Cold Steel, Benchmade, and Spyderco's Intellectual Property

T

thombrogan

Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
9,948
I think that a lot of us were ticked when Cold Steel tried their hand at the Black Talon (a folder that looked very similar to Spyderco's Civillian and Matriarch). It seems that less folks were ticked about the round holes in the Benchmade/Blackwood 630.

Was it contempt for Cold Steel and unconditional love that spurred such mixed reactions?

I must admit that I felt revulsion for the Black Talon and wanted the 630 to be made for lefties, so I'm as, or more, guilty of this than anyone.

Did anyone else notice this going on?
 
hey thom.

i'm not familiar with those models you mentioned, but i was pretty shocked to see cold steel's absolutely blatant randall clone - the military classic, which even has pseudo-randall insignia on the blade. jeez, at least give the guy some credit & say "inspired by.." or something lol. i like some of cold steel's products, but that's pretty dastardly if you ask me.
 
Using a round hole and making a nearly exact copy of an existing knife are two very different things. The 630 doesn't look like a rip-off to me, the Black Talon does (or did, is it even still made?). That's the difference to me.
 
Originally posted by Roadrunner
Using a round hole and making a nearly exact copy of an existing knife are two very different things. The 630 doesn't look like a rip-off to me, the Black Talon does (or did, is it even still made?). That's the difference to me.
Click to expand...

That, in a nutshell, is what I believe made the difference for most of us. My thinking has since come around to believing that the 630 won't fly in its current form due to Spyderco's trademark, but even now that's merely an opinion and I can see how someone could honestly come to the opposite opinion. The Black Talon, on the other hand, seems much more of a straightforward ripoff (as was Cold Steel's ripoff of the axis lock), at least to me. Those who believe Spyderco is in teh right on the 630 issue need to come to grips with the fact that many people honestly and fairly believe the 630 isn't an issue.
 
as was Cold Steel's ripoff of the axis lock

It wouldn't have been so bad if they did a good job of it but they ripped off the idea and then messed it up! :p

Same thing with the Black Talon. Took a great Spyderco knife and made an ugggly version of it.

I dunno about the 630. I would tend to back Spyderco emotionally but I honestly can't see how every blade with holes in it is an infringement. Outdoor Edge did a Darrel Ralph design in the Impulse, and that has three oblong openings in the blade that serve to lighten and open the blade.

I think the Blackwood is beautiful, the holes are part of the rhythm of the design, and using the large one as an opener almost flows more from the design than from the history elsewhere.

But this won't be settled by our opinions. There's good guys on both sides, and they will work through this.
 
Originally posted by thombrogan
Did anyone else notice this going on?
Click to expand...

No I didn't. Maybe because I saw them to be so different. Personally, I don't think that either Neil or Benchmade realized that there was Trademark issues involved in the 630 design.
 
Originally posted by Roadrunner
the Black Talon does (or did, is it even still made?).
Click to expand...

It stopped being made because Mr. Thompson had trouble with the quality control of the knife. Well, that's what I heard, anyways.

Thanks, everyone, for your replies.
 
I doubt that Les from Benchmade wasn't aware of the potential trademark problem with the holes. From what I understand he is a very smart individual so I believe that he was aware of a potential problem and discussed it with his lawyers prior the the picture being released. I bet that he believes the three holes are different enough to withstand a court challenge. This is all speculation on my part but that is what I am thinking.
 
Originally posted by thombrogan
I must admit that I felt revulsion for the Black Talon and wanted the 630 to be made for lefties, so I'm as, or more, guilty of this than anyone.

Did anyone else notice this going on?
Click to expand...
That's what makes ethics, both personal and business, such a "hot button" topic Thom. Sometimes it's easy to take the "high road" and sometimes, it's not. And, compared with some of the similar issues that have been debated here, this one has stayed remarkable civil overall. Think back a few months to one concerning one custom maker offering a set of "mall ninja" gizmos that some said bore a striking resemblance to another custom maker's work.

In my opinion, when Mr. Blackwood made the transition between using three non-functional round holes as a decorative design on a couple of his fixed blade knives and turning one of those round holes into a functional opening device on a folder, a line was crossed. Perhaps, it was crossed unintentionally. Perhaps Mr. Blackwood was aware the Spyderco patent had expired and was unaware of the trademark status of the round hole when used as an opening device for folders. Perhaps he was aware of it and was looking to mount a legal challenge based on the issue of functionality. Perhaps he felt the presence of the other two round holes somehow legitimized the use of the third one as an opener. Only Mr. Blackwood knows the answer to that one, and, as far as I can determine, he has not yet chosen to enlighten the rest of us. Those who purchased his custom folders with that feature may have done so quite innocently, either unaware that of the trademark issue or under the assumption that he, like certain other makers, had licensed the use of the round hole opener from Spyderco. Benchmade, on the other had, had to know exactly what they were doing, and, based on their past interactions with Spyderco, exactly what the probable consequences would be, when they selected this knife for production.

If any good has come out of all this it is that, at this point, anyone who has read these discussions and who purchases the 630 will be doing so with their eyes wide open as to the ethical and legal issues involved. Perhaps a court will make their actions legally justifiable, perhaps not, either way, on a larger scale, it will prove nothing, as there is sometimes a vast difference between what is legal and what is ethical.

