Cold Steel Steals the Wave. No doubt about it.

By the same logic that many are using most one handed openers are rip-offs of my original design. As a kid I would expand on fingernail nicks so that I could push on them with my thumb to open the blade- hmmm the same as David Boye did with his wing and whale design on his folders. Did we rip each other off- no we just did similar things. I own a ti-lite and have found that it is possible to Assisted open it but it is inneffective and nothing like using a zip tie or true wave. It seems like some people will go to any lengths in their hatred of any group. Remember people, fanaticism is wrong! Does Cold Steel make good knives- yes, some of them anyways. Does Cold Steel engage in some questionable buisness practices- probably. It seems like Cold Steel haters will go to any lengths to discredit the company- "Oh there is a protrusion off of the blade so they ripped off (insert fav. company here)" But yet I have not ever heard fthat the Gunting Folder of Spyderco is a Wave rip off even though the opening with the spine protrusion helps open the knife. The usage is similar but execution is different.
 
Spyderco has permission to use it if they wanted. Kris.

And I'm not a Cold Steel hater or fanatic. Read my posts before last night. I've supported them for many years. I've just realized within the last 24 hours that giving Lynn Thompson the benefit of the doubt could no longer be done. This is wrong on Lynn's part. The Wave is patented. Your fingernail nick expansion was not. There is a big difference. You didn't have and don't have a legal right to the intellectual property there. Ernie Emerson does for the Wave though under patent # 5,878,500 and Lynn Thompson is violating it by patent infringement.

I take issue with anyone saying that I am stooping to any lenghts to bash the company or that I hate the company. I'm focused on the President of the CS company. Many good people work at CS. I appreciate their hard work and what they do. Lynn at the least owes Emerson a formal apology for crossing the line legally. His video is just like watching a Wave demo. How anyone can watch that and justify it or excuse it puzzles me.

STR
 
STR- I was not directing my comments alone at you- I'm sorry if it was understood that way. My point was that the projection on the Gunting is used the same way as the flanges on the ti-lite. If one is an infringement then so is the other. Neither look like the wave but all of them are used the same. I am not a patent expert but if this is an infringement of a patent then why is Cold Steel not being sued for it? Ripping off an idea is not the same as infringing on the patent- Similar function but different physical makeup means, to me at least, that they are different. This is like saying that all assisted opening knives are rip-offs of Onions design. Leatherman Tools as well- a company sees a market being opened and develops the design. It might not be polite but I do not consider this the evil that most do.
 
Next thing ya know we'll be seeing the Wal-Mart-Wave, made in China of course.
(No slam against anyone intended, except for Wal-Mart):D
 
Thanks I appreciate that Kris. Thanks to everyone else for listening to my rant also.

I am not trying to claim to be some know it all genius about the law or patents. The truth is I don't know for fact but strongly suspect this is flat wrong. It was so simple to ask. When I approached Ernie for permission to do the Wave mods he was a true gentleman. When Spyderco approached him he was easy to work it out with and everything was above board and everyone was on the same page.

Personally I have no desire for my life to include other than honorable people in it. It seems to me Lynn could care less about any of that or who he hurts. I won't spend a lot of time dwelling on it any longer. You guys are entitled to your opinion. I was mostly venting steam I guess. I've made up my mind to not support CS any longer. That doesn't mean I won't say good things about the ones I've owned. I just won't be buying anymore while Lynn is President. At this writing I am very disappointed in their President. You guys do what you want you'll get no judgement from me either way.

The one thing that really sticks out to me and bugs me most I guess is that if Lynn Thompson was the holder of the Wave patent and the shoe was on the other foot he would be the first one to piss and moan about it and make a full two page add in his catalog taking the moral high ground about how wrong it was while he sues the pants off the guy doing that to him. We will see how it goes I guess.

STR
 
Here it is again Lynn is a crook, He steals. No good guy. Blah Blah Blah. But one question. If you are comparing a flipper to the wave then didnt Ernie copy his tanto?

Seems the same boat to me.
 
It doesn't matter who did what when, who copied whos idea, how old some may think the idea is or anything else if they didn't patent the idea. Ernie patented the opening device he called the Wave. Its his. Our law system acknowledges that he has the right to the intellectual property for a number of years from the date of the patent. Do a patent search and use the patent number I provided above and you can read what the patent covers. Anyone that copies it has to follow the requirements of the law to do it above board. Apparently LT thinks he is above the patent laws from what I can see.

