Mantis Knives Using Round Hole Opener

The spyderhole is, IMO, about the best, most ergonomic one handed opening "system".

I really like the Carson flipper style, like on the CRKT folders, but its not nearly as ergonomic as the spyderhole and it leaves my hand in an akward position on the fully opened knife.

The hole is absolutely a Spyderco asset and shouldn't be stolen.
 
J85909266 said:
Gerber and S&W outsell Spyderco.
Click to expand...

Ford outsells Porsche and I live under the impression Daewoo outsells Ford. But people will buy Porsche, just as some will buy Ford. I guess it's the same with Spyderco, it takes more than a hole in the blade to make a Spydie.
 
yablanowitz said:
Well, he may have invented it by hole, but I was "Spyderdropping" a Buck 110 in the seventies.
Click to expand...
Let em clarify, Sal invented knvies that were intended to be opened with one hand.

dialex said:
Ford outsells Porsche and I live under the impression Daewoo outsells Ford. But people will buy Porsche, just as some will buy Ford. I guess it's the same with Spyderco, it takes more than a hole in the blade to make a Spydie.
Click to expand...
I don't know what point you thught I was trying to make, or really what point you're trying to make.

I was trying to say that companies like these, cheap, mall ninja knives, are exactly the knids of companies that could potentially hurt Spyderco by stealing their trademarked features. Look at what happened with the Dyad.
 
This is one particular area where I thing trademark is abused. I could understand trademarking something more distinctive, like the spider symbol, or how Disney can trademark Mickey's ears. But they basically trademarked a circle.
 
I stayed in the same hotel that the Mantis guys stayed in Atlanta this year. Father and son if I am not mistaken. They were frankly not very friendly at breakfast when I inquired about there knives and corporation. I was just trying to make conversation. I did not spend 2 seconds at their booth.
 
shecky said:
This is one particular area where I thing trademark is abused. I could understand trademarking something more distinctive, like the spider symbol, or how Disney can trademark Mickey's ears. But they basically trademarked a circle.
Click to expand...

Mickey's head is just three circles.
 
shotgunner11 said:
Mickey's head is just three circles.
Click to expand...

Sure. Distinctively arranged.

Spyderco's spider is distinctive from other spider designs. If it looked like Spiderman's symbol, you can bet Marvel would be all over them.

But the Spyderhole is still just one circle.
 
If the Spyderhole were "Just a circle" then others wouldn't rip it off. They rip it off because they know that it's more than "just a circle". Sal Glesser pioneered the one-hand opener production folder, and using the "circle" to open the knife was totally his idea. Using the round hole opener (be it with other holes, or beveled or even different shaped holes) with out at least giving credit to Sal Glesser is just plain dishonest. Also, using the "it's just a circle" argument is duplicitous at best, since it is obviously more than “just a circle”.

This is a matter of integrity and character. Either you have it, or you don't. If you have integrity and character, and it’s “just a circle”, then you don’t use it. If you have integrity and character, and it isn’t “just a circle”, then you still don’t use it. Nobody thought of using a round hole in the blade to open a knife before Sal Glesser came along. Period. It’s his intellectual property, and use of that trademark without his permission is as good as theft regardless of what the courts say. If they took the TM away then it would be different because the patent has run out, but they should still credit Sal, just as he credits Michael Walker and Chris Reeve for their locks used on Spyderco knives.

Just because Benchmade used the round hole opener doesn’t make it right, and that is the main reason that I shy away from BM knives.
 
When BM first started using round hole openers, they credited Spyderco. I have an early one, and it said the hole was licensed from Spyderco right on the box. Somewhere their integrity took a big nose-dive. I still love my Spikes, but I won't buy a BM with a round or oval hole, unless it credits Sal on the box.
 
