Holey cow!

[DumboRAT]

David/4_s_ter,

First, very creative screen-name/alias. Oh, and please, Allen, that's what my friends call me.

---

I think that the approach that Benchmade took with the opening hole is one which is directed at its functionality versus trademark, and is thus one that, outside of the courtroom, at this point-in-time when Spyderco's patent has expired (if I'm reading everything correctly), is something that myself, as a fan of all players involved here, would be ill-equipped to debate about.

Am I fully content to say that?

No, not really.

But I also know that further lay debate is not getting us anywhere, and is just generating an awful lot of negativity among fellow knife-brothers.

The time has come (and gone, IMHO), for this to be pursued by the parties involved in a definitive manner, and again, as a fan of all those involved, I feel this to be the *_only_* proper thing to do.

I'm *_NOT_* saying that taking another's design nor innovations for-granted is OK. I confess to being the one who informed Emerson Knives, Inc., to the existence of a cloned product appearing in the Cheaper Than Dirt catalog which clearly infringed on their current patent on the Wave feature, which later resulted in CTD pulling that product from their catalog. And being an ethnic Taiwanese with Chinese ancestry from both bloodlines, I all the more despite those of my culture who have lost-face for the collective "us" a black-eye from having engaged in such acts of pure greed, which is not right by any culture, much less our very own - which value so highly personal integrity and honor.

To wit, why is it that there also seems to be a double-standard when it comes to Spyderco fans, who routinely perform and praise other's work of "Waving" our Spydies? Isn't this a direct contradiction of our so highly held principle of preserving brand-identity and respecting the SpyderHole as an unique innovation? Does the work of aftermarket modders - be they hobbyists or professional knife-craftsmen - versus the actions of the company (which, to the best of my knowledge, has not even attempted this route, despite clearly being able to do so with little fear per Cold Steel's "flippers" on their "Ti-Lite" model) make a difference, and if so, how does this carry/apply to a private, custom cutler such as Neil Blackwood, and how does this then cross-apply to the Benchmade company?

With these moral and ethical issues, I believe - I know - that we each have our own opinions.

However, I think that on the public front, for all enthusiasts, it's time to move-on from these lay Forums, and let the big boys duke it out properly.


Allen
aka DumboRAT

 

[FullerH]

Allen, I am one of those who finds the Emerson "Wave" concept not only a silly waste, but actually stupidly unsafe, so I do NOT cheer those who modify their Spydies to imitate that action. I have said as much in this Forum and in the Camillus Forum where it relates to the CUDA MAXX knives. I have never been quite so straight forward about the "Wave" concept, but I feel that any gain that it may offer in opening speed is illusory compared to the increased danger it creates.

That said, I do not cheer those who steal others' property, whether personal, tangible items or intellectual in nature. Theft is theft. If Blackwood had wanted to use the Spydie circular "Hole" as an opening device, he had but to apply to Sal and to Spyderco. They have long made it a practice to license the use to private makers. Where BenchMade is concerned, however, it is an entirely different matter. BenchMade once had a license to use the "Spydie Hole" in one of their products, but the license was revoked when Spyderco decided not to license this trademark to companies that were in competition with them. Given this history, I cannot escape the impression that BenchMade is, somehow, trying to force the issue and to damage Spyderco's trademark rights. I may be wrong, who knows? But it certainly looks that way from here.

And they are selling them in four-hole format. Please see this link: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295680

 

[shootist16]

I for one, will be glad when the courts weigh in on this issue. Until then any argument on either side is pure speculation. We aren't solving anything here, on the contrary all we are doing is fanning the flames.

 

[TedV]

I for one, will be glad when the courts weigh in on this issue. Until then any argument on either side is pure speculation. We aren't solving anything here, on the contrary all we are doing is fanning the flames.

shootist16, you're right that it in the end it should be settled by court, but I think this is the time, the place, and the crowd to talk about it. As much as anybody likes. Isn't that what these forums are for? I for one learn a lot in these kind of threads, about company history, about trademarks and patents etc.

Ted

 

[4 s ter]

Allen (and others)

The "customization" that people do to their own possessions (knives or other items) isn't a problem to me. This isn't taking someone else's intellectual property and making money off it.

I realize nothing is going to be settled here. I'm just trying to say (in case representatives of ANY company who doesn't repsect trademarks or patents are reading) that I won't be a customer of a company which acts in this manner. If Spyderco started putting a butterfly image on their blades, or waving their Endura's in the factory without licencing the intelletual property, I would feel the same way. I respect Sal's integrity - like the way he treats Michael Walkers trademarked term "Linerlock" - he uses it under license.

