SanRenMu is back. Sort of.

Status
Not open for further replies.
katanas said:
Lengendary-Jarl, give it up, you will NEVER convince the moral police of ANYTHING regarding the copying of designs. :rolleyes: The fact that there are design copies (as opposed to counterfeits, which ARE reprehensible :mad: )of just about every popular knife made (Buck 110, Trappers, Barlows, etc.) is not relevant to them. :( I have NO idea why :confused:, though I have read their rationalizations over and over. I am aware it is also the policy of this Forum Site so I try to stay away from the topic, YMMV. ;)
Click to expand...
So we're "moral police" because we don't want to tolerate clones, but you are only a moral policeman when it comes to counterfeits?:confused:
 
Legendary Jarl the fact is clones/"inspired designs" are not welcome here. You can argue for or against but the forum rules prohibit them.
 
Legendary_Jarl said:
Again, please elaborate, how are they destroying good guy Chris Reeves who sells overpriced knives for over 500 dollars? They are not claiming the name Chris Reeves, they are not using the steel developed by Chris Reeves, they are not claiming the quality of Chris Reeves, or his endorsement. They merely used the shape. That's like saying Ford is stealing from Ferrari and I shouldn't buy a Ford. Chris Reeves is a different niche of knife just like Ferrari is a different niche of car.
Click to expand...
And maybe you can explain why legitimate Chinese knife companies aren't selling their original design knives for $15? are they just greedy too?
 
danbot, the fact is you (or most here) DO tolerate and buy many clones as I mentioned. :eek: I do not classify myself as part of the "moral police" because I do not tell others they should not buy or are reprehensible for buying counterfeits; I merely state that I find it wrong to lie and mismark to convince someone they are buying something they are not. :thumbsdown:
 
marcinek said:
Ah. His knives are "overpriced," so it is OK.

That is a new one.
Click to expand...

Did I say it was OK? I'm asking how Chris Reeves is being hurt by the shape of his Sebenza influencing another knife.

danbot said:
If they did claim the name and up the price, they most certainly could do serious damage to his brand. Why would you want to support thieves to buy a not Chris Reeves knife anyway? Do you need a fake status symbol to make you feel better about yourself or something?
Click to expand...

If they claimed the name, the materials and increased the price then YES that would most certainly be theft and completely reprehensible and damaging to CRK. I don't see how simply basing the shape to make a knife that is meant for a different market( just as a Volkswagen is intended for a different market compared to a Ferrari) is damaging to Chris Reeves.

As far as the second part of your post, I would NEVER buy a Chris Reeve knife not would I care about supporting his knife company. I fail to see a reason to spend $500 or even $350 on a damn EDC cutting utencil. Completely overpriced for what it is in my opinion and beyond my current budget. Most people wouldn't spend that kind of money anyways and neither would they spend money on a Ferrari. It is an entirely different kind of market.

Mo2 said:
Its not there design to make. It's not hard to make an original design.
Click to expand...

Their*.
 
katanas said:
Lengendary-Jarl, give it up, you will NEVER convince the moral police of ANYTHING regarding the copying of designs. :rolleyes: The fact that there are design copies (as opposed to counterfeits, which ARE reprehensible IMO :mad: )of just about every popular knife made (Buck 110, Trappers, Barlows, etc.) is not relevant to them. :( I have NO idea why :confused:, though I have read their rationalizations over and over. I am aware it is also the policy of this Forum Site so I try to stay away from the topic, YMMV. ;)
Click to expand...
BTW, Barlows and Trappers are traditional knife patterns that no company has a patent on. And we have "arguments" against clones. Clone supporters have the "rationalizations".;)
 
katanas said:
danbot, the fact is you (or most here) DO tolerate and buy many clones as I mentioned. :eek: I do not classify myself as part of the "moral police" because I do not tell others they should not buy or are reprehensible for buying counterfeits; I merely state that I find it wrong to lie and mismark to convince someone they are buying something they are not. :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...
You should.
 
Legendary_Jarl said:
If they claimed the name, the materials and increased the price then YES that would most certainly be theft and completely reprehensible and damaging to CRK. I don't see how simply basing the shape to make a knife that is meant for a different market( just as a Volkswagen is intended for a different market compared to a Ferrari) is damaging to Chris Reeves.
Click to expand...

The cloners are stealing other companies' aesthetics to sell knives. Whether or not the original company is financially impacted is completely irrelevant. They have the right to reserve their designs for their own products.

Instead of asking whether or not the original company is financially impacted, you should be asking why the cloners are stealing designs in the first place. If there was no financial gain for cloners, they would simply develop their own design aesthetic. They are achieving financial gain using other people's intellectual property without receiving permission or paying a royalty.

