It's Official Cold Steel knocked off Brian Tighes design

i think that's "flame broiling" misspelled. he's referring to the heat marks on the finish of the knives -- the "tiger stripes".

abe
 
1. I think the "Black Sable" looks very nice.

2. There is nothing new under the sun. Everyone's an idea thief!

3. Something Lynn did right was introduce the Vaquero Grande! I have yet to be impressed by a better blade shape for a mega folder.

4. Item #3 reminds me. Anyone want to see a custom maker "knock-off" of a Vaquero Grande? E-mail me for a picture. I won't name names on the board.
 
jonshoup said:
3 Points to make--

1) Blackwood did have permission for the round hole on his custom
Click to expand...


jonshoup

With all respect, I'd like to know where you got this information. If he had "permission" it would be in the form of a licence from Spyderco. Where have you ever seen it stated or confirmed that Spyderco had licenced the trademark to him. Given the comments Sal Glesser has made on the subject of the Benchmade 630 and Neil Blackwood's design, I find this very hard to believe.

David
 
My bad, David. I just searched every forum I've ever visited, trying to confirm that point. Before I found what I was looking for, I ran across an old post from Sal Glesser, stating he was never approached for licensing by either Neil or Benchmade. :footinmou

Atleast I was right about the bicycle shorts. :barf:
 
I seem to remember that the shape of the hole in the blade is irrelevant. Spyderco's patent is a "function", this is not the right term, patent in that a hole in the blade to open, regardless of shape and size , is the patent item.
 
adder said:
I seem to remember that the shape of the hole in the blade is irrelevant. Spyderco's patent is a "function", this is not the right term, patent in that a hole in the blade to open, regardless of shape and size , is the patent item.
Click to expand...
A patent covers an invention of some sort--so yes, a patent would cover something that performs a function.

Otherwise, it would be a trademark, if you're the first to do it.
 
Neil Blackwood made many fixed blades long before the Benchmade collab, that had 3 holes in the blade as a design element and a weight reducer, so, it can hardly be said they were there to perform any mechanical function, as fixed blades, last I heard, do not open. So, it can then be said that having holes in that area of the blade was originally a Blackwood design element, which ended up in the BM folder. A lot of makers drill holes into their knives, if you can patent/Tm a plain old hole, well, does that really seem fair?

Does someone have a patent/trademark on the thumbstud? The nail nick? Thumb disc? How about a milled thumb ramp? There are just so many ways to open a folder, and so many ways to use a knife, if you can claim a very generic one, like a plain hole, for yourself, that doesn't seem to make much sense to me. If it were a hole, let's say in the shape of a spider, well yeah, I can understand that, but a plain hole? How is that different from a grooved thumb ramp, or thumb stud?

There is a huge difference between the hole in question on the BM 630, and what we have here, which is virtually an exact copy of the unique Tighe design. To suggest the BM 630 is a copy of anything Spyderco makes is silly, and I don't care how many holes it has.
 
Megalobyte said:
Neil Blackwood made many fixed blades long before the Benchmade collab, that had 3 holes in the blade as a design element and a weight reducer, so, it can hardly be said they were there to perform any mechanical function, as fixed blades, last I heard, do not open. So, it can then be said that having holes in that area of the blade was originally a
Blackwood design element, which ended up in the BM folder. A lot of makers drill holes into their knives, if you can patent/Tm a plain old hole, well, does that really seem fair?
Click to expand...

What has fair got to do with it? Is it fair that the BM630 uses a Spyderco trademarked round opening hole without licence! Neil Blackwood may have been drilling holes in fixed blades for years - that doesn't give him (or Benchmade) the right to use the trademarked round opening hole in a folder.

Megalobyte said:
There is a huge difference between the hole in question on the BM 630, and what we have here, which is virtually an exact copy of the unique Tighe design. To suggest the BM 630 is a copy of anything Spyderco makes is silly, and I don't care how many holes it has.
Click to expand...

What's the difference? Ripping of a Tighe design is bad because you like Tighe and don't like Cold Steel - but ripping off Spyderco's round opening hole is OK because you like Benchmade better than Spyderco???? How much of a design can you rip off before it becomes "unfair" to you?

In my opinion, a rip off is a rip off.

David
 
Thats really sad that CS can so blithely rip off a Tighe design and not get in legal trouble. Tighe should sue them, and get them to stop production.
 
David, I have actually no opinions, likes or dislikes of Tighe or CS, I am looking at these 2 very different situations objectively, on the one hand, you have CS selling a knife that is very clearly a near exact copy of a unique Tighe design, whereas with the Blackwood BM 630, I see no resemblence whatsoever between it and anything Spyderco makes, unless seeing a plain, round hole present on 2 knives makes them similar, which, to my point, seems ridiculous to me. I'll ask again, it doesn't seem silly that you can patent a plain, round hole? Hey, if Spyderco does have a patent or TM on a plain round hole, well, good for them, and their lawyers, but it seems ridiculous to me that something so generic and obvious can be "owned" by somebody and that from that point on, nobody can drill a freaking hole into the blade of the knife they make without paying Spyderco for the right.

