Benchmade using spyderhole?

[Death's Head]

Why would BM put a round hole except to be Spyderco Pretenders? Looks like they wanted to make a tactical knife and take a little away from Spyderco at the same time.
I remember seeing on the news that Starbucks sued a privately owned coffee shop for naming their shop Starr Bucks. Same thing. In my opinion, Starbucks complaint was legit, and they won too as they should have.

 

[Artfully Martial]

Well, of course Benchmade is pretending to be Spyderco. What with their horrible reputation for design and quality, their only chance to survive in the market is to pretend to be a reputable knife company. I mean, Benchmade's just another CCC company like Jaguar and M-tech.

 

[nelsonmc]

Well, of course Benchmade is pretending to be Spyderco. What with their horrible reputation for design and quality, their only chance to survive in the market is to pretend to be a reputable knife company. I mean, Benchmade's just another CCC company like Jaguar and M-tech.

What's CCC mean?

And yes it's a serious question lol

Depending on what it means I most likely totally agree with ya.

 

[ras]

. . .The trademark in question covers a round hole used as an opening device on a folding knife. . .

Which would mean that Spyderco is using Trademark law as a way around the fact that their patent on the hole timed out. Trademark law is not supposed to be used as a patent extension. But what do any of us know. Wait for Sal to comment or the lawyers to resolve this.

 

[STR]

I find it amazing the way people justify things. Rationalize it anyway you want to, but its still wrong. Many of these BM guys were quite upset when Cold Steel used the very similar lock to the Axis lock on that Recon folder and had trouble justifying that but seem to be able to overlook this issue of this hole and clone of a Terzuola Starmate quite easily enough by comparison.

No matter your opinion of how trademarks or patents or anything else is to be used the fact remains Spyderco holds the trademark for this hole and BM folks are on the defensive now all over these forums for something they would be the loudest about if the shoe was on the other foot. What I see are hypocrites for the most part pulling a common rationalization in their own minds. Remember Psych. 101? "I know its wrong to steal your wallet, but if I steal it I'll have more money so that makes it ok". I got news for you. It does not make it ok. It just shows how people make anything they do ok long enough to get away with it and justify it in their own minds.



STR

 

[Death's Head]

Well, of course Benchmade is pretending to be Spyderco. What with their horrible reputation for design and quality, their only chance to survive in the market is to pretend to be a reputable knife company. I mean, Benchmade's just another CCC company like Jaguar and M-tech.

I am not trying to trash your post, but I always thought that BM had a good reputation. This has changed my views about BM though. I don't view them to the extent of M-Tech, but I agree with you that this is a step in the wrong direction.

 

[ghostrider]

Which would mean that Spyderco is using Trademark law as a way around the fact that their patent on the hole timed out. Trademark law is not supposed to be used as a patent extension. But what do any of us know. Wait for Sal to comment or the lawyers to resolve this.

Your argument in this post has been gone over already, and has been proven to be based on a false assumption. The fact your quoting (part of) Deacon’s post (which is also out of context) that explains the differnce between the Patent and the Trademark only leads one to believe that you are either being selective in truth and lies, or you just didn’t read the entire contents of his post. The Trademark is not being used to extend a patent because there was no patent on a round hole. Therefore, Spyderco is not “using Trademark law as a way around the fact that their patent on the hole timed out.” Saying that Spyderco had a Patent on a the Spyderhole, and are now using a Trademark to extend that Patent is totally false. Saying such comments after reading both Sal Glesser’s, and The Deacon’s explanations is just a plain lie.

 

[FullerH]

This thread proves that any and all Forums can be just like the Political Arena in not allowing facts or reason to interfere with a good wrangle.

 

[Artfully Martial]

My apologies...my previous post was meant to be read sarcastically.

My point being, it's not like Benchmade needs to imitate anybody. They're arguably the best knife manufacturer in the world. It seems like everyone has their axis lock variant these days...Benchmade's influence and innovation is huge.

Benchmade might stand to gain in the Vex by gaining customers who only like to use Spyderholes, but it's not like Benchmade's overall market is at all confused about what a Spyderco is.

