Is the Benchmade opening hole wrong?

I have no idea really, but it sounded like Sal isn't too thrilled about it in this post.


Sal Glesser
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 1998Location: Golden, CO, USAPosts: 9,090


sorry again. Must have been the Benchmade with the spyderhole.

sal
 
Last edited:
Spyderco is using a flipper in their Southard, is that also wrong? Also wouldn't that make them a follower?
 
That damn hole was the only thing that kept me from buying a Vex as a "cheap" knife. I liked everything else about it, but I don't like opening holes on my knives.
 
The 806 started with the oval hole then switched to the round later, and the Blackwood issue was mostly with Kershaw as they used a 3 hole pattern - which is why they went with 4 on the production.
 
Planterz said:
Some of the posters in this thread REALLY need to bone up on their history.

Spyderco patented and trademarked the round opening hole. Patents are only good for a certain number of years. The patent has expired. However, the trademark can, and has been renewed. For those that say "you can't patent a hole", well Spyderco did. For those that say "you can't trademark a hole", well, Spyderco did, and those people also need to take a closer look at a Coke bottle or a John Deere tractor, because that shape of bottle and that exact shade of green are trademarked. The round opening hole, and indeed the round hole in general (they put it even on their fixed blades), is iconic of Spyderco, as much as their bug logo is. Of course, a round hole somewhere on a knife isn't exclusive to Spyderco, but the round opening hole is, and is recognized as such by the government of the United States of America.

Benchmade's use of the round opening hole is long and confusing, and frankly, nobody really knows all the details except Spyderco and Benchmade themselves. First there was the 806 AFCK, which began with an round opening hole, but then went to an ovoid hole. Then came the Pika and the Blackwood 630/635 (I don't know which came first). The issue with the 630 was that it was based on Neil Blackwood's custom knife, which featured the trademarked Spyderco opening hole. There was a big clusterfornication about the whole thing, but in the end, Spyderco and Benchmade came to an agreement, and Benchmade is now allowed to use the round opening hole on their knives. The details are between them. But suffice to say that Benchmade is legally using the trademarked Spyderco round opening hole, and any possible wrongdoings on BM's part are in the past and everything now is on the up-and-up.
Click to expand...

Trademarks are for appearance and form, patents are for function. A Spyderhole is a functional part of a device, which provides distinct benefits and trade-offs when compared to a thumb stud. That is the place of patent, not trademark. As long as a knife doesn't look like an existing Spyderco design, and is advertised in such a way as not to confuse customers, there shouldn't be any legal issues.

Spyderco got it's bite at the apple with it's patent. Using copyright to protect a product feature which provides a functional benefit is contrary to the spirit of US intellectual property law.

Edit: See Functionality doctrine.
 
Last edited:
gomipile said:
Trademarks are for appearance and form, patents are for function. A Spyderhole is a functional part of a device, which provides distinct benefits and trade-offs when compared to a thumb stud. That is the place of patent, not trademark. As long as a knife doesn't look like an existing Spyderco design, and is advertised in such a way as not to confuse customers, there shouldn't be any legal issues.

Spyderco got it's bite at the apple with it's patent. Using copyright to protect a product feature which provides a functional benefit is contrary to the spirit of US intellectual property law.
Click to expand...

The United States of America's government recognizes the round opening hole as a Spyderco trademark and it is protected by such laws. Beyond that, I don't know what your point is, or what we might be arguing about.
 
My point is that the functionality doctrine doesn't allow a trademark to protect a feature of a product which does something useful. If I owned a knife company and wanted to use an opening hole, I'd give credit to Spyderco for their innovation, but it would not be legally necessary for my company to license the feature, since a trademark is insufficient protection for a functional feature.
 
allyourblood said:
The round opening hole used on the older AFCK was licensed from Spyderco, but the license ended and Benchmade switched to their own oval opening hole (like on my 806D2, which is one of my absolute favorite knives of all time). I've heard lots of stories as to why BM stopped licensing the round opening hole and I'm not sure which one is correct (I'm sure the facts are stated here on BF somewhere).

