Maxace IP Theft Claim

[Jason Puckett]

Could have likely flipped it into something positive. “You like the H badger design? Try the original in higher end materials.”

I was just asking after a higher end HB recently. Had this company done just that, and I saw it on F&B's channel, I would have gone out and bought the knife. Now, no way in hell am I buying one. I don't support bullies.

That honey badger was a disappointment for me; it was like a cheap toy sold it to a friend ; my s110 manix 2 that makes it look silly anyway

What size HB did you have? I have the small one and I'm really impressed by it. I was just flipping both it and my Smock and the HB flips easier and has a really pleasing "clunk" sound as it locks into place. Maybe the larger sizes have more flex in the handles, I couldn't say since I haven't handled them, but I'm impressed enough by the small one that I'm seriously considering getting someone to reblade it in something nice.

 

[danbot]

Why?

IP laws do not create monopolies, nor do they limit competition or innovation.
Theft is immoral.

 

[ArchVV]

IP laws do not create monopolies, nor do they limit competition or innovation.
Theft is immoral.

Concise and definitive, many thanks

 

[Yo Mama]

Same birdshot idiot combo that just had a video for Will Moon saying they wanted to stay above all the politics in the knife world?

 

[dirc]

IP laws do not create monopolies, nor do they limit competition or innovation.
Theft is immoral.

read this for more background (if interested) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Criticisms

also, you realize IP law is why you pay $600 for a 2 pack of epipens while the rest of the world pays about 10% of that amount?
only AFTER congress was about to spank the company for this behaviour did they 'release' a generic form for $300 - 'a 50% savings!'

IMHO, IP law can be (and is) used to enable theft from people for lifesaving drugs which have long been in existence and are no longer 'innovative'
https://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-mylan-epipen-drug-prices-20180605-story.html

I'm not suggesting we wipe away all IP laws, but they need some serious overhaul to avoid creating ridiculous situations like this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli


... your statement is wrong in many ways: IP laws intention is to create a monopoly, for a fixed amount of time, to reward companies for doing R&D (in the case of patents), and for doing creative work (in the case of copyright (film/media/books))

 

[ArchVV]

read this for more background (if interested) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Criticisms

also, you realize IP law is why you pay $600 for a 2 pack of epipens while the rest of the world pays about 10% of that amount?
only AFTER congress was about to spank the company for this behaviour did they 'release' a generic form for $300 - 'a 50% savings!'

IMHO, IP law can be (and is) used to enable theft from people for lifesaving drugs which have long been in existence and are no longer 'innovative'
https://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-mylan-epipen-drug-prices-20180605-story.html

I'm not suggesting we wipe away all IP laws, but they need some serious overhaul to avoid creating ridiculous situations like this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli


... your statement is wrong in many ways: IP laws intention is to create a monopoly, for a fixed amount of time, to reward companies for doing R&D (in the case of patents), and for doing creative work (in the case of copyright (film/media/books))

This conclusion seems closer to reality (and logic) IMO - I was hoping danbot would expound perhaps a tad more on his own.

 

[danbot]

read this for more background (if interested) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Criticisms

also, you realize IP law is why you pay $600 for a 2 pack of epipens while the rest of the world pays about 10% of that amount?
only AFTER congress was about to spank the company for this behaviour did they 'release' a generic form for $300 - 'a 50% savings!'

IMHO, IP law can be (and is) used to enable theft from people for lifesaving drugs which have long been in existence and are no longer 'innovative'
https://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-mylan-epipen-drug-prices-20180605-story.html

I'm not suggesting we wipe away all IP laws, but they need some serious overhaul to avoid creating ridiculous situations like this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli


... your statement is wrong in many ways: IP laws intention is to create a monopoly, for a fixed amount of time, to reward companies for doing R&D (in the case of patents), and for doing creative work (in the case of copyright (film/media/books))

An interesting read. Can't say I agree with all of it though.
Abuse of laws and systems will always be a problem. Loopholes need to be closed and certain rules clarified, but the fundamentals of IP rules are sound. (At least in concept if not always in practice).
I don't believe IP rules create monopolies all by themselves and we have laws that can break monopolies when needed.
R&D and testing in pharmaceuticals is extremely expensive and time consuming and the company deserves to be compensated for that and they are entitled to make a reasonable profit for their efforts.
Greed is the real reason for the ridiculous prices they charge us, and the misuse of IP rules to enable that greed is what must be addressed.

