Chinese junk or what?

[epoluo]

sanrenmu is good knife. The brand comes from China.In China it could be the best work knife.If you just use a knife to do common thing instead of abusing it,SANRENMU is supposed to satisfy you.By the way there must be flaw knife ,so you should keep an eye on picking up a flawless one in the SANRENMU knives.

 

[springman]

It almost seems like,... by the way some of you are talking,...You might see a custom made swinguard or a stiletto as a stolen design. I have plenty of custom made stiletto's and a few swinguards that were made by some very reputable custom knife makers, not to mention any names, but I'm sure you all know...These knives look exactly like the ones made in Italy by the Italian knife makers in Maniago Italy, but are much better in every way...Do you feel that these customs I own were stolen designs. I paid for them and the maker made money on them, but the design was not his or theirs, it was copied. What is your opinion on this type of design theft, if it is design theft? Personally I don't think this type of thing is considered theft. But according to some statements / comments by others , this fits the suit...How do you feel about it, anyone?

 

[Arkeld]

Just my 2 cents:

Most of you don´t realize that many asian countries have a rather different approach to copyright than we do. You can´t blame them on a moral level for it.

A few examples: In China, it´s quite acceptable to eat dogs, a practice many of us find disgusting. In many european countries, horse-meat is acceptable. For many Americans, if I´m not mistaken, this too is disgusting. And most of us eat cows, yet in India, they consider it sacrilege.

These are cultural differences that do not reflect at all on the ethics of a person and the same is, imho, true of knock-offs. I do believe that these are not viewed as morally questionable in China. We may disagree with this view and try to stop the practice, but I don´t believe that it´s an issue where we can claim moral high ground.

At the end of the day, there are two relevant questions:

1) Is the manufacturer trying to deceive me, i.e. are they trying to make me believe that I´m buying a REAL Benchmade/Spyderco/insert brand name?

If so, then they are frauds and we should never buy from them. If, on the other hand, one can easily tell that it´s not made by said brand and just looks SIMILAR, then we come to

2) Am I getting good value for money?

Sure, the knock-offs are almost never comparable in quality to the originals, but that´s not to say they can´t be fairly priced. Yeah, it´ll be a cheapo, but if that´s all I need, why not?

Myself, I will never buy knock-offs, but that´s because I can afford the real thing, as can most of us here on the boards. But back in China, where wages are a fraction of ours, the average Joe will NEVER be able to afford to pay $100 for a knife. So, in a way, the market needs the $10 knock-offs.

 

[springman]

It almost seems like,... by the way some of you are talking,...You might see a custom made swinguard or a stiletto as a stolen design. I have plenty of custom made stiletto's and a few swinguards that were made by some very reputable custom knife makers, not to mention any names, but I'm sure you all know...These knives look exactly like the ones made in Italy by the Italian knife makers in Maniago Italy, but are much better in every way...Do you feel that these customs I own were stolen designs. I paid for them and the maker made money on them, but the design was not his or theirs, it was copied. What is your opinion on this type of design theft, if it is design theft? Personally I don't think this type of thing is considered theft. But according to some statements / comments by others , this fits the suit...How do you feel about it, anyone?

And A good 2 cents that was ARKELD...

But what about my question on the customs, and whether or not their being design theft? Please read my question above..What are the views of others on this matter...Like I mentioned above, it seems like, according to what others have stated, customs seem to fit the suit...That's not the way I feel, not in this case. But it still fits the suit according to the others who made certain statement's on copying.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

What I originally read on a forum called edcforums.com was this comment:

"Phill makes a good point about identical "design aims" producing similar products. My understanding is that Spyderco attempeted to patent the opening hole but were not allowd to as a hole is an empty space and you cannot claim to have invented the empty space :lolhammer: It's just that I check the recent additions page on that site everyday and when I saw that my eyes pretty much told me IT WAS a UKPK I was actually confused for a second :idiot2: when I saw the name.

:shrug:

Yes it's cheaper but I'd definitely pay the extra for '30v over 400c any day."...

That's what inspired me to post my comment about the hole, I knew I read it somewhere, otherwise I would not have ever said this;

" Did anybody ever hear about how Spyderco tried to patent the hole they have in their blade for the Byrd model folder, and could not because of it being a hole and one can't patent a hole?...I thought that was funny."

Then I went further to investigate and found on a forum called "BritishBlades.com", a comment from Sal himself wrote, stating...

