-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
BM 630 makes a change
- Thread starter hardheart
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 9, 1999
- Messages
- 4,729
From dictionary.com:
trade·mark ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trdmärk)
n.
1. Abbr. TM A name, symbol, or other device identifying a product, officially registered and legally restricted to the use of the owner or manufacturer.
2. A distinctive characteristic by which a person or thing comes to be known: the shuffle and snicker that became the comedian's trademark.
So what that means, basically, is that any folding knife with a round hole in it should be a Spyderco, because that is their legally defined distinguishing characteristic. As I've said before I don't really think the Blackwood infringes on Spyderco's territory, but it is Sal's trademark and therefore it's his decision to decide whether or not to protest the use of his trademark. Calling the man a 'stinker' hardly bolsters your position.
trade·mark ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trdmärk)
n.
1. Abbr. TM A name, symbol, or other device identifying a product, officially registered and legally restricted to the use of the owner or manufacturer.
2. A distinctive characteristic by which a person or thing comes to be known: the shuffle and snicker that became the comedian's trademark.
So what that means, basically, is that any folding knife with a round hole in it should be a Spyderco, because that is their legally defined distinguishing characteristic. As I've said before I don't really think the Blackwood infringes on Spyderco's territory, but it is Sal's trademark and therefore it's his decision to decide whether or not to protest the use of his trademark. Calling the man a 'stinker' hardly bolsters your position.
Sal Glesser
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 27, 1998
- Messages
- 11,679
Hi Rzrbk8.
I'm sorry that you are offended. Perhaps I can share some thoughts for your open mind?
Jeep spent many many years creating an identifier or trademark with their vertical bar grill. Volvo spent many years creating their identifier of a diagonal bar in their grill. These identifiers mean that you can identify the maker from some distance away. Those identifiers are not an accident.
Spyderco spent more than 20 years developing our "identifier", a round opening hole in the blade of a folding knife. It was not an accident. It was deliberate, consistent and very legal.
It is at this time the most powerful identifier in the knife industry. That identification or "trademark" has been coupled to quality, performance and reliability. When anyone sees a round opening hole in a folding knife, even from some distance away, it is easily identified as a Spyderco. We worked very hard to create and defend that trademark.
Kershaw/Ken Onion put decending size holes in a knife and handle in more than one of their designs. They patented the design. When one sees a knife with decending hole sizes in the blade or handle of a knife, the identifier goes to Kershaw/Ken Onion. They created it, worked for it, patented it and have been legal, honest, fair and proper in their identifier.
Now let's talk about ethics.
Spyderco had 3 patents and a trademark on a particular twin bladed knfe. We created the design, we patented the "unique" lock. We did it fairly, honestly and legally. A famous knife company was able to "take away" our design with a "loophole" and lotsa bucks.
Tim Leatherman was beat out of HIS OWN Leatherman trademark by another large company with loopholes and lotsa bucks.
Along comes a fairly new knifemaker who is developing his designs. He decided he liked decending size round holes. He could have designed his knife with oval shaped decending size holes, but he "chose" to infringe on an already existing patent. He could have made an oval opening hole to match his oval decending holes, but he "chose" to use an already existing legally trademarked identifier.
I can understand if he was so new to the industry that he didn't know these marks were legally identified. But then it takes little effort to ask.
If his designs had shown up in any magazine in the world, Spyderco and Kershaw would have approached him on the marks. Staying below the radar in a little know forum simply meant that his possible infringements were not noticed by the owners of those marks.
Benchmade is no stranger to patents and trademarks.
While I recognize any companies right to challenge a legally obtained mark, Why would you want to? Greed? Lack of respect for our legal system? Defiance? or simply just wanting somethng that someone else aleady has?
Obviously Benchmade's addition of a 4th hole of a different size is an addmission of guilt to infringement or they wouldn't have added it? (although it is still an infringement, IMO, because there are still decending round holes).
Kershaw has big bucks.
Spyderco is a small company.
Now you tell where who is not being ethical?
I understand that you like the design, it is quite striking. But perhaps there is more to this reality than your opinion.
BTW, I shower at least once every day and use deoderant. You can call me many things, but "stinker" is unrealistic.
sal
I'm sorry that you are offended. Perhaps I can share some thoughts for your open mind?