I guess this is really more a statement about my personal ethics as a consumer than anything else

By the way, "4 s ter" came from my profession of over 30 years (a forester). I'm sure there must be a story behind DumboRat

David

 

[shootist16]

My problem isn't so much in the discussion as long as we don't regress into namecalling and such.

I'm not saying they will, but how would we feel if the court ruled in Benchmades favor? Would we still be upset with Benchmade and Neil Blackwood?

I am not even sure that Spyderco is going to pursue a legal remedy. I hope they do, for only then will this be settled.

 

[brownshoe]

At this point, it's obvious that spydreco isn't weighing in on the issue, so it's left up to us "lay" people to decide for ourselves and vote with our money and comments.

I find the blackwood piece totally derivative, but that's OK, it just means it's not new. What is unacceptable is benchmade's use of the hole. Trademark, patent, whatever doesn't make a difference. If Les was a gentleman, he wouldn't use the hole opener. But I have detected cost cutting and a bit of market desperation in benchmade's voice and actions in the past few years. Maybe finances dictate more drastic measures.

 

[Sal Glesser]

Not forgotten, just busy.

I should be able to answer questions and provide explanations later this week.

sal

 

[hardheart]

The only thing that seems off-kilter to me is Spyderco allowing others to use the hole. There can easily be arguments of theft and infringment when a blade has a round hole, but I don't think Spyderco is doing itself any favors by allowing others to use the hole, especially when the product is produced wholly outside of their quality control measures. If the round opening hole is so integral to the Spyderco image, one may find it a little difficult to understand why 1) another manufacturing firm(AFCK, for example)/lone knifemaker would want Spyderco's trademark to be featured on their own designs, and 2) Spyderco would allow someone else, with potentially a lesser level of QA and customer service, to produce such an item which ties itself to the Spyderco brand. I don't think a custom maker would pay $50 a year to put the Spyderco bug on a knife instead of their own maker's mark, nor would any other company making knives for the same market as Spydie. Beyond arguments of how many holes are on the blade, what shape they are, or how it affects 'function', the desire by others to use the 'round' hole, and Spyderco's willingness to share that hole with makers, might not help them in matters of trademark dispute. I think that if Spyderco would like to keep the hole viewed as a non-functional trademark, they should not allow others to produce knives with it on the blades.

Of course, I'm probably wrong. It's been known to happen.

A lot.

 

[thombrogan]

I have 3 Spydies that I'm looking to trade-off...What 'cha got in the way of Benchmades?...

If your three Spydies are drilled for left-hand carry (preferably tip up, but tip down is fine for Ayoobs and Calypso Jrs), you'd be surprized.

 

[Grover_Cephas]

...especially when the product is produced wholly outside of their quality control measures. If the round opening hole is so integral to the Spyderco image, one may find it a little difficult to understand why...Spyderco would allow someone else, with potentially a lesser level of QA and customer service, to produce such an item which ties itself to the Spyderco brand.

To add a bit more information to just this part of your post, Spyderco requires licensers to make customers aware that the round hole is a Spyderco trademark being used under license. It's been said here before that the license for the AFCK was retracted because Spyderco didn't think benchmade was making that fact clear enough in their packaging and literature (of course, that could just be one side of the story).

 

[Carlos]

If your three Spydies are drilled for left-hand carry (preferably tip up, but tip down is fine for Ayoobs and Calypso Jrs), you'd be surprized.

Guys, please take knife exchange discussions off of this forum.

 

[dagomike]

I believe it is impossible to design a knife that bears absolutly no resemblance to any other knife.

Mike

 

[dialex]

I'm not saying they will, but how would we feel if the court ruled in Benchmades favor?

It would be a precedent created and everybody could use the round hole. If it works for Benchmade / Blackwood, why shouldn't work for me?

 

[FullerH]

A ruling for BenchMade would seem to me to throw trademark law into a terrible state. Can you imagine a world where Disney's trademarked cartoon characters were free for anyone to use, even in an XXX film? Or, how about combining the Mouse Ears with the Playboy Bunny Ears? On a less humorous note, consider Coca-Cola losing its trademark on its term "Coke" or on its bottle-shape. How about an author losing his copyright on a best-selling book or a film studio losing its rights to, say, the LOTR trilogy. If I am not mistaken, the line between copyright and tradmark rights is not all that great. Let me think about trademarks for a moment. How would you like to see a primitive car from a 3rd World country sporting the Mercedes-Benz "Star" or BMW's stylized propeller emblem? I can think of any number of people who have saved all of their lives to afford one of these cars who would be mightily pissed at that. How about some cheap "Saturday Night Special" type of handgun sporting the Colt rearing horse or the elaborated S&W monogram?