I guess what I'm getting at here is that the only real advantage for Benchmade in the Vex is in the utility of the hole.....there is no advantage in imitation. I think this speaks to the trademark/patent dichotomy of the discussion lately.

Spyderco will not sell one fewer knife because of the Vex.

You see, intellectual property is a confusing (and, let me add, non existant) thing to calculate ethically. It's so interesting to debate something that one of the defining properties is that it doesn't really exist. That it's an idea. Do you think theological debates would be so heated if they weren't speaking to some objective God, but all agreed there was no God, they just wanted to get the idea of what God WOULD be like straight? But I digress...
the value of intellectual property could never be measured in credit given, but might be measured in real world money, which is where it steps out of or heads and then has an actual impact. And, if your intuition is like mine on this, a situation where it appears IP has been violated, but it further appears that the violated company stands to lose no money whatsoever over the violation, then there's not really a whole lot to get upset about.

So here we go.

1: IP's value is only calculable by (in this case) dollars lost by Spyderco in the violation.
2: Benchmade's Vex will not steal any market from Spyderco, nor will it confuse either Spyderco or Benchmade buyers.
3: If the value of dollars lost in 1 is zero, then the ethical implications are also zero.
4: The value of 1 is zero.
_______________________________________________________________
5: Therefore, Benchmade has not violated Spyderco ethically.

This has no impact whatsoever to any legal discussion going on. It might still be quite illegal, but I'll leave it to the lawyers.

I want Benchmade to attribute credit to Spyderco for their innovations.

And I don't really believe the ethical implication is zero, but I think it's quite small.

Ultimately, this isn't that big of a deal. It's a knife.

I'll keep buying knives from both companies. I think i'll leave this discussion for the lawyers to sort out...and then once that's happened, we can just deal with the consequences. If Spyderco loses, of course, it seems obvious to me that the spyderhole will become a common feature from here on out. One can only hope so. If your company is really maintained only by the existence of a...hole...then it's time for the company to wash away and make room for better companies.

You see, I think Spyderco is a great knife company. And I don't think it needs to hold onto the hole to survive. I rather doubt it'd be hurt at all if the courts allowed anyone to use it. Who among us go to Spyderco because of the hole? Would you suddenly sell out if Benchmade had it? Or Kershaw? I think not. And the reason you wouldn't is because the hole was never that important to begin with. The quality, innovation and technology are what you come for, and those will remain wholly unaffacted by this change.

I feel as if anyone from this point on asserting that the hole is so vital to Spyderco really must not think so highly of Spyderco.

_______________________________________________________________

Okay, to tie up a few little things. CCC stands for Cheap Chinese Copy, a reference to the clones from our great ally overseas. This isn't what Benchmade is.

 

[Saberman]

Untill we hear something from Sal or Les either way, this thread will only serve to piss each other off. Please everyone take a deep beath and relax.

Sal has licened the HOLE before and to my knowledge still does, when he does he usually take that fee and has it donated to a good cause.

 

[The General]

Regardless of the quality of any product, I choose to support a company with a genuine care for the ELU.

I choose Spyderco, I buy Spyderco. I don't support Benchmade, I don't buy Benchmade. Its my money and my choice.

I choose to do the right thing, I hope others will as well. Its a free world though and I don't ask or expect others to do as I do.

I will otherwise refrain from commenting here, other than to say, Sal you have my support.

 

[hardheart]

As I understand it, Spyderco's patent was for a depression in the blade of a folding knife that allowed the thumb to open the blade. The patent neither specified or precluded the depression going all the way through, nor did it limit the depression to one specific shape.

Which is interesting, it would mean that even Boye was violating the patent with his folders.

Spyderco's trademark, on the other hand, is for a single specific implementation of a depression as an opening device covered by that patent, the round hole opening device. Except for a single model they have used the round hole opening device, to the exclusion of all other implementations of the patent since they began producing knives. That sole exception was the C27 Jess Horn. It used a pair of trapezoidal depressions in the blade that fit the specification of the patent just as well as the round hole opener does.

