New knife with spyderhole in sight?

Status
Not open for further replies.
if the first thing you thought when you saw the knife was " Spyderco " then you need to get out more :rolleyes:

The first think I thought was " Skirmish " or " Curr".

Mr.Glasser expressed his views like a gentleman would , I think maybe we should all let the Manufactures decide how this will be handled & hopefully worked out.

While not a fan of Spyderco knives , I can see why they have a loyal following after seeing how Mr Glasser handles himself.

I am not a lawyer , nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express , but take a look at the Blackwood fixed Blades...see the holes

clifnnhd1.jpg



630.jpg




Carrying that over to a folder is carrying over his style .
Just my opinion but I think this can be handled in a civil manner.

Nobody on this forum is going to decide the outcome , wouldn't that be for a judge to decide if it gets that far ?

Let's lighten up and Happy Holidays....
 
Sometimes the Trademark office and Patent office make no sense to me.
I deal with it alot these days..
I have spent many hours discussing the different issues...
I'm mid stream in my more of my own patent work right now...
I know Sal doesn't need nor may he want me to comment. Therefore I'll state up front..I do not speak for Spyderco, I do not express opinions that can be held to them...I do not represent Spyderco or Sal in any way, shape or form...

The total printing of the trademark situation was uneeded..
Sal doesn't have to defend himself or Spyderco.
All the discussion is moot. The HOLE..the round hole as ornamental, as functional..its patents are gone..
they paved a way...
Is it a recognizable trademark.. yes..
was it unique? yes..
is it instantly known? yes...
Is it trademarked and accepted for many years..yes..
Key thing here.. lots of years...DONE...
Trying to prove Sal, the Trademark-Patent office et al are mistaken is moot. A waste of cyber space on this forum...
WHY? they, Trademark-patent office- Sal Spyderco are correct. The trademark belongs to Spyderco-Sal even if it seems to be in conflict with one's viewing of the written trademark "laws"...
again why? its already assigned..
been there done that..Legal stuff. discussion and arguments finished, done a long time ago...
Done deal..

Sal even said it plainly..and simply..lay version...

Crazy to the lay person? I'm sure and the righteousness in the posting using "trademark writings" against Sal-Spyderco comes out..
But again in simple defense..and I cannot legally nor will not elaborate more but give an example...The patent offfice has used my own previous art and patent to disclaim new additions to my own patents..
Go figure...

Bottom line? the Hole is Sal's - Spyderco's..as are many other patents and trademarks...whether anyone likes it or not..
That's reality..
it exists....


This is not discussing intent..legal, character...or anything..Not of Blackwoods or Benchmades....

theres a difference between fixed blades and folders...

And I suggest that this thread be closed after this..There is nothing to be gained..by further discussion..


Happy holidays
Bram
 
Originally posted by FullerH
The fact that one look at the knife when I saw its picture in the General Forum screamed "Spyderco" to me is what triggered my first post and, thus, this whole series of posts. ....I have no bones to pick with BenchMade, only that I saw the Blackwood folder and it immediately said "Spyderco" to me and that is why I posted as I did. It seems to me that this is pretty strong support for the position that Sal makes about the trademark issue.
Click to expand...

Sal did state his own bias.

And I think, so must we all.

:)

As a fan of Neil's designs, when I first saw the 630 collaboration -- or, for that matter, the custom Skirmish -- I thought that it screamed "Blackwood," and Blackwood only.

Why?

Perhaps this is because of *_my_* personal bias, in that when I saw the product, I immediately made the jump between it and and what I am familiar with in my mind.

In the eyes of Sypderco devotees, however, this blade apparently is easily seen as derivative of the Sypder-Hole design and also the overall shape of the Vesuvius -- but someone who might not be familiar with that product, or rather are more familiar with others may see yet other design elements that are similar to other blades, or are unique.

