-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Thumb Holes in Knives of Alaska
- Thread starter Seeking Trad Deer
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2005
- Messages
- 3,652
It's just a hole.
I'll now bow out of this quagmire since I have no dog in this fight. It's just an opinion.
Why would anyone expect that someone, who can't even keep to their word, would respect intellectual property rights?
Someone with "no dog in this fight" shouldn't have felt the need to get involved in this discussion to begin with. I'll be waiting and watching to see if you actually do what you said you'd do and "bow out".
3G
So who are you, the intellectual property police?
Go ahead and watch, no skin off my butt.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 1998
- Messages
- 1,714
Doing the correct & honorable thing is what matters.
That is how I judge a Man or a Company.
Developing (& paying for) a patent is a huge undertaking.
It is indeed a shame that there is no "Patent Police".
I just vote with my $s!
I own almost every Spyderco ever made.
The rest, well they are just :jerkit:
That is how I judge a Man or a Company.
Developing (& paying for) a patent is a huge undertaking.
It is indeed a shame that there is no "Patent Police".
I just vote with my $s!
I own almost every Spyderco ever made.
The rest, well they are just :jerkit:
Sal Glesser
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 27, 1998
- Messages
- 11,746
Hi Clint.
I don't think anyone is pissed off. It is just a discussion about opinions, right?
Your response to my question about Emerson's "wave"? I would like to hear your opinion. It's just a "hook", right?
sal
I don't think anyone is pissed off. It is just a discussion about opinions, right?
Your response to my question about Emerson's "wave"? I would like to hear your opinion. It's just a "hook", right?
sal
Yes, patents are there for a reason, and they do expire.
Trade marks, IMO, are pictures of spyders and butterflies and bow ties. Not functional improvements on a product.
Oh, by the way, this is MY OPINION! If it pisses you off, too friggin' bad!
You're right, it's your opinion, and that's cool man. I mean, I don't get up in arms about every knife I see with a round hole. A lot of people here refuse to buy BM because of their use of the round hole with no crediting of Spyderco. Thankfully I don't have to deal with that question. I don't buy BM cuz they don't stand behind their product. They wanted to charge me 35 dollars to fix something that in my opinion and the opinion of 5 other manufacturers was something that should have been covered by warranty. No biggie. So, why can't we let it drop. I mean, ClintB isn't gonna change his opinion and I mean, I'm sure everyone here has dealt with someone who couldn't see things their way before right. It's all been said before and we've all made our decisions, so let's just let bygones be bygones and let it drop before things turn ugly.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2002
- Messages
- 1,369
Can we call these the A-hole?
Trademarks include any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. (United States Patent and Trademark Office)
The use of markings to establish who owns, or who made, a certain product appears to be ancient. Bison painted on the walls of the Lascaux Caves in southern France contain marks that scholars say indicate ownership. The paintings were made around 5,000 years B.C. (Trademarks A history of a billion-dollar business by David Johnson)
2007 A.D. ClintB tells us that he doesn´t like trademarks or especially the Spyderco roundhole because they would be no functional improvement on a product.
Don´t blame him for his correct opinion. He simply is right and if one day he should understand what trademarks are for, he´ll perhaps like them.
Best wishes,
JB
The use of markings to establish who owns, or who made, a certain product appears to be ancient. Bison painted on the walls of the Lascaux Caves in southern France contain marks that scholars say indicate ownership. The paintings were made around 5,000 years B.C. (Trademarks A history of a billion-dollar business by David Johnson)
2007 A.D. ClintB tells us that he doesn´t like trademarks or especially the Spyderco roundhole because they would be no functional improvement on a product.
Don´t blame him for his correct opinion. He simply is right and if one day he should understand what trademarks are for, he´ll perhaps like them.
Best wishes,
JB
Absolutely right. Once the patent (if there is one) is expired, it should be available for anyone to use. IMO
ClintB, you are right again, A.D. (anno domini). Sorry for confusing you any further. It seems you need time to understand that there are more rights than patents, what there functions are and why they are existing for at least over 7000 years.
Best wishes,
JB
Best wishes,
JB
But, I believe one of the questions on the table was should the new manufacturer credit the original inventor of the item in question. For example, when the wave patent expires should a knife company that uses it refer to it as the Emerson Wave in their promotional materials or do they not owe the originator that respect.
