Wow
where to begin. Seems like the CS haters need another butt-kicking.
Once again, I have been lurking around for a while, keeping mum and reading the ramblings of the brash, bold, and the wildly inaccurate. Once again, much of said ramblings have now gone from opinionated to insulting and just wrong. It is time for me to again defend my friends at Cold Steel.
I will try to address many of the inaccurate statements and claims one at a time. For the sake of time and discourse, I will paraphrase the statements of many members into one and then respond to that. I do not feel the need to quote each individual member who made these inflammatory statements. That would take an entire day of searching, and you all know whom you are.
Cold Steal has ripped off the designs, locks, patents, and names of other knife makers.
While there have been several accusations thrown around, lets look at a few specific ones:
Lynn Thompson and CS stole the Wave from Ernie Emerson.
Nope. Not true. There are 3 CS knives that can be opened against the edge of the pocket, or snagged on another surface, the Ti-Lite, the Tulwar, and the AK-47. The oldest of those 3 knives is the Ti-Lite. That knife has been in mass production for several years and was designed by Phil Boguszewski prior to that. I cant speak for other knife companies, but I know that at CS it usually takes at least 2 or 3 years for a knife to go from drawing board to production. I also cannot specifically date when Boguszewski actually designed the Ti-Lite, but I am reasonably sure that the same time lag applied. The opening action was discovered by the staff at CS, as well as many of its customers. Neither LT nor any CS staff claims that they invented the opening action, and it appears that such an opening action is not only commonly practiced, but has been around as long as there have been stiletto style folders with quillions, which dates back many, many decades; more decades than Ernie Emerson has been alive. That all having been said, an argument could be made (and has been made by a few posters here on BF) that Emersons patent is invalid since the action predates his patent by many years. I dont care one way or the other about that argument, and do not really believe that Emersons patent for the Wave is invalid, but if we can accept that the design of the Ti-Lite is based on an old and accepted style of knife, and that the opening action pre-dates the Wave and its patent for that style of knife, then why should LT and CS feel any obligation to Emerson and not advertise this action that was discovered to function on that knife- especially when it was not designed specifically to do that?
Now, lets look at a few facts regarding the other 2 knives- the AK-47 and the Tulwar. Those knives both have an attached thumb plate that can be used to open the knife conventionally and by snagging it on pockets, clothing, etc. Did CS Rip Off the patent of Emerson and the Wave? No. The patent is owned by Andrew Demko, and CS has licensed that patent for use on those 2 knives. CS owes no endorsement, acknowledgment, or financial agreement to Emerson because it was not Emersons patent that was used. Emersons patent was not infringed upon because it was not Emersons patent that was used. Demkos patent was legally licensed and paid for to use in the 2 knives listed, and the Wave does not even enter the picture because it was not Emersons patent that was used. Are you getting it? Do you see it now? No? Okay, Ill spell it out for you. If Emersons patent covered all possible knife-opening devices that snag against the pants pocket, then Demko would never have gotten his patent, would he? To my understanding, and of course I am not a lawyer, only devices can be patented- not actions. CS didnt steal anything. They saw a device they liked, they wanted to use it, and they licensed its use from the patent owner. Not only did they license the opening plate, they also gratefully acknowledge Demko as the designer of the AK-47 (as well as acknowledging Boguszewski for the Ti-Lite). So, help me out here. Wheres the theft?
Lynn and CS stole the Axis Lock from Benchmade.