Jeep spent many many years creating an identifier or trademark with their vertical bar grill. Volvo spent many years creating their identifier of a diagonal bar in their grill. These identifiers mean that you can identify the maker from some distance away. Those identifiers are not an accident.
Spyderco spent more than 20 years developing our "identifier", a round opening hole in the blade of a folding knife. It was not an accident. It was deliberate, consistent and very legal.
It is at this time the most powerful identifier in the knife industry. That identification or "trademark" has been coupled to quality, performance and reliability. When anyone sees a round opening hole in a folding knife, even from some distance away, it is easily identified as a Spyderco. We worked very hard to create and defend that trademark.
Kershaw/Ken Onion put decending size holes in a knife and handle in more than one of their designs. They patented the design. When one sees a knife with decending hole sizes in the blade or handle of a knife, the identifier goes to Kershaw/Ken Onion. They created it, worked for it, patented it and have been legal, honest, fair and proper in their identifier.
Now let's talk about ethics.
Spyderco had 3 patents and a trademark on a particular twin bladed knfe. We created the design, we patented the "unique" lock. We did it fairly, honestly and legally. A famous knife company was able to "take away" our design with a "loophole" and lotsa bucks.
Tim Leatherman was beat out of HIS OWN Leatherman trademark by another large company with loopholes and lotsa bucks.
Along comes a fairly new knifemaker who is developing his designs. He decided he liked decending size round holes. He could have designed his knife with oval shaped decending size holes, but he "chose" to infringe on an already existing patent. He could have made an oval opening hole to match his oval decending holes, but he "chose" to use an already existing legally trademarked identifier.
I can understand if he was so new to the industry that he didn't know these marks were legally identified. But then it takes little effort to ask.
If his designs had shown up in any magazine in the world, Spyderco and Kershaw would have approached him on the marks. Staying below the radar in a little know forum simply meant that his possible infringements were not noticed by the owners of those marks.
Benchmade is no stranger to patents and trademarks.
While I recognize any companies right to challenge a legally obtained mark, Why would you want to? Greed? Lack of respect for our legal system? Defiance? or simply just wanting somethng that someone else aleady has?
Obviously Benchmade's addition of a 4th hole of a different size is an addmission of guilt to infringement or they wouldn't have added it? (although it is still an infringement, IMO, because there are still decending round holes).
Kershaw has big bucks.
Spyderco is a small company.
Now you tell where who is not being ethical?
I understand that you like the design, it is quite striking. But perhaps there is more to this reality than your opinion.
BTW, I shower at least once every day and use deoderant. You can call me many things, but "stinker" is unrealistic.
sal
As far as business ethics go, all I can say is the following:
1. Every company has the right and obligation to defend their trademarks. It is up to our legal system to decide what those viable trademarks are.
2. I am not aware of any other knife manufacturer that is as successful at providing top quality to their customers for a reasonable price as Spyderco.
Other companies will skimp on their blade steels on their reasonably priced knives. Not Spyderco. Other companies put factory edges on their knives that leave what to be desired. All my Spydercos were razor sharp out of the box.
Some knife manufactures rely on hype to pump up their prices and get the most money for their products. Spyderco relies on quality, fair prices, and satisfied customers. To me, that is what business ethics are about. You make sure that your money is well earned by what you provide to the consumer.
Kudos to Sal and the rest of the Syderco team for their good work and their contributions to the industry.
Regards,
cds1
1. Every company has the right and obligation to defend their trademarks. It is up to our legal system to decide what those viable trademarks are.
2. I am not aware of any other knife manufacturer that is as successful at providing top quality to their customers for a reasonable price as Spyderco.
Other companies will skimp on their blade steels on their reasonably priced knives. Not Spyderco. Other companies put factory edges on their knives that leave what to be desired. All my Spydercos were razor sharp out of the box.
Some knife manufactures rely on hype to pump up their prices and get the most money for their products. Spyderco relies on quality, fair prices, and satisfied customers. To me, that is what business ethics are about. You make sure that your money is well earned by what you provide to the consumer.
Kudos to Sal and the rest of the Syderco team for their good work and their contributions to the industry.
Regards,
cds1
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2002
- Messages
- 4,131
Sal Glesser said:
I understand your points, but you are saying you had never heard of Neil Blackwood or his knives (particularly the Skirmish) until Benchmade announced their collaboration?