 

[dirc]

I don't believe IP rules create monopolies all by themselves

They do, that is the point (ie the reward / incentive to companies) - in the case of a generic patent - the term of 20 years is the default - but has many loopholes to increase it:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents#heading-2
(this is the official US patent office write up on it

"The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO."

imho, that is the definition of creating a monopoly

TLDR; you get a US patent, you have a 20 year monopoly on it

 

[danbot]

They do, that is the point (ie the reward / incentive to companies) - in the case of a generic patent - the term of 20 years is the default - but has many loopholes to increase it:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents#heading-2
(this is the official US patent office write up on it

"The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO."

imho, that is the definition of creating a monopoly

TLDR; you get a US patent, you have a 20 year monopoly on it

Okay, well let's look at this from the perspective of the knife industry.
Benchmade had a patent on their Axis lock.
Did that create a monopoly on anything but the Axis lock?
Did it prevent innovation of folding knife locks? Not that I'm aware of.

 

[dirc]

exactly - they had a monopoly specifically on the axis lock

I don't think it prevented other innovations on knife locks... it probably resulted in a greater variety of competing lock mechanisms

But take some early steel patents for example: they had broad ranges of percentages for elements - effectively limiting competition & innovation because they covered all the effective bases. Uddeholm in 1927 patented a stainless steel with 0.7-1.1% carbon, 10-16% chromium, and 0.75-2.0% manganese (from @Larrin https://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/07/16/first-stainless-steel-for-knives/ )

 

[marrenmiller]

Okay, well let's look at this from the perspective of the knife industry.
Benchmade had a patent on their Axis lock.
Did that create a monopoly on anything but the Axis lock?
Did it prevent innovation of folding knife locks? Not that I'm aware of.

How could you know what effect it had on the industry, though? It could have been better or worse without a 20 year patent law.

Not that anyone else really knows either, but it's not quite as clear cut as you're suggesting.

 

[danbot]

How could you know what effect it had on the industry, though? It could have been better or worse without a 20 year patent law.

Not that anyone else really knows either, but it's not quite as clear cut as you're suggesting.

Yeah, that's why I said "not that I'm aware of".
Obviously, it's impossible to know for sure if innovation was stifled in some instance or another, but there were other interesting locks developed during that time.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

The point of patents is to provide benefit to all stakeholders in a given market. In exchange for a limited period of legally-enforceable exclusive rights to an idea, the patent applicant describes their innovation in such terms that anyone sufficiently skilled within that industry would be able to reproduce that innovation. It grants security to the innovator for a limited period while making the details of the innovation public knowledge such that when the patent expires and enters the public domain any company can immediately take advantage of it. Because of the need to publicly disclose that information, some companies instead opt to keep such developments trade secrets. Furthermore, something cannot be patented if it already existed on the market, which is known as "prior art". Some firms simply release un-patented products direct to the market without patent protections because while it forfeits their ability to keep other people from copying their innovation, it also makes it so that other companies then cannot prevent the originator from making that thing, since it's now prior art and so the invention cannot be patented by another entity.

 

[danbot]

exactly - they had a monopoly specifically on the axis lock

That's not really a true monopoly though. It just granted them the exclusive rights to an innovation that they themselves invented.

I don't think it prevented other innovations on knife locks... it probably resulted in a greater variety of competing lock mechanisms

So it all worked out for the best!

But take some early steel patents for example: they had broad ranges of percentages for elements - effectively limiting competition & innovation because they covered all the effective bases. Uddeholm in 1927 patented a stainless steel with 0.7-1.1% carbon, 10-16% chromium, and 0.75-2.0% manganese (from @Larrin https://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/07/16/first-stainless-steel-for-knives/ )

And we've come a long way since then! Competitors could still make the steel if they paid royalties and it also gave them incentive to innovate by trying to produce useful and superior materials that were not covered by the patent.

 

[BigWillie]

Okay, well let's look at this from the perspective of the knife industry.
Benchmade had a patent on their Axis lock.
Did that create a monopoly on anything but the Axis lock?
Did it prevent innovation of folding knife locks? Not that I'm aware of.

Benchmade QC is terrible

Their g10 is ridiculously priced

And yes the axis lock is weak relative to what it could be. A simple innovation of trying a different spring was beyond them.

We should have had 20 years of people playing with springs trying to make the best lock they can, not having to consult lawyers about it.

THat doug ritter knife? Undoubtedly lawyers jacked up the price because he had to retain some to figure out what exactly woudl be legal.

it's terrible for the consumer. Why are you so worried about makers?

They'll be fine if they make good product.The free market doesn't provide such protections. And the only reason we give them is again capture of the state by capital.