The issue with me isn't the functionality or originality of the Spyderhole. It's the fact that a circular hole, the simplest default shape automatically created when drilling a hole in any material, can be trademarked, on any product, not just knives. I see it as analagous to Harley Davidson's attempt to register the noise produced by their motorcycles as a trademark, an inherent effect of any device using an internal combustion engine.

No need to piss your pants over the issue.
 
shecky said:
The issue with me isn't the functionality or originality of the Spyderhole. It's the fact that a circular hole, the simplest default shape automatically created when drilling a hole in any material, can be trademarked, on any product, not just knives. I see it as analagous to Harley Davidson's attempt to register the noise produced by their motorcycles as a trademark, an inherent effect of any device using an internal combustion engine.

No need to piss your pants over the issue.
Click to expand...
With all due respect that last statement was just childish. Nobody here so far has come close to anything in that regard. So far there has been nothing but rational, logical argument from everyone including you. Up until that last statement, there has been no vitriol, demagoguery, or hysteria, and your comment was out of line.

As for your assertions, I have already addressed them. I could go on to explain the “brand recognition” aspect of it, or how Spyderco had to prove it was worthy of a trademark, but somehow I doubt it would matter to you.

The comparison to the noise produced by Harley Davidson’s is interesting. On the one hand, they are known for that noise AFAIK, however that noise isn’t a part of the bike. Either way, one has nothing to do with the other.
 
I dunno. Your reply confounding character and ethics with trademarkability sounded pretty pissy and childish to me.

I understand the brand recognition aspect of trademarks. That's the whole point of having trademarks. My point is that the circle is just too common, obvious and basic a shape to make a hole, and the fact that a circle is even worthy of trademark under such conditions is an area where the law goes too far. In contrast, the Byrd "Comet" is a much more distinctive and non obvious shape, and would be a clearer candidate for trademark protection.
 
shecky said:
I dunno. Your reply confounding character and ethics with trademarkability sounded pretty pissy and childish to me.

...
Click to expand...
Your view of it is no surprise. However, it wasn't confounding, nor was it "pissy and childish". It was clear, concise, and without emotion. It was nothing more or less than rational comments.

And while I understand that people without integrity or character could/would/may find it offensive, it certainly wasn't intended in that manner.
 
The patent on the Spyderco hole expired.

There is a rumor that Spyderco did take Benchmade to court over the use of the opening hole on the Benchmade Skirmish and lost. Can't confirm it, but it makes sense.

So now there is only a trademark that Spyderco uses the "hole" in it's blades. Trademarks do not cover function, only looks. So even though it's probably not right to use the round hole, I don't think that Spyderco can legally do anything about it if there are other holes in the blade like the Skirmish.

The knife in question above is made in China. What else do you expect from a $29 Karambit knock off?
 
Nilaman said:
I'd love to see Sal or Kristi reply to this and set the record straight.
Click to expand...

Sal already has replied to the subject of trademark infringemen, in detail, in this thread on the subject of the Benchmade Skirmish:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284340&highlight=trademark

This thread is, for the most part, just a repeat, substituting "Mantis" for "Benchmade"

I feel there is honor in respecting the intellectual property of others, whether you are legally bound to or not. Those who don't, don't get my respect - or business. As I said (posted) back when the Skirmish discussion was underway in 2003: "Many well known and respected makers do recognize Spyderco's trademark and use the round opening hole under licence. Those who would chose to ignore the trademark or would look for loopholes are not those who I would chose to do business with or patronize." My feelings haven't changed - all detailed legal arguments aside.

David
 
Yeah, I refuse to buy cars that fail to acknowledge C. Kettering or Cadallac for the electric starter. Keeps me in shape, all that cranking over 10:1 compression motors.
 
Since the other thread is closed I would like to know if Spyderco did take Benchmade to court over this and did they in fact lose the case?

If they did lose the case then, people cannot complain anymore about Benchmade using the round hole. Remember, trademarks do not cover function only looks. Patents can cover function but the Spyderco round hole patent expired around the year 2000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top