I am biased towards interpreting the 630 as a Blackwood simply because I am more familiar with its lineage. When I see those three holes in the blade, it immediately says "Blackwood" to me -- just as the large-bellied recurve also allow its roots to be traced directly back to other of Neil's works, such as the Melee.

:)

Allen
aka DumboRAT
 
Just wandering if anyone has heard BM, or Mr. Blackwoods side? IMHO its a little to early to put this in the court of public opinion. The knife hasnt been released yet, only a picture of a proto has been made public and I could be wrong, but I dont think BM made it so...
Only time will tell the outcome. It is an impressive looking knife..Spyderhole or not. Just my 2 cents....
 
Originally posted by 3rdWound
Only time will tell the outcome. It is an impressive looking knife..Spyderhole or not.
Click to expand...

that is pretty much all that needs to be said...nice post !
 
Originally posted by FullerH
But the fact that both Wenger and Victorinox also sell their products as "Swiss Army" Knives or Watches, as the case may be, tells me that there is more to the question than their both using the cross in the shield logo.
Click to expand...

Victorinox sells the "Original Swiss Army Knife", Wenger the "Genuine Swiss Army Knife".There was a long fight until they found this way to get both parties satisfied.

I think the new Benchmade knife looks fantastic and will be a good opportunity for those guys who cannot afford a handmade Blackwood Skirmish.

On the other hand has Neil to deal very often with copies or maybe-copies of his work, so perhaps the standards in this case (now the other direction) are quite high.
 
While I understand that part of the designs on that knife are actually functional opening devices exactly like Spyderco's and that Spyderco has that trademarked, take a look at the fixed blades by the custom maker, almost identical. Now take a look at Mercworx fixed and folders. Their folders look like a folding version of their fixed blade and I think this was a similar concept for this knife. Hopefully something can be worked out because this is one hell of a nice looking knife. This is one of those things in life that doesn't fall into easy discretion, damn technicalities.
 
In the Feb 2004 issue of Blade magazine, there was an article on Neil. Many knives were shown, even a folder. The only one that had any holes were 3 in the handle evenly dispersed. I beleive that's the one that Outdoor Ege is planning to make.

We had to really look to find pics of Neil's knives. Most did not have holes of any kind. We were finally able to find some pics on one of the forums and on Neil's site.

It does not appear as though Neil had been using holes very long or even making folders for very long much less combining the two. Most of the folder pics I saw had studs. It seems that this "hole" in the folder thing is relatively new.

It took Spyderco 20 years to develop it's trademark and register same with the PTO. one of two years of using something in a relatively small exposure of one small forum is not enough time to develop any kind of a trademark, much less a registered mark.

just some thoughts to share.

sal
 
Speaking of thoughts:

Wegner doesn't use a round hole for his Bladetech folders.

Strider doesn't use a round hole for their folders.

Benchmade doesn't use a round hole for their flagship 806D2

Carlos,

Could you please lock this pandora's box up?
 
That proto's got a Spyderhole sized and positioned to open the blade, so, the smaller holes notwithstanding, it doesn't pass the smell test.
 
Originally posted by BRAM
I'm sure and the righteousness in the posting using "trademark writings" against Sal-Spyderco comes out..
Bram
Click to expand...

I hope that no one thinks I was or am trying to use anything against Spyderco or Sal. Spyderco is one of my favorite knife companies. I have more respect for Mr. Glesser than many know. He is a man of great integrity and honor.

I believe this is an interesting topic and as I stated before, I believe it could be argued either way. I think there is a lot of info to be digested. My intentions were to post factual information to add to the debate. I did not state my opinion and I did not resort to name calling. If people took any of my postings to be negative or in any way an attack on Spyderco or Mr. Glesser, I apologize.

I will not state my opinion, other than I feel this would be better of going to court and getting a verdict. That would settle the whole issue. It probably wont get that far, but that is the only way to get closure. Everyone going back and forth trading tit for tat isn't going to accomplish anything.

