Has anyone else seen how much Assisted knives.com rags Benchmade?

[Knife Outlet]

Benchmade makes great knives. However, they have always been unpleasant and heavy handed with members of the industry. I suspect this fellow is or was in the industry and felt some of that. Many of us have. I'm not sure how putting up the web site does anything positive but you'd have to ask him.

 

[Steel130]

BTW I just called benchmade lol and they put his outrageous claims to rest. With the spyderco deal they said that they privately worked that out with spyderco. And that they have never illegally imported switchblades or assisted openings. So in turn I think I no longer will support AK.COM lol.

 

[mat_890]

I noticed. You are wrong, too.

Trademark/patent/copyright law is available for free on the net or at any library. I admit I haven't read every sentence but what I did read suggested while you can trademark a 'spydie hole' name for a drilled circle, you could not patent a drilled circle. Its too simplistic of a mechanical feature.

Also a large part of a patent is defending it.

Any agreement between benchmade and spyderco is likely bs, you don't need an agreement to drill a circle in a knife, even if 'you use it to open the knife with one hand' as another poster said.

It's time we all got over this, really its not a big deal.

 

[OrdnanceBubbaUSMC]

There is a few threads on here discussing Roadside Imports if you do a search, same guy/guys. The Roadside Imports YouTube videos pretty much tell the story of Benchmade going after him and others for selling auto conversion kits for foreign knives. He argues/fights/whines back at them and Benchmade goes after him more, for slander and other things.

 

[FlaMtnBkr]

But the question is: does BM have the rights for spyderhole?

Does Spyderco have the rights to use the ball bearing/ caged ball bearing lock? It is very similar to the AXIS lock and to my knowledge they don't license to use it like Cold Steel and SOG with their AXIS variants.

Spyderco would have to significantly improve or provide an additional function with their lock which they do not do, so they surely don't have a patent on it and technically are infringing on Benchmade.

How come no one brings this up when they want to talk about a silly hole in a blade? If they made drill bits that drilled other shapes than a circle then maybe they would have something. Do companies that drill a hole in the blade for the pivot violate a trade mark? These arguments can get as silly as you want to make them.

 

[mdc5162]

Trademark/patent/copyright law is available for free on the net or at any library. I admit I haven't read every sentence but what I did read suggested while you can trademark a 'spydie hole' name for a drilled circle, you could not patent a drilled circle. Its too simplistic of a mechanical feature.

Also a large part of a patent is defending it.

Any agreement between benchmade and spyderco is likely bs, you don't need an agreement to drill a circle in a knife, even if 'you use it to open the knife with one hand' as another poster said.

It's time we all got over this, really its not a big deal.

I agree and its BS, let Benchmade and Spyderco sort things out. Competitive market is better for consumers.

However, you cant patent a hole but you can patent a way to open a tool. The wording of the patent and way they patent it is a big part. Also Its expired.

 

[Planterz]

Opinions on whether or not a round opening hole can/should be patented or copyrighted are irrelevant. The facts are that Spyderco did have a patent on the round opening hole, but it has expired. Spyderco does still have an active trademark on the round hole, as it's a design recognizable as belonging to Spyderco. Don't give me this "you can't trademark a hole" crap, because whether or not you think it should be allowed, it is allowed, as evidenced by the fact that the trademark was granted to Spyderco. It's a logo as much as any other. Coke has a trademark on a bottle shape. John Deere is the only company that can paint things that specific shade of green.

Benchmade has an agreement with Spyderco to use the round opening hole. Nothing more needs to be said; it's between them.

As for the ballbearing lock vs the AXIS lock, they're practically nothing alike, in terms of patent law. They might work on the same physics, and have similar means of operation by the user, but mechanically they're very different. There's thousands of patents out there that are far more similar than those 2 locks, yet don't infringe on each other. Look around you and you'll see them; clicky pens, anti-lock-break systems, the fabric weave on duck tape, the way a cardboard box is folded and glued together, etc.





As for the assistedknife guy, he's a shady businessman, and a raving lunitic with an absurd vendetta against Benchmade. I'm thinking that BM threatened him with (or even went through with) legal action for selling counterfeit Benchmades. If you look on his website there's some knives that are available in some places with the Bali-Song butterfly logo, but are also available without (his are without the logo). It's possible he sold some with the counterfeit logo in the past, and was threatened by Benchmade. I don't know exactly what sparked his vendetta with BM, but the fact that he rants about BM suing people for stuff he considers ridiculous leads me to believe that he was sued or threatened himself. EDIT: I poked around his vendetta page, and sure enough, he was sued for selling automatic Benchmite clones, using BM's logos/names, amongst other things. He claims the lawsuit was brought on by him complaining about Benchmade price-fixing (requiring authorized dealers to sell at their MSRP), yet asking them at the same time why he couldn't become a dealer himself.

