Cold Steel, Benchmade, and Spyderco's Intellectual Property

Originally posted by LarryM
I will admit there are differences in the two lock styles but just enough to get past any patent issues. A copy is a copy whether it's a locking device or a way to open the knife. If Thom and Joe or anyone else doesn't see that maybe they need to open their eyes.
Click to expand...

It's the differences that are key. Iraq and the USA are countries with land, boundaries, and people, but I'd rather live in the USA despite Iraq's similarities.

A metal sphere may just be "different enough" from a metal cylinder, but the credit must be given for trying. In the Benchmade 630, what effort was made to make the opening hole anything but perfectly round?

I listed differences between two locks for you and asked you to list what's different between Benchmade's round opening hole and Spyderco's round opening hole.

Instead of answering that question, similarities of the ball-bearing and axis lock were called into question with an admonition to open my eyes.

Um, so what makes Benchmade's round opening hole different from Spyderco's round opening hole?
 
Thom, I think it has been listed several times but I will do it for you again in case you missed it Three Holes. Yes it is different , just like the copied lock is different. I have been trying to show that when Spyderco copied the Axis lock it wasn't a problem but now the shoe maybe on the other foot. It's all about preception would anybody care about the three holes if Spyderco hadn't brought it to are attention? If Benchmade had made a post on the forums complaining about the ball bearing lock how would that have been received? Wouldn't the same poeple be asking Spyderco what's up. But in the several years I have lurked on the forums I haven't seen them go public in that manner. So Thom, I think we will have to agree to disagree about this issue. Larry:D
 
LarryM,

I agree to disagree with you on the condition that you do not further contribute to this thread.
 
you can only post about CS in a negative light here. Or maybe we're supposed to bash BM a little to balance things out.
 
LarryM,

When I delineated the differences between the ball-bearing lock and the axis lock and asked you to tell me the differences between the round opening hole used by Spyderco and the round opening hole used by Benchmade, you chose to not answer that question and instead go on about the similarities between the locks again.

I didn't question the intentions of your actions, I merely asked you again. Your reply was to continue writing about the similarities of the locks again (they were different enough to Mr. DeAsis and the US Patent Office, which, for a design in production, is relatively good proof that a ball is different from a cylinder) and then state the number of round holes made the Benchmade/Blackwood design different. I had asked about the round opening hole (there are three round holes on the Benchmade 630, but only one of those round holes is the round opening hole), but you decided that periphery was enough of a difference. The decorative holes on the Benchmade 630 are also round, which puts the design in jeopardy of violating an Onion/Kershaw trademark if none of the round holes acts as an opener and it doesn't differ from Spyderco's design if any of the round holes is intended as the folder's opening device. As Joe said, it's one Spyderco-trademarked hole surrounded by two other holes.

I accepted your offer, even after you exhibited underhanded behavior in your style of debate, and you declined my conditions with your sarcasm.

I guess our arguments and agreement will fall apart over non-sequiturs and your definition of "round".
 
LarryM,

And exactly how many of those three holes do you think Benchmade proposes to use as the opening mechanism?
 
Hi Thom, apologies.

I believe the differences between the Axis lock and the Ball Bearing lock are greater than the similarities, which I can detail if desired.

However, if Larry's logic is extended, then using three adjacent round rods instead of one on the axis lock would be an acceptable solution, and would permit useage by other companies?

sal
 
Originally posted by LarryM
So let's list the things the locks have in common.
1. Both have a round device that locks in the blade tang to keep the blade open or closed. Axis lock round bar, Ball bearing round ball. Sounds the same to me.
2. Both use a spring to tension there locking system. Axis uses two springs ball bearing one.
3 To release both systems you must pull the bar are cylinder to release the lock.
4. Both are accessible from a cut out in to the handle allowing each lock to be ambidextrous.

I will admit there are differences in the two lock styles but just enough to get past any patent issues. A copy is a copy whether it's a locking device or a way to open the knife. If Thom and Joe or anyone else doesn't see that maybe they need to open their eyes.
Larry ;)
Click to expand...

Grrr... I refuse to stop this thread until Larry sees the light :) :) Larry, I do see that both locks work on basically the same principle -- just like the axis lock works on basically the same principle as the bolt action which preceded it. If that's the point you're trying to get me to concede, then no problem, I concede it. When SOG came out with the Arc Lock I felt they might have trouble with the axis lock patent, but apparently even something that close to the axis is okay. The Arc lock is way more of a "just enough to get past patent issues" than the BB lock -- BB makes significant changes in execution, so much so that the word "copy" is not appropriate IMO.