"Our patent was not on a hole of any sort. It was on a ledge or ridge as part of the blade that one could use the fleshy part of the thumb to contact the ridge and open the folding knife with one hand."...
Here is the entire statement. But most of it has no bearing, nevertheless it was this first sentence;
" We used a round hole when we began making knives because we believed it would work best, but as time went on and other companies found loopholes in our patent, they began making holes of differen shapes. We were getting trounced in the market place so we had to concede that a round hole didn't in fact work any better than any other hole shape for opening a folder.
Our competitors didn't use a round hole, not because of any legal reasons, but because they didn't like the hump that using a round hole created. Some didn't use a round hole just out of respect, but not all companies are gifted with that atrtribute.

Since no one used a round hole, the round hole became associated with Spyderco. Because of that association, we were able to trademark the shape.

Now the round hole is still associated with Spyderco and it is probably the most powerful identifier in the industry. That is prpobablu wjhy so many companies want to look like us. Since it is our trademark, I have chosen to incorporate the round hole in all of our knives. That way people will know it's a Spyderco just by looking at the knife and not having to read the tang.

Because one company is using a round hole in some of there knives hardly devalues the trademark. The Spyderco round hole is known all over the world and is associated with Spyderco, not the "other" company. In fact the "other" company is seen as tryng to imitate.
The "other" company is certainly not using a round hole because they want to look like Strider or some other knife company. We have learned that many companies try to look like Spyderco. Primarily becasue we earned our reputation for quality and performance the hard way. Some are using more than one round hole, some are using almost round holes, etc. You know what they say about "sincerest form of flattery"? I guess we are flattered.
None the less, we will put a round hole in our knives. If some of our potential customers choose not to purchase an otherwise excellent knife simply because they don't like the hole, that is their choice, which I accept.
The industry has been following Spyderco's lead for 25 years. They are not likely to stop. Much of the innoation in the knife industry began at Spyderco. I'm sure you will see more.
Let's just watch the followers on our new BaliYo.

sal..."

Now, MORIMOTOM did this satisfy you?...I was man enough to apologize for my shortcomings, are you man enough to apologize for your rude remarks to me?...After all, there were nicer ways to correct me, like the others did.

oh good lord. get over yourself.

no apology coming, as my comments were accurate.

 

[markksr]

It almost seems like,... by the way some of you are talking,...You might see a custom made swinguard or a stiletto as a stolen design. I have plenty of custom made stiletto's and a few swinguards that were made by some very reputable custom knife makers, not to mention any names, but I'm sure you all know...These knives look exactly like the ones made in Italy by the Italian knife makers in Maniago Italy, but are much better in every way...Do you feel that these customs I own were stolen designs. I paid for them and the maker made money on them, but the design was not his or theirs, it was copied. What is your opinion on this type of design theft, if it is design theft? Personally I don't think this type of thing is considered theft. But according to some statements / comments by others , this fits the suit...How do you feel about it, anyone?

And A good 2 cents that was ARKELD...

But what about my question on the customs, and whether or not their being design theft? Please read my question above..What are the views of others on this matter...Like I mentioned above, it seems like, according to what others have stated, customs seem to fit the suit...That's not the way I feel, not in this case. But it still fits the suit according to the others who made certain statement's on copying.

Nobody even remotely implied any such nonsense. "Italian Stilettos" are a very old design which have been produced by countless makers as opposed to a design original and unique to one maker (e.g. the Sebenza).

Are you being intentionally obtuse just for argument's sake?

 

[C.S. Graves]

That design is public domain. Zero relevance.

Still, both 110 knockoffs and those produced the Buck themselves continue to sell to this day. Granted, it's impossible to tell how many folk bought an imitator thinking it to be a Buck, or bought it just because they needed a knife... any knife...

...anyway, I figure there's always going to be folk who know their knives and support quality companies and any innovations that are useful or just plain appealing... and there will always be those who don't care about the specifics as long as it's a knife.

 

[shecky]

To me it is worse if the offending company also uses the original company's trademark,

Yes, that would be worse. Unauthorized use of a trademark on a knife would probably constitute counterfeit. This would be a fairly clear legal violation.

Nobody even remotely implied any such nonsense. "Italian Stilettos" are a very old design which have been produced by countless makers as opposed to a design original and unique to one maker (e.g. the Sebenza).

A unique design isn't legally protected unless the designer takes fairly specific action to protect it. Unless that protection is granted, it's pretty much free to copy, like it or not. Doesn't matter if the design is unique to one maker or not.

It's baffling that so many folks think this is a bad thing. The strength of the knife market seems to indicate the opposite. Copying encourages innovation, diversity and growing markets.