To the topic in general:

For me personally, I will never own a Benchmade with a round opening hole until an amicable agreement has been made public. And that simply hasn't happened yet. If you research the topic, you will find that at some point, Sal basically stated something to the effect of, "Spyderco and Benchmade have reached an agreement", but he won't specify the details. That isn't enough to convince me that the deal is honorable and fair to both parties, and I'm certain it's not. Until Sal goes on record saying as much, I'll stay away from any BM knife that steps on Spyderco's trademark (whether it's enforceable or not).

It comes down to this: the round opening hole is unquestionably associated with Spyderco knives -- almost entirely so (until recently). Whether it can be defended in court doesn't matter to me -- it's established and they've made it their own for decades. The knife industry is shockingly small and tightly-knit, and the huge manufacturers rub elbows constantly, year after year. For another company to come along and use it when there are numerous other solutions that are just as effective (BM used to be pretty proud of their oval opening hole, if I recall) appears to me, as disrespectful.

Other people can buy them, and I won't think any less of them. These types of situations don't amount to a hill of beans to a lot of folks, and I understand and accept that. I don't profess to know all the inner workings of every company nor their legal dealings with one another. I only know that Benchmade could've done just about anything other than putting a round opening hole on some of their knives and people would still buy and appreciate them, never questioning their functionality. But they chose to use Spyderco's most iconic symbol (even more so than the "bug") without ever giving credit or receiving any sort of official "blessing" (at least, not any that Sal was comfortable enough offering up in a public space). That speaks volumes to me and I will continue to vote "nay" with my dollars.
Click to expand...
Thank you for saving me the time to type this all up.

You, sir, have your facts straight, and a damned good opinion. I completely agree with you.

When the Vex came out with the hole, it was a sad day. It seemed like a whole lot of industry bullying, to me.
 
gomipile said:
My point is that the functionality doctrine doesn't allow a trademark to protect a feature of a product which does something useful. If I owned a knife company and wanted to use an opening hole, I'd give credit to Spyderco for their innovation, but it would not be legally necessary for my company to license the feature, since a trademark is insufficient protection for a functional feature.
Click to expand...
I think Spyderco licensing the hole to makers is what allows BM to do it. If it was only trade dress, then it doesn't make as much sense from either side for a custom maker to brand his work as a production piece, nor for a company to allow its brand to be placed on products it does not otherwise control in the design, price, distribution, warranty, or advertising. As a functional feature like IKBS or the lockbar stabilizer, licensing likely looks more logical.
 
For the people who make the comparison that Spyderco utilizes other's innovations as well in their knives such as the flipper as mentioned here, please take the time to realize that Sal and Spyderco honor these inventors completely every single time and cite their name when mentioning the feature. Names of inventors are plastered all over their catalog as well. Not to mention royalties are payed for the Sage series of knives among others. A recent example of this was done just today. Head over to MrBlondes Spyderco thread on the subforum and watch the new Domino flipper vid and notice that Eric Glesser cites Kit Carson for the flipper. He also names the framelock the reeve integral lock n the same vid. Not monolock or some other made up name like they invented it.

All we are talking about here is giving credit, which one company does not do at all and the other goes out of its way to do. What is fair business practice is up to you. I like both brands, but it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Every time I read these threads, or go back and read some of the old versions of these goofy arguments, I find myself thinking that Sal and Spyderco are pretty classy folks. He seems like exactly the sort of person I'd like to support, to the point that it makes me a little sad that I generally don't like their knives :(

I sort of wish I liked the hole or the style of their knives more, just because he seems like a stand up dude . . .
 
a.p.f. said:
tumblr_lols30rum71qeiwtao1_500.gif
Click to expand...

this....
 
I like Spydercos.
I also like Benchmades.
I like holes, studs, disks, and waves.
I also like fixed blades, including the ones I have made.

I am an all around, unabashed knife whore.:thumbup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top