Aside from the C27 Jess Horn, the round hole opening device has been used as the opening device on every FOLDING knife that has been marketed under the Spyderco label from their first, the C01 Worker to their latest the C113 Caly 3. The sole exception was the C27 Jess Horn. Since fixed blade knives would not benefit from a round hole opener, or any other opener for that matter, the round hole opener has never been used by Spyderco on them. The presence of holes drilled for purely cosmetic reasons on the SPOT and SWICK do not alter that.

I do not see anything on the trademark saying the trademarked hole is an opening device. What I found says "The mark consists of the configuration of a portion of the goods, namely a circular through hole formed in the body of a knife blade" If there is more, I would appreciate someone linking it for me.

"Functional" features CAN be given trademark protection, as long as the functionality does not confer a functional advantage. As an example, paint on a vehicle serves a functional purpose, but John Deere has a trademark on a specific color of green.

The paint is not trademarked, only the color, you are confusing the two. John Deere green does not procvide a function, paint of any color does. A hole does not necessarily provide function, an opening hole does.

Manufacturers, including Benchmade, who have used oval and other shaped holes as opening devices have asserted, and continue to assert, in their advertising that the shape of their hole makes it superior to the round hole as an opening device. By that assertion, they have eliminated the argument that the round hole has a functional advantage over other shaped holes when used as an opening device. The fact that ANY hole opener of reasonable size, regardless of shape, has a functional advantage over thumb studs, disks, nail nicks, etc. is beside the point.

Manufacturers have patented other shaped opening holes, based on functonality and advantage. AFAIK, they haven't trademarked them.

The fact that other manufacturers and some custom makers use one or more non-functional round holes as their trademark has no bearing. Nor does the presence of round holes in wheels, donuts, and bowling balls. The trademark in question covers a round hole used as an opening device on a folding knife.

Again, I just want to see something that says the trademark covers a functional hole.

The fact that Spyderco has licensed their trademark round hole to some custom makers and one other manufacturer for use, with attribution, on products that do not directly compete with Spyderco's own wares due to their price-points does not diminish it's validity as a trademark. It is no different than when Jeep and other automobile manufacturers license the use of their marques to companies that make battery powered ride on cars for kids.

So the price point of the AFCK did not compete with Spyderco? And Power Wheels are in the same product class as full size automobiles?

Theft is theft, whether the item stolen is tangible or intellectual property. All the rationalization in the world will not change that.

and I think usage of a design whose patent has run out is not theft.

 

[puukkoman]

However this type of theft (and that's exactly what it is if they didn't get a liscense from Spyderco) is no surprise comming from BM after the Skirmish. You can rationalize it all day long if you want, but it's still theft.

If they didn't license the hole, then sure: this model is an example of intellectual theft.
The Skirmish, however, is not. The series of holes used by Neil Blackwood are in no way pertaining to Spyderco. Otherwise, why hasn't Mr. Blackwood been sued yet (or much less complained about on these forums)?

I hope that this case is a legitimate use of the Spyderhole, since I like both Spyderco and Benchmade...

 

[J85909266]

This time it's personal........

hahaha

Anyway, I've read a lot of good, sensible points of view on this matter (as well as some really stupid, closed-minded ones, not pointing any fingers, though, these people are on both sides of the issue), and i've come to the conclusion that it isn't so black and white.

On one hand, the Spyderhole has been used more or less exclusively in Spyderco knives for over twenty years, and I feel that it really is the single most defining trait of their knives, and a knife with a single large hole really does scream Spyderco. When I saw the Vex, I was genuinely confused for a moment, as I am when I see any knife that isn't Spyderco using the hole. I feel that, being the inventor of the Spyderhole, as well and the pioneer of one handed operating knives all together, Sal deserves to be recognized when it is used, and it deserves to be referred to as the Spyderhole. People that downplay this are being petty and lack appreciation for the history of tactical folding knives. "It's just a circle" Please, grow up. In this aspect, I definitely understand how the hole can be trademarked, as it does, in fact, serve the purpose of a trademark. People who know knives, think Spyderco when they see the hole. It's not that simple, however.

