If somebody painted a picture, in impressionistic style, of a man on a dock by water against a red sky, with his hands to his face and mouth agape, and called it "The Shriek", nobody on the planet would argue that it's not a copy of Edvard Munch's "The Scream".
Believe it or not, there
are rules about this. But the rules for paintings are different than what apply to knives. Copyright would apply to a painting, but you might have trouble applying it to a knife. A patent might apply to a knife, but not a painting. In addition, they offer different protections.
Copying somebody else's work and presenting it as your is wrong. It doesn't matter if it's a knife, a painting, a watch, a designer handbag, a microprocessor, test answers from the smart guy sitting next to you in class, etc. It's wrong. If your moral compass can't tell you that, then you're already heading in the wrong direction.
Unfortunately the world isn't quite so black and white when it comes to manufactured products.
Certainly there will technologies that will eventually be copied. Somebody originally came up with the backlock, and now countless companies use it. Countless makers use Michael Walker's linerlock, which Chris Reeve adapted into his integral framelock, which countless makers also now use. Eventually the AXIS lock patent will run out and other companies will start using it.
They're taking someone else's design and profiting from it. Without permission, without giving credit, without royalties. That's wrong. Some people will try to give justification to it, but that statement in itself shows that it's wrong. If it was "right", it wouldn't need justification.
Do you really care about patents? You seem to think if a patent has run out it can be copied. OK so far. However, you also seem to think that if something is copied across the board, it's wrong. What if it never had a patent? We're all supposed to threat it as if it did? And perpetually, even more than the term of a real patent? This makes no sense.
Perhaps you're just offended that copiers are not genuflecting to to the original designers when they otherwise ethically make their copies? I dunno... all I can say is... tough titty. *
A design belongs to the designer. Copying a design is stealing from the designer. If you've ever had an original thought of your own, you might someday balk at somebody stealing it for their own use.
No. Once again, a design does not belong to a designer, unless the designer takes very clear steps to get legal ownership. No doubt many people in history have had their feelings hurt by having their ideas copied. If one thing history shows it's that any idea that's worth copying will be copied. End of story. If creative people cannot deal with this reality, they can take their toys and go home. Having good ideas does not make one entitled to be successful, respected, or even employed. Nobody ever said running a knife making business was easy.
FWIW, there's a very interesting
Ted talk by a woman named Johanna Blakely on the topic of intellectual property, dealing specifically with the fashion industry, but applies to many other fields, including to a large degree, the knife market.
