I.P. theft.....Not OK or OK ? when or with what ?

David Brown

David Brown

Kydex Sheath and Holster Artist :)
Moderator
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
Joined
Jun 4, 2001
Messages
14,833
Hi Everybody,

Looking for honest opinions please.

Intellectual Property theft, what makes it not OK or OK ?

I see homages, blatant copies, borrowing and the like all over our industry.

The first question that seems to be asked when someone is called out on it is; "Is it patented ?" or "Is is copyrighted ?"

As far as knives go the most frequent comment I hear is " well BLANK did not invent the knife" or "BLANK first came up with blah blah blah many years ago so its ok"

I am not asking about the thing called a "knife".

I am talking about style, something that identifies a object as the makers own.

lots of folks make Folders or (insert whatever) but most make the style their own with a certain grind, handle style or overall look.

Emerson has a certain style
Strider has a certain style
Busse has a certain style
Horton has a certain style
Monroe has a certain style
Eric Blair has a certain style
and so on.

You can recognize them at a distance



I wonder a couple things

1. What does the buying public feel ? i.e. would you buy a copy or homage ?

2. What do those being stolen from feel ? i.e. do you not worry about it ? or do you try to lawyer up ? copyright designs and whatnot ?

3.Why does it have to be legally enforced if we are all suppose to be honorable people ?
***kind of a tongue in cheek question, I know why it "has" to be enforced but wouldn't it be nice if folks started doing things just because it was the right thing to do ***

4.What does it apply to ? i.e. watches, knives, jewelry, clothes, sheaths, guns, ?



Again I am looking for honest opinions please.

I am genuinely curious.

Thank you for your time

David
 
I think that there's a line of distinction to be drawn between copies and homages, as an homage should be the designer's own spin/rendition of a functional or stylistic concept rather than an attempt at cloning a feature or style. Likewise, with certain knives/tools there comes a point of popularity where a design becomes a pattern rather than a singular design. Once that threshold has been crossed the general concept of the tool becomes more or less an open one that can be freely played with, but up until that point the scope of pieces that take inspiration from it must walk a much finer line to avoid ethical issues. For instance, at this point the Buck 110's general form is so ubiquitous that variations on the theme can be produced without much ethical dilemma as it's progressed to the point of being a pattern. But taking things like a Strider handle shape, Todd Begg perforated groove, etc., is problematic because it's a maker-specific visual branding element that doesn't play a strong functional role. I think a lot of it comes down to NOT what is legal but what is fair to those that the design or design elements originated from.
 
I think that, unless a person is extremely well-versed in IP law (which is a highly specialized legal subject that includes the separate categories of copyright, trademark and patent), that opinion is about as valid and useful as an opinion about high-energy particle physics. In short, you better be a real expert. (Bear in mind that I'm not talking about a counterfeit or intentional clone in this post at all.)

So, what may somehow "offend" some person because a particular knife looks like another knife (or reminds them vaguely of another knife), there may be no enforceable rights at issue at all. Nor in many cases should there be: material objects for sale often look like, or adopt the style of, other material objects, whether it be cars, shirts, shoes or cutlery, which is entirely good in a free market system. The similarity detected may be an "homage" or it may be simply the current fashion or it may be (frankly) imaginary.

Somewhat related rant: it seems these days that there is some inexplicable over-emphasis on "ownership". Back in my day, if a singer sang a song that another singer had sung before, it was just another version. Nowadays, it's a "cover" of the earlier singer's song, as though that singer had possession of something (other than a copyrightable interest). This frame of mind seems to have bled over into a number of areas where any concept related to "ownership" has no place.
 
Last edited:
FortyTwoBlades said:
I think that there's a line of distinction to be drawn between copies and homages, as an homage should be the designer's own spin/rendition of a functional or stylistic concept rather than an attempt at cloning a feature or style. Likewise, with certain knives/tools there comes a point of popularity where a design becomes a pattern rather than a singular design. Once that threshold has been crossed the general concept of the tool becomes more or less an open one that can be freely played with, but up until that point the scope of pieces that take inspiration from it must walk a much finer line to avoid ethical issues. For instance, at this point the Buck 110's general form is so ubiquitous that variations on the theme can be produced without much ethical dilemma as it's progressed to the point of being a pattern. But taking things like a Strider handle shape, Todd Begg perforated groove, etc., is problematic because it's a maker-specific visual branding element that doesn't play a strong functional role. I think a lot of it comes down to NOT what is legal but what is fair to those that the design or design elements originated from.
Click to expand...

520085236_0d3bda3982.jpg


I think you are very right about it being a line of distinction. The problem is how to define where that line should be drawn.

A good example is again the Buck 110. In the 70's there were Pakistan made copies of the 110 everywhere. Then they were probably "copies" and not "patterns" then. But those copies had a lot to do with the 110 becoming a pattern after a while.

So, I have no position to defend and no clear and defined position at all other than to say gray areas abound unless it's a clear copy meant to deceive.
 
A copy is a copy.
A style is a style.

Spyderco's "style" is full flat ground leaf shaped blades with a circular thumb hole. That doesn't mean another company can't use that same "style" blade.
However, if a company came out and made an identical, clone, or copy of a Spyderco Endura, then I would say that isn't OK.
 