At this point I believe many parties are too emotionally involved to have a discussion about the issue.
 
Dennis...
I believe you are quite sincere in all you say, butt the issue you argue, (functionality as negating trademark), has already been decided and the trademark was awarded to Spyderco. I think at this point if you still think there is issue with that fact, then you need to take it to the issuing body.
 
I personally think that locking a thread is something that should generally be avoided. What's the point in having a discussion if it gets locked once it gets interesting? And who is to decide if the discussion will yield any results? It seems too much like censorship to me.
 
Originally posted by Coho
Dennis...
I believe you are quite sincere in all you say, butt the issue you argue, (functionality as negating trademark), has already been decided and the trademark was awarded to Spyderco. I think at this point if you still think there is issue with that fact, then you need to take it to the issuing body.
Click to expand...


I just think it is interesting to look at the dynamics of the whole trademark issue from both sides. Who would have thought there were so many intricacies to one issue? It seems like trademarks would be a simple thing. Anyway, it was never my intention to upset anyone. I merely wanted to articulate another side. I think it is important to look at things from different perspectives, whether we agree with them or not. I never said that I think Spyderco should lose its trademark, I just wanted to post some facts from another perspective. I think it is coming across like I am trying to "argue" and that is not my intention. I don't plan on posting any more about the subject. Its getting too hot and it is upseting people that I respect and care about. I sincerely wish i hadn't posted anything on the subject. It really came across way different than I intended.
 
Originally posted by thombrogan
Carlos,

Could you please lock this pandora's box up?
Click to expand...

Sal prefers open discussion. As long as it remains civil, I'll leave it open.
 
Originally posted by BRAM

Trying to prove Sal, the Trademark-Patent office et al are mistaken is moot. A waste of cyber space on this forum...
WHY? they, Trademark-patent office- Sal Spyderco are correct. The trademark belongs to Spyderco-Sal even if it seems to be in conflict with one's viewing of the written trademark "laws"...
again why? its already assigned..
Click to expand...

I dunno, in my industry, high-tech companies challenge and invalidate each others' patents and trademarks all the time. I assume there's nothing special about the cutlery industry that wouldn't leave such challenges available as options, which makes this issue anything but moot -- in fact, the stakes are quite high.

That said, through all these various strings, my mind has slowly changed from this possibly not being a trademark violation (now I think there's a high probability it is) to Spyderco's trademark being challengeable because it provides a functional advantage (now I think there's a high probability that square or elliptical or whatever shaped holes would be considered functional enough that the round hole trademark shouldn't be invalidated). The only thing I disagree with now is the claim that this issue is moot, since it clearly isn't.

I also kind of wonder on what basis a hole would be considered an ellipse. If it's .05" longer than it is high, is that an ellipse? I'm guessing there it's a matter of how it looks -- if it looks round then it looks like a Spyderco so it's a violation, regardless of whether it's a tiny bit off round.
 
Originally posted by Joe Talmadge
I also kind of wonder on what basis a hole would be considered an ellipse. If it's .05" longer than it is high, is that an ellipse?
Click to expand...

If the radius is not constant in two opposite directions then we are looking at an ellipse. Now how much longer than it is tall an ellipse needs to be to satisfy a court of law is an entirely different question.
 
Heh, well yeah, it's the court question I'm asking about. I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid -- I know what an ellipse is :)
 
Originally posted by Joe Talmadge
Heh, well yeah, it's the court question I'm asking about. I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid -- I know what an ellipse is :)
Click to expand...

hehe:D

me, I just want that folder...and with the acknowledgement that the large hole constitutes a spyderhole, so that production can get on.
 
Originally posted by Joe Talmadge
Heh, well yeah, it's the court question I'm asking about. I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid -- I know what an ellipse is :)
Click to expand...


:rolleyes: Sorry. I didn't really know what one was until college algebra. I never claimed to be all that bright. :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top