Now he goes around bashing Benchmade as being morally and ethically bankrupt for "stealing designs" and whatnot. But when you poke around his site you can find several knives that are Chinese made copys/clones/ripoffs of other knives. Add to this the fact that all imported automatics and balisongs, in part or as whole, are illegal contraband. It doesn't matter that they made it to the US without being confiscated, they're still contraband.

Do a search for member roadsideimports (same guy) and marvel at his lunacy.

 

[Kaizen1]

Does Spyderco have the rights to use the ball bearing/ caged ball bearing lock? It is very similar to the AXIS lock and to my knowledge they don't license to use it like Cold Steel and SOG with their AXIS variants.

Spyderco would have to significantly improve or provide an additional function with their lock which they do not do, so they surely don't have a patent on it and technically are infringing on Benchmade.

How come no one brings this up when they want to talk about a silly hole in a blade? If they made drill bits that drilled other shapes than a circle then maybe they would have something. Do companies that drill a hole in the blade for the pivot violate a trade mark? These arguments can get as silly as you want to make them.

I personally don't care for defending Spyderco or Benchmade, but I don't find this particular comparison compelling. The Ball lock is similar in function, but uses different kinds of parts. It would be like comparing an opening hole to a thumbstud or thumbdisk. Regarding the opening hole, that would be an identical copy of a specific functional feature of the design.

Again, I don't care about the politics or the legalities involved. Just pointing out why I don't see this argument to be very compelling.

 

[Noctis3880]

Wild ravings aside, I bought from the guy before and he makes good on his deals.

If you're looking for conversation, other people would have more interesting topics of discussion. But if he has something you want, feel free to hand over your money. If you search for feedbacks from him, his Benchmade bashing will certainly show up, but anything business related will be nothing but positive.

 

[Planterz]

Regarding the opening hole, that would be an identical copy of a specific functional feature of the design.

But that's no longer valid. Patents are only "good" for a certain number of years (depends on when they're filed/issued), and the round-opening-hole patent expired years ago. What matters is that the round-opening-hole has become an identifiable characteristic of Spyderco knives, and thus was granted a trademark.

 

[Steel130]

Idk they said they have an agreement.

 

[Kaizen1]

But that's no longer valid. Patents are only "good" for a certain number of years (depends on when they're filed/issued), and the round-opening-hole patent expired years ago. What matters is that the round-opening-hole has become an identifiable characteristic of Spyderco knives, and thus was granted a trademark.

Right, I wasn't arguing over whether or not Benchmade has the right to use the opening hole without permission. The patent has expired and legally the use of it open to anyone.

I was just pointing out how that analogy doesn't work strictly from the point of the argument form itself.

 

[FlaMtnBkr]

The Cold Steel Ultra lock and the SOG ARC lock are both fairly different than the AXIS lock yet both companies got permission to use the design of the AXIS according to what I have read. Spyderco may have as well as we don't know what they have worked out with Benchmade, but it has never been claimed to have permission.

There are also 2 different types of Patents, a design and utility. A design patent is an exact design and not very useful as something can be changed and the patent bypassed. A utility patent is much more useful as it covers the way something behaves and can prevent others from using a similar design if it accomplishes the same thing in the same way. I would be very surprised if Spyderco got a patent for the ball bearing lock if the AXIS has a utility patent because they accomplish locking a knife in the same way. Regardless if it violates a patent, it is obviously a copy of the AXIS lock. Things were changed just enough to not look the same but they clearly do the same thing. Whether others can look past that and claim it is different enough for a patent is up to them.

I also did a quick patent search and didn't find a patent for the ball bearing lock. As I mentioned, I would be surprised if they were granted a patent with the AXIS lock patent still good.

I like both companies equally but have more Spyderco knives. Both companies have used the others ideas plain and simple. I still wouldn't mistake a HG Griptilian with a Spyderco. It might have a hole but the styling ends there IMO. Maybe Benchmade can get a trade mark for the AXIS lock as the lock is obviously a Benchmade.

 

[HKBM45]

Wild ravings aside, I bought from the guy before and he makes good on his deals.

If you're looking for conversation, other people would have more interesting topics of discussion. But if he has something you want, feel free to hand over your money. If you search for feedbacks from him, his Benchmade bashing will certainly show up, but anything business related will be nothing but positive.

He is clearly an unreasonable and negative individual. Why you would want to send this guy your money over the internet is beyond me.

 

[Kaizen1]

The Cold Steel Ultra lock and the SOG ARC lock are both fairly different than the AXIS lock yet both companies got permission to use the design of the AXIS according to what I have read. Spyderco may have as well as we don't know what they have worked out with Benchmade, but it has never been claimed to have permission.