This is one of those areas where you have to look at it from the standpoint of what if it were your patent that was being violated? Lets say you patented a diamond sharpener that was sterilizeable for dental instruments and that could be run in the autoclave or chemiclave sterilizer with the rest of the scalers and what not so that you had a sterile uncontaminated sharpener in each pack of sterile instruments; all so you could control things so cross contamination would not be an issue by sharpening a sterile instrument you are about to use on a patient on a dirty oily sharpening stone stored in a drawer. Once that sterile instrument touches the dirty stone guess what? It isn't sterile anymore. Now lets say that the patent said it was 3.5" long, 1.5" wide and had diamond dust particles embedded so they were permanently attatched to the sharpening surface and the pad was magnetized so it held the metal particles during sharpening to prevent them from becoming a contamination problem..

You get your patent and along comes some smart ass that likes the idea but doesn't give a rats a$$ about your hard work or any patent laws and just makes his the exact same way, only his is 3.5" long, 1.25" wide and he didn't magnetized his surface to hold the metal shavings.

Is it legal or is it blatant theft? Everyone knows his is different, so he gets off. But he stole your idea. Personally I don't have desire to deal with people like that. That is all I'm saying.

As for the liner lock and Bucks lock back and some of the other ideas that have been copied. They were not patented. Buck didn't patent the lock back folder. Mr. Walker got some bad advice and didn't patent the liner lock. He should have. But because he didn't is why it is mass produced with immunity to legal issues. Those that paid or pay a royalty to Mr.Walker, like Ernie Emerson, Ken Onion, Spyderco and many others do so because they are honorable men that have a stronger sense of whats right and feel he should get something back for his idea. These are the kind of people I chose to deal with.

STR
 
Sorry still dont see how they are similar. Wave is on the blade the CS uses a flipper. It just aint the same.... Trust me Any patent lawer would just giggle take your money and ask to see the tin foil hat. IT is not the same in any way. Different design, and different mode of physics needed to propell blade from the pivot point. Actually the only thing simmilar on the blade is that it has a cutting edge.
 
FWIW- the protusion,horn, whatever on the Gunting is NOT there to "wave" the knife open, it's used for kinetic openings, pressure points, and locks. A person could re-drill the clip and mount it tip up to make it work as a "Waved" knife, but as it went out the door at Spyderco, it was clearly not intended to be opened in that fashion.

This thread wouldn't exist if Lynn Thompson had simply mounted the clip in a tip-down fashion. (Like Darrel Ralph did with the Maxx series) Heck it probably wouldn't be here if he didn't demonstrate a waved opening with one of his products. I've seen the tape in question myself. He is quite clearly advertising a wave opening feature of his product.

I'm not taking sides on Patent law, ethics, morality, or calling anyone dirty names, but...STR didn't hallucinate or jump the gun in what he's describing.
 
Yans if you watched the videos from both Emerson and the CS DVD Ti-Lite demo you would not be able to say they are not similar. It is promoted the same way as the Wave. That is the issue not the way it looks, where it is mounted or anything else. Those things including a add on mounted device that could be removed are all covered under the patent if they are used the same way to open the blade and advertised as such.

Oh, and as for any patent attorney just giggling. Well, that remains to be seen doesn't it? I heard back from Ernie and he is aware of this now. He also told me that there was no need for me to edit the truth. I wrote him and asked him to advise me if I said anything that needed corrected, edited, or deleted. LT stole the idea. Oh, sure he can always call it something else and so can you or anyone else, but the way it is promoted is the real tell here.
STR
 
CUTS LIKE A KRIS said:
But yet I have not ever heard fthat the Gunting Folder of Spyderco is a Wave rip off even though the opening with the spine protrusion helps open the knife. The usage is similar but execution is different.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? The clip on the gunting is tip down, 1/3 of the knife sticks out of your pocket, and Bram specifically said that to mount the clip the other way to make the Gunting a wave is defeating the whole purpose of the knife. They have nothing in common.
 
Sorry as long as the knife is not designed the same way or called wave opening it really is not patent infringement. As for the opening from the pocket being a tip up design, well I have a Timberline with a stud that can be opend by turning the knife slightly in the pocket and catching the kraton nub inside the stud on the pocket. Is that infringement. No because it is a diff mecahnical means of opening.

Also did Ernie send Lynn any money out of respect for copying the Americanised tanto That Lynn popularised.(Notice I did not say designed.)

The envelope has been pushed so much in the cutlery field that it is getting hard to Not copy a part of another designers idea. Two different designers can be working at different companies and on different continents, and there will be similarites.
 
Why don't you go visit Mr. Thompson in person & make your point.
He probably has no idea how much loathe is found here.
 
