I don't understand the round hole trademark

What you have to bear in mind is that when the patents and trademarks were issued, practically no one else was using anything similar. This was probably a large part of why the patents and trademarks were actually awarded in the first place.
It is only after years of success, due to Spyderco's marketing and R+D, that other users and companies have decided that they would like a slice of that success as well.

I suspect that the reasons for the revision in the law concerning "functionality" in a patent/trademark's design, was to help prevent the hording of "essential" functions, i.e. those that would render other designs unworkable. However other companies (Benchmade, Geber, Leatherman, Blade Tech, etc) have shown that a similar, but not the same, hole design is not only fuctional, but accorning to these companies works better. If these companies claims are correct (other hole shapes work better), then the Spyderco round hole cannot be seen as an essetial function.
 
Just my thoughts , I know Neil Blackwood to be a great guy with high level of honor and dignity and concider him a good friend . Les De asis is also a friend of mine and I cannot for the life of me believe that either one of them would deliberately with malice and forethought try to take something that doesn't belong to them.I feel confident that if they have encroached on someone elses patent or trademark they will make it right. When Sal and I talked a few years ago about the larger hole in my whirlwind's digressing three hole pattern Kershaw and I, without a question changed the size as per Sal's request . No sweat Sal and I have been friends for years and continue to be friends.I have a great deal of respect for him.
I am confident this issue will be resolved and all this speculation will be for naught.Besides I and Kershaw own the patent for the three digressing hole pattern on knives. Just my thoughts.
 
Oh yes, I had forgotten about the Boa and Whirlwind with 3 holes. :) How are they referred to in the patent, I find that most interesting. The only difference between the Blackwood and Onion hole patterns seems to be the way the holes line up. The holes on the Kershaw knives are all tangent to a line along the bottom, as if they were 3 balls lying on a flat surface. The BM holes seem to be lined up by their centers. I doubt that's enough difference to hold up to scrutiny.
 
Originally posted by Knife11
I think Sal is getting his panties in a bunch over this! :p
Click to expand...

Didn't mean disrespect by it...I think Sals great and I commend him on his being here at BF unlike BM.

I said it because Sals posts in this thread and the ones in the spyderco forum seem to have a "tone" to them an "attitude" if you will, and I'd probably have one to if I were in his position... I’ve just never seen him sound quite like that before and I was calling him on it.

If I offended I'm sorry...

I think that this post is great discussion about knife law and some of our feeling about the hole and spyderco, but when we get into topics like this, as a forum, we need to realize that it is a touchy subject with a lot of feeling going around. So when some one says there piece remember that that one post doesn't make up there hole identity on this forum. And it certainly doesn't give you an accurate picture of their character or of their class. Most of us here are grown adults and deserve a level of respect as adults and as long time members of the forum. ;) I hate to see a long time member make an unpopular statement in a high publicity thread and have there reputation ruined by people who have only read that one post from them... I think you can see where I'm going...and I'm only saying all this because I can see were getting close to that line. :) Enjoy the thread for what it is, there are no "sides" here!

Happy Holidays All!
 
Is this knife only in the prototype stage????????? please lets all chill out for a minute. Do you actually think this is going to get ugly? I dont Im sure everything will wotk out fine, give it some time.
 
Ive seen a lot of pre-orders take longer than 6 months, but if it actually does make its production run, than Ill glady INSERT FOOT:footinmou
 
First functional means that there is no other (reasonably) viable method of achiving that function. Meaning that maybe the round hole is the absolutes best (may be it is may be it isn’t, but as far as custom makers go it is definitely the easiest. Try and make an oval whole with a drill press and not a CNC) or maybe it has just been the view of the court that an oval (or what ever)whole is just as effective as the round hole.

Case in point, I really don’t hear any BM 806 D2 owners (myself included) complaining about how they can’t get their knife open. Maybe I did want a round hole when I first go the 806(simple familiarity), but that went away after about a day or two.

Come on, it's not like they trade marked two wheels on a bicycle. Making everybody else use only one (unicycle) or three (a tricycle)liners in thier folders.

Second, Brownshoe, it seems that no one read the posts on the Nathan House vs. Blackwood copy post because no one else has pointed it out(I’m pretty sure this is what you point out in an eirlier post as being where Neil came down on someone for ripping off his design, if not then Brownshoe, tell me where), but because if you remember it was started by a forumite, followed by many more posts and finally Neil chimed in to say that “I appreciate the concern. Nathan and I have resolved any and all issues here, everything is COOL!” nothing else from him (as far as I know). Here’s the thread.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=264610&highlight=house+blackwood

And please tell me that if you were Neil, you wouldn’t of had a problem with the knives. It isn’t a hole looking like a hole, it’s the "whole" knife.

Edit for spelling.
 
Hi Knife 11.

Apology accepted. thank you.

Hi Logan, we've been licensing custom makers for years. All they had to do was ask. I've been a Guild member since '79. A member of the ABS in '84. I'm quite involved in the "custom world".

In this case, no one has contacted Spyderco?

sal
 
Originally posted by logan5
First functional means that there is no other (reasonably) viable method of achiving that function. Meaning that maybe the round hole is the absolutes best (may be it is may be it isn’t, but as far as custom makers go it is definitely the easiest. Try and make an oval whole with a drill press and not a CNC) or maybe it has just been the view of the court that an oval (or what ever)whole is just as effective as the round hole.
Click to expand...

Ah, well that more than anything else, imo, would help explain how the hole was trademarked. I was not aware that the relative performance of the design for the given function was of importance. I was under the impression that anything functional was only allowed to be patented, and that others could produce a similar mechanism if they changed the design-hopefully spurring competition and invention. But if the appearance does not affect functionality and is allowed a trademark, then that would seem to be what happened in the case of Spyderco. It's such a sticky widget, imo, because it's not an intricate design, scent, color, etc. that can be completely separated from the mechanism. The mechanism is a round hole, the trademark is a round hole. It would be a tough call for me to make, but that's probably because I'm not qualified to make it :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top