What I can't get past is how you can possibly compare this case to the opening hole case. In one case, it's an exact and irrefutable copy. In the other, it works on the same principle but is plainly and simply not the same thing -- not a "copy" -- and is therefore not an IP issue of any kind ... which is something that even the IP owner in question does not argue with. But your strategy seems to be a word game, extending the meaning of "copy" until it encompasses enough that we can reductio away direct trademark violations.

At this point, I don't even care about this issue anymore, all I want to do is convince Larry I'm right :)
 
Thom, I never said that Benchmade's use of the round hole wasn't a copy but, I was using the Ball Bearing Lock as an example of what you said here

"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?"

sph3ric pyramid, I guess the large Spyderco hole.

And Joe, give up we don't have that much time to waste.

And My Glesser, if someone designs an axis lock with three bars and they can find poeple with enough fingers to work it, that would be ok to.

BTW I am done and if I have made anyone mad I am sorry but opinions are like butts everyone has at least one. Larry _:D
 
LarryM & the45guy:

the round hole used for opening a knife is a trademark, or IP of Spyderco. we can all agree on that. i keep hearing, "yeah, but there's three."

if Blackwood had stamped the Spyderco spider logo on the blade three times, in descending size, is that any more legal than just putting it once?

regarding the Axis lock: it doesn't sound as if BM has any major dispute with Spyderco over the ball-bearing lock. if they're apparently unconcerned with this design, then it would seem that they're also satisfied that it does not infringe upon their IP, or patents. the round hole on the other hand, has stirred the pot a bit. everyone can see that. why are we holding onto the axis/BB lock argument so tenaciously?

Sal: whether or not any of us are "right" in our arguments, i still maintain that your participation says a lot for Spyderco's reputation.


abe m.
 
and I think it is a great move on Benchmade & Neils part not to participate in this thread ? Why ? Nothing will get solved here in this thread or on this forum or any forum for that matter.

you see it your way , I see it mine , someone else surely thinks we are all friggin nuts to be debating over this . Time will tell what the outcome will be....
 
Originally posted by Sal Glesser
Hi Thom, apologies.
Click to expand...

For what? Am I going to find SPOT-gouges in my car when I get to the parking lot?

Originally posted by Sal Glesser
I believe the differences between the Axis lock and the Ball Bearing lock are greater than the similarities, which I can detail if desired.
Click to expand...

That's okay. I've seen enough to know they're not even fraternal twins. But if you get a chance to make some MBC-rated ball-bearing locks and Phantom Locks, that'd be cool.

Originally posted by the45guy
Larry , I think Thom is asking that nobody make sense on this thread.



and I think it is a great move on Benchmade & Neils part not to participate in this thread
Click to expand...

the45guy,

Your personal definitions of "sense" and "round" should be questioned.

Whether it was accidental or intentional, Mr. Blackwood and Benchmade Knife Company used designs trademarked by Spyderco and Ken Onion and Kershaw in the design of their 630. As good as Mr. Glesser can be at keeping a secret, I think he would've said if Mr. Blackwood or Mr. DeAsis contacted him about this matter and their public intentions.

With Cold Steel, most of us here have gotten bent out of shape when they stepped on the toes of Benchmade and Spyderco, but Mr. Thompson and co. were quick and forthright with mending fences.

Here, Benchmade's doing the same thing and not saying a peep. What's more is that few of us are as upset about its occurrence as when the 'culprit' is Cold Steel. What's disturbing is that some folks appear to be celebrating Benchmade's attempts (however accidental or deliberate they may be) to violate Spyderco's trademark.

Mr. Blackwood did post in the thread generating a buzz about the 630. Does that sully him in your eyes, the45guy? Benchmade never posts here as Benchmade. It could just mean they're too busy; they've forsaken the45guy; or they're infallible?
 
yeah whatever bro....

you see it your way & I see it mine.

Have a Happy & Safe New Year.
 
Thom, I and Kershaw have a patent,not a trademark on the three hole pattern. Just wanted there to be clarity. BTW I have great respect for Neil Blackwood and concider him a good friend . As a matter of fact it was I who recomended him to Les De Asis as a designer.

I think it is great that everyone is chosen sides of this issue.This however isn't a case of us against them but rather that the parties involved get together,have a cocktail decide the next step in a respectable and curtious manner. Neil is new at this and I'm sure meant no harm. I also had to learn a great deal in a short period of time when I entered into this public arena.

I have the highest respect and confidence in Sal,Les and Neil.The rest of us just need to sit tight and let them take care of business.
 
Can you explain the 3 hole patent, Mr. Onion? And are there any more models in the pipeline that use the pattern?
 
Yes there are a few knives comming out using the three hole pattern. It is a design patent. Kershaw applied for it a few years ago as it is a relatively common theme I use in my knife designs and have for years. Thats all I will say about it as the parties involved are all close friends,and honorable men.

I think Neils knife looks awesome!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top