Nope. Not true. Parts of the Axis lock do appear in the CS Ultralock. That is why CS made the appropriate agreements with BM to use those parts in the Ultralock. There have been some statements on BF that there was some legal action or threat of legal action from BM toward CS. Also, not true. When the Ultralock was first designed and executed by CS, there was some communication from BM (not their lawyers and no threat of suit was made) that there were similarities in parts between the Ultralock and Axis lock. When CS examined both, and it agreed that BM was right and there were enough similarities to warrant some sort of agreement, CS offered to license the parts and acknowledge BM and the Axis lock on the box of the Recon-1 for its first years of production. While that acknowledgement is not on the current boxes of the Recon-1 or the AK-47, CS and LT continue to state that the Ultralock and the Axis Lock are related. Other companies have made knives that have similar locks to the Axis, and, to my knowledge, CS and LT are the only ones that have offered any licensure, paid for said licensure, and acknowledgement of BM. No legal action was ever taken or threatened against CS, yet the company still did the right thing by making good with BM- no one else has done that. Some on the forum have stated that CS and LT were beat-up and/or forced to pay BM for the Ultralock/Axis Lock similarity (metaphorically, of course). Not only did this forced coercion never happen, but CS volunteered to pay BM for the usage of said parts. So, help me out here. Wheres the theft?
LT and CS stole the Tighe Stick design for the Black Sable.
Nope. Not true. Yes, if you put a Tighe Stick against a Black Sable, there are some similarities. However, If you lay a Black Sable over a Scimitar, you will see that the lines are also identical. The Black Sable is a combination of the Scimitar and the Tanto tip from CS. CS has been producing the Scimitar for over 7 years, and, as stated above, with design time testing, etc., has been a CS product for at least 9 or 10 years. The Tanto from CS dates back to the 80s and is the cornerstone of CS products. Why shouldnt CS take 2 of its long- standing products and combine them? I know that the Black Sable, again, took some 2 to 3 years to go from drawing board to production. This is nothing to be taken lightly. A lot of time and money was invested to make that knife the quality product that it is. Seems like a lot of waste to rip off someone, huh? In fact, an argument could be made that Tighe, SOG, Emerson, MOD, and some custom maker, in fact, ripped-off CS and the scimitar. Just look below:
The Scimitar-
The Tighe Stick-
Emerson-
SOG-
MOD-
Dont know who this is, but cmon-
And even another that seems to me to be pretty blatant-
Yet, I dont hear any of you screaming foul or rip-off to defend CS and its interests. Hmm seems a little inaccurate and perhaps even hypocritical. As long as its LT or CS, its okay to call them names and make accusations. But heaven forbid you might be wrong. None of these people or companies called CS or LT and said, hey, wed like to use an upswept blade and a downswept handle for our knife design, is that okay? But you expect and demand that CS and LT do that, even when he is not borrowing or, in your estimation, stealing from another maker. That downswept handle from CS, by the way, predates all of the above knives and was used with the Vaquero line of knives for well over 10 years.
Like I said, it is okay to pick on LT and CS, but if you want to be intellectually honest, there are other possibilities besides calling them thieves. Look above with an honest eye, then help me out here. Where is the theft?
LT and CS stole the American Tomahawk Company name.
An oldie, but a goodie. Again, nope. Not true. Now I know that all you experts that are 100% knowledgeable about the internal practices and business of the knife and/or tomahawk companies that you espouse to love and hate so much are going to either be shocked, stunned, or hopefully a bit embarrassed when you read the following statement: CS has owned the name American Tomahawk Company for many, many years. The name became public domain a long time ago and CS purchased it legally and rightfully. Anyone could have done it. CS and LT chose to, and has continued to pay for the right to use the name ever since. Now lets see, CS paid for the name, someone else comes along and decides to use it without buying it or licensing it from CS, but LT and CS are the bad guys? CS did nothing wrong or illegal, yet you folks think they are the bad guys here? And when someone else basically hijacks a company name from them and then raises a stink about it- you folks do about as much research as a kindergartener and yet you call them thieves and impugn their integrity because you think they did something wrong.
It is one thing to have an opinion. One might think it better to have an informed opinion, but it is everyones right to be wrong. The problem I have with many of you CS haters out there is that you think your opinion is fact. You say things like, its obvious CS ripped off _____ , or, I know that LT did _____ , when you have no first hand knowledge or even a marginal shred of fact.
Okay, thievery has been addressed. Im gonna have more issues to address over the next few days.
Before you flame me or call me names and insult me, I would ask that you examine what I have stated and really think before responding. Like I have said before on other posts, I know the CS haters will always be haters. I am just trying to put out some facts rather than guesses for those who are either on the fence or new to the knife knut world.
