I certainly don't want to belabor the point of this thread, but I was reacquainting myself with one of my older Cold Steel folders today and I noticed an attribute that I thought might be germane to our conversation here.
Anybody remember how many companies used the integrated plastic pocket clip without paying Spyderco for doing so or even acknowledging Spyderco's ownership of the patent? Plenty.
For those who may be under the mistaken impression that Cold Steel only plays by the rules that benefit Cold Steel, you might want to review some knife history before drawing your conclusions. The company has been very diligent with its attributions over the years. A quick perusal of old catalogs will demonstrate this clearly (random samples shown; there are many, many more extant).
From the 2005 catalog:
From the 2015 catalog (two years after Mr. Boguszewski's death):
From the 2016 catalog:
Yes, Cold Steel has scrupulously pursued trademarks and patents on as many proprietary knife names, developments, and components as it has been able to acquire over the years. That's good business practice. And it has protected those properties, sometimes zealously. Spyderco did the same thing with the trademark on its Round Hole, which was being used without attribution or licensing fees by several prominent knife companies. That's also good business practice!
I just don't understand why so many people are so incensed over this issue. I think it has more to do with the fact that it's Cold Steel doing it than it does with the action itself. If these makers received the same letter from Gerber, I doubt there would be nearly as much uproar.
That bias, incidentally, only strengthens my admiration for Cold Steel. People in this thread have tried to paint a David-versus-Goliath scenario. I find that laughable. Cold Steel has been an underdog in the knife industry since the company's inception. Just ask any custom maker who has received even a single paragraph of mention in Blade magazine to find comparable coverage of a Cold Steel knife. Remind me again, who's David and who's Goliath?
-Steve
Anybody remember how many companies used the integrated plastic pocket clip without paying Spyderco for doing so or even acknowledging Spyderco's ownership of the patent? Plenty.
For those who may be under the mistaken impression that Cold Steel only plays by the rules that benefit Cold Steel, you might want to review some knife history before drawing your conclusions. The company has been very diligent with its attributions over the years. A quick perusal of old catalogs will demonstrate this clearly (random samples shown; there are many, many more extant).
From the 2005 catalog:
From the 2015 catalog (two years after Mr. Boguszewski's death):
From the 2016 catalog:
Yes, Cold Steel has scrupulously pursued trademarks and patents on as many proprietary knife names, developments, and components as it has been able to acquire over the years. That's good business practice. And it has protected those properties, sometimes zealously. Spyderco did the same thing with the trademark on its Round Hole, which was being used without attribution or licensing fees by several prominent knife companies. That's also good business practice!
I just don't understand why so many people are so incensed over this issue. I think it has more to do with the fact that it's Cold Steel doing it than it does with the action itself. If these makers received the same letter from Gerber, I doubt there would be nearly as much uproar.
That bias, incidentally, only strengthens my admiration for Cold Steel. People in this thread have tried to paint a David-versus-Goliath scenario. I find that laughable. Cold Steel has been an underdog in the knife industry since the company's inception. Just ask any custom maker who has received even a single paragraph of mention in Blade magazine to find comparable coverage of a Cold Steel knife. Remind me again, who's David and who's Goliath?
-Steve
Last edited:
