BM Does the Spyderhole Better!

zenheretic said:
No no. Hob folks rarely get banned in this discussion. Some bottom feader drops in and stirs up the excrement, it percolates a bit, then someone like Boats drops in and says the same nonsense that has been said before, then some goofus like me retorts in kind, Boats retorts to my retort. Four people reply to his retort. Sal comes in, says eight words that make us all feel ashamed, and we go away. Anyone that doesn't usually attracts Cougar, who talks about gentle beings and shows a picture of a snapping turtle.

About that time, someone posts a new Cold Steel vs. Stryder thread and the true Benchmade and Spyderco fans go back to thumbing their opening devices and sharpening their blades while the bottom feaders rush off to feed on the scraps. :rolleyes: (hmmm the rolleyes smilie has changed)


:D
Click to expand...

I kind of like the opportunity to add so many people to my ignore list.
 
So you like BM's more than Spyderco. And they do the round hole better. But I still can't see the point of saying it here. I think the BM forum would have been more appropriate for this.
 
Very concise summary, Zen :D. Makes you wonder whether "thread-banning" would be appropriate. Everyone posting to a certain thread gets banned :). Get's all of them at once.....oh wait that would get me, too....:D.
 
I guess I have to make myself a little clearer.

I am aware of the hole called the Spyderhole.

I am also aware of the hole called the TalonHole.

What I was asking, apparently without success, is whether Busse licensed the Spyderhole, as I suspect that Spyderco has been at the business longer than has Busse.

I can see where someone can say, "Hey, look! Another trademarked hole!" But in a sense, it is apples to oranges. Busse doesn't make any folding knives with an opening hole that would be the essence of a trademark dispute with Spyderco.
 
Oh God! I have to do my 10 second elevator tutorial again!.
1) In order for a design feature to be enfringeable, it has to be patentable in the first place.
2) A design feature may follow on the heels of a prior (art) invention without infringing as long as it meets one or more of the following pre-requisites:
A- It's a significant improvement on the prior design
B- It diverges in a measurable fashion from the prior design.
That's my ten seconds.
Please copy this to your desktop and refer to it next time you see two or more similar designs for the same solution. It will help you cope with the angst.
 
Moodino said:
Oh God! I have to do my 10 second elevator tutorial again!.
1) In order for a design feature to be enfringeable, it has to be patentable in the first place.
2) A design feature may follow on the heels of a prior (art) invention without infringing as long as it meets one or more of the following pre-requisites:
A- It's a significant improvement on the prior design
B- It diverges in a measurable fashion from the prior design.
That's my ten seconds.
Please copy this to your desktop and refer to it next time you see two or more similar designs for the same solution. It will help you cope with the angst.
Click to expand...

Maybe you think (or read) for once before you post. This is not and never was about a patent. Makes me want to avoid elevators all together. Unsolicited information that on top of it is also wrong.

Boats, I don't see why this would be apples and oranges. Mercedes can put their star on their cars and BMW can put their kidney on their cars. Whether Mercedes also makes trucks that bear the star or not is really of no relevance.
 
Moodino said:
None of that is necessary if you just pay or... agree to swap rights. I mean that it happens all the time that companies simply share or barter patent rights- they don't have to give credit on the product itself. Another example is the axis lock. I know that spyderco took that (concept) from benchmade so there is a good chance they agreed on a swap. That's usually The first step before one company buys the other outright :D
Click to expand...

The ball bearing lock actually bears a closer resemblance to Blackie Collins' Bolt Action than to the Axis. I'm pretty sure any patent on that one has expired, since my Gerber Bolt Action is at least twenty years old. Spyderco is not using anything that I can identify as having originated with BM. Maybe in the future something will appear, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
 
HoB said:
Maybe you think (or read) for once before you post. This is not and never was about a patent. Makes me want to avoid elevators all together. Unsolicited information that on top of it is also wrong.

Boats, I don't see why this would be apples and oranges. Mercedes can put their star on their cars and BMW can put their kidney on their cars. Whether Mercedes also makes trucks that bear the star or not is really of no relevance.
Click to expand...

Once again.

Mercedes uses the three pointed star on all of their products--they won't be licensing it out to BMW.

BMW's grill has been aped before. Pontiac has been doing it off and on for decades, but no competitor dares use the propeller.

Spyderco claims the "round" hole as a trademark--it's industry-wide mark of quality.

Why then does it matter that Busse's "Talonhole" is on the choil? It's still a round hole. Spyderco makes no mention that the location of the hole matters, and looking at the Spyderfly, The hole need not appear near the spine of the blade.

Spyderco was founded in 1978. The Worker came out in 1981, the first with the hole.

Jerry Busse has been making salable knives since at least 1982, but the choil hole is not even a remotely uniform trademark throughout the 80s. It began appearing more consistently since the 90s, but one can readily find pictures of older Busses, and not just the "field grades" that one has to read markings on to know it is a Busse. That is simply an evolutionary matter.

Nevertheless, Sal had his round hole well marketed long before Jerry had his.

If the round hole is the trademark, why should it matter whether it appears near the spine or on the choil? If Pontiac puts a BMW propeller on a rear quarter panel, a place it is never seen on a BMW, is that legitimate just because they moved it?

