Proprietary designs good for users?

F

fishbulb

Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
1,196
There are several companies in the knife industry who through the use of patents or trademarks have the exclusive use of particular design elements.

Do you feel that overall this is good or bad for the knife user?

At first it would seem that it is not, because it makes it difficult or impossible to find one knife with all of the very best features. For example, there are likely many people (myself incuded) who would like to see a folder with an Axis Lock, a Round Hole, and a Wave; but because these designs effectively belong to competing companies this knife likely won't ever be made.

You basicly have to choose which particular technology is the most important to you and then buy accordingly. This means that any particular knife you can buy could probably be made considerably better if another maker did not have the exclusive right to another useful design.

However, this is what forces makers to be innovative in their designs. Among higher end manufacturers if you do not continually evolve your product to keep up with what the other guys are doing, you will be left behind by the rest of the industry.

If it were not for proprietary designs I don't think that we would see the great diversity of product that is available to the knife buyer. Rather, things would tend to homogenize with a more or less standard design (such as a round hole Axis with a Wave) and not change as much over time.

If everybody has immeidate access to the best designs that can be thought up, there would be no reason to think of something on your own.

I think that over the short term proprietary designs may limit choice somewhat, but long term they promote advances that improve the industry as a whole.
 
Bad.

I think the knife industry could be a bit more modern. Why not let another producer use your innovation for a monetary or activity based exchange like "you get to use our innovation if we can user yours". I think the industry and in the end the consumer would benefit from this. It would clense the industry from the "fat".

/Colinz
 
Good.

I think the protection of intellectual property is critical to innovation. So I firmly believe that designers should control the rights to their designs.

On the whole I think the industry does pretty well at "sharing" new ideas via licensing agreements and such. Not only do the designs for some of the best production knives come from custom makers, but some companies are good about licensing features (like the Spyderco Round Hole) to other companies who want to use them.

I suspect a lot of us wish Ernie Emerson would allow others to license the Wave, but I don't begrudge him the right to keep it for his own company. That patent will eventually expire and everyone will benefit. In the meantime, Emerson is making money on his invention, which encourages others to experiment too. In the long run everyone comes out ahead.

--Bob Q
 
Good.

Why should a company or a knife-maker invest time and money developing something new if they know that it'll just be ripped off by every other company and every other maker instantly? By allowing some limited protection, Patents especially and also trademarks promote innovation. Indeed, they make innovation economically possible.

When you apply for a patent, you must disclose your invention completely. You must write up a description of your invention including diagrams and photographs were applicable that is sufficient that anyone reasonably skilled in the field can duplicate it. And when your patent is granted, those documents become public record. They, in fact, go on the internet for anyone to see for free. When you get a patent, you have to, quite literally, give your competitors your blueprints. Of course, they can't use 'em for 17 years. That's the trade. You get 17 years of exclusivity in the market, but the rest of the industry gets all your secrets.

Of course, some competitors won't want to sit on their hands for 17 years while your superior product eats their lunch. Some may violate your patent and expose themselves to legal action by doing so. Others will take your disclosure and use it as a starting point for their own invention. And others may see your invention as motivation to develope some new idea they've been kicking around to try and best you.

Chances are that your competitors aren't going to wait 17 years to start working on your invention. They'll get started right now so that in 17 years when your patent expires they're ready with an improved version of your invention. But, since you know that, you're not going to rest on your laurels for 17 years. You're gonna get busy and continue working to develope and improve your invention yourself.

Patents encourage innovation because some people will want the protection that a patent affords them and some other people will have to design some new and innovative approach of their own to get around a competitor's patent.
 
Maybe companies should offer licensing for proprietary features such as the wave and AXIS lock...
 
I'm torn. Being able to patent a blade catch, or a hole drilled in the blade just seems ridiculous to me, but at the same time, I feel that people should be able to reap the financial benefits of an original idea, which that allows.
For me as a consumer, it's bad in the sense that I might not be able to buy a knife with the options that I want (I agree that it's good for competition, and encourages innovation, though).
If I were a designer, getting paid for licensed use of my design, naturally I would think it's very good.
I don't like the fact that we can't have a waved, axis lock with a round opening hole, but I understand why, and don't begrudge any manufacturer or individual for protecting their own interests. I would do the same thing.
 
Originally posted by OwenM
If I were a designer, getting paid for licensed use of my design, naturally I would think it's very good.
Click to expand...

Of course. So why wouldn't the designers of these features be willing to let other companies use the features, for a fee of course. Economically, it make perfect sense.
 
Well, the patent holder has to take into consideration the amount of business that they would be losing to license holders. This might drive the cost of a license up quite high, so that there would effectively be no licensing between companies. Which is what we see right now.

Gollnick, good post. The patent topic comes up so often that you should just author an FAQ and post the URL whenever the word "patent" comes up in a discussion.
 
Patents sound good and on some ocasions they are.
But consider the small guy who doesn't have a large
company with a unlimited budget to go to court and
fight patent infringements?And thats after you spent
around $10,000 and up to two years to get the patent.
Another company or person can change one small
detail of the design and start making his version of
your design.First you have to get a lawyer to get a
cease and desist order,more money?Then when they don't
stop you have to go to court
(with your by know good budy lawyer)more money!
Don't kid your self I had a big knife companies
lawyer tell me that they know the small company or
individual can't hope to compete with there deep pockets.
So what are you guna do?

Arlee Niemi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top