Premature Esnarkulation 48

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ray Settanta said:
I like them a lot also.

andresilienceopen.jpg
Click to expand...

Little bit jealous. Wished I had jumped on the blue sprints. I have found a vendor that still has the ambitious and the persistence in stock. I already have the whole line in the standard black plain edge.
 
Yea i dont think a circle hole should be trademarked by anyone honestly, but i like both companies, Spyderco and Busse.

But we already beat the talon hole like a dead horse.
horse2_zpsa7133426.gif


The spyderco spyderhole is no different, yet less people will have an issue with that, and to me that is just hilarious. And I needed some extra entertainment tonight with the kids gone and the wife asleep.

Me personally like i said trademarking a circle in my opinion is silly, but i still like both companies and their knives.
 
I don't see what the big deal is.
Man has been trademarking holes since the dawn of time......:D
That's how the wheel was discovered.



 
worldwood said:
The spyderco spyderhole is no different, yet less people will have an issue with that, and to me that is just hilarious.
Click to expand...
The spyderco hole serves a purpose. It makes accessing the blade easier. Sal doesn't call people about it and tell them not to use it.
 
Well im reading right now about the court case with benchmade and how later they settled out of court.... A phone call is A LOT NICER in my opinion but whatever.

This SNARK is fun!! :D
 
Chameleonbear said:
The spyderco hole serves a purpose. It makes accessing the blade easier. Sal doesn't call people about it and tell them not to use it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But it still looks a little funny on their fixed blades....although it leaves no doubt who the manufacturer is. That's probably why they're trademarked.....just like the Nike "swoosh" and the Oakley "O".....now there's a company that spends a LOT of time and money chasing down patent cases; I read once that Oakley spends half of their advertising budget pursuing companies Like Uvex, 5.11 and a host of others for design patent infringement....
 
I'm not a lawyer or a trademark clerk or a retailer or even a "fanboy" or "hater" of any company or independent maker in question that may or may not have visible holes in their blades or anywhere else for that matter. I don't own any of their knives, so that makes me like, totally impartial, yo.

Please don't sue me; I can't afford a decent lawyer, and I don't have anything anyone could take away that would make a lawsuit worthwhile anyhow unless they really want a lien on a broken down ol' cobbled-together grinder or something... like, what they gonna do, take my favorite red-headed step-dog? :rolleyes:

In fact, I really don't give a hoot either way.

But I do know, I ain't drillin' no gosh-darn holes in any of my gosh-darn blades ever again, cuz it's just not worth the gosh-darn hassle. :)

Any further questions? Better call Saul!

[video=youtube;YPR9ORpwBEU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPR9ORpwBEU[/video]

'sall good, man!
 
worldwood said:
Well im reading right now about the court case with benchmade and how later they settled out of court.... A phone call is A LOT NICER in my opinion but whatever.

This SNARK is fun!! :D
Click to expand...
1)I'm surprised you're able to read, every time :-D
2) Multinational corporation settling out of court with other Multinational corporation is very different than calling up a one man or two man shop and telling them they need to redesign because of a hole. At that point you are talking the difference in something hand ground versus retooling the press plates. That is a huge difference.
 
one might argue the spyder hole is a functional element, and unique

one might argue that various holes in the handle, regardless of placement, intented for cordage or such, is WICKED prior art, and you know, "get stuff" :D

but if someone is sue happy, well, you just sell a Ti bit with your knives and let the customer do it :D

wanna mod your knives? drill more holes...
 
I don't believe that you can hold a patent case on something that doesn't serve a purpose.

Someone may hold a pretty letter from the government saying so but when it comes to court I don't believe that it would be ruled on thier favor.

A lot more important people than Jerry busse have lost copyright claims. Such as Nintendo against home gamers who use use computers to emulate their systems and ROMs, freely runing their software anywhere and wherever machine they feel like it, even downloading from the internet.

Nintendo, with all the money in the universe, lost on some real intellectual property that they actually own to a few pirating homebrew boys.

A miscellaneous hole that can be shown to serve no particular function? That's stylistic.

Its like copyrighting freedom of expression and it just don't fly
 
Zombie tools puts a hole in the exact same place as Busse, AND they attach D guards to them there. Go Figure.

Hahahahah I spoke too soon. Zombie Tools actually doesnt have any models that have that any more. I wonder what happened there......
 
Every maker should make at least one model with a hole. Let Jerry go broke suing all of them. Kind of a reverse cowboy approach.
 
stvpourciau said:
I don't believe that you can hold a patent case on something that doesn't serve a purpose.

Someone may hold a pretty letter from the government saying so but when it comes to court I don't believe that it would be ruled on thier favor.

A lot more important people than Jerry busse have lost copyright claims. Such as Nintendo against home gamers who use use computers to emulate their systems and ROMs, freely runing their software anywhere and wherever machine they feel like it, even downloading from the internet.

Nintendo, with all the money in the universe, lost on some real intellectual property that they actually own to a few pirating homebrew boys.

A miscellaneous hole that can be shown to serve no particular function? That's stylistic.

Its like copyrighting freedom of expression and it just don't fly
Click to expand...
This interested me, so I did a little research on the 'webz (meaning "I know nothing!") and in these cases I think the idea is that these "holes" and their placement serve as a brand identification, and if the company can assert there is a functionality to said holes, then they will get a "design patent" to protect that. No matter the company, no matter how silly it might seem to us (it's a circular hole, for crying out loud) whoever is fast enough and shrewd enough to get a patent for the functionality of their particular design (see Apple v. Samsung here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent) gets the right to protect that design under patent law. Now, I don't know nothing about no patent law, but Apple appears to have patented the rectangle.....
 
granitestateofmind said:
I like that idea....problem is Jerry ain't the only one going broke in this scenario......
Click to expand...

Right. The problem with all these arguments (apart from thoroughly confusing the many differences between patents, copyrights, and trademarks) is that folks are trying to employ reason and logic in a legal matter. It just doesn't work that way.

This has all been discussed ad nauseum. I'll say it one more time... the hole is stupid and useless anyway, so who cares? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top