On the other hand, I definitely see where Hardheart is coming from as well. I feel that he has best highlighted the issues with the trademark. I also find it odd that something that has been pateneted for it's 20 year stint can immeditaly be trademarked. It does kind of defeat the purpose of the patent time limit. While I do think that other openers do work just as well as the Spyderhole, I also think that nothing works quite like the Spyderhole, either. Many feel that it is the best way to open a knife, so it seems odd that only one company can use it. Like somebody mentioned, custom makers desire to use the hole for a reason.

In conclusion, I think the hole is a bit unique in it's situation. I think that Sal and Spyderco deserve credit for the hole, and if another company uses it, it should, at the very least, be referred to as a Spyderhole, out of respect and appreciation for Sal's innovation. He invented the hole in this form, so at least call it what it is. I also think that, if BM really is trying to challenge Spyderco's trademark, they are doing it in a disrespectful and foul manner. I would not have any problem with them or anybody else challenging the trademark, as I do believe there is a good case for both sides, and I honestly wouldn't mind seeing the hole used on other brands as long as credit is given. I really wish there was some official info on how the Vex came about and the intention behind it, as well as any communication between the companies. As it appears, however, the hole is stolen on the Vex, as, whether the trademark is debatable or not, it is in effect. That being said, I won't support that particular knife. I'm not boycotting BM by any means, though. I think they bring a lot to the table, and appreciate them as a company overall.

 

[ras]

Ghostrider,
Thanks for pointing out that there never was a Spyderco patent on the hole, I've read about that non-existent patent so many times I just assumed it to be real. I did a search and found a couple Spyderco hole trademarks, but no hole patent. There's a depression patent, but not one for a hole.

As for the Hole being a Spydeco trademark, the first time I saw the "hole" was on my Benchmade Ascent -- so I never have associated the hole with Spyderco. That's what happens when a company licenses its trademark; it gives away the product association. Why a company would license its trademark escapes me.

 

[bh49]

Okay, to tie up a few little things. CCC stands for Cheap Chinese Copy, a reference to the clones from our great ally overseas. This isn't what Benchmade is.

Absolutely agree, Benchmade is not Chinese.

 

[4 s ter]

The Skirmish, however, is not. The series of holes used by Neil Blackwood are in no way pertaining to Spyderco.

In your opinion. In the opinion of others, the Skirmish and Vex are exactly the same, in that neither respect the intellectual property of Spyderco.

Otherwise, why hasn't Mr. Blackwood been sued yet (or much less complained about on these forums)?

Spyderco's position seemingly has been to not share what their intentions are on public forums - I wouldn't share my plans either if I were in that situation. With respect to complaints about Mr. Blackwoods design, if you think there haven't been complaints, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[ghostrider]

Ghostrider,
Thanks for pointing out that there never was a Spyderco patent on the hole, I've read about that non-existent patent so many times I just assumed it to be real. I did a search and found a couple Spyderco hole trademarks, but no hole tatent.

As for the Hole being a Spydeco trademark, the first time I saw the "hole" was on my Benchmade Ascent -- so I never have associated the hole with Spyderco. That's what happens when a company licenses its trademark; it gives away the product association. Why a company would license its trademark escapes me.

Glad I could help.

As for the Ascent, that was liscensed by Spyderco on the condition that Benchmade would properly credit Spyderco in their advertising of the product. After Benchmade failed to do this adequetly to Spyderco's satisfaction Spyderco had the liscense annulled (sp?). That could well explain why you don't associate the hole with Spyderco, and it sounds like it is a dirrect result of bad faith on Benchmade's part. It also demonstrates why this whole "hole" thing is important. Spyderco didn't "give away the product association" because they annulled the liscense once Benchmade demonstrated bad faith.

 

[STR]

Apparently the two companies have reached an agreement which speaks loudly that BM does not feel that the trademark is invalid at all. So we can all stop this now I guess. I know that will disappoint some of you hard core guys but something new to argue about will come up again I'm sure.
STR

 

[NickZac]

Since an agreement has been reached, integrity has been preserved and I still have respect for both companies. I have nothing left to say as it seems this has been concluded.