The original patent covered all grooves and holes used for opening. The SOG Autoclip had a long oval shaped hole, this was covered under Spyderco's patent on the opening hole. The Gerber EZ Out had an oblong hole as well, this was covered under the patent. There is a long groove in the blade of a Chris Reeve Mnandi that can be used to open the knife, this was covered under the original patent. The original patent covered any indention into the blade that could be used for opening regardless of shape, or whether it went all the way through the blade or not. So, now that the patent has expired any company is free to use Spyderco's invention of an opening hole if they wish. Spyderco has however trademarked the one hole shape that they used consistently to set their product apart for many many others.
Think for a second of dandruff shampoo. Many of them use Pyrithione Zinc as their active dandruff fighting ingredient. Well, at one time someone held a patent on Pyrithione Zinc as a dandruff fighter. Now, when that patent expired other companies could use the product but they can't call their product "Head & Shoulders" regardless of how similar the two are. Coca-Cola has trademarked their bottle shape. Go to the gas station and look at a bottle of Coke and a bottle of Pepsi. Pepsi can't use Coke's curved bottle shape because it is a shape that has been trademarked by Coca-Cola due to brand recognition with that shape. Just because it isn't a logo or a name doesn't mean it doesn't bring a brand name to mind.
I apologize, this post didn't exactly match my let bygones be bygones post above but his answer to the Emerson question was completely contradictory to his opinion about the Spyderhole. Cuz, every knife manufacturer has a right to use Spyderco's invention, and they don't even have to credit Spyderco, they're just supposed to use a different shape.
My answer to the Emerson wave is EXACTLY the same as the Spyderco hole.
If I'm not mistaken, the Spyder hole has to be in an exact possition and a certain size. Any variation from that is acceptable?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 3,330
I am a huge Spyderco fan. A Gen 4 Endura ZDP-189 is my lone EDC. There is no rotation unless one counts a Gen 4 Endura VG-10 or a Pacific Salt that I ocassionally sub in. Go see the "For Sale" forum. Last month I sold off my last two BM 806D2s because I like the ZDP Endura that much better.
All that said, I respectfully disagree with the trademarking of the hole. IMO, Spyderco's trademark should be considered the bug.
It is beyond obvious that Spyderco had a patent on the hole. They benefitted from a set market monopoly for having innovated it and defending it.
It is a rather simple tenet of trademark law that a trademark cannot cover a functional product improvement. It is especially quirky to trademark a formerly patent protected feature.
I have seen all of the arguments, "but people can use different shaped holes," and "all automobiles have grills, but no one disputes BMWs 'kidney shaped' inlets." I remain unconvinced.
The easiest hole to make is still a circular one. It was and remains marketed as a competitive advantage, though some market identity language has been layered on in the past few years. That the hole has only recently made its appearance on Spyderco's fixed blades after over two decades of being on folders also undermines the trademark argument.
Here is how the hole is described in Spyderco's 2007 Product Guide:
SPYDERCO TRADEMARK ROUND HOLE
The Spyderco Trademark Round Hole is the industry symbol of quality. It is our most recognizeable feature and facilitates easy opening and closing of our knives with one hand. The hole offers convenient access and maximum control as well as accommodating large, small, and gloved hands. The position of the hole in the blade and the fact that it is round allow for a continuous opening motion. The thumb rests against the hole at a comfortable distance from the the palm permitting easy rotation from the pivot point.
To open the knife using the hole, place the knife in your open hand at the base of your fingers and grasp the clip side of the handle with the tips of your fingers. Rest the pad of your thumb in the hole and then gently and smoothly slide the blade away from the handle. When a solid click is heard, the knife is locked into an open position (note that the blade should always be locked securely in the full open position before use).
One sentence about it being a recognition feature. Nearly two full paragraphs describing it as a unique feature for a folder. Nothing about why the hole is on the later fixed blade models or of what possible use it might be on a fixed blade.
I understand the intent is now to expand the use of the hole across the entire product line where practical. However, that makes for a weak trademark defense, again IMO. It is arguable that Knives of Alaska has just as long a pedigree of using holes in the aft portion of a fixed blade below the spine as Spyderco does, which only just started doing this themselves.
One of the tests of trademark law is about market dress and the potential for confusing the prospective customer as to the identity of the true maker holding the trademark. It is under such legal guidance that permits BMW to trademark its grill shape, but then again, BMW aggressively defends the trademark and does not "license" it to other competition. Coke retains its bottle shape protection because the bottle conveys consumer information, not because Coke claims that the bottle is superior, even implictly, in its marketing. Coke also aggressively defends the unique appearance of its glass bottled product line.