- Joined
- Nov 17, 1999
- Messages
- 3,061
I like the knife with four holes 0000 , it is a great design and looks to have the best materials. I applaud the design change (hopefully completed for ethical reasoning) and will buy a couple of these.
Walking Man
BANNED
- Joined
- May 28, 2003
- Messages
- 9,606
Oh, forget it.........
Sal Glesser
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 27, 1998
- Messages
- 11,679
Hey James, Roadrunner, Cds1, thanx for the acknowledgement. Appreciate.
Hi Steven, about a year and a half ago, David Bloch told me he was doing a collaboration with a custom maker, Neil Blackwood. He showed me a prototype of a fixed blade model with 3 holes in the handle, all the same size. I wished him luck and never gave it another thought.
There was an article on Neil in a knife magazine, but his folding model had a thumb stud.
The next time I heard the name was late last year when the Benchmade collaboration was announced on the forum.
Steven, we don't hide in a box. Our marketing dept and legal dept (sensitive to round opening holes) goes through more than 150 knife and knife related publications every month. Can you show me one article or advertisment in the media showing Neil's folder design with a round opening hole? I assure you that if we had seen the design, we would have approached Neil.
In the interest of promoting custom knives and for the "good of the industry", we license custom makers to use our trademark (& earlier, our patented opening hole). There are a great many custom makers, all over the world, that are licensed to use our mark for custom knives.
90% of them have come to us. Some we have approached that didn't know of the trademark. All agreed it was a fair and proper relationship.
Our nomimal fee of $50 / year is considered fair and the honorable association with Spyderco has additional value. "Whiskers" Allen was the first to step up to the plate more than 10 years ago. Certainly a lot more to that man than being a very good knifemaker.
Allen Elishewitz has a very nice Jeol Pirela design on the cover of this month's Blade magazine. The knife has a round opening hole in the blade. Allen is also licensed to use our trademark.
Hey Larry. Thanx for the thread. I wish I had seen that back then.
Hi Walking man. It is the 20+ year trademark of our company. We cannot and will not "forget it".
sal
Hi Steven, about a year and a half ago, David Bloch told me he was doing a collaboration with a custom maker, Neil Blackwood. He showed me a prototype of a fixed blade model with 3 holes in the handle, all the same size. I wished him luck and never gave it another thought.
There was an article on Neil in a knife magazine, but his folding model had a thumb stud.
The next time I heard the name was late last year when the Benchmade collaboration was announced on the forum.
Steven, we don't hide in a box. Our marketing dept and legal dept (sensitive to round opening holes) goes through more than 150 knife and knife related publications every month. Can you show me one article or advertisment in the media showing Neil's folder design with a round opening hole? I assure you that if we had seen the design, we would have approached Neil.
In the interest of promoting custom knives and for the "good of the industry", we license custom makers to use our trademark (& earlier, our patented opening hole). There are a great many custom makers, all over the world, that are licensed to use our mark for custom knives.
90% of them have come to us. Some we have approached that didn't know of the trademark. All agreed it was a fair and proper relationship.
Our nomimal fee of $50 / year is considered fair and the honorable association with Spyderco has additional value. "Whiskers" Allen was the first to step up to the plate more than 10 years ago. Certainly a lot more to that man than being a very good knifemaker.
Allen Elishewitz has a very nice Jeol Pirela design on the cover of this month's Blade magazine. The knife has a round opening hole in the blade. Allen is also licensed to use our trademark.
Hey Larry. Thanx for the thread. I wish I had seen that back then.
Hi Walking man. It is the 20+ year trademark of our company. We cannot and will not "forget it".
sal
Frankly speaking.....
I find the idea that an industry leader in cutlery being unaware of the designs of one of the most well-publicized and most highly-regarded custom cutlers as ridiculous [respectfully, Mr. Glesser, I would say that you need to berate your legal and marketing departments for a sub-standard job in that they have apparently left open your doors by virtually ignoring the Internet, which is just as large and important a form of mass-media as print periodicals] as I would believe that said custom cutler would be unaware of the referenced company's trademark feature.
This matter, in terms of Forum interaction among the lay collector and enthusiast crowd has become a matter of devotees of one or the other taking the fight to extremes. Stoking the embers and pouring fuel on the fire is basically all that's left, and all that's going on.
And in terms of the actual companies and individuals involved?
If there truly is legitimate debate left, it is now way past time to settle this in the courts, and should have been done months ago.