Once again, I have been lurking around for a while, keeping mum and reading the ramblings of the brash, bold, and the wildly inaccurate. Once again, much of said ramblings have now gone from opinionated to insulting and just wrong. It is time for me to again defend my friends at Cold Steel.
I will try to address many of the inaccurate statements and claims one at a time. For the sake of time and discourse, I will paraphrase the statements of many members into one and then respond to that. I do not feel the need to quote each individual member who made these inflammatory statements. That would take an entire day of searching, and you all know whom you are.
Cold Steal has ripped off the designs, locks, patents, and names of other knife makers.
While there have been several accusations thrown around, lets look at a few specific ones:
Lynn Thompson and CS stole the Wave from Ernie Emerson.
Nope. Not true. There are 3 CS knives that can be opened against the edge of the pocket, or snagged on another surface, the Ti-Lite, the Tulwar, and the AK-47. The oldest of those 3 knives is the Ti-Lite. That knife has been in mass production for several years and was designed by Phil Boguszewski prior to that. I cant speak for other knife companies, but I know that at CS it usually takes at least 2 or 3 years for a knife to go from drawing board to production. I also cannot specifically date when Boguszewski actually designed the Ti-Lite, but I am reasonably sure that the same time lag applied. The opening action was discovered by the staff at CS, as well as many of its customers. Neither LT nor any CS staff claims that they invented the opening action, and it appears that such an opening action is not only commonly practiced, but has been around as long as there have been stiletto style folders with quillions, which dates back many, many decades; more decades than Ernie Emerson has been alive. That all having been said, an argument could be made (and has been made by a few posters here on BF) that Emersons patent is invalid since the action predates his patent by many years. I dont care one way or the other about that argument, and do not really believe that Emersons patent for the Wave is invalid, but if we can accept that the design of the Ti-Lite is based on an old and accepted style of knife, and that the opening action pre-dates the Wave and its patent for that style of knife, then why should LT and CS feel any obligation to Emerson and not advertise this action that was discovered to function on that knife- especially when it was not designed specifically to do that?
Now, lets look at a few facts regarding the other 2 knives- the AK-47 and the Tulwar. Those knives both have an attached thumb plate that can be used to open the knife conventionally and by snagging it on pockets, clothing, etc. Did CS Rip Off the patent of Emerson and the Wave? No. The patent is owned by Andrew Demko, and CS has licensed that patent for use on those 2 knives. CS owes no endorsement, acknowledgment, or financial agreement to Emerson because it was not Emersons patent that was used. Emersons patent was not infringed upon because it was not Emersons patent that was used. Demkos patent was legally licensed and paid for to use in the 2 knives listed, and the Wave does not even enter the picture because it was not Emersons patent that was used. Are you getting it? Do you see it now? No? Okay, Ill spell it out for you. If Emersons patent covered all possible knife-opening devices that snag against the pants pocket, then Demko would never have gotten his patent, would he? To my understanding, and of course I am not a lawyer, only devices can be patented- not actions. CS didnt steal anything. They saw a device they liked, they wanted to use it, and they licensed its use from the patent owner. Not only did they license the opening plate, they also gratefully acknowledge Demko as the designer of the AK-47 (as well as acknowledging Boguszewski for the Ti-Lite). So, help me out here. Wheres the theft?
Lynn and CS stole the Axis Lock from Benchmade.
Nope. Not true. Parts of the Axis lock do appear in the CS Ultralock. That is why CS made the appropriate agreements with BM to use those parts in the Ultralock. There have been some statements on BF that there was some legal action or threat of legal action from BM toward CS. Also, not true. When the Ultralock was first designed and executed by CS, there was some communication from BM (not their lawyers and no threat of suit was made) that there were similarities in parts between the Ultralock and Axis lock. When CS examined both, and it agreed that BM was right and there were enough similarities to warrant some sort of agreement, CS offered to license the parts and acknowledge BM and the Axis lock on the box of the Recon-1 for its first years of production. While that acknowledgement is not on the current boxes of the Recon-1 or the AK-47, CS and LT continue to state that the Ultralock and the Axis Lock are related. Other companies have made knives that have similar locks to the Axis, and, to my knowledge, CS and LT are the only ones that have offered any licensure, paid for said licensure, and acknowledgement of BM. No legal action was ever taken or threatened against CS, yet the company still did the right thing by making good with BM- no one else has done that. Some on the forum have stated that CS and LT were beat-up and/or forced to pay BM for the Ultralock/Axis Lock similarity (metaphorically, of course). Not only did this forced coercion never happen, but CS volunteered to pay BM for the usage of said parts. So, help me out here. Wheres the theft?
