but I took it down when an "Internet Law" attorney I consult on occasion told me that it was inadvisable to have it in the publication because the Wave is a patented feature.
If you read many US Patents, they begin with the phrase, "This patent teaches a method for..." The verb is "teaches." The purpose of a patent is to teach. The social contract on a patent is that society will give you the sole right to profit from an invention for 17 years (extendable to 21 in many cases) AND, in exchange for that short and specific period of exclusivity, you will teach society all about your invention.
The whole purpose of patents is disclosure. In fact, part of the stack of documents you file with the PTO is called a "Disclosure." And that disclosure becomes a public document. You can go to the PTO's offices and look at it for free. Or, if you find that inconvenient, you can go to the PTO's website and buy a copy of Mr. Emerson's patent for some trivial administrative fee, something like $10.
And you can copy Mr. Emerson's design all you want... you just can't sell it; it's got to be for your own personal use.
The hope that society has in making this deal is first that in 17 years, all businesses will be able to use the patented design which will be good for everyone. But, beyond that, that disclosing the design will encourage inspire others to make new inventions even before the original patent expires. In fact, because they can't sell Mr. Emerson's patented design, other manufacturers who want to sell knives during the patent's period will literally be forced to invent new designs. In this way, patents encourage and, indeed, force innovation.
So, there's absolutely nothing wrong with an article that details how an individual can, for their own use, modify a knife in the way that Mr. Emerson has, in exchange for his 17 years, taught us. Such an article should simply caution readers who might be manufacturer's, knife makers, or knife customizers/modifiers that the design is patented.