For those of us who have kept abreast of this debate, there is much more at-hand than just simple "that looks like a hole" and "I didn't know that person even existed" at-stake here. There is as much being said as there is unsaid, and this "problem" as it now stands should truly move on to a bigger, more comprehensive arena of play, and be fought out in the courts if it is to be pursued at all.
As a fan of both Neil's works (and someone whom I would be proud to call a friend for his personal honor and integrity), Benchmade product, Spydercos, and Mr. Glesser's contributions to the cutlery industry, there's been enough bad-blood spilled already. Let's get this cleaned up and cleared up.
Allen
aka DumboRAT
I find the idea that an industry leader in cutlery being unaware of the designs of one of the most well-publicized and most highly-regarded custom cutlers as ridiculous [respectfully, Mr. Glesser, I would say that you need to berate your legal and marketing departments for a sub-standard job in that they have apparently left open your doors by virtually ignoring the Internet, which is just as large and important a form of mass-media as print periodicals] as I would believe that said custom cutler would be unaware of the referenced company's trademark feature.
This matter, in terms of Forum interaction among the lay collector and enthusiast crowd has become a matter of devotees of one or the other taking the fight to extremes. Stoking the embers and pouring fuel on the fire is basically all that's left, and all that's going on.
And in terms of the actual companies and individuals involved?
If there truly is legitimate debate left, it is now way past time to settle this in the courts, and should have been done months ago.
For those of us who have kept abreast of this debate, there is much more at-hand than just simple "that looks like a hole" and "I didn't know that person even existed" at-stake here. There is as much being said as there is unsaid, and this "problem" as it now stands should truly move on to a bigger, more comprehensive arena of play, and be fought out in the courts if it is to be pursued at all.
As a fan of both Neil's works (and someone whom I would be proud to call a friend for his personal honor and integrity), Benchmade product, Spydercos, and Mr. Glesser's contributions to the cutlery industry, there's been enough bad-blood spilled already. Let's get this cleaned up and cleared up.
Allen
aka DumboRAT
Walking Man
BANNED
- Joined
- May 28, 2003
- Messages
- 9,606
That's not what I was going to say.....Sal Glesser said:
nice try
Well, I see that my point was missed mostly. I understand the idea of trademarks fully. So many examples have been given attesting to different trademarks by companies-they do happen to be functional-but are they justifiably the best at completing the objective they function for?-no, I do not think so. I just happen to disagree that no one but Spyderco can produce the best opening hole. If you truly intended it to be a trademark from the begining, it would have been registered as a trademark from the start-not as a patented feature. It was a patented idea and after that expired, it should be free game for everyone. That's what makes me disagree with limiting the use of it. My main point is that regardless of who uses a round opening hole, it is the name of the company and quality of the product that brings in loyalty. China-cheapy company can make a cheap clone of a Spyderco, but who really is going to buy it? The people that identify with the Spyderco quality and value sure are not and I would place my bet that they are the main consumers. So the insistance that no one should use the round hole without permission and licensing is preposterous in my mind. I see it as detrimental to knife design, because no matter how good you are-you can never produce the best knives for everyone in every situation. In the end, I completely disagree that the round hole was ever awarded as a trademark to Spyderco. You got your chance to establish and use the round hole and rightfully so. Your reputation has been established as a manufacturer of quality knives was/has been established. So do you really think that people really are going to stop believing that your knives are quality or that another manufacturers knives are quality just because they have a round opening hole in them? I think not. Just becuase Neil or Allen or anyone else put a round hole opening hole in their knives I do not perceive they possess Spyderco's quality because of said round opening hole-they have a quality product because of THEIR name-surely not yours. Anyone willing to believe that a round opening hole on a knife other than a Spyderco infers that the knife has Spyderco quality is a damn fool. That's just how I feel. Maybe I am a smart consumer, but the dispute just irks me and in my mind, your irrational arguements irk me even more.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,283
Anyone else notice that rzrbk8 only has 4 post and all of them are contained in threads pertaining to the BM vs Spyderco hole thing? Just seems odd.
NGK-Webmaster said:
I do not think it is odd at all. I have lurked around here for awhile now, just nothing I wish to engage in until now. I find that the forum has been a good resource, but I do not have the time to spend endless hours here discussing knives, as much as I would like to.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2002
- Messages
- 4,131
Sal Glesser said:
No one in your company ever goes to knife shows?
- Joined
- Oct 14, 1998
- Messages
- 2,157
I'm sensitive to patents and trademarks right now. We just finished a patent and we are working on our trademarks. The only people getting rich are the lawyers. I wish I had been taught more about intellectual property in school.
rzrbk8,
Come out from behind the id and tell us your name. Otherwise you look like a troll or shill.
Your knowledge of intellectual property law is lacking. I'm not an expert either. However, I do pay for an expert.
Go spend thousands of dollars on a patents. Then spend years defining yourself using the patents. Spend thousands of dollars over those years defending the patents. Before the patents run out, take the "look" you have achieved with your patents and trademark it. That is all that Spyderco has done.
Syderco could not have trademarked the hole opener when it was first patented because they had not built enough knives to make the hole readily identifiable with Spyderco. The PTO (Patent & Trademark Office) says that a trademark must be identifiable with the company requesting the trademark. Spyderco used the patent to help define themselves, which is the purpose of a patent.
DumboRAT & Steven,
Would you say Sal discussing the issue on a public internet forum is one way to inform another company their design might have a issue?
How can a knife company be wrong for not knowing about a knife pictures that exists on the internet, but be wrong for speaking out on the internet?
How do you take a manufacturer to court for a product that has not been released for sale?
Everyone,
I think we need to take a wait and see attitude. Neil is great knifemaker and friend. His designs are fresh and appealing. I have knives on order from him. I've never seen so much negative "buzz" before a knife was released. Wait for the knife to be released and go buy one for yourself. If you don't like it, then you can complain about it. Leave the legal stuff to the knife company lawyers.
People "stirring the pot" do nothing but create bad feelings. Our hobby/industry is being legislated out of existence all over the world. We need to pull together rather that fight and argue.
rzrbk8,
Come out from behind the id and tell us your name. Otherwise you look like a troll or shill.
Your knowledge of intellectual property law is lacking. I'm not an expert either. However, I do pay for an expert.
Go spend thousands of dollars on a patents. Then spend years defining yourself using the patents. Spend thousands of dollars over those years defending the patents. Before the patents run out, take the "look" you have achieved with your patents and trademark it. That is all that Spyderco has done.
Syderco could not have trademarked the hole opener when it was first patented because they had not built enough knives to make the hole readily identifiable with Spyderco. The PTO (Patent & Trademark Office) says that a trademark must be identifiable with the company requesting the trademark. Spyderco used the patent to help define themselves, which is the purpose of a patent.
DumboRAT & Steven,
Would you say Sal discussing the issue on a public internet forum is one way to inform another company their design might have a issue?
How can a knife company be wrong for not knowing about a knife pictures that exists on the internet, but be wrong for speaking out on the internet?
How do you take a manufacturer to court for a product that has not been released for sale?
Everyone,
I think we need to take a wait and see attitude. Neil is great knifemaker and friend. His designs are fresh and appealing. I have knives on order from him. I've never seen so much negative "buzz" before a knife was released. Wait for the knife to be released and go buy one for yourself. If you don't like it, then you can complain about it. Leave the legal stuff to the knife company lawyers.
People "stirring the pot" do nothing but create bad feelings. Our hobby/industry is being legislated out of existence all over the world. We need to pull together rather that fight and argue.
spyken
Gold Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Messages
- 5,578
Chuck Bybee said:
Agree totally, although it is technically possible to take out an injunction to prevent the production of an infringing product I think. the knifeknut lawyers would however be in a better position to comment.
I like the 630 Skirmish a lot. However, I also respect Sal for what he has done to the knifeworld.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2002
- Messages
- 4,131
Chuck Bybee said:
I don't have any problem with Sal defending his legal rights, I just want to know how he (or someone in his company responsible for such things) hadn't heard of Neil's Skirmish before now.
Mr. Bybee,
What Mr. Roos has expressed is precisely my feeling as well.
I do not think that Mr. Glesser is wrong for speaking out on the Forums here or anywhere else -- it's just that as your own closing stated, there's been way too much negativity going around on this particular issue as-is, and further lay debate here is not going to do anything but agitate what residual angers and ill-will is left. It's now, IMHO, way past time for this issue to be settled in a big-boy way, to let it play out in the courts if there are indeed any true concerns left.