There are also 2 different types of Patents, a design and utility. A design patent is an exact design and not very useful as something can be changed and the patent bypassed. A utility patent is much more useful as it covers the way something behaves and can prevent others from using a similar design if it accomplishes the same thing in the same way. I would be very surprised if Spyderco got a patent for the ball bearing lock if the AXIS has a utility patent because they accomplish locking a knife in the same way. Regardless if it violates a patent, it is obviously a copy of the AXIS lock. Things were changed just enough to not look the same but they clearly do the same thing. Whether others can look past that and claim it is different enough for a patent is up to them.

I also did a quick patent search and didn't find a patent for the ball bearing lock. As I mentioned, I would be surprised if they were granted a patent with the AXIS lock patent still good.

I like both companies equally but have more Spyderco knives. Both companies have used the others ideas plain and simple. I still wouldn't mistake a HG Griptilian with a Spyderco. It might have a hole but the styling ends there IMO. Maybe Benchmade can get a trade mark for the AXIS lock as the lock is obviously a Benchmade.

I do think you have good points, I'm not trying to take away from that. I'm saying there's a difference between an exact copy and something that's at least open to greater interpretation. The analogy still doesn't work IMO.

 

[RevDevil]

The Cold Steel Ultra lock and the SOG ARC lock are both fairly different than the AXIS lock yet both companies got permission to use the design of the AXIS according to what I have read. Spyderco may have as well as we don't know what they have worked out with Benchmade, but it has never been claimed to have permission.

There are also 2 different types of Patents, a design and utility. A design patent is an exact design and not very useful as something can be changed and the patent bypassed. A utility patent is much more useful as it covers the way something behaves and can prevent others from using a similar design if it accomplishes the same thing in the same way. I would be very surprised if Spyderco got a patent for the ball bearing lock if the AXIS has a utility patent because they accomplish locking a knife in the same way. Regardless if it violates a patent, it is obviously a copy of the AXIS lock. Things were changed just enough to not look the same but they clearly do the same thing. Whether others can look past that and claim it is different enough for a patent is up to them.

I also did a quick patent search and didn't find a patent for the ball bearing lock. As I mentioned, I would be surprised if they were granted a patent with the AXIS lock patent still good.

I like both companies equally but have more Spyderco knives. Both companies have used the others ideas plain and simple. I still wouldn't mistake a HG Griptilian with a Spyderco. It might have a hole but the styling ends there IMO. Maybe Benchmade can get a trade mark for the AXIS lock as the lock is obviously a Benchmade.

The lock is a caged ball bearing lock (CBL), and the concept was basically developed by Blackie Collins, long before the AXIS lock was developed.
Here is the Blackie Collins Bolt Lock http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4451982.pdf
Here is Sal Glesser's CBL http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6751868.pdf

 

[orthogonal1]

...

I would be very surprised if Spyderco got a patent for the ball bearing lock if the AXIS has a utility patent because they accomplish locking a knife in the same way. Regardless if it violates a patent, it is obviously a copy of the AXIS lock. Things were changed just enough to not look the same but they clearly do the same thing. Whether others can look past that and claim it is different enough for a patent is up to them.

I also did a quick patent search and didn't find a patent for the ball bearing lock. As I mentioned, I would be surprised if they were granted a patent with the AXIS lock patent still good.

...

The patent process is evidenciary - one needs to find some evidence that some claimed feature is obvious over some known invention.

So in this instance, the issue comes down to whether using a spherical ball between the blade tang and a component between the liners is an obvious variant of a bar betwen the blade tang and the liners. There are two structural differences there - so where is the teaching making the changes obvious?

Its not what you think, it is what you can prove.

Where is your evidence of such obviousness?

Personally, I think the CBL closer to the Bolt-Action lock, but then I still need evidnce to prove the ball bearing is an obvious change.

............................................................................................................

As to the hole in the blade thing, it is well established that extending the use of a patented functional feature via a trademark is improper. This issue was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court (look it up yourself and read the decision). Whether or not a trademark was granted - originally well before the court decision and note that Spyderco used to make knives without the round hole - is not the issue, the issue whether it is proper and will hold up in court.

Is the hole a functional feature? Yes. Therefore, it is an improper feature to trademark.

Personally, I wish this issue would be pressed in the courts and we, the knife community, could move on.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

You can't patent or get rights for a hole. Yeah, Spyderco used it first, but that doesn't mean that others who want to use it would need to give money to Spyderco for the ''rights''.

You're wrong. it's not a patent, it's a registered trademark, which is why Spyderco puts it on fixed blades also.

Every country's laws differ.

 

[orthogonal1]

And miracle of miracles, the post moves to feedback.

Good way to kill a thread, yes sir ree.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

General Knife Discussion is for discussing knives. FEEDBACK is for discussing deals and dealers. Live with it. You have a problem with me moving the thread, post a complaint in Tech Support.