So, yes, I see a pretty big difference between these 2 situations.
 
Well, maybe it's true that a hole shouldn't be patentable. But a hole as a device for fast, one handed opening? Works just as well as speed-safe, in my opinion. I think that it's the idea, not the physical object (or lack of same) that we are discussing here.

I don't know what Spyderco would charge a company like Benchmade to licence their "hole". I do know what they charge individual makers, cause I have a couple of "holy" handmades---and the maker was licensed. Believe me, it's a token amount.

You know, you come up with a bucha ideas, get them ripped off time after time--I understand how a guy could get a mite testy.

Of course, it still isn't as blatant as CS's most recent ripoff. I do not own any CS stuff aside from their basic Kukhri---but I would be less inclined to buy form them now.
 
As I recall, Spyderco (Sal Glesser) patented the hole as an opening device. It was, and is, a significant and previously non-obvious improvement over the nail nick, which was known from way back. Presumably someone invented that too, but by now its origin is lost in the depths of time. The patent on the opening hole expired several (3 or 4) years ago. Sal commented on that fact at the time. Patents run for 17 years and Spyderco has been around longer than that by now.

However, Spyderco also registered the Round Opening Hole as a Trademark, which is different from a patent and which does not expire. The Round Opening Hole was licensed to Benchmade for a period and showed up in the original AFCK as well as in the earlier Ascent series. I don't recall exactly what Sal has said about it, but it appears that the license expired or was renegotiated, as BM replaced the round hole with an oval one.

I can appreciate that Neil Blackwood used a distinctive pattern of holes in his fixed blades which he wanted to carry over to his folders, but IMHO, once one of those holes doubles as an opening device, the design infringes on Spyderco's trademark. If the BM630 had the holes but used a thumbstud as the opening device, it would not, IMHO, have infringed. (Note: my opinions are generally worth approximately what you have paid for them. :) )

Once a patent is granted, or even applied for, you cannot lose it based on infringement. Damages may be mitigated from the holder ignoring the infringement, but the patent is not lost. A trademark differs from a patent in several ways, and one of them is that a trademark holder must diligently defend the mark or risk losing it. Trade names like "Escalator" have been lost to the public domain for that reason. Others, like "Kleenex" and "Xerox" have been at risk for some time and the owners do try to defend them for exactly that reason. Spyderco cannot afford to ignore something like this.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. On the other hand, I have done enough research on IP to be confident that I am not misstating the above.

Paul
 
Lynn Thompson never ceases to amaze me. I guess the rip off business was too tempting for him.
 
Megalobyte

I guess you just feel that legalities shouldn't matter if you don't personally agree with them. We would have quite the knife industry, and society in general, if designs/patents/trademarks could be stolen or infringed on every time someone thought they were "ridiculous' or "silly". In my opinion, you are obviously choosing to see a rip-off in one case and ignore it in another. As I asked before, how much of a design has to be ripped off before you consider it to matter?

In my opinion, whether its 10% or 100%, a rip off is still a rip off.

David
 
I wonder what the general reaction would be if Benchmade were to start "tiger-striping" the blades of the 630-Skirmish and "heat-striping" the Ti handles without permission? How about you, Megalobyte? What would your reaction be? ;)
 
4 s ter said:
Megalobyte

I guess you just feel that legalities shouldn't matter if you don't personally agree with them. We would have quite the knife industry, and society in general, if designs/patents/trademarks could be stolen or infringed on every time someone thought they were "ridiculous' or "silly". In my opinion, you are obviously choosing to see a rip-off in one case and ignore it in another. As I asked before, how much of a design has to be ripped off before you consider it to matter?

In my opinion, whether its 10% or 100%, a rip off is still a rip off.

David
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it doesnt matter, if BM did in fact violate Spydercos tradmark that's not right, but, I don't know if they did, has a court determined this to be the case?

But, yes, I still do see a difference between what at worst is a very slight violation, if it indeed was determined to be so, and a blatant copy. Yes, wrong is wrong, but, some things are worse than others, don't you agree?

For example, you should not go up to a stranger and "flick" them on the forehead, it's wrong, and possibly an assault or battery, but, is that equally as wrong, or illegal, as shooting them in the head? I see a difference.

And, yes, I still think it's silly that you can patent a round hole drilled into a blade, but, if you can, and they did, and BM infringed upon that, well, one, I don't know why BM would not do it properly and get a license for it, but if they did illegally infringe and didn't pay for the license then yes, that's wrong, I guess I do see things in degrees though. I'd rather be flicked in the forehead than shot dead, but that's just me. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top