[QUOTEAlso did Ernie send Lynn any money out of respect for copying the Americanised tanto That Lynn popularised.(Notice I did not say designed.)][/QUOTE]

Why should he? Lynn didn't do anything but market it. He doesn't hold a patent on that design. I have a Japanese sword that is older than Lynn with that same tanto shape. It isn't new or Americanized either.

This is really not worth getting all that worked up about. The real issue is why two people can't just do the honorable thing and work it out between them. Lynn didn't even try that route. How hard would it be to ask if he can do it for a small license fee like Spyderco did?
STR
 
from what i understand of patents[which is sweet f all] something "similar" does not infringe on the patents.please correct me if i'm wrong.i'm not defending LT or his practices.maybe the ti lite was designed with that feature and "waved" opening was discovered as a by-product.the position of the grooves on the quillions seem a little convenient though.i say if it dont look like the wave and isnt called the wave its not the wave.the problem here is LT and his business practices,and the fact that he didnt ask mr E for permission to "wave" open his ti lite.but to be frank after the wave was intro'd everyone and his brother tried to get round the patent and make something similar and not the same imho.EKI did it first and LT was the first to demo 1 of his blades being opened like that.i still think it's much ado about nothing
 
yans said:
Sorry as long as the knife is not designed the same way or called wave opening it really is not patent infringement. As for the opening from the pocket being a tip up design, well I have a Timberline with a stud that can be opend by turning the knife slightly in the pocket and catching the kraton nub inside the stud on the pocket. Is that infringement. No because it is a diff mecahnical means of opening.

Also did Ernie send Lynn any money out of respect for copying the Americanised tanto That Lynn popularised.(Notice I did not say designed.)

The envelope has been pushed so much in the cutlery field that it is getting hard to Not copy a part of another designers idea. Two different designers can be working at different companies and on different continents, and there will be similarites.
Click to expand...

I've opened the Timberline Pistol Grip folder the same way. and no, it is not a patent infringement. It has never been marketed as featuring a wave opening device, it's simply an idiosyncracy discovered through customer use. If the producers of Timberline distributed a video advertising the knife and saying for example... "The Ti-Lite can be drawn and opened in one motion by snagging a quillon at the base of it's blade on the edge of a sturdy pocket" (that's quoted verbatim from Lynn Thompson, BTW) it could easily easily be percieved quite differently.

The definition of the Wave patent says:

"The blade opening mechanism known as "the wave" whether in it's present integral form, or any detatchable form or any other variation is protected by the patent numbered 5,878,500. The pertinant paragraph which covers any variation of "the wave" reads as follows.
---------------------
<b>"While certain specific relationships, materials and other parameters have been detailed in the above description of preferred embodiments, those can be varied, where suitable, with similar results. Other applications, variations and ramifications of the present invention will occur to those skilled in the art upon reading the present disclosure. Those are intended to be included within the scope of this invention as defined in the appended claims." (US Patent Number 5,878,500 March 9, 1999)</b>"

In reality, it doesn't really matter to me what is defined in the letter of the law. I think Lynn Thompson was pretty unethical in that display. It's certainly not an act I could do in good conscience. Furthermore, I can't blame STR for calling BS when he percieved his friend as getting cheated. It's what I'd hope a friend would do for me.
 
rowdy27 said:
Why don't you go visit Mr. Thompson in person & make your point.
He probably has no idea how much loathe is found here.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he knows quite well about what many on this and other knife forums think of him. I also don't think he gives a rat's behind.
 
yans said:
Also did Ernie send Lynn any money out of respect for copying the Americanised tanto That Lynn popularised.(Notice I did not say designed.)
Click to expand...
Popularization is not protected under Patent law. And until Lynn Thompson give full credit to Bob Lum for introducing the American tanto concept, I don't think he should be expecting one from Ernie.
 
STR said:
You get your patent and along comes some smart ass that likes the idea but doesn't give a rats a$$ about your hard work or any patent laws and just makes his the exact same way, only his is 3.5" long, 1.25" wide and he didn't magnetized his surface to hold the metal shavings.

Is it legal or is it blatant theft? Everyone knows his is different, so he gets off.
Click to expand...

You are very confused about patent law.... Basically the idea is when you write your patent application you claim the whole world in the broadest possible terms, and then the patent examiners usually make you narrow it down a little before they'll grant the patent, but they would never make you narrow it down that far. A patent covers an invention, any use of that invention.

The problem of patent enforcement is not that people can evade a patent violation by changing the dimensions a little; the problem is that the government doesn't enforce your patent for you -- you have to go to the trouble and expense of suing anyone who violates your patent.

I don't know whether Emerson is going to sue Cold Steel over this one or not. Deciding whether to go to court is a little like deciding whether to go to war -- it's not just a question of who would win....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top