Copy knives. Where does the line get drawn

Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
8,578
Ok as the title of the thread asks, where does the line get drawn in the sand when talking about knives lightly or heavily influenced by another? Just what is going too far? Ive been seeing threads closed when posting knives that are copies of another but usually this only happens with the chinese knives. In some of these threads the intent of the OP was vague. Could be spam could be trolling or it could just be discussion. But I never see a thread on the Microtech knives like the matrix and the whaleshark get closed. So maybe its a question for the mods to answer but Id like everyones opinion. What is too far when borrowing design cues? And what exactly violates the rules of the forum when posting about such items?
 
The Microtechs existed long before the ZT 0777, yet people say Microtech copied the ZT. There is inspiration, and then that step further, and it can be difficult to distinguish between influences and copies.
 
Ok as the title of the thread asks, where does the line get drawn in the sand when talking about knives lightly or heavily influenced by another? Just what is going too far? Ive been seeing threads closed when posting knives that are copies of another but usually this only happens with the chinese knives. In some of these threads the intent of the OP was vague. Could be spam could be trolling or it could just be discussion. But I never see a thread on the Microtech knives like the matrix and the whaleshark get closed. So maybe its a question for the mods to answer but Id like everyones opinion. What is too far when borrowing design cues? And what exactly violates the rules of the forum when posting about such items?

That's probably accurate. Threads that feature Cold Steel, Microtech, or Boker knives that have been....uh...'influenced heavily' by other peoples designs don't seem to get shut down, but when Chinese knockoffs get posted, threads disappear and infractions fly.

There have been a couple of very recent threads that look to be spam or advertising for knockoff companies, and it makes sense that those get shut down. It makes sense for threads that promote Chinese knockoffs in general get shut down, or at least aren't welcomed here. On the flip side, I don't know that there's actually anything against the rules about making a thread and saying "Hey, there's this new original design coming out; What do you think of it?", yet when those threads pop up about Chinese knives, they seem to get filled with discussion about knockoffs, shut down or shuffled off more often than not.

There was a 50 page discussion on Chinese knives shut down recently because a mod found like two instances of linking to non-registered dealers. 50 pages of productive discussion closed because two people made minor rules violations? Looks like someone was just looking for an excuse. It's the mods' prerogative, and not a big deal in any case, but it's still a bit of a strange trend IMHO.

I get the impression that Posting about Chinese knives in general (and they don't even have to be knockoffs, either) seems like a very good way to get your thread closed, moved to W&C, or deleted - Either because your thread actually violated any rules (an easy thing to avoid) or because it immediately gets filled with political ranting / trolling / rules violations by other people (almost impossible to avoid). Posting about companies other than Chinese ones that produce knockoffs or have shady business practices, and you seem to be in the clear. Who knows? :confused:
 
There was a 50 page discussion on Chinese knives shut down recently because a mod found like two instances of linking to non-registered dealers. 50 pages of productive discussion closed because two people made minor rules violations? Looks like someone was just looking for an excuse. It's the mods' prerogative, and not a big deal in any case, but it's still a bit of a strange trend IMHO.

I get the impression that Posting about Chinese knives in general (and they don't even have to be knockoffs, either) seems like a very good way to get your thread closed, moved to W&C, or deleted - Either because your thread actually violated any rules (an easy thing to avoid) or because it immediately gets filled with political ranting / trolling / rules violations by other people (almost impossible to avoid). Posting about companies other than Chinese ones that produce knockoffs or have shady business practices, and you seem to be in the clear. Who knows? :confused:

You're welcome to find another forum or start your own. Either way, opinions like yours won't be missed by people like me if you left and never returned.

Copies/clones/counterfeits/knockoffs/etc are an insult to the designers and manufacturers (be they a company or a custom maker), and do only harm to the industry, hobby, and livelihood of the honest craftsmen who produce these knives. Is there a line? Yes. If you take/borrow/steal an idea from another without permission (or licensing), you've crossed the line. If you don't know where that line is, then you need reeducation in morals and ethics.
 
Last edited:
Just a couple of thoughts...

I have a Boker Nano, which is licensed from an original Curtis design which costs many times more. As much as I think it is such an interesting piece of design, I would be really embarrassed to carry the "cheaper, mass produced version" if it was not licensed -- then it would be a "knockoff." I use the Nano as an example because it is such a distinct knife. To me (in the US) this falls under trade dress laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
7419AuWn3.jpg

[Not trying to inadvertently link to a non-sponsor etc..I just don't own an "original"]

On the other hand, many knives have a long, culturally evolving "non-proprietary" history -- like karambits. At some point a folding karambit was produced. Now everyone produces a folding karambit. From a US patent law perspective this fails to meet the requirement of "non-obviousness." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness It was a natural evolution and thus cannot meet patent protection guidelines. However, the Emerson Wave feature was "non-obvious" and was eligible for a patent. For the most part though, when it comes to tools, craftsmanship and materials are used for product differentiation.

The case of MT and ZT is interesting in that they both have high-end reputations and whoever was "first" to market with a design concept work may not have technically met trade-dress or the obviousness test. On the other hand, perhaps they did not try -- patents only give a party "offensive rights." While it costs very little to send a cease and desist letter, taking someone to court is going to cost at least tens of thousands with no guarantee. This is in addition to the great expense of filing a patent in a defensible way using experienced (i.e.$$$) lawyers.

Patent law tries to find a balance between giving someone the profit incentive to create new things with the societal balance of allowing others to benefit from new approaches and technology.
 
