BM Does the Spyderhole Better!

It's pretty clear where I stand on the BM Spyderhole issue.

However, the dubiousness of it wasn't solely what caused me to get rid of my Skirmish. The most serious issue was the severe chamfering of the main opening hole. This made the knife very difficult to open and is a large oversight on BM's part. I remember seeing a Skirmish that Mr. Blackwood himself customized. One of the noteable features was a removal of the chamfering on the right side of the hole. So at least someone really desired this change. His custom rendition of the knife has a similar chamfer though.

And yes, the "rough" edge of most Spyderco holes works very well for me. They're the only folders I can open easily with thick gloves. Further, if they bother you, just lightly sand or file the edge. You can thusly tailor the knife to suit you. I do this with the ends of some pocket clips to reduce "hotspots." THe holes, however, have never required this.
 
Howdy, jag-engr!


I think you'll find that many folks here enjoy both. :thumbup:
 
I guess I'll be able to decide in a few days, because I just ordered my first Spyderhole-opening Benchmade.

Certainly never had any issues opening Spydercos, and I've got a bunch of 'em.
 
So,...would it be safe to say BM designed their hole for those with "dainty" hands in mind?;) :p
 
I have ovaled hole Benchmades and whole hole Spydercos and haven't noticed a difference in ease of opening that was worth the time it took to post about a preference.

And this board needs another holy war over holes as badly as everyone needs a new hole in their heads.

Since I own and love knives from both camps, let's get the argument over with in two sentences:

Sypderco diehards: "Benchmade and others' use of the hole without license is intellectual property theft."

Benchmade and Brand X diehards:"Spyderco's "hole" trademark is probably invalid, and they had monopoly protection via patent, which has since expired."

The larger world could care less quite frankly.
 
Boats said:
Benchmade and Brand X diehards:"Spyderco's "hole" trademark is probably invalid, and they had monopoly protection via patent, which has since expired."

The larger world could care less quite frankly.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, when are going to learn the difference between a Trademark and a Patent. Playing ostrich is no way to go through life.

As for the so-called superiority of chamfering it is nothing Spyderco didn't try in the past and found inferior, which is why they returned to baby-bottom tearing non chamfered hole.
 
I have owned over 50 Spydercos and I have never cut my thumb. I have pretty soft hands I guess. I wear gloves all day to keep them from getting cut up. I also naturally have moist hands. My hands always seem to be a little sweaty or oily for some reason. I have had a few Spydercos and a few Benchmades that had the chamfered hole and they all slipped on me. The rough edge is a good thing.

If you are seriously picking through several knives to see which one won't cut you with the hole, you suck! I mean it. If that is what you do with youe time and that is what you look for in a knife, you have ZERO mechanical ability. The sharpest hole can be fixed in less then one minuit with just about any old piece of sand paper. You don't need a diamond file, just knock the edge off and it won't cut you anymore.
 
As far as the round hole is concerned, I prefer Spyderco's approach. My son has a mini-skirmish, and I really like the design, but the primary reason I won't buy one for myself is that the chamfered hole makes it too hard to open. I prefer the ease of things like my Para.

Don't get me wrong, I have a number of knives from both Spyderco and Benchmade (only one of my Benchmades has the round hole, a mini-AFCK), and I like designs from both companies, but I just think Spyderco makes the round hole more usable.
 
zenheretic said:
Jesus Christ, when are going to learn the difference between a Trademark and a Patent. Playing ostrich is no way to go through life.

As for the so-called superiority of chamfering it is nothing Spyderco didn't try in the past and found inferior, which is why they returned to baby-bottom tearing non chamfered hole.
Click to expand...

Prolly as soon as you learn that a function can't be trademarked and withstand challenge.:cool:
 
Boats said:
Prolly as soon as you learn that a function can't be trademarked and withstand challenge.:cool:
Click to expand...

I think this is the point in the argument where someone points out that the original patent was for a hole in the blade, with no shape designated, that was used to open the knife.

