CS- love 'em, hate 'em- time to address some issues

Keith Montgomery said:
I am not saying that I don't think CS has ripped off other companies'/people's designs, just that I don't think they do it purposely. Believe me, I know very well that I could be wrong with that assumption.
Click to expand...


no biggie im not trying to be confrontational. Really the only one who knows is LT (and maybe russ lol:D ), But (T)he(y) aint telling.:foot:
 
It was posted many times that CS and BM worked it out about CS's Ultra Lock muuch to LT's credit.
 
Keith Montgomery said:
If designs are stolen then laws are broken.
Click to expand...

No.

If patented designs are stolen, the patent holder has a better chance of using courts to enforce his/her monopoly. If there is no patent, then it's a real uphill battle. Unless the copy is a counterfeit, or violates a trademark, it'd be difficult getting the law on your side.

This has nothing to do with integrity. This is the de facto way manufacturing in a free economy works. Anybody in business who can't face that fact already has one strike against him.
 
I know what I read here, but I don't know nearly enough to personally reach conclusions as to whether CS infringes on the intellectual property of others. However, "integrity," at least to me, means more than merely obeying the law -- or, even less impressive, obeying the law when called on an infringment.
 
Thomas Linton said:
I know what I read here, but I don't know nearly enough to personally reach conclusions as to whether CS infringes on the intellectual property of others. However, "integrity," at least to me, means more than merely obeying the law -- or, even less impressive, obeying the law when called on an infringment.
Click to expand...


Well integrity is waht its all about. Haveing a background check to dig up some dirt on another knfie maker is not illegal. but it certainly doesnt display any form of integrity.

Ripping off designs is just low. So is underhanded business practices. Lt can lie to everyone, but that doens tmean everyone will beleive him.

For the record i own an SRK and its an ok knife. I obught it when i was new to knife collecting. But it isnt speacial. His marketing is mainly hype. He also way over charges for some of his products. Which is fine by me, but some people do seem to think it detracts from the knife world. My main issue with LT (other than his lack of integrity and the whole strider/maddog fiasco) is the fact that his propoganda Proof dvd's in addition to beign rigged demonize knives. That is nto what the knife community needs right now. Personally i could care less what lardo does with his toys, but the pc concious sheeple will probably have a feild day with his exploits into the realm of stupid.
 
You guys are preaching to a member of the choir here. I have stated many times that CS's business practices have caused me to boycott the company. My biggest problem with CS is that the owner seems to think that badmouthing his competition is a good way to do business. I consinder that to be a slimbaal business practice. When I go into a retail establishment and a salesperson badmouths the competition, I leave, and I never go back.

Just because stealing other companies' designs is a common business practice doesn't mean that it is right. It is just the slimmy way many companies go about doing things. Many companies don't operate in that fashion. Take Pepsi for example. They could have had all the inside info on how Coke was made, but instead reported to Coca-Cola that they had a rat inside their organization. I disagree wholeheartedly that this is not an ethics issue. Just because it is common practice does not make it ethical.
 
Keith Montgomery said:
You guys are preaching to a member of the choir here. I have stated many times that CS's business practices have caused me to boycott the company. My biggest problem with CS is that the owner seems to think that badmouthing his competition is a good way to do business. I consinder that to be a slimbaal business practice. When I go into a retail establishment and a salesperson badmouths the competition, I leave, and I never go back.

Just because stealing other companies' designs is a common business practice doesn't mean that it is right. It is just the slimmy way many companies go about doing things. Many companies don't operate in that fashion. Take Pepsi for example. They could have had all the inside info on how Coke was made, but instead reported to Coca-Cola that they had a rat inside their organization. I disagree wholeheartedly that this is not an ethics issue. Just because it is common practice does not make it ethical.
Click to expand...


I didnt mean to come off as preachy KM.;) Yiou have done nothing that i find in the least offensive or wrong. You got a slightly different veiw than me, thats good it keeps us from all saying the same thing over and over again. If everyone had the same opinions then BF would be really boring.:p :thumbup:

I jasut get upset when people arent held accountable for their actions. This has the potential to really hurt the knife industry and it saddens me.

Espeacially when scum like LT tries to screw over honest-and hard working people like Mick, Duane, Josh and everyone that is involved with strider knives. :mad:

But possibly even more than that is the trick he pulled with the karambit. He shit all over it, then he proceeded to produce one. HIPPOCRACY:mad: :mad:

Down with Cold steal:mad: :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
 
Keith Montgomery said:
You guys are preaching to a member of the choir here. I have stated many times that CS's business practices have caused me to boycott the company. My biggest problem with CS is that the owner seems to think that badmouthing his competition is a good way to do business. I consinder that to be a slimbaal business practice. When I go into a retail establishment and a salesperson badmouths the competition, I leave, and I never go back.

Just because stealing other companies' designs is a common business practice doesn't mean that it is right. It is just the slimmy way many companies go about doing things. Many companies don't operate in that fashion. Take Pepsi for example. They could have had all the inside info on how Coke was made, but instead reported to Coca-Cola that they had a rat inside their organization. I disagree wholeheartedly that this is not an ethics issue. Just because it is common practice does not make it ethical.
Click to expand...

I had not heard about that Pepsi thing. . got a link?
 
Call me cynical, but Pepsi had nothing to gain by knowing any "secret formula" (they're already a successful company with their in-house products), and much to lose should such a transaction become publicly known. The downside of paying money for the formula could be disasterous, possibly illegal. I'd argue their actions not only helped Coca Cola keep their competitive secret (I'm skeptical about this claim), but also helped their bottom line. Pepsi's actions could be viewed as integrity, but were also done in self-interest.

In knife making world, anyone can try to patent a unique design. If they won't or can't, then copies are open season. End of story. Asking permission is nice, but not necessary. In the mean time, copies mean lower prices and better selection for the consumer. Added competition means every knife buyer ends up better off in the long run, even if he doesn't buy a copy.
 
I present another view. If those who create (as opposed to copy) derive no or little benefit from creativity, they will have less incentive to create -- and all knife-lovers lose.
 
razorsdescent said:
Espeacially when scum like LT tries to screw over honest-and hard working people like Mick, Duane, Josh and everyone that is involved with strider knives. :mad:

But possibly even more than that is the trick he pulled with the karambit. He shit all over it, then he proceeded to produce one. HIPPOCRACY:mad: :mad:

Down with Cold steal:mad: :thumbdn: :thumbdn: :thumbdn:
Click to expand...

Razorsdescent,

I don't want to drag up the sturm und drang from our first interaction, but I must say that the issue is much bigger than the Strider thing. It is simply about a specific attitude which says to the world at large......"I'm gonna do what I want, and screw the rest of you".

Not good for the end user, not good for those that get screwed over, and certainly not good for the community as a whole. Try to see the bigger picture.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Thomas Linton said:
I present another view. If those who create (as opposed to copy) derive no or little benefit from creativity, they will have less incentive to create -- and all knife-lovers lose.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this statement.

shecky, you are right. If a person doesn't patent a design and the design isn't protected by a copyright, then it is indeed legal for others to copy that idea. Even though it is legal, I still find it contemptible and will not support companies that I know do this. I will also always question the integrity of people that will support those companies that they know operate in this fashion. Especially those that proudly proclaim that they have no problem with companies that do business that way.
 
Kohai999 said:
Razorsdescent,

I don't want to drag up the sturm und drang from our first interaction, but I must say that the issue is much bigger than the Strider thing. It is simply about a specific attitude which says to the world at large......"I'm gonna do what I want, and screw the rest of you".

Not good for the end user, not good for those that get screwed over, and certainly not good for the community as a whole. Try to see the bigger picture.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
Click to expand...


Me neither ;)

I agree whole heartedly. I was just citeing a few of his specific actions that struck me a lower than the rest.:grumpy:
 
I don't really like anything that is made by CS, and I haven't seen the Proof videos, so I will not comment there.

However, I do object to the "weaponization" of one of the most useful tools that has been invented by man. I personally think that this "tacti-cool" fad is one of the worst developments in the knife world today. We, as knife enthusiasts (be you makers, collectors, martial arts practitioners, LEOs, military, etc) need nothing less than someone(s) attempt to make every pocket knife (rhetorically that is) into a deadly weapon. I think that CS is doing a great disservice to the knife community by making death and destruction a marketing tool. Thus endeth rant number one.

This turned out to be much longer that originally intended. If you are looking for unabashed CS bashing, or CS protectionism do yourself a favor and skip this post. I should also say that I am not a patent lawyer, I am a scientist, but I have had my share of dealings with patents and patent disputes. I invite any patent lawyers to correct errors in the details, but the crux of the discussion is sound.

About the "theft" of intellectual property that everyone seems to be so up in arms about.-- The founders of the United States felt so strongly about protecting intellectual property that they included the patent process in the constitution. In a nutshell, a patent is granted by the government for a unique and novel item or idea; and the holder of said patent is entitled to a limited monopoly on production and sale of the patented item (I believe that it is currently set at 20 years). However, with this granted monopoly, the holder of the patent discloses to the people of the United States the details of the patent. The patented invention is for all intents and purposes the property of the people of the United States. A patent is essentially a license to be the sole maker of whatever has been patented. Once the patent period has expired, the previously patented item is in the public domain, anyone can make and sell the item or idea.

If one has a patentable idea or invention, and does not patent it, then goes on to produce and sell it or discuss it in a public venue; once it has been discussed or offered for sale, that event is a disclosure to the public of the United States. And, by law, once a disclosure is made, you can not unmake it. You can argue that it was not made, or that the venue was private, but once you have given something to the people of the United States (the disclosure of your invention) you cannot take it back. Likewise, you cannot patent it. In fact, by making a public disclosure of your invention (and selling or offering for sale the item counts) you are telling the American public "here is my great idea, go forth and multiply." The patent process is set up to protect the intellectual property of creators, but the creator must take an active role in protecting the invention.

BY NOT PATENTING THE INVENTION, THE CREATOR IS ACTUALLY SAYING THAT IT IS OKAY TO COPY THE INVENTION. Likewise, once a patent is granted, it must be defended from infringement. If someone else makes a copy of your patented invention, you must stop that infringement. If you fail to take action to stop an infringement, it can be shown in a court of law that you failed in “due diligence” and thus effectively said that it was okay for the other entity to copy the patented invention. This will invalidate the patent. BY NOT SHOWING DUE DILIGENCE IN THE DEFENSE OF THE PATENT, THE PATENT HOLDER IS ACTUALLY SAYING THAT IT IS OKAY TO COPY THE PATENTED INVENTION.

This not the same as licensing a patented technology to another entity or entities to produce and sell. In this instance the patent holder has a contract with a certain entity and only the contracted entities are licensed to produce and/or sell.

Copyrights and trademarks work a bit differently, but the bottom line is the same. You must apply for a (patent, copyright, trademark) in order to get (patent, copyright, trademark) protection for your intellectual property. If you fail to get (patent, copyright, trademark) protection for your intellectual property and proceed to disclose that intellectual property to the people of the United States, you are GIVING to said people your invention. You are also saying that it is okay for anyone to copy your idea.

The case of the Barlow pattern knife.-- Assuming that it was patented at some point (which it most likely was not), that patent has long since expired and the Barlow has passed into the public domain and is therefore fair game for any knife manufacturer to make and sell.

The case of the Coke secret formula is a bit different. The “secret formula” is a trade secret. Trade secrets are not subject to any formal protection. They are only protected by the owners of the secret NOT disclosing the secret to anyone. As someone said earlier, if Pepsi had obtained the secret formula from Coca-Cola they would have gained little. However, they would have (most likely) been sued by Coca-Cola for industrial espionage. Trade secrets are subject to some of the same laws as the above mentioned protections. Namely, if you do not show due diligence in defense of your (trade secret, patent, trade mark, copyright), you no longer have a (trade secret, patent, trade mark, copyright). It is public knowledge, and therefore fair game.

There is one more case that I will share briefly. I was born and raised in Austin Texas. I went to college at the University of Texas at Austin, where I earned both a BS and a Ph.D. in biochemistry. While I was a graduate student, a restaurant opened in Austin called Bevos. If you do not know, the mascot of the University of Texas is named Bevo. This is a trade-marked name. While the restaurant argued that it was named Bevos because it was an Italian restaurant, and Bevos means drinks in Italian, UT sued and successfully shut down the establishment. One could argue that only a cruel and heartless institution could go after a mom and pop restaurant for something as trivial as trademark infringement. However, in order to maintain due diligence in the defense of the trademark, they (UT) were forced to act. If they had let the one instance go, it could be argued that they had in fact allowed the restaurant to infringe. This would have invalidated the trademark, and anyone could have used the name Bevo for anything. For the record, pretty much every university has a large and active licensing department, that is flooded every day with requests to license whatever to someone for something.

The short of this very long discussion is, so long as CS has not infringed on a LEGALLY PROTECTED intellectual property, they have not infringed. In fact their “copying” is sanctioned by patent law and by the originator of the invention (by not securing protection).

On last thing, competition drives invention. If I think that I can make it cheaper and/or better than you and copy your unprotected idea, then that forces you to either drive cost down, or improve quality or both. Some people think that patents actually stifle competition, but that is not true. Many an invention was created in order to circumvent a patented technology. Again, competition drives invention. Thus endeth rant number two.
 
They have infringed upon legally protected intellectual property, more than once. Working it out after the fact does not take away from the fact that they did it in the first place.

You again, like all the others stating that is is completely legal for companies to copy other peoples designs, are correct. As for it being acceptable, that is something each person that thinks about purchasing from these companies has to decide for themselves. I personally do not consider it to be acceptable.
 
hlee,
Thank you for sharing, and you do have some very valid points as they relate to I.P. Law. However, what Steven (Kohai999), Keith Montgomery, and razorsdescent have all pointed to, I think, is an even bigger factor in why people feel the way they do about the company.

My personal dislike for CS is predominatly based on my own perception of the attitude the company has chosen to take, towards their competition and in their marketing. I personally see it more as an issue of mindset than anything I.P. Law related.

Regards,
3G
 
Something that wasn't mentioned in the previous dissertation is that there are different kinds of patents. The two most relevent to knives would be UTILITY PATENT and DESIGN PATENT.

In short, a utility patent is intended to protect a new, novel technology that results in a specific, well defined and novel approach to a functionality (i.e. knife locks, etc.).
A design patent, on the other hand, covers form, such as a particular shape of a knife, the aesthetic aspect of an automotive wheel, the placement of scrollwork on a wrought iron gate, etc. The design patent is usually easy to break by changing the item in some small way. A utility patent offers stronger protection and is more difficult to obtain, and will not be issued for "design" or style elements.

When it comes to shapes and style, the fact is that there is virtually no way to effectively protect against every variation somone can use to circumvent your design patent. Still, makers generally feel their original designs are a form of art that, unfortunatley is not protected automatically like a painting, photograph or some other forms of art. So if someone hijacks a style you've developed and, perhaps, has become associated with you, it's particularly irksome because there's really no practical recourse. (again, I'm talking of "design" not "utility"). The offender would have to be making pretty much carbon copies to be clearly culpable.
The only thing you can do is keep coming up with new stuff (if it's good, it too will probably be copied) to stay ahead of the game.

Copying is a VERY HOT topic on some of the art/professional crafts forums ---very heated. I have found that on those forums, there are two camps: the copiers and the copied. As you would expect, their views concerning this issue diverge dramatically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top