 

[markksr]

...
A unique design isn't legally protected unless the designer takes fairly specific action to protect it. Unless that protection is granted, it's pretty much free to copy, like it or not. Doesn't matter if the design is unique to one maker or not.

...

But this doesn't make it right.

And your refusal to understand this speaks volumes about you.

 

[C.S. Graves]

But this doesn't make it right.

That's legalism for ya!

 

[springman]

Nobody even remotely implied any such nonsense. "Italian Stilettos" are a very old design which have been produced by countless makers as opposed to a design original and unique to one maker (e.g. the Sebenza).

Are you being intentionally obtuse just for argument's sake?

You really should read the past post over carefully, and then you may want to reconsider who implied what
.
I’m talking about what some my think what “design theft” is …I’m not talking about “Stiletto’s “…I’m talking about the theft of a design…The stiletto’s thing was an example…One should be a little more open minded and read between the lines….

As you read, you’ll find you have more than enough indication on what “design theft” may mean to some of you.

Like I said, the custom knives that I mentioned seem to have fit the bill according to some statements that were made, which I know, none of you meant it that way…

Of course it’s ridiculous; because I don’t believe this to be true, and I’m sure no one else did when the statements were made…

But, I noticed if someone, who isn’t part of this “higher presence”, that seems to be prevalent here,” isn’t explicit in their statement; they seem to get pounced on by the same few esteemed members all the time.

But if one of those members isn’t perfectly explicit it’s ok…No one challenges them…

What I’m saying is, what you have here is a tight little clique, and no matter what the little guy says, “newbee” he or she is going to be treated poorly…

God forbid if anyone should try to correct anyone in that tight little clique you have here.

I’m sorry for attempting to try to fit in.

What I’ve experienced here is something that occurs in other forums too, and it’s really sad.

 

[shecky]

But this doesn't make it right.

And your refusal to understand this speaks volumes about you.

I disagree. Right or wrong doesn't enter the equation. You're arbitrarily imposing your own moral code on something that has none, the free market. And it's a moral code that's fundamentally anti-free market, I might add.

I suppose your refusal to accept the foundation of modern civilization may speak volumes about you too. Tilting at windmills comes to mind. I reserve my moral outrage for issues that actually matter.

 

[markksr]

...
Are you being intentionally obtuse just for argument's sake?

You really should read the past post over carefully, and then you may want to reconsider who implied what
.
I’m talking about what some my think what “design theft” is …I’m not talking about “Stiletto’s “…I’m talking about the theft of a design…The stiletto’s thing was an example…One should be a little more open minded and read between the lines….

As you read, you’ll find you have more than enough indication on what “design theft” may mean to some of you.

Like I said, the custom knives that I mentioned seem to have fit the bill according to some statements that were made, which I know, none of you meant it that way…

Of course it’s ridiculous; because I don’t believe this to be true, and I’m sure no one else did when the statements were made…

But, I noticed if someone, who isn’t part of this “higher presence”, that seems to be prevalent here,” isn’t explicit in their statement; they seem to get pounced on by the same few esteemed members all the time.

But if one of those members isn’t perfectly explicit it’s ok…No one challenges them…

What I’m saying is, what you have here is a tight little clique, and no matter what the little guy says, “newbee” he or she is going to be treated poorly…

God forbid if anyone should try to correct anyone in that tight little clique you have here.

I’m sorry for attempting to try to fit in.

What I’ve experienced here is something that occurs in other forums too, and it’s really sad.

So, I'll take this as a yes.

 

[markksr]

... I reserve my moral outrage for issues that actually matter.

You should try reserving your enthusiasm for immorality as well.

Many people are growing weary of listening to you preach your support of theft.

 

[iamtoast]

Comments such as, "Unless the copy is legally protected and successfully defended, copying is not theft. ", are extremely telling.

By this reasoning, murder is not a crime or even wrong unless the person committing murder is caught and prosecuted.

Of course the reply to this will most likely be something like, "These are two completely different matters and one does not pertain to the other."

The argument seems to be if the Chinese (or whomever) make a quality product at a fair price then its completely fine to copy another's design. If these companies are so great why do they not just make there own fresh designs? Any answer other then they are trying to rip people off is non-logic.

 

[Guyon]

Folks here might want to have another look at these posts (below). As for morality and cultural differences, the fact remains that most of the posters in this thread's debate are American, not Chinese. No matter if the Chinese see copyright and patents in a different light, there's no mandate that you should suddenly take up their perspective.

Sanrenmu 721:

Timberlin Alary:

Well, they sure make a lot of knock-offs...