Now imagine a world wherein Coca-Cola had invented the current aluminum pop up tab rather than using the old school pull tab. Say that they enjoyed a monopoly period, but began licensing the tab to beer companies and even minor players in the cola market like RC Cola.
How absurd would it be today to call that tab its most recognizeable trademark of quality, which supposedly sets it apart in the industry and to at the same time argue that it is the most functional, all the while licensing it out to direct competitors? It wouldn't add up in the beverage industry, but it somehow makes total sense to some in the cutlery business.
I am still waiting for someone to demonstrate in any other business an example of one competitor licensing out its "industry symbol of quality" to other makers of similar products. We are not talking about Smith and Wesson branding "lifestyle" products, or Jack Daniels pimping barbeque sauce, we're talking about a situation analogous to Nike licensing their trademarked Swoosh to Reebok or Adidas for a line of shoes.
If it doesn't add up to have a swooshed Adidas, it doesn't add up any better to "license" a circular holed Brand X knife with Spyderco's blessing unless the math is that defending the trademark is too difficult to be cost effective and might even be lost.
That last bit is where I think the truth of the matter resides. Some companies defend their trademarkings to the last breath because the only way to ensure an enduring trademark is to litigate it with infringers when they appear.
Just try and market lingere under the name Vicky's Mystery in the same market as a Victoria's Secret, advertise in the local paper, and see how long it takes to get the first Cease and Desist letter from VS's corporate attorneys. There will not be a licensing deal waiting in the wings--ever.
All that said, I respectfully disagree with the trademarking of the hole. IMO, Spyderco's trademark should be considered the bug.
It is beyond obvious that Spyderco had a patent on the hole. They benefitted from a set market monopoly for having innovated it and defending it.
It is a rather simple tenet of trademark law that a trademark cannot cover a functional product improvement. It is especially quirky to trademark a formerly patent protected feature.
I have seen all of the arguments, "but people can use different shaped holes," and "all automobiles have grills, but no one disputes BMWs 'kidney shaped' inlets." I remain unconvinced.
The easiest hole to make is still a circular one. It was and remains marketed as a competitive advantage, though some market identity language has been layered on in the past few years. That the hole has only recently made its appearance on Spyderco's fixed blades after over two decades of being on folders also undermines the trademark argument.
Here is how the hole is described in Spyderco's 2007 Product Guide:
SPYDERCO TRADEMARK ROUND HOLE
The Spyderco Trademark Round Hole is the industry symbol of quality. It is our most recognizeable feature and facilitates easy opening and closing of our knives with one hand. The hole offers convenient access and maximum control as well as accommodating large, small, and gloved hands. The position of the hole in the blade and the fact that it is round allow for a continuous opening motion. The thumb rests against the hole at a comfortable distance from the the palm permitting easy rotation from the pivot point.
To open the knife using the hole, place the knife in your open hand at the base of your fingers and grasp the clip side of the handle with the tips of your fingers. Rest the pad of your thumb in the hole and then gently and smoothly slide the blade away from the handle. When a solid click is heard, the knife is locked into an open position (note that the blade should always be locked securely in the full open position before use).
One sentence about it being a recognition feature. Nearly two full paragraphs describing it as a unique feature for a folder. Nothing about why the hole is on the later fixed blade models or of what possible use it might be on a fixed blade.
I understand the intent is now to expand the use of the hole across the entire product line where practical. However, that makes for a weak trademark defense, again IMO. It is arguable that Knives of Alaska has just as long a pedigree of using holes in the aft portion of a fixed blade below the spine as Spyderco does, which only just started doing this themselves.
One of the tests of trademark law is about market dress and the potential for confusing the prospective customer as to the identity of the true maker holding the trademark. It is under such legal guidance that permits BMW to trademark its grill shape, but then again, BMW aggressively defends the trademark and does not "license" it to other competition. Coke retains its bottle shape protection because the bottle conveys consumer information, not because Coke claims that the bottle is superior, even implictly, in its marketing. Coke also aggressively defends the unique appearance of its glass bottled product line.
Now imagine a world wherein Coca-Cola had invented the current aluminum pop up tab rather than using the old school pull tab. Say that they enjoyed a monopoly period, but began licensing the tab to beer companies and even minor players in the cola market like RC Cola.
How absurd would it be today to call that tab its most recognizeable trademark of quality, which supposedly sets it apