deployment hole

[misterjuiceman]

I've noticed a lot of custom makers get licensing from Spyderco to use a deployment hole. does Spyderco actually own the rights to deployment holes? or is it only circular deployment holes? also, my understanding is that Spyderco pioneered the pocket clip. how come licensing isn't required to use that?

 

[BenLankford]

I think this is like the Framelock/RIL thing. Some companys have alot of respect for people who designed things. *ahem*Spyderco*ahem*

I'm not saying other companies don't care but they kind of rip of the design.

Like Benchmade has "Monolock" it's a RIL but they just dosn't call it that.

 

[gundude73]

kind of like BM using the opening hole. and not giving any credit to spyderco

 

[spidyman]

its a courtesy thing I'd imagine

 

[PG5768]

I've noticed a lot of custom makers get licensing from Spyderco to use a deployment hole. does Spyderco actually own the rights to deployment holes? or is it only circular deployment holes? also, my understanding is that Spyderco pioneered the pocket clip. how come licensing isn't required to use that?

I think Spyderco's website talks about the innovations they've come up with for folding knives. They include the pocket clip, hole in the blade to aid opening, and serrations on a folding knife.

The pocket clip is genius, serrations on a folder are very useful in many circumstances, and the hole in the blade is a good start on making a folder easier to open than a nail nick. A thumb stud and flipper are even better. IMHO.

 

[missin_hobo]

When a certain market or product is struck by an idea that is completely revolutionary, it only stands to reason that others will want to use it. The automatic transmission is one example. The light-emitting diode is another. It is not unreasonable for such a significant development to be copied or reproduced, because (among other things) it brings that innovation to a broader group of people. Sometimes the original inventors are credited, sometimes with money, sometimes respect, sometimes with nothing.

Knife knuts like us know where these innovations come from, and people who aren't enthusiasts generally don't care. It is up to us to decide the ethical implications of an imitation and act accordingly. God knows I've bought knives with spyderholes that weren't spydercos, and god knows I didn't care. Lately I've been considering an Emerson CQC-10, perhaps one of the finest knives designed. I know where the hole idea came from, and while I intuit that Emerson knows it too, I couldn't care less.

The issue is further complicated by successive innovations; the frame-lock is fairly obviously Chris Reeve's invention, but it wouldn't have come along at all if not for Michael Walker inventing the liner-lock years before. Does Reeve credit Walker every time he sells a knife? No. Is that unreasonable? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Frankly, the knife world is fairly chummy this way anyhow. Many makers deliberately avoid patenting their innovations so that other makers can use it, and a broader group of consumers can benefit. The IKBS pivot-bearing system, for instance, is used by three makers that I can think of offhand - Begg, Ralph, and Voorhies, among others. To my knowledge not a penny of those profits go to Ikoma and Korth themselves, and this is how they want it.
The statutes of intillectual property are much more ambiguous than those of material property, so what it usually comes down to is a personal moral decision.

 

[RxEnergy]

I think this is like the Framelock/RIL thing. Some companys have alot of respect for people who designed things. *ahem*Spyderco*ahem*

I'm not saying other companies don't care but they kind of rip of the design.

Like Benchmade has "Monolock" it's a RIL but they just dosn't call it that.

Like every other company calls it a FRAME LOCK, but nobody cares to point that out!

 

[misterjuiceman]

The IKBS pivot-bearing system, for instance, is used by three makers that I can think of offhand - Begg, Ralph, and Voorhies, among others. To my knowledge not a penny of those profits go to Ikoma and Korth themselves, and this is how they want it.

I had no idea there's no licensing required for the IKBS system. the logo always seems to be stamped on the blade, so I figured there were specifications that had to be followed or something of the sort. would that mean that every IKBS knife operates differently? I've only handled the CRKT Ripple so far.

 

[dinozzo]

Ive always thought its just something you out of respect, give credit where credit is due, you dont just go and copy it...thats just not cool in my eyes

 

[Joe Talmadge]

Spyderco patented the round hole, but the patent has run out. Spyderco then trademarked the round hole, which is why all Spyderco knives, even the fixed blades, have a round hole in them now. They do license out the round hole to custom makers.

Any shape other than round -- oval, square, oblong, whatever -- is not part of the trademark, and is free to use by all.

 

[Sal Glesser]

Thanx Joe,

Slight adjustment. Spyderco patented a dent in a blade that provided an edge or ridge that could be caught by the fleshy part of the thumb to urge the blade of a folding knife open, using one hand. A dent on both sides of the blade created a hole.

Spyderco used a round hole from the beginning to create this ridge. There was no shape required to the dent or opening as part of the patent.

When the patent ran out, because Spyderco had been consistent in using a round hole to create this ridge, as opposed to another shape, the round hole became identified with Spyderco. (there was one exception with the Jess Horn C27). Spyderco applied for a trademark on the shape of the hole. The Trademark office awarded Spyderco a trademark on the shape of the hole, round, as opposed to any other shape which would perform the same function but look different.

Much like the shape of a grill on an automobile which identifies the brand of the automobile in many cases as soon as you see it.

Hope that helps.

sal

 

[elkins45]

Thanx Joe,

Slight adjustment. Spyderco patented a dent in a blade that provided an edge or ridge that could be caught by the fleshy part of the thumb to urge the blade of a folding knife open, using one hand. A dent on both sides of the blade created a hole.

Spyderco used a round hole from the beginning to create this ridge. There was no shape required to the dent or opening as part of the patent.

When the patent ran out, because Spyderco had been consistent in using a round hole to create this ridge, as opposed to another shape, the round hole became identified with Spyderco. (there was one exception with the Jess Horn C27). Spyderco applied for a trademark on the shape of the hole. The Trademark office awarded Spyderco a trademark on the shape of the hole, round, as opposed to any other shape which would perform the same function but look different.

Much like the shape of a grill on an automobile which identifies the brand of the automobile in many cases as soon as you see it.

Hope that helps.

sal

My apologies if this is something you don't want to discuss in a public forum, but how is this not a trademark infringement? Licensing agreement?

 

[Zombie Zeke]

One man's hole is another man's bread and butter.

Thanks to Sal for clarifying something that was in the back of my mind for I don't know, ever...

 

[orthogonal1]

Just google "trademark functional" and "trademark functionality" and you'll see the problem with the round hole trademark.

Then, for fun, look at the dates of the Spyderco patent and trademark. More problems, notably when you look at the dates of the various Supreme Court decisions on the matter of functional features as Trademarks.

Personally, I wish a suite would be brought and then this issue of the use of a round hole in a blade could be put to rest.

And, did not the design by Mr. Lum use a round hole as an opening assist mechanism?

A dent on both sides of the blade may create a hole, it is not a positively assured outcome BTW.

 

[Joe Talmadge]

Unfortunately, once we get to this part of the argument, it generates more heat than light... there is a counter argument of course ... Functionality-wise, other hole shapes work as well, and the trademark office took this into account. You could oblong one side of the hole slightly, and then clearly there's no issue. In fact, Benchmade used to do exactly that, and advertise it was even better than the round hole. Since it's not an issue of functionality, as BM's own claims attest, one might conclude the main reason to go with a round hole is because it's intrinsically associated with quality due to Spyderco. Many other companies go the route of changing the hole shape slightly, it doesn't change functionality, and aesthetics-wise often looks better. IMO, the only thing it loses is Spyderco's look.

Lum's use of the hole was licensed from Spyderco, it's not at issue.

Whatever agreement Spyderco and Benchmade came too, I imagine there's a non-disclosure associated with it, since Sal, who is normally forthcoming to a fault, isn't talking about it. I'm not sure either company is particularly happy with the resolution, but we customers are free to choose based on what we feel is right. For myself, I respect the fact that Sal licensed the wave from Ernie, and the integral lock from Reeves, even though he could have just used the integral and come up with some other wave-like mechanism (ala Cold Steel). Legal issues aside, it's behavior I respect. That brings us back to the original sentiments in this thread -- you get decide yourself what violates your feelings of right and wrong, and what type of behavior you respect and what you don't.

To be clear, I can see how someone who is smart and ethical might come down on either side of this argument ... in fact, I "changed sides" years ago when we first had this argument, because I was so swayed by the counter arguments. I don't think either side are scoundrels.

 

[orthogonal1]

Unfortunately, once we get to this part of the argument, it generates more heat than light... there is a counter argument of course ... Functionality-wise, any other shape hole works fine, and the trademark office took this into account. You could oblong one side of the hole slightly, and that is clearly becomes not an issue. In fact, Benchmade used to do exactly that, and advertise it was even better than the round hole. Since it's not an issue of functionality, as BM's own claims attest, the main reason is because a round hole is intrinsically associated with the quality Spyderco is associated with. Many other companies also go the route of changing the hole shape slightly.