One possible explanation is that Spyderco would find it fruitless to chase off Busse at this late date. In Oregon recently, we had the Tillamook Cheese factory going after jerky maker Tillamook County Smoker for trade dress infringement based on the name Tillamook. The case was thrown out because Tillamook Cheese had allowed the situation to persist in the market for far too long and had not aggressively defended its trademark.

Then again, the Spyderhole obviously started off as a patented opening device and only in 1995 was it trademarked. Maybe Busse beat Spyderco to the trademark office, or Busse limited his to a round hole on the choil.

Nevertheless, it is all very interesting, and obviously the fecal matter has never really hit the fan on these issues or they'd have been sorted out by now.

I can still not think of any company in any field which licenses its trademark to a direct competitor. The point of a trademark is to reduce market confusion, not increase it.
 
...Hopeless....(throws up hands in the air).

Edited....

Just hopeless....
 
OK. I sympathise- the thread went off track- as many often do. Let me see if I can arbitrate a re-tracking.
1) This is a Spyderco forum but if reasonable comparisons between a Spyderco design feature and a SIMILAR Benchmade feature are off limits because they ruffle feathers, then fine,perhaps the queston shoukld have been posted on another thread, and not a Spyderco one.
2) The thread was started with a very specific line of inquiry
A- It asks for feedback on the relative performance of the elliptical vs round thumbholes.
B- It also asks for feedback on the relative performance of champfered vs unchampfered hole edges.
C- It then opens up the question of primacy and provenance
I've contributed what I specialize in- Human Factors and specifically, ergonomics . I also mentoned that without asking the corporate heads of BOTH Spyderco & Benchmade, you'll not know what if any deal was arranged between them. I then also contributed factual knowledge about patent license. So where's the complaint to the thrust of the discussion?
The MOD should move the thread.




HoB said:
...Hopeless....(throws up hands in the air).

Edited....

Just hopeless....
Click to expand...
 
I EDCed an E-Z-OUT (pre skeleton) and a JR for about 7 years. The holes are not sharp. I flicked them. I purchased 2 Delica 4's through the mail. Upon handling my first round hole , one of the first things that I noticed was the "sharp" hole. I didn't like it (flicking or thumbing). I also noticed more sharp edges on the heal and top of the blade. After a few days of EDC, the heal really started to bother me. After a few weeks I disassembled one of them to use a Dremel and some sand paper on all of the exposed non cutting edges of the blade except the last 1/2 inch near the tip. I also did a little work on the Boye Dent. After a few more weeks, I spent some time on the front "corners" and the bottom inside edges of the FRN handles. It is so much nicer to handle, open and use the knife when all of the "sharp" is concentrated in the cutting portion of the blade. A few weeks later the second D4 got the same full body treatment. :thumbup: Everything is clippless. I would highly recommend softening all of the edges except the actual cutting edge.
 
First, let me state my prejudice. I've owned two Benchmade knives in my life (and one Pacific Coast Cutlery), I now own one and that is a fixed blade. And that knife was so dull out of the box that I almost couldn't cut myself. I have not been impressed by Benchmade and Benchmade doesn't interest me.

And I'll admit right up front that I have never handled any of the BM's (ironic initials those) with the Spyderhole so I can't say one is better than the other. And beyond what I've read here on the forums I have no idea about whether BM is using the Spyderhole by permission or not.

However, I do have opinions regarding each Company. My opinion of BM was formed after a long discussion with a former employee who gave me some details of the inner workings of the company and the knives they produce. And as my mother used to tell me, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

My opinion of Spyderco on the other had has come from years of owning their knives, experiencing their customer service and conversations with both Mr. Glesser and another Spyder-gentleman with whom I had the opportunity to talk with at the Oregon Knife Collectors Association show this weekend.

Some weeks ago, I had responded to a request for suggestions on another thread and Mr. Glesser was kind enough to answer. Yesterday at the show I had the opportunity to speak with Sal and after identifying myself as the person who had made the suggestion, he shared details of his answer that he hadn't wanted to put on the internet and which I won't either. However, in his answer to me on the thread and in our conversation yesterday, he has taken the position that without the permission of another maker, he would not produce the proposed knife.

I am not trying to be coy about the lack of details, but Mr. Glesser didn't know me from Adam and yet he shared with me details of something that have a bit of company confidentiality. That is something that needs to be honored.

It is my opinion that the quality of Spyderco Knives are a reflection of Mr. Glesser himself.

If BM is using the Spyderhole without permission and you think it's better, that's fine, for you maybe it is. I think it serves to illustrate the example of integrity I see with Mr. Glesser and SpyderCo.
 
Boats said:
Are you saying Busse licensed it from Spyderco? Really? That'd be news to me.
Click to expand...

What I was trying to say was that there is another brand that licensed a round hole for a fixed blade. I didn't connect the Busse is in any way with Spyderco, sorry if I didn't make myself clear from the first post.
 
Boats, you already agreed that there are some trademarks concering blade holes, e.g. from Spyderco and Busse. Why the heck do you think you have to play judge and decide if they are right or wrong long after these trademarks had been registered ? Obviously there were differences between the Trademarks. Otherwise the second one wouldn´t have been registered.

Alex, I don´t think we were too unclear with our statements. We only said, look there is another trademark about a blade hole, it can be trademarked. It rather looks to me that someone tried to stir something up and in front of this background wanted to missunderstand it or (seem) to be slow on the uptake.

Best wishes,
JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top