Originally posted by Joe Talmadge
BTW, getting back on topic, this would still be an extremely appealing knife if they reduced the size of the holes so they wouldn't violate Spyderco's trademark, and added a top-mounted disk to it.
Joe, perhaps you are confused as to which thread you are posting in. Other threads in the General forum may be about what people think of the design, bu you're the one taking this one off topic, since the original question, posed by the original poster was:
Originally posted by Piter
So... what do you think about this new Benchmade collaboration? Of course I'm not asking about perfect Neil's design but rather about BM's "opening device"
Frankly, regardless of whether this is "just a prototype" or not, I think Benchmade has done a disservice to Spyderco, a disservice to the knife-buying public, and put a black mark on their own reputation by creating it. My gut feeling is that they have done this intentionally, capitalizing on the fact that the few custom fixed blades and fewer custom folders by Mr. Blackwood that included three hole in their design had escaped scrutiny by Spyderco in order to muddy the primary issue of their challenge to the Trademark. In that, thanks to a little help from some of the well intentioned folks here, they've succeeded quite well.
Here's my take, Neil Blackwood made a few fixed blades with three non-functional holes, not really a distinguishing characteristic of his work, as he appears to have far more fixed blade designs that have no holes. In fact, if there is any consistency in his marking of his blades it lies in the BLACKWOOD spelled out on them, rather than either the holes or the gargoyle? symbol each of which appear on relatively few of his designs. When Mr. Blackwood carried this three hole arrangement over to a folder, and in the process made the largest hole functional as an opening device, he violated the Spyderco trademark of the round hole used for that purpose. The presence of other holes does not change this. Spyderco themselves have made knives with multiple holes, the "Q" and the "R". But on them, as on every other Spyderco folder except one, the opening device was a ROUND hole. Why he chose to do this is not known, although he chimed in on one of the treads in General, he never dealt with this issue. His rather flippant comments regarding the "buzz" could easily lead one to believe either that this decision was not just an innocent accident, or that he was totally clueless as to the s**tstorm that would ensue if the "minor" transgression of doing so on an oversized custom with limited exposure were put into commercial production by a manufacturer in a more salable size package.
Benchmade, I am certain, went into this with their eyes wide open. No power on earth could make me think differently. They did a good job too, my first impression on seeing the knife was "Good lord, that's one pimped up Spydie!". I know, from reading here and elsewhere that I am not the only one who saw the round hole opening device and instantly associated it with Spyderco. A few seconds later, once I noticed the butterfly, I realized this was not a Spyderco at all. My second thought was "Wow someone's trying to rip off both Spyderco and Benchmade at the same time!". Ok, I was wrong again, guess I was giving BM credit for more business ethics than they have.
As far as the45guy's contention that those of us who look at this design and see Spyderco don't get out enough, perhaps he is right. I'm 58, and until about eight months ago had not purchased a new knife, looked at knives in stores, or even looked at advertisements for knives, custom or otherwise, for close to thirty years. And yet, in those eight short months, I've come to associate the round hole opening device with Spyderco and nobody else. Perhaps that invalidates all my opinions, perhaps it makes them more valid, damned if I know which. I've got a couple Buck fixed blades I bought in my younger days, black phenolic handles, aluminum guard and pommel, couple of spacers, and a distinctive shape. At the time all their fixed blades used this handle design, today some do not. But, even today, if I see a knife with that style handle, I think Buck. I have no clue as to whether they have trademarked that "look" or not but if they have, since it is a handle, and thus functional, and since it could be argued that the finger groves in it make it even more functional that some "other" handles, do you suppose others should be able to copy it with impunity?