Lum's use of the hole was licensed from Spyderco, it's not at issue.

Whatever agreement Spyderco and Benchmade came too, I imagine there's a non-disclosure associated with it, since Sal, who is normally forthcoming to a fault, isn't talking about it. I'm not sure either company is particularly happy with the resolution, but we customers are free to choose based on what we feel is right. For myself, I respect the fact that Sal licensed the wave from Ernie, and the integral lock from Reeves, even though he could have just used the integral and come up with some other wave-like mechanism (ala Cold Steel). Legal issues aside, it's behavior I respect. That brings us back to the original sentiments in this thread -- you get decide yourself what violates your feelings of right and wrong, and what type of behavior you respect and what you don't.

"Functionality-wise, any other shape hole works fine" is an argument made concerning product patents and hasn't been too successful in trademarks as far as I've read.

"the trademark office took this into account" - Don't know since I haven't looked at the record and don't know when such a discussion may have occurred. Case law changes and it may be irrelevant.

"Whatever agreement Spyderco and Benchmade came too ... don't." That about sums it up perfectly:thumbup:.

 

[Sal Glesser]

A dent on both sides of the blade may create a hole, it is not a positively assured outcome BTW.

That is true Orthongonal. That's why the C27 Jess Horn Spyderco was important. It fell within the patent, but not within the trademark. Being the only expection to any of our folders, the Trademark office felt it was not a problem.

sal

 

[missin_hobo]

I had no idea there's no licensing required for the IKBS system. the logo always seems to be stamped on the blade, so I figured there were specifications that had to be followed or something of the sort. would that mean that every IKBS knife operates differently? I've only handled the CRKT Ripple so far.

I've noticed the logo myself, and I'm not completely sure how it works. What I meant was that as far as I know, Ikoma and Korth may or may not be credited with their invention, but I'm pretty sure they don't recieve royalties.

I'm not sure either company is particularly happy with the resolution, but we customers are free to choose based on what we feel is right.

I agree completely. You sort of have to expect that such a huge innovation as the spyderhole will be copied, and people who do so will find ways around the law if need be. I'm not sure it's right or wrong, but I'm not sure it's unreasonable either, especially if it makes a better product for consumers.
And as consumers, the ethical considerations are in our hands.

As I've said, I'm not above buying knives that copy innovations like the spyderhole, because I'm happy if it produces a quality knife to my specific tastes. What I object to in particular are cases where an entire knife design is blatantly parodied, especially if the parody is inferior to the original. Think of all the 'Enduras' and 'Sebenzas' that come namelessly out of China, for instance. To make another example, the Gerber EVO is a ripoff of the CRKT M16. These are the knives I would think twice about buying, but in the case of innovations alone being carried on throughout the industry, my sensibilities require me to look the other way.

 

[Sal Glesser]

Perhaps the view is more biased if you are an inventor or designer?

 

[kreole]

I've noticed the logo myself, and I'm not completely sure how it works. What I meant was that as far as I know, Ikoma and Korth may or may not be credited with their invention, but I'm pretty sure they don't recieve royalties.



I agree completely. You sort of have to expect that such a huge innovation as the spyderhole will be copied, and people who do so will find ways around the law if need be. I'm not sure it's right or wrong, but I'm not sure it's unreasonable either, especially if it makes a better product for consumers.
And as consumers, the ethical considerations are in our hands.

As I've said, I'm not above buying knives that copy innovations like the spyderhole, because I'm happy if it produces a quality knife to my specific tastes. What I object to in particular are cases where an entire knife design is blatantly parodied, especially if the parody is inferior to the original. Think of all the 'Enduras' and 'Sebenzas' that come namelessly out of China, for instance. To make another example, the Gerber EVO is a ripoff of the CRKT M16. These are the knives I would think twice about buying, but in the case of innovations alone being carried on throughout the industry, my sensibilities require me to look the other way.

" I'm not sure it's right or wrong, but I'm not sure it's unreasonable either, especially if it makes a better product for consumers. "

I think that is *possibly* nearsighted, the latter part I mean. I agree with your conclusion under your assumption, but I think your assumption is flawed. To explain, if anyone can use my innovations and inventions, then I can't guarantee I will make a profit (in general, the better businessman will, I expect, but that's an aside). If I can't guarantee I will be the one making profit on my inventions, I will simply seek another means of making money. If I stop inventing, clearly the consumer isn't going to benefit from those inventions. (Of course, that only holds if I'm in it to make money.)

</superofftrack>