The current Trademark is for the ROUND hole. The roundness doesn't affect function, at least not as far as trademark law goes. An oval hole works just as well(according to BM fans). Therefore it is not PURELY functional in nature, but cosmetic, therefore it CAN be a Trademark.

Is that how it goes, someone remind me, this has been debated so many times I can't remember how it goes, but it always pulls up the same stuff.
 
Bodieism said:
Car manufacturers can trademark grilles and they have a function.
Click to expand...

:thumbup: That entire argument is totally moot and anybody with half a brain knows it. There are countless ways to open a blade one handed, and preference is the only factor in which one functions better. Boats stepped on his own shoes there by saying the oval hole works just as well. The hole is simply a certain look a one handed opener can have, and Spyderco rightfully trademarked it, being the originators of it. It's that simple. They got the trademark for a reason. Anybody that fights it cares more about attacking Spyderco or supporting Benchmade than the plain and simple facts.

The only thing that is debatable is whether or not the terms Spyderco and BM have reached are fair and amicable, as we simply haven't been given that info. I'm tired of arguing it. I have my opinion, and so does everybody else.

However, don't let Boats make you feel silly for caring. Everybody looks at things differently and cares about different principles. He has a funny way of wording things to seem like anybody that doesn't share his sentiments is some kind of whiny liberal. Take to heart and care about what you will, regardless how skilled the tongues of others may be.

That's all I have to say here.
 
Stepped on my own shoes? Whatever. I think I succinctly laid out the principal arguments of about four threads within recent memory.

I am a lot of things, but I am not stupid enough to seriously wave Benchmade's banner into this subforum on the esoterica of patent and trademark law.

But while were at it generally, "the round hole is best" argument actually undermines the trademark too.

I really do not care too much about the topic for other than its entertainment value, but I keep my eye out for my first Adidas with the Swoosh, Kia with the three pointed star, and related "licensed trademarks" appearing only on narrow classes of the products of direct competitors.

How come no one seems to want to license the hole for their competing fixed blades?
 
Boats said:
Stepped on my own shoes? Whatever. I think I succinctly laid out the principal arguments of about four threads within recent memory.

I am a lot of things, but I am not stupid enough to seriously wave Benchmade's banner into this subforum on the esoterica of patent and trademark law.

But while were at it generally, "the round hole is best" argument actually undermines the trademark too.

I really do not care too much about the topic for other than its entertainment value, but I keep my eye out for my first Adidas with the Swoosh, Kia with the three pointed star, and related "licensed trademarks" appearing only on narrow classes of the products of direct competitors.
Click to expand...

IIRC the trademark was given because it was argued that a round hole did not function any better then an oval hole, thus eliminating the "function" part. Didn't Bechmade state in the past that their oval hole worked better?

How come no one seems to want to license the hole for their competing fixed blades?
Click to expand...

The hole in some of Spyderco's fixed blade functions as a forward-lanyard-hole.
 
The hole has a mechanical function in a folding knife - used to open the knife.

On a fixed blade...it is a design element.

2 different patents - wildly different in application and ability to protect.
 
Jag-eger came over just to tell us Benchmark does it better eh? Nothing better to do than trolling.

All trolling aside has anybody noticed how tired and without drive the whole benchmade line is becoming. The Vex, The Dejavoo? Those are subtle jabs at spyderco plain and simple. If they'ed spend as much time being creative perhaps they would be a bit more dynamic company. They pretty much all look the same to me, and they dropped their best steel. Their better days are behind them, without doubt. Joe
 


A Benchmade 806 AFCK with S30V steel, Axis lock, G10 scales, steel liners, unchamfered round hole, zero blade play and perfect fit and finish.

I don't think Benchmade's return to round opening holes on some knives is that much of a big deal. A TSEK with an S30V blade would have been just as good - actually preferable for me, as I prefer the TSEK's drop point.

There is more to a folding knife than an opening aid.

My Spydercos and Benchmades will continue to live side by side.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top