benchmade using the Spyderhole, but that people have taken issue with BM using the Spyderhole dishonestly (because they aren’t giving credit to the originator, and possibly using a Trademark without permission). And, other people have attacked the calls for honesty, and integrity.


The other poster was right when he intimated that this is an indicator of the moral decline of our society. I truly believe that this has less to do with legality and more to do with people wanting to justify their own lack of morality and integrity, because even if BM were acting within the legal requirements, what they are doing is still unethical because they aren’t crediting the originator. This concept is so basic that most people learned this when they had to write their first research paper or book report in school.

Not hostility, just reality. The mention of the Emerson Patent started the thread in that direction. Also, where is the Kettering tribute on my car? That electric start feature should be noted to him and Cadallac.

I did state the issue concerned the Trademark.

Never observed the ads in question, so cannot comment on their use in an arguement.

There never was a more moral past. The History Channel, as well as books, are full of incidents that show morality changes with time. Now, it is just easier to find out about events not directly affecting us.

Also note the moral umbrage at the action as an indicator of current morales.

 

[orthogonal1]

Legally the question would not be whether the hole provides utility, but whether a round hole provides greater utility than a hole of any other shape. Painting a tractor provides utility, but painting it a certain shade of green still infringes John Deere's trademark.

Depends upon interpretation. Would like to see written arguements on both sides of the issue. One arguement that comes to mind is the ease of the thumb, the thumb not catching in corners, acting as a pivot. Not to mention that corners cause stress risers.

As for color, JD has the right to use it on tractors (small stuff and farming equipment), but yellow is wide open for the bigger equipment because it gives utility. Yet, yellow and black are given to B&D for one of their lines (Bosche, Skillcraft, can't recall at the moment - nice court case, though).

 

[4 s ter]

When the Benchmade AFCK came out, the hole was always referred to as licensed from Spyderco.

Sorry, but is wasn't "always referred to as licensed from Spyderco"

In Sal's own words:

"In the mid '90's, Benchmade came to us to license use of the round hole as Gerber was licensing a hole at the time. Benchmade wanted to put it in their new Carraci AFCK, design. We licensed it to them, part as a patent license, part as a TM license, with the understanding that we were continuing with the registration of the round hole, which was nearly completed at the time.

We requested that written credit was given for the mark each time the knife or advertising appeared. We felt this was not being done adequately, a major way in which a TM is weakened. We had the contract annulled. Benchmade went to an oval hole, which they claimed worked better than a round one."

 

[bh49]

I truly believe that this has less to do with legality and more to do with people wanting to justify their own lack of morality and integrity, because even if BM were acting within the legal requirements, what they are doing is still unethical because they aren’t crediting the originator.

Absolutely agree with you.
Guys, help me out. I am confused.
BM did it again. What else did you expect? We knew who they are.

 

[STR]

I believe the Emerson patent pic to be a symbol showing the integrity of Sal and all that work with him closely. It may not apply to this thread because this is not a patent issue. If indeed BM is guilty of just taking someone's protected intellectual property and using it when they have no right to it they have not evolved as a company or as individuals very far IMO. To believe they can just do that without consequence, regardless of how far we have declined morally as a people is rather disturbing to me, particularly when dealing with someone as honorable and with as much integrity as Sal Glesser. That does not mean that Spyderco will take action or that anything will ever be said about it. What it means is that what goes around comes around. It is not up to us to police these things. These matters tend to take care of themselves.

Even still it is a ? that should at the least be addressed by BM if no one else. When and if are the ? Perhaps its a first sign of desperation in a floundering economy trying to snag some profits from something that obviously sells better than what has been offered so far in their own line up. I truly believe we should give the benefit of the doubt. It isn't right to jump to conclusions based on hearsay or rumor. The fact is we don't know. Case closed until we do.

My biggest problem with all this is that these threads are just spinning wheels going no where fast bringing out anger, defensiveness and a not so bright side of people that is not normally seen or very attractive when it is. I'd urge everyone to calm down, take a deep breath and say to yourself in a calm even tone, "THIS TOO WILL PASS".

STR

 

[gratewhitehuntr]

WOW! DAMN STINKIN THIEVES NEED TO BE STUCK REPEATEDLY WITH THEIR OWN CRAPPY KNIFE!!!
:jerkit: (picture a knife in his hand)
I won't buy a benchmade period. :thumbdn:

I do like the hole though... gee... wonder who came up with that idea??

 

[gratewhitehuntr]

HEY! look at STR's handmade knife! Ripoff artist!
BOYCOTT STR !!!
just kiddin ; )

 

[gratewhitehuntr]

HEY ! I just saw your hand made knife! RIPOFF ARTIST!!!!!!!
BOYCOTT STR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just kiddin ; )
I can hardly hand make a club


cough(ripoff)cough

 

[ghostrider]

Not hostility, just reality. The mention of the Emerson Patent started the thread in that direction. Also, where is the Kettering tribute on my car? That electric start feature should be noted to him and Cadallac.