Remember that people look to these trademarks as indicators of quality, for that is what the good ones have earned over the years. You may not like the current Disney management, but those cartoon characters have a great meaning to many, many people and they would be misled for them to be used in a film for adult viewers only. And I would be very unhappy to see Spyderco lose its trademarks, such as the "Spyder Hole" or the "Bug" emblem and have them available to anyone wanting to use them, for I look to those trademarks as a guarantee of quality and integrity of design and production.

 

[shootist16]

This is why I hate threads like this. People are very passionate and it sometimes makes for bad feelings among friends. I have said before and say again that i do not believe it is as cut and dry as some people believe it to be. I could really see it going either way. I personally believe there is a big difference between an opening device and a drawing of a mouse, or a logo. Of course it wouldn't fly for anyone else to use the spyder logo. I believe this is a little more gray than that. I generally hate litigation, but believe this case should. I would like to see a definitive ruling from the courts. The knife industry as a whole will be better off after a formal ruling. there is a lot at risk though. If Spyderco wins they have strengthened their claim to the round hole. If Spyderco loses, the door is open for everyone to use it.

 

[TedV]

 

[brownie0486]

The spyderhole has been authorized for use by others, royalties paid I believe.

Thats setting precedence from past ventures and agreements I believe.

If this was the first time someone challenged or questioned the trademark, it might be up in the air [ which it still may be as one never knows how thecourts will decide until the eventually do ] but as others have paid to use it, it would seem that it would have some bearing as to others in the future respecting the trademark rights of Spyderco and co.

JMO

Brownie

 

[FullerH]

Dennis, I generally agree with you, but I feel that the "Spyder Hole" is a solid registrable trademark, and the appropriate federal office apparently does, as well. I note that the application was "Published for opposition" for nearly 3 months prior to it being registered. If this is anything like "Published for public comment" with our regs here at the SEC, that is more than enough time for interested parties to have made their objections known.

And, BTW, how much difference do you see between the shape of a hole in the blade and an hour-glass shaped bottle? I can assure you that Coca-Cola sees that bottle shape as manifestly important and will go to extreme lengths to enforce its rights of ownership to that shape.

 

[Sal Glesser]

Hi guys. There seems to still be some issues to be answerred. We believe if you are going to be knife aficianados, getting more involved in your interest certainly includes the producers.

Issues seem to be:

What can be patented or trademarked?

Why Spyderco didn't notice the model sooner?

Why doesn't sal shut up and let the courts decide?

For all of the "law students" making claims; Spyderco obtained our patents legally and fairly. There was no mentioned of hole shape. Only the function involved. It is all a matter of public record.

Spyderco obtained our trademark legally and fairly. The issue of "function" was very carefully addressed and studied by the PTO. The PTO decided that our trademark was legal and fair.

Our patents and trademarks are all a matter of public record. Opnion is always welcome, but making claims with no knowledge or investigation serves little.

(Thank you Ted for your investigation).

Regrding the time involved for noticing, it is immaterial. Let's say a tree falls out on the range and does fence damage. No one notices the tree for a year. Discovering the fallen tree at a later date does does not suddenly mean the tree did not fall. We saw, we reacted immediately.

We go to many shows, more than most knife companies. We are also on the internet a great deal. I won't make excuses for not seeing it sooner, we didn't. When we did, we responded.

Allen, unfair of you to chastize my marketing and legal depts. They do a very good job and miss very little. They are in my opinion the best in the industry and I'll stand behind them 24/7.

As far as the courts go; Allen, I respect and admire your dedication to your friend. The "big boys" in court of law at this time is also a matter of public record.

However, the court of law does not buy knives. The court of public opinion does. Had no one spoke of the potential problem, then the public would not know a problem existed. We think that our customers have the right to know. It is unfortunate that your friend is involved, but it is what it is.

Though I have no doubt that we could probably speak for hours on knives with much pleasure. On this issue, I respectfully disagree and feel that bringing it out to the "court of the public" was important and necessary. The court of law will interpret the law. Our customers will judge our integrity and honor.

Dennis, We have already done this with the PTO. How many times must one buy a house before one gets to own it? Who many times does one get married before they are married?

If you are a student of the law, read the history. It's all a matter of public record. The game was played honestly and fairly. The trademark was won honestly and fairly.

From here it appears as though you are trolling to instigate a fight betwen the two companies for your own curiosity? The PTO investigated very carefuly the issues you keep bringing up over and over again, it seems wherever you can?

sal