We have extremely robust IP protections but can't manage basic consumer protections by western standards. It's pitiful

 

[91bravo]

D

Benchmade QC is terrible

Their g10 is ridiculously priced

And yes the axis lock is weak relative to what it could be. A simple innovation of trying a different spring was beyond them.

We should have had 20 years of people playing with springs trying to make the best lock they can, not having to consult lawyers about it.

THat doug ritter knife? Undoubtedly lawyers jacked up the price because he had to retain some to figure out what exactly woudl be legal.

it's terrible for the consumer. Why are you so worried about makers?

They'll be fine if they make good product.The free market doesn't provide such protections. And the only reason we give them is again capture of the state by capital.

We have extremely robust IP protections but can't manage basic consumer protections by western standards. It's pitiful

Dude are you for axis locks or against them. Your time here has been contradictory. Axis is the best! Axis is the worst. Which one is it? I don't think you even know yourself...

 

[BigWillie]

D


Dude are you for axis locks or against them. Your time here has been contradictory. Axis is the best! Axis is the worst. Which one is it? I don't think you even know yourself...

lol i am for the IDEA of the axis lock

Whining about BM's axis lock is like using a frame lock from a 15 dollar china knife as the end all be all.

That would necessarily not be an accurate representation of everything an axis lock can do. Just like it woudln't be an accurate representation of what a frame lock could do from the chinese maker.

Would you feel better if I called it a pin and spring lock instead of an Axis lock?

 

[danbot]

Benchmade QC is terrible

That's debateable and in fact has been debated here ad nausium.

Their g10 is ridiculously priced

So...don't buy it?

And yes the axis lock is weak relative to what it could be. A simple innovation of trying a different spring was beyond them.

We should have had 20 years of people playing with springs trying to make the best lock they can, not having to consult lawyers about it.

How do you know they never tried different springs? Maybe they felt their current design was the best compromise.

THat doug ritter knife? Undoubtedly lawyers jacked up the price because he had to retain some to figure out what exactly woudl be legal.

I don't know much about this.

it's terrible for the consumer. Why are you so worried about makers?

I like knife makers to make knives that I like and feel their inventions should be protected if they seek to protect them.

They'll be fine if they make good product.The free market doesn't provide such protections. And the only reason we give them is again capture of the state by capital.

There is a lot of time, effort and money spent to design good product. Without protection, they can't really justify the expense of innovation.

We have extremely robust IP protections but can't manage basic consumer protections by western standards. It's pitiful

That seems to be the nature of the beast. If we want high standards of consumer protection, then certain industries will have to be regulated by the government at great expense. It's difficult to limit IP protections for some businesses and not for others. It would take a ground up re-writing of the rules which would mean decades of legal wranglings etc.

 

[BigWillie]

That's debateable and in fact has been debated here ad nausium.


So...don't buy it?


How do you know they never tried different springs? Maybe they felt their current design was the best compromise.


I don't know much about this.


I like knife makers to make knives that I like and feel their inventions should be protected if they seek to protect them.


There is a lot of time, effort and money spent to design good product. Without protection, they can't really justify the expense of innovation.


That seems to be the nature of the beast. If we want high standards of consumer protection, then certain industries will have to be regulated by the government at great expense. It's difficult to limit IP protections for some businesses and not for others. It would take a ground up re-writing of the rules which would mean decades of legal wranglings etc.

See here is where you miss it

"don't buy it"

Ok that would work if the state wasn't giving them a monopoly on a great lock idea

They should have been given no right to limit other maker's ability to compete with them. Or they woudl have no QC issues and their G10 would not be overpriced

The market would make sure of that

EDIT - AND THEY'D SURELY SEND OUT REPLACEMENT SPRINGS.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Benchmade QC is terrible

Their g10 is ridiculously priced

And yes the axis lock is weak relative to what it could be. A simple innovation of trying a different spring was beyond them.

We should have had 20 years of people playing with springs trying to make the best lock they can, not having to consult lawyers about it.

THat doug ritter knife? Undoubtedly lawyers jacked up the price because he had to retain some to figure out what exactly woudl be legal.

it's terrible for the consumer. Why are you so worried about makers?

They'll be fine if they make good product.The free market doesn't provide such protections. And the only reason we give them is again capture of the state by capital.

We have extremely robust IP protections but can't manage basic consumer protections by western standards. It's pitiful

Not sure where you're getting your information on marketing/market forces, economics, and business law, but I'd suggest getting your hands on some second-hand or international edition versions of current textbooks on the matter. Absolutely no disrespect meant by this, but you seem to know just enough to feel as though you have a grasp of the subject matter while actually being wildly off course with it. None of those things work quite the way you seem to think that they do.