I did state the issue concerned the Trademark.

Never observed the ads in question, so cannot comment on their use in an arguement.

There never was a more moral past. The History Channel, as well as books, are full of incidents that show morality changes with time. Now, it is just easier to find out about events not directly affecting us.

Also note the moral umbrage at the action as an indicator of current morales.

With all due respect, saying "get over it" in this case is hostile, because the issue at hand is the potential theft of IP.

Morals don't change over time, societies do. While the morals of a society may change over time, that doesn't mean that the difference between right and wrong (morals) has been skewed. It just means that that paticular society has sunk into moral decline. Just because a society says/accepts theft doesn't make it moral. If I am reading your statement correctly this is just moral relativism.

 

[nelsonmc]

I don't own any Benchmades, so I feel fine since I haven't contributed to them. This sucks any way you look at it. Benchmade fans are of course going to defend Benchmade, and Spyderco fans are of course much smarter individuals. Hehe, just kidding around a bit, of course they say all jokes have a hint of truth in them or something

 

[hardheart]

Judgment of the morality and intelligence of people based on the brand they buy says a lot about your own.

I think it is Spyderco in the wrong, and I have for years. Personally, I do not think a patent should be allowed to become a trademark. What is the purpose of the patent if that is the case? Why bother with the 20 years of the patent when you can get 75 or more with a TM? Simple, patents and TMs cover different forms of IP.

The issue to me is not if you change the shape of the hole, does it change the function. It's if you remove or move the hole, does it change the function. You can add, remove, resize, or reposition the Nike swoosh on shoes, shirts, watches, glasses, golf clubs, etc. etc. without altering how any of those things work. Remove the 'spyderhole', or move it from it's required position, and bam, you now no longer have a means of opening the knife properly built into the blade. Function, cut and dried.

I would like this to be reviewed by the legal entities, and I would like the TM to be altered or eliminated. I do not want the hole to be featured on more knives. I do not find the hole better, despite the fact that other people would very much like to tell me how to live my life and what choices I have to make. I do not like what has to be done to the profile of a blade or handle to compensate for a usable sized opening hole; an unecessarily wide blade or deep cutout in a handle don't appeal to me.

I think Sal Glesser is an excellent owner and representative, and has done an incredible amount of good for the knife industry. I think he was perfectly reasonable in his desire to keep the hole, his invention and innovation, Spyderco exclusive. I think the government was wrong in letting him do so past the expiration of his patent.

 

[nelsonmc]

Judgment of the morality and intelligence of people based on the brand they buy says a lot about your own.

Actually humor was my only intent with my intelligence comment, you people need to lighten up, there are much more important things in life than who uses a hole in a piece of steel :jerkit: :foot: :barf:

 

[STR]

Fortunately no matter how much you disagree with it Hardheart it makes no difference in the facts as they stand regarding the trademark held by Spyderco. The trademark was granted, is granted and exists as "Spydercos Round Hole Trademark # 2,033,317. Thats a fact.

Is there any doubt that this trademark was reviewed before this happened and by the people in the know before it was then was approved? The Spyderhole is the single one thing that identifies a Spyderco and the one feature that stands out among all others. There is no restriction that I know of that says a trademark can't also serve a specific function and still do all the things a trademark does. You seem to want to void the trademark just because it can also and does in fact happen to serve a function and I don't understand that logic. Trademarks do serve a function and that function is to instantly allow someone to know or be reminded of the owner of the trademark.


STR

 

[hardheart]

I'm pretty sure the Spyderco name and bug identify Spyderco knives, so there is not a 'single one thing' the company depends on to ID their product. How do you identify a Moran, Ronin, Temperance, Lum Tanto, Maddox, etc as produced by Spyderco? The logic behind not wanting a trademark to cover a functional design is the same that limits the life of a patent.

 

[4 s ter]

I think it is Spyderco in the wrong, and I have for years. Personally, I do not think a patent should be allowed to become a trademark.

The patent did not "become" a trademark. The patent description stated "a finger depression is formed on the blade adjacent to an enlarged portion for grasping by the thumb of the user for urging the blade from its closed position into its open or operative position." The "roundness" was trademarked when the trademark was issued for "a circular through hole formed in the body of a knife blade"

 

[STR]

there is not a 'single one thing' the company depends on to ID their product.

From the Spyderco info page on their Round hole.

"The Spyderco Trademark Round Hole is our most recognizable feature".

 

[hardheart]

a hole in the blade? So Kershaw, Howard Viele, Dan Koster with his WSK and pig hunting knife, and every other hole violate the trademark?

 

[hardheart]

From the Spyderco info page on their Round hole.

"The Spyderco Trademark Round Hole is our most recognizable feature".

yep, I don't see 'only' in that statement