Your sentiment, Mr. Bybee, is exactly mine as well. And while informing another company/maker that there is an issue is certainly valid, as per your own thoughts, mine, and that of Mr. Roos, at this late time, it is no longer helping, and is serving to perpetuate ill-will.
As for your question of:
This question answers itself, within the wording of your very sentence above.
If the Internet is going to be one's stomping grounds, one should have sufficient resources devoted to it to be certain that they're up-to-date and on-top of the breaking headlines.
Spyderco is a well-respected company, one with engineering innovations and market foresight. Among what impresses me about Spyderco is that they are truly dedicated to this market, and their expertice in this field is second-to-none.
Their speaking out on the 'Net about this knife, as well as their specific aims within the market overall to police inappropriate and unlicensed usage of the SpyderHole, to me, shows more than sufficient drive but improper execution on the part of those whom Mr. Glesser and Spyderco employs as their legal and research team. Obviously, they know that the Internet exists and are using it towards both their as well as their fans' profit and benefit, however, their ignorance of Mr. Blackwood's designs and projects executed in living steel - seeing specifically that his custom cutlery and designs is nearly born of the Internet but its reputation and worth has already spread much, much further than that (no true knife enthusiast, however new or uneducated, who happens to have come on to the scene within the past year or so can plea ignorance on the Blackwood name from the amount of show-talk as well as print and other common-media coverage generated about his works; I myself, as you may have noticed from the USN and here, am only a beginning enthusiast) - is at the same time both inexcusable and puzzling.
It's as if those individuals involved in such research only decided to take their dedication so far. Had this been true of any other professional - for example, a medical doctor - it could easily have been called malpractice, and shows negligence at best.
As a Spyderco fan (and I truly am, I own and prize several Spyderco collaborations, and have recommended Spydercos to friends ranging from office-workers to LEOs), I find this oversight simply appalling -- all the more so in that Mr. Glesser specifically cited that there is apparently an entire section of the company whose chief working objective is to stay abreast of such issues.
Allen
aka DumboRAT
What Mr. Roos has expressed is precisely my feeling as well.
I do not think that Mr. Glesser is wrong for speaking out on the Forums here or anywhere else -- it's just that as your own closing stated, there's been way too much negativity going around on this particular issue as-is, and further lay debate here is not going to do anything but agitate what residual angers and ill-will is left. It's now, IMHO, way past time for this issue to be settled in a big-boy way, to let it play out in the courts if there are indeed any true concerns left.
Your sentiment, Mr. Bybee, is exactly mine as well.
And while informing another company/maker that there is an issue is certainly valid, as per your own thoughts, mine, and that of Mr. Roos, at this late time, it is no longer helping, and is serving to perpetuate ill-will. As for your question of:
This question answers itself, within the wording of your very sentence above.
If the Internet is going to be one's stomping grounds, one should have sufficient resources devoted to it to be certain that they're up-to-date and on-top of the breaking headlines.
Spyderco is a well-respected company, one with engineering innovations and market foresight. Among what impresses me about Spyderco is that they are truly dedicated to this market, and their expertice in this field is second-to-none.
Their speaking out on the 'Net about this knife, as well as their specific aims within the market overall to police inappropriate and unlicensed usage of the SpyderHole, to me, shows more than sufficient drive but improper execution on the part of those whom Mr. Glesser and Spyderco employs as their legal and research team. Obviously, they know that the Internet exists and are using it towards both their as well as their fans' profit and benefit, however, their ignorance of Mr. Blackwood's designs and projects executed in living steel - seeing specifically that his custom cutlery and designs is nearly born of the Internet but its reputation and worth has already spread much, much further than that (no true knife enthusiast, however new or uneducated, who happens to have come on to the scene within the past year or so can plea ignorance on the Blackwood name from the amount of show-talk as well as print and other common-media coverage generated about his works; I myself, as you may have noticed from the USN and here, am only a beginning enthusiast) - is at the same time both inexcusable and puzzling.
It's as if those individuals involved in such research only decided to take their dedication so far. Had this been true of any other professional - for example, a medical doctor - it could easily have been called malpractice, and shows negligence at best.
As a Spyderco fan (and I truly am, I own and prize several Spyderco collaborations, and have recommended Spydercos to friends ranging from office-workers to LEOs), I find this oversight simply appalling -- all the more so in that Mr. Glesser specifically cited that there is apparently an entire section of the company whose chief working objective is to stay abreast of such issues.
Allen
aka DumboRAT