• The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
    Price is $300 $250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
    Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.

  • Today marks the 24th anniversary of 9/11. I pray that this nation does not forget the loss of lives from this horrible event. Yesterday conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was murdered, and I worry about what is to come. Please love one another and your family in these trying times - Spark

Fake, Clone, Copy, Idea user,

Status
Not open for further replies.
WillardCorspe said:
Wait, wait, isn't there a provision where another entity (person, company) can make a new patent that encompasses the old (expired) one? I'm honestly asking, I think that's a thing, but I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

Nope.
Patents expire and cannot be renewed or assumed by anyone else (barring an actual Act of Congress)
 
craytab said:
So no evidence then. Great.
Click to expand...

Stop acting thicker than molasses. This isn't your usual hangout of Whine & Cheese. if you can't handle the discussion, maybe you should bail:
robgmn said:
Actually, I CAN prove what I have stated and can do so quite easily, since you asked for it:

This is the patent info for the Axis lock that is NOT owned by Benchmade, merely licensed to them.

Publication number US5737841 A
Publication type Grant
Application number US 08/679,122
Publication date Apr 14, 1998
Filing date Jul 12, 1996
Priority date Jul 12, 1996
Fee status Paid
Also published as EP1071546A1, 7 More »
Inventors William J. McHenry, Jason L. Williams
Original Assignee Mchenry; William J., Williams; Jason L.
Export Citation BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
Patent Citations (12), Referenced by (86), Classifications (5), Legal Events (5)
ABSTRACT
Knives (10, 182) each include a handle (12, 184) having a blade (14, 90, 194) pivotally attached to the handle. The blade is movable between a closed posiiton in which it is received within a groove (36, 192) of the handle and an open position. The blade has a working portion (38, 198) and a tang portion (44, 98, 204), which remains within the groove when the blade is in its open position. A locking pin (72, 208) extends transversely of the handle and blade and is movable along a pair of elongated openings (74, 216), and engages the tang portion (44, 98, 204) of the blade to lock the blade in its open position. A spring (78, 228) biases the locking pin toward the tang.

Notice the filing date of JULY 12, 1996.

From the US Patent Office website:
1505 Allowance and Term of Design Patent [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 173 Term of design patent.
Patents issued from design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015 shall be granted for the term of fifteen years from the date of grant. Patents issued from design applications filed before May 13, 2015 shall be granted for the term of fourteen years from the date of grant.

2701 Patent Term [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 154 Contents and term of patent; provisional rights.
(a) IN GENERAL.—
*****
(2) TERM.—Subject to the payment of fees under this title, such grant shall be for a term beginning on the date on which the patent issues and ending 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) from the date on which the earliest such application was filed.

20 years have passed since the filing date of July, 1996 for the Axis lock. This covers the span of the Design patent AND the Utility patent. The patent has expired, and a lawyer, court case, or judge is not required to verify it. The LAW of patents, as listed on the US Patent Office website is what it is - LAW, Even the patent is labelled as "expired".
If you don't believe the info about patents that is provided by the US Patent Office, and you don't believe the law applies to this particular patent, then there is obviously no way you will ever accept that your opinion does not trump fact..
Click to expand...
 
robgmn said:
Nope.
Patents expire and cannot be renewed or assumed by anyone else (barring an actual Act of Congress)
Click to expand...

That is so weird. In Canadian law, we're permitted to apply for a patent which improves an already existing invention, supposing said inventions patents had expired.
 
robgmn said:
Stop acting thicker than molasses:
Click to expand...

No evidence and insults. Fine by me but this is the wrong place.

If you have no evidence fine. Only thing you have is opinion. I disagree. And I'm on the side of ant-counterfeits. It's clear what side you are arguing for....
 
craytab said:
No evidence and insults. Fine by me but this is the wrong place.

If you have no evidence fine. Only thing you have is opinion. I disagree. And I'm on the side of ant-counterfeits. It's clear what side you are arguing for....
Click to expand...

I stated how you are acting, which is a fact and not an insult.
If you want to feel insulted, you should do some self-examination. It appears you cannot read what is very clearly posted twice.
I'll assume it's by choice, as I highly doubt you are the ONLY one here who is unable to see ONLY the facts I have presented (but can see all of the other text).

Maybe if someone else quotes my post, you'll be able to see the text.
 
WillardCorspe said:
That is so weird. In Canadian law, we're permitted to apply for a patent which improves an already existing invention, supposing said inventions patents had expired.
Click to expand...

You can everywhere, I think. An improvement means it is different in a substantive way.
 
sabre cat said:
It helped Emerson.:D
Click to expand...

Assuming that because one person did it one way that the entirety of humankind would do it the same way is only useful in that it can prove a point in an online debate, but it cannot ever be used as actual evidence towards a pattern as it is the least accurate method of determining a trend you can use.

All you have to do is look at every single knife-maker making their own knives to see that they all decry counterfeits and put forth quite an effort in preventing people from buying counterfeits. If, by your logic, counterfeits helped out both businesses in the transaction (the original maker, and the copycat) why would they be putting such an effort into trying to prevent people from purchasing these counterfeits?
 
craytab said:
No evidence and insults. Fine by me but this is the wrong place.

If you have no evidence fine. Only thing you have is opinion. I disagree. And I'm on the side of ant-counterfeits. It's clear what side you are arguing for....
Click to expand...