(Ironically, this is a knock-off of a $15.00 knife)

 

[shecky]

You should try reserving your enthusiasm for immorality as well.

Many people are growing weary of listening to you preach your support of theft.

This may be. I'm weary of you evading the argument. Pointing your finger at my supposed immorality isn't an argument, but a personal attack.

Comments such as, "Unless the copy is legally protected and successfully defended, copying is not theft. ", are extremely telling.

By this reasoning, murder is not a crime or even wrong unless the person committing murder is caught and prosecuted.

Of course the reply to this will most likely be something like, "These are two completely different matters and one does not pertain to the other."

Well, you do seem to realize that murder isn't quite the same as theft. But that isn't where your argument breaks down. Your analogy is broken even before you let it out of the gate. Murder is always a crime. Killing isn't necessarily. Similarly theft is always a crime. But copying isn't always theft, and therefore, not always a crime.

Confusing copying with theft is where many of you arguing against me go wrong.

Folks here might want to have another look at these posts (below). As for morality and cultural differences, the fact remains that most of the posters in this thread's debate are American, not Chinese. No matter if the Chinese see copyright and patents in a different light, there's no mandate that you should suddenly take up their perspective.

Showing us the pictures again doesn't reinforce your position. It doesn't even matter if the Chinese see copyright and patents in a different light, because nobody has made any substantive allegation of actual trademark or patent infringement. Copyright violation seems unlikely to apply to knives.

 

[Absintheur]

Well...mine came in the mail today and I am quite happy with it. It appears to be very well made, not that that is a surprise to me. The frame lock engages about 3/4 of the locking surface, the blade opens smoothly and there is zero blade wobble. The frame lock uses a detent hole and ball bearing. This allows the knife to open smoothly and in the closed position provides against accidental opening. There are no burrs or sharp edges (other than the blade, it shaved out of the clamshell), everything is nicely rounded and comfortable in the hand. The blade is clearly marked in the middle of the blade with no attempt to hide who made it, it is even marked with Chinese charaters. All in all I am quite satisfied with the knife.

Like some here I feel as long as there is no attempt to sell the knives as originals then there is no foul. There are many sellers online who rip off trademarks and that is fraud, I will not deal with those companies such as the ones I posted earlier in this thread. I wonder how many that oppose this company have ever copied a movie, recorded a football game, downloaded music without paying, or burned a copy of a cd for a friend. Glass houses and such....

 

[C.S. Graves]

Confusing copying with theft is where many of you arguing against me go wrong.

As I like to say in discussions about music/video/software piracy, there's a difference between theft and unauthorized duplication. Folk like the RIAA like to use the former term, it sounds more villainous than the latter, which sounds more like protectionist legalese. But in true theft, the original item is gone, taken by the thief. Contrast this to, say, a "car thief" who, instead of actually pilfering your car, builds a perfect copy of his own, leaving yours where it is. The ability to do so means his money isn't going towards the original manufacturers, but he's also not depriving them of their merchandise either.

Okay, I've gone off on a tangent. I just think the distinction is one that isn't often made in some discussions.

 

[Confederate]

Most of you don't realize that many Asian countries have a rather different approach to copyright than we do. You can't blame them on a moral level for it.

In some respects you may have a point. Very few designs are wholly original, and if companies can produce what they see as competition, then they'll resort to it. But it really isn't competition. Does a person who buys a cheap Sebenza knockoff really depriving Chris Reeve of any money? Probably not. People don't buy Sebenzas because of the sheer beauty of the product; they buy it because they perceive it as excellent craftsmanship and excellence. I had the opportunity of buying a knockoff CS AK-47 for almost nothing on eBay, but I wouldn't touch it because I'm not looking for a knockoff. Few people are.

Where it really gets dicey is when they see nothing wrong with pirating software, DVDs and musical CDs. Cracked copies of almost every popular software title is available from China.

The line between theft and honest competition is very fine sometimes, and it's not that Asian standards are different. It's more like they're non-existent, at least when it comes to China. Unless the Chinese are watched very carefully, they have no qualms about making dangerous products (using lead and known carcinogens). It's what they think they can get away with much of the time.

This is a general statement, so there are exceptions, but it's a generally true statement. Those fake 4 gig mp3 players are a perfect example. They sold tons of them on eBay, and even when I notified the sellers of what was going on, they still tried selling them.

When developing nations begin to try to compete, they often do what Japan did after the war, and that was to maximize profits by making cheap copies of more expensive products. I remember when "Made in Japan" was the kiss of death on a product.