Furthermore, you are in no position to correct anyone's spelling. There's no such thing as a utencil, or a Chris Reeves.
 
katanas said:
danbot, the fact is you (or most here) DO tolerate and buy many clones as I mentioned. :eek: I do not classify myself as part of the "moral police" because I do not tell others they should not buy or are reprehensible for buying counterfeits; I merely state that I find it wrong to lie and mismark to convince someone they are buying something they are not. :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...
And BTW again...if you are referring to traditionals as clones, Well, you have issues. Start a thread about it in the traditionals forum and see what the porch has to say about that.
 
Legendary_Jarl said:
Did I say it was OK? I'm asking how Chris Reeves is being hurt by the shape of his Sebenza influencing another knife..
Click to expand...

First you said they used his design. Now you say it was influenced.

Second, it is theft of his work. He put time and energy and hard work into it, and they took it.

Its very simple.

Justify it any way that makes you feel ok, plenty do. Even, surprisingly, members here.
 
Legendary_Jarl said:
If they claimed the name, the materials and increased the price then YES that would most certainly be theft and completely reprehensible and damaging to CRK. I don't see how simply basing the shape to make a knife that is meant for a different market( just as a Volkswagen is intended for a different market compared to a Ferrari) is damaging to Chris Reeves.
Click to expand...
Your analogies are way off the mark - do VW or Ford release cheap Ferrari clones that blatantly steal from their designers and engineers? Your, "it's just a shape" argument is equally misguided - you can't copy other musicians' music and claim "it's just sound".

Stealing a design is unethical and just plain tacky, regardless of who the end user is. People work hard to create innovative and original designs and should be allowed to reap the benefits of their work and creativity, which is one of the main reasons behind IP rights. Your justification essentially boils down to this: "I would never buy a CRK but I am entitled to Chris Reeve's designs and concepts because I am not in his target demographic". This is absurd and self-entitlement at its finest.

You can do as you please, but if you support clones made in countries with poor IP rights and practices then you clearly aren't a supporter of legitimate knife manufacturers and the knife community in general. People vote with their dollars, and patronizing clone manufacturers shows whose side you are on (and it isn't the side of creativity, innovation, imagination, and expertise).
 
Last edited:
And does the Sebenza SHAPE have a patent (I don't know); it's about 20-25 years old I believe? To me it is, in many ways, like buying a replica car; pretty much everyone knows it is not the real thing and the buyer kind of likes the look but isn't going to shell out $100,000 for a real one so pays $15,000 to drive around in something they like. :cool: As long as the person spending the money gets what they want and knows what they are getting (this is where counterfeiting comes in IMO);), then it is (as is alluded to so very often on this forum) "voting with their wallet". I also see no need to take this elsewhere, traditionals apply here, again IMO.
 
DocJD said:
Goodbye conversation ... hello lynch mob ! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If that is what this forum and it's policy is for you, then why continue to fly your counterfeit support flag here?

The op, you, and the other few continued counterfeit supporters knew exactly how this would go.

If you support counterfeiting clone artists, don't brag about it here. Until the owner changes his rules on clones, the results will always be the same.
 
katanas said:
And does the Sebenza SHAPE have a patent (I don't know); it's about 20-25 years old I believe? To me it is, in many ways, like buying a replica car; pretty much everyone knows it is not the real thing and the buyer kind of likes the look but isn't going to shell out $100,000 for a real one so pays $15,000 to drive around in something they like. :cool: As long as the person spending the money gets what they want and knows what they are getting (this is where counterfeiting comes in IMO);), then it is (as is alluded to so very often on this forum) "voting with their wallet". I also see no need to take this elsewhere, traditionals apply here, again IMO.
Click to expand...
Apples to oranges argument here. There are laws governing replica cars.
https://www.sema.org/replica
Here are some highlights from the linked article. It does not translate to the knife industry.

Background: On Dec. 4, 2015, lawmakers in Washington, DC enacted legislation allowing low volume manufacturers of replica cars to sell turn-key cars to their customers. The historic law expands customer options. Enthusiasts can still build custom cars and construct kit cars on their own. Starting in 2017, however, they will also have the option of buying a replica just like any other new car, and drive it off the lot (or from the factory).

Definitions:

  • Low volume manufacturer: a motor vehicle manufacturer whose annual worldwide production (including by a parent or subsidiary of the manufacturer) is not more than 5,000 motor vehicles each year. The company can sell up to 325 replica vehicles in the U.S. each year, with no limit on the number of incomplete kit cars that can be sold.
  • A replica vehicle is a vehicle that resembles the body of another motor vehicle produced at least 25 years ago (’32 Roadster, ’65 Cobra, etc.).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top