Last edited:
You're welcome to find another forum or start your own. Either way, opinions like yours won't be missed by people like me if you left and never returned.

Thanks, tips!

(( not necessary ))

I'll cherish this post forever and ever. Have a bright, sunshiny-day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And away we go ...
Do not poke each other when there is a perfectly clear topic to discuss.
 
I think that posting anything about Chinese knives is like waving a red flag at a bull for some people. It seems to trigger an emotional response that overrides their rational side. Vice and virtue is not the sole monopoly of any nation / people. We should all take a stance against knock-offs, regardless of country of origin - unless your bias extends beyond bad ethical practices, which indicates the width of your perception and depth of your thinking.

Can't we take a positive position in this by first seeing that having more information about such knives can benefit us knife enthusiasts by knowing that such knives exist. Secondly, with informed buyers, it can help conscientious buyers avoid such knives. In turn, this impact the economic decision-making of these makers. At the risk of oversimplification, supply exists because of demand.

So, unless such postings are to solicit sales, we should encourage such further disclosures.
 
I find it intresting how people say "Microtech copied that from ZT" or "BM copied that from X" but when a chinese company do it its instantly a stolen design, Et2cetera might be on to something with the red flag teory, but that would have to have some kind of background?
 
The Microtechs existed long before the ZT 0777, yet people say Microtech copied the ZT. There is inspiration, and then that step further, and it can be difficult to distinguish between influences and copies.

Didn't Microtech just start producing them first? I was under the impression they did copy the 0777 looks and got them out a lot sooner. If that isn't so then why all the conflict?
 
copy one person knife is not a no no but to do it and then put there name on it and sell it like it was a real one cross the line. I belive it is counterfiting. that I have a problem with. I dont have a problem with selling clone knifes that have no names on them.
 
They should create their own designs period. Not closely copy other manufacturers just because it's easier.
 
Since knives and edged weapons both have been around for thousands of years there really isn't all that much that hasn't been done already, that's talking about basic design, blade shapes etc.

So going from that fact and one people do seem to forget and or not even take into consideration for various reasons and agendas......

I will say this:

As long as the knives aren't exact copies of other knives all is good because most of everything that is currently out there has been influenced by another design of the past.

That's looking at things logically based on the history of edges tools and weapons.
 
Since knives and edged weapons both have been around for thousands of years there really isn't all that much that hasn't been done already, that's talking about basic design, blade shapes etc.

So going from that fact and one people do seem to forget and or not even take into consideration for various reasons and agendas......

I will say this:

As long as the knives aren't exact copies of other knives all is good because most of everything that is currently out there has been influenced by another design of the past.

That's looking at things logically based on the history of edges tools and weapons.

I agree with Ankerson on this, When is the last time you saw something totally new, or never used before on a knife design?? Sure you may get different steels that have never been used before, but the locks, blade shapes, and handle materials have pretty much all been used already,As long as a knife isn't a blatant ripoff of another knife like the fake sebenzas or striders you see from China , then you will see that no knife is really original, and has some traits of a knife made before it. I'm not gonna beat that dead horse about the microtech matrix and the Zt 777 it's been discussed a lot already, But to answer your question , "going too far "IMO is a knife claiming to be a strider or sebenza, looks exactly the same even has the makers mark stamped on the blade, but It's a fake or copy IMO that is where it should not be tolerated.
 
Since knives and edged weapons both have been around for thousands of years there really isn't all that much that hasn't been done already, that's talking about basic design, blade shapes etc.

So going from that fact and one people do seem to forget and or not even take into consideration for various reasons and agendas......

I will say this:

As long as the knives aren't exact copies of other knives all is good because most of everything that is currently out there has been influenced by another design of the past.

That's looking at things logically based on the history of edges tools and weapons.

I agree.


It is ironic to me that these companies could probably sell original designs for a higher price than the knockoffs!
 
They should create their own designs period. Not closely copy other manufacturers just because it's easier.

Exactly, and they don't just do it because its easier. They also know they will sell more if it looks just like a popular knife design.

This "Kevin" factory has them with the name(CRK, Hinderer, etc...) and the same knife without the name. Its wrong to do either IMO.

I'm sure they get sales on Ebay every time a thread with pics of them shows up here. I think they know what they're doing when they post pics here.
 
I will say this Spyderco gets the most respect from me at least when they design a knife, They don't call a frame lock a frame lock they call it a R.I.L Reeve Integral lock, Because Reeve designed it , They call a liner lock a Michael walker liner lock, for the same reason. Certain knife features have been patented and that's fine you designed it its yours, Others have chose to not patent their designs for the whole industry to use, again thats fine, as well but giving credit to the original designer is a big plus for Spyderco in my book.
 
I agree.


It is ironic to me that these companies could probably sell original designs for a higher price than the knockoffs!

I know, they can take a good design and tweak it like most of the other makers do and have something even better. :)
 
I hate this topic. Knives are almost always designed in part by the makers past experiences with other knives. To argue that it's copying simply because it's similar in some respects would be like arguing that cars are copying older models of cars. Knives that are popular are bound to be influences for other knives, since knifemakers want to sell knives. How many knives copy or borrow features from the Mora, the Kabar, the Buck 110, etc. Blatant counterfeit knives, or knives that illegally infringe on patents are another story all together. But how may 'copycat' styles do you see pulled because of lawsuits? Not many. Guess why?
 
Back
Top