Those counterfeit ants are a real problem.
 
robgmn said:
Actually, I CAN prove what I have stated and can do so quite easily, since you asked for it:

This is the patent info for the Axis lock that is NOT owned by Benchmade, merely licensed to them.

Publication number US5737841 A
Publication type Grant
Application number US 08/679,122
Publication date Apr 14, 1998
Filing date Jul 12, 1996
Priority date Jul 12, 1996
Fee status Paid
Also published as EP1071546A1, 7 More »
Inventors William J. McHenry, Jason L. Williams
Original Assignee Mchenry; William J., Williams; Jason L.
Export Citation BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
Patent Citations (12), Referenced by (86), Classifications (5), Legal Events (5)
ABSTRACT
Knives (10, 182) each include a handle (12, 184) having a blade (14, 90, 194) pivotally attached to the handle. The blade is movable between a closed posiiton in which it is received within a groove (36, 192) of the handle and an open position. The blade has a working portion (38, 198) and a tang portion (44, 98, 204), which remains within the groove when the blade is in its open position. A locking pin (72, 208) extends transversely of the handle and blade and is movable along a pair of elongated openings (74, 216), and engages the tang portion (44, 98, 204) of the blade to lock the blade in its open position. A spring (78, 228) biases the locking pin toward the tang.

Notice the filing date of JULY 12, 1996.

From the US Patent Office website:
1505 Allowance and Term of Design Patent [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 173 Term of design patent.
Patents issued from design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015 shall be granted for the term of fifteen years from the date of grant. Patents issued from design applications filed before May 13, 2015 shall be granted for the term of fourteen years from the date of grant.

2701 Patent Term [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 154 Contents and term of patent; provisional rights.
(a) IN GENERAL.—
*****
(2) TERM.—Subject to the payment of fees under this title, such grant shall be for a term beginning on the date on which the patent issues and ending 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) from the date on which the earliest such application was filed.

20 years have passed since the filing date of July, 1996 for the Axis lock. This covers the span of the Design patent AND the Utility patent. The patent has expired, and a lawyer, court case, or judge is not required to verify it. The LAW of patents, as listed on the US Patent Office website is what it is - LAW, Even the patent is labelled as "expired".
If you don't believe the info about patents that is provided by the US Patent Office, and you don't believe the law applies to this particular patent, then there is obviously no way you will ever accept that your opinion does not trump fact..
Click to expand...

Patent life is often a little bit moe complicated than it may seem. Two things I would note on this for consideration. If you look at the patent transaction history I believe you will see that there as an initial refusal of he patent and other actions that could have qualified the patent for term adjustment. I could only guesstimate, but the initial denial of the patent looks like it could potentially have added about a year. Additionally, there were other small delays. Second, if you look at subsequent filings you can see that the patent owner has been following what appears to be a continuation-in-part strategy. This is not generally a very strong approach to patent life extension but it is possible they could have gained some time through this process. I assume they must think they are gaining somethin as continued filings are not free of significant legal costs.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I did all that work and nobody read it. Some of you need more than just melds...
 
KingMC said:
Assuming that because one person did it one way that the entirety of humankind would do it the same way is only useful in that it can prove a point in an online debate, but it cannot ever be used as actual evidence towards a pattern as it is the least accurate method of determining a trend you can use.

All you have to do is look at every single knife-maker making their own knives to see that they all decry counterfeits and put forth quite an effort in preventing people from buying counterfeits. If, by your logic, counterfeits helped out both businesses in the transaction (the original maker, and the copycat) why would they be putting such an effort into trying to prevent people from purchasing these counterfeits?
Click to expand...

Wow, you are trying really hard to make my comment into something way more than I said. Why don't you go back a few post and see why my comment is even here? While you are at it, try to figure out why my post are worded as they are.

FWIW, I don't feel that counterfeits normally help anyone but the slime that manufacture and bring them to market. Any exceptions are just that, exceptions.
 
Hackenslash said:
Wow, I did all that work and nobody read it. Some of you need more than just melds...
Click to expand...

I read and definitely appreciate the work put in. Haven't looked at that patent yet but will. Benchmade' website may indicate that number applies to their APB and APB assist knives. Is the number RE41529e? I thought the axis patent was 5737841..
 
Last edited:
Hackenslash said:
Wow, I did all that work and nobody read it. Some of you need more than just melds...
Click to expand...

I read, appreciated, & tried to verify your hard work. Verification didn't work out well.

mtangent said:
US Patent No: RE41529
Method of optimal power calibration
Stats
Aug 17, 2010
ISSUED DATE Aug 30, 2007
FILING DATE Apr 17, 2001
11/847,840
SERIAL NO In Force
STATUS (Latency Note)
Patent Analytics Full Text Legal Status
Importance
Loading Importance Indicators... loading....
Abstract
See full text
A method of optimal power calibration adapted to rewritable or recordable disks is disclosed. In addition to an original power calibration area (PCA) in the inner track of a disk, another rearranged PCA is allocated in the lead-out area of the outmost track. Two optimal power calibration processes are performed on both of the power calibration areas allocated on the inner and outmost tracks to respectively derived optimal recording powers. A relation curve is established by using these two optimal recording powers that this relation curve describes the relationships between the optimal recording powers of the recording positions and the distances from these recording positions to the center of the optical storage disk. Required optimal recording power of any recording position can be derived from the relation curve while performing data recording operations.


The above is a copy/paste from Patent buddy. Not a knife lock.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top