And yes, for the record, I'll admit that on this one it's easy for me to take the high road, framelocks are just not my cup of tea.
 
I think the difference is that most people expect less in terms of behavior from Cold Steel as their advertising has set a certain "tone".

Benchmade, in a general sense is respected more so for some the surprise was greater.
 
Hi Thom. Interesting observation. Also interesting to note that 9 out of 11 posts were "back to Spyderco's round hole trademark".

Road Runner. Both the Round hole trademark and the patents on the Civilian were covered by the same laws. In the case of the Cold Steel version, you "chose" to respect the law. In the case of Mr. Blackwoods version, you "chose" to ignore the law. I think that is exactly what Thom was admitting to.

I will say this for Cold Steel;

When Lynn was approached on the Black Talon issue, his response was that he didn't know there was IP and that now knowing there was IP, then of course he will work out whatever royalty arrangements Spyderco wanted.

As it turned out, Lynn stopped the project over quality issues.

I might also add that Cold Steel was the only company that elected to pay Royalties to Spyderco on our clothing clip. Most companies just "borrowed" it without so much as a "thank you". (Al Mar had asked permission).

Cold Steel didn't "rip off" the Axis lock. He was told by the inventor that it was a clear concept. When Cold Steel was informed that it was not, Lynn's response was to pay BM Royalties.

No offense to Mr. Blackwood, but to me, Mr. Blackwood's design looks like a Ken Onion designed Spyderco with a Chris Reeve style Integeral linerlock. But I am an inventor/designer and am probably more conscious of and more aware of the "origins" of ideas and "proper" credit for same. I've also been watching closely for more than a few years.

Spyderco makes "Michael Walker Linelocks"
Spyderco makes "David Boye lock indents"
Spyderco makes "Chris Reeve Style integral liner-locks"

With permission from the creators of those ideas.

Spyderco has also paid royalties to more than 20 designers for their designs.

Spyderco's ingtegrity and honor is not in question here.

Lynn Thompson may have a "challenging" personality, but his honor has been demonstrated to me more than once.

Luku, I read you post that "anyone can make a round hole". I don't know where you are from, but in America, we have laws and law abiding citizens tend to try to respect those laws. "Anyone can steal", but that doesn't make it proper.

Your "opinions" and mileage may vary, but historically...

sal
 
In an interesting sidelight on this, the latest Blade Magazine has a short feature on Neil Blackwood, (which is more than I have ever seen about Sal Glesser or Spyderco, but I may have just missed it). The article shows a number of Neil's knives, both fixed blades and folders, and none of those illustrated have any holes in their blades. This leads me to wonder about the claim of how the three holes of diminishing size are a Blackwood symbol. :confused:

Whether or not I give any more business to BenchMade depends upon how this question is resolved. That is unfortunate, for they do make some mighty fine knives.
 
Road Runner. Both the Round hole trademark and the patents on the Civilian were covered by the same laws. In the case of the Cold Steel version, you "chose" to respect the law. In the case of Mr. Blackwoods version, you "chose" to ignore the law. I think that is exactly what Thom was admitting to.
Click to expand...

Sal, I wasn't really referring to the law about either case. I was referring to my own definition of a rip-off. The Black Talon instantly made me think of a Spyderco when I saw it, and thus I classify it as a rip-off. The 630 does not look like a Spyderco to me. It uses not one but several round holes and therefore IMO does not step on Spyderco's trademark. You feel differently and that's fine, in fact I encourage you to approach Les and Neil about the issue to work out an amicable solution if you have not already done so. I've already said that I feel this matter is between you, Neil and Les; all the speculation by members of this forum is inconsequential and at this point irresponsible. We are discussing a PROTOTYPE design, not one which is in production. I haven't seen any statements from Les or Neil which dismiss Spyderco's trademark rights, so at this point for all we know the appropriate changes will be made to everyone's satisfaction. There is no need to accuse anyone of any wrongdoing yet, because at this point no wrong has been done.
 
I received a Cold Steel Recon folder as a Christmas present, the one with the Ultralock. The box included Cold Steel's patent number and also included Benchmade's name and a reference to Benchmade's patent number. Unless the box is bulls..., it looks like Cold Steel has covered any attribution/royalty issues regarding the Axis lock.
 
No I'm not wrong, future will prove it. You think that Benchmade has no lawyers ?
 
Hi Roadrunner. I think perhaps you are missing the point. The custom pieces that Mr. Blackwood made as well as the prototype are, according to trademark law, already illegal, irregardless of your "opinion".

If one wishes to challenge the trademark law, they are doing so knowing that until it is challenged and pierced, it is already illegal.

To date, neither Mr. Blackwood nor Benchmade have approached Spyderco on their "new" design. The design is already being offered for sale. We've had telephone calls from dealers wanting to know if Benchamde had made a deal with Spyderco. "Amicable" does not seem to be in their plan.

I can truly appreciate the loyalty that Benchmade and Mr. Blackwood have created. But to be honest with yourself, try not to confuse loyalty with something else.

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