LT and CS stole the Tighe Stick design for the Black Sable.
Nope. Not true. Yes, if you put a Tighe Stick against a Black Sable, there are some similarities. However, If you lay a Black Sable over a Scimitar, you will see that the lines are also identical. The Black Sable is a combination of the Scimitar and the Tanto tip from CS. CS has been producing the Scimitar for over 7 years, and, as stated above, with design time testing, etc., has been a CS product for at least 9 or 10 years. The Tanto from CS dates back to the 80s and is the cornerstone of CS products. Why shouldnt CS take 2 of its long- standing products and combine them? I know that the Black Sable, again, took some 2 to 3 years to go from drawing board to production. This is nothing to be taken lightly. A lot of time and money was invested to make that knife the quality product that it is. Seems like a lot of waste to rip off someone, huh? In fact, an argument could be made that Tighe, SOG, Emerson, MOD, and some custom maker, in fact, ripped-off CS and the scimitar. Just look below:
The Scimitar-
The Tighe Stick-
Emerson-
SOG-
MOD-
Dont know who this is, but cmon-
And even another that seems to me to be pretty blatant-
Yet, I dont hear any of you screaming foul or rip-off to defend CS and its interests. Hmm seems a little inaccurate and perhaps even hypocritical. As long as its LT or CS, its okay to call them names and make accusations. But heaven forbid you might be wrong. None of these people or companies called CS or LT and said, hey, wed like to use an upswept blade and a downswept handle for our knife design, is that okay? But you expect and demand that CS and LT do that, even when he is not borrowing or, in your estimation, stealing from another maker. That downswept handle from CS, by the way, predates all of the above knives and was used with the Vaquero line of knives for well over 10 years.
Like I said, it is okay to pick on LT and CS, but if you want to be intellectually honest, there are other possibilities besides calling them thieves. Look above with an honest eye, then help me out here. Where is the theft?
LT and CS stole the American Tomahawk Company name.
An oldie, but a goodie. Again, nope. Not true. Now I know that all you experts that are 100% knowledgeable about the internal practices and business of the knife and/or tomahawk companies that you espouse to love and hate so much are going to either be shocked, stunned, or hopefully a bit embarrassed when you read the following statement: CS has owned the name American Tomahawk Company for many, many years. The name became public domain a long time ago and CS purchased it legally and rightfully. Anyone could have done it. CS and LT chose to, and has continued to pay for the right to use the name ever since. Now lets see, CS paid for the name, someone else comes along and decides to use it without buying it or licensing it from CS, but LT and CS are the bad guys? CS did nothing wrong or illegal, yet you folks think they are the bad guys here? And when someone else basically hijacks a company name from them and then raises a stink about it- you folks do about as much research as a kindergartener and yet you call them thieves and impugn their integrity because you think they did something wrong.
It is one thing to have an opinion. One might think it better to have an informed opinion, but it is everyones right to be wrong. The problem I have with many of you CS haters out there is that you think your opinion is fact. You say things like, its obvious CS ripped off _____ , or, I know that LT did _____ , when you have no first hand knowledge or even a marginal shred of fact.
Okay, thievery has been addressed. Im gonna have more issues to address over the next few days.
Before you flame me or call me names and insult me, I would ask that you examine what I have stated and really think before responding. Like I have said before on other posts, I know the CS haters will always be haters. I am just trying to put out some facts rather than guesses for those who are either on the fence or new to the knife knut world.