I do not want a replica anything... I don't mind influence and inspiration coming from different aspects of originals in order to create something unique, but a mirror copy of something else bothers me. I see these topics come up in all different forums (not just knives), and while I respect the stance that a replica makes a design more affordable for people that cant afford an original, it's a stance that I don't share. If I cant afford an original, I'll either attempt to save up or get something else in my price range.

With the above I'm talking about copies, not counterfeits... ie. items that are branded differently, and not using someone else's logo without consent. Counterfeits benefit no one.
 
Most major makers have a registered trademark and copyright protection on their website, images, marketing materials and etc. Very few have actually patented their knife designs. Frankly, most are just not innovative enough to merit protection.

n2s
 
Yeah, but ask the guys who put a small circular hole in their guards about what happens when ip law goes a bit far..........

Spyderco hole I get. Talon holes I do not.

Regardless, it is good form to contact a maker or designer about a particular design if you have any question about using it on a knife of your own.
 
Gadfly22 said:
Somewhat related rant: it seems these days that there is some inexplicable over-emphasis on "ownership". Back in my day, if a singer sang a song that another singer had sung before, it was just another version. Nowadays, it's a "cover" of the earlier singer's song, as though that singer had possession of something (other than a copyrightable interest). This frame of mind seems to have bled over into a number of areas where any concept related to "ownership" has no place.
Click to expand...

I'm as big a fan of some of the good old days and what they represented as the next guy, but this change in relation to music is likely for the better. And this is coming from a guy who enjoys free and creative commons music and admires those artists who release free songs online, etc.
 
[video=youtube;IMZjAOoX6nw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMZjAOoX6nw[/video]
[video=youtube;aMICD3aMZpw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMICD3aMZpw[/video]
 
I dont think it is ever ok unless sanctioned authorized by the party being replicated. But I am also not against it. This may seem like a contradiction but my reason is simple. I think the rules should be the same for everyone. It shouldnt be excused just because you are american and it shouldnt be wrong just because you live in a different country. Until the same rules apply to everyone I will follow suit and continue to ignore the rules like everyone else for my OWN selfish reasons. As for the supposed trademarked design elements of certain makers? From what I know of the law they have to have those elements trademarked and be able and prepared to defend them. But honestly many may associate a fuller with holes in it with a begg if that is their only experience with such things. But he was far from the first maker to do such a thing. Lets not forget that the hole in the strider blade was only made oval as to not infringe on the spyderco trademark. There is no denying where they got the idea. IMHO too much of the pot calling the kettle black in regards to IP theft. In some cases its a valid complaint. But many times it takes a mere scratching of the surface to uncover that many times the person doing the crying is just as guilty.
 
Last edited:
The first time I heard the term [ homage ] here on bladeforums, was in reference to Chinese copies of American knives. I guess it's a nice way of saying stolen.:eek:
 
DAVE_M said:
A copy is a copy.
A style is a style.

Spyderco's "style" is full flat ground leaf shaped blades with a circular thumb hole. That doesn't mean another company can't use that same "style" blade.
However, if a company came out and made an identical, clone, or copy of a Spyderco Endura, then I would say that isn't OK.
Click to expand...

*cough*

sog_sp-01_1.png
 
There are two main types of patents; design & utility. Utility protects the structure/use/mechanism and is very expensive. Design protects the features/style with a range. Both have limited lifetimes, design 15 years, utility 20yrs. The fees are what prohibit most people from filing with a typical total cost of $10k+, most companies use an internal and external patent attorney.

Legally, you cannot infringe on either of the patents, more room to bypass the design patent range. Once the patent expires others are free to infringe legally.

Morally, I believe you should never infringe on a makers design without their consent. There is a limit to this as knife shapes are obvious, wording when you apply for patents is non-obvious design. Just because a maker uses a recurve tanto as his signature doesn't mean others that do that are copying him. But, if that makers does the recurve tanto and adds a custom specific pivot and tab style and someone starts copying that is bogus and I would never buy a knife from them.
 
Here's one way to look at it: If you were the fellow producing a knife that drew inspiration from another maker's work, would you feel confident in going up to them at a knife event like SHOT and shaking their hand if you knew they were aware of your piece? If you'd be totally comfortable with that (and you're not a sociopath :D ) then you've got an homage or a piece that merely took some degree of inspiration from their work. If you'd feel ashamed or embarrassed or would expect them to frown at the sight of you, you've probably crossed the line. An ethical designer should (barring personal differences) be able to have a healthy, friendly relationship with those who inspire them.
 
I like it when I can see a Spyderco or CRK or Strider and recognize it as one of their models.
Imitation may be flattering, but at some point it becomes illegal and immoral as well, IMO.
 
hqdefault.jpg


The iconic "homage". The design is extremely similar but they are not the same. This might be one end of the spectrum.

"taking up a glowing cinder with the tongs and lighting with it the long cherry-wood pipe which was wont to replace his clay when he was in a disputatious rather than a meditative mood"
 
What about wave mods? Look at what Demko/CS did to get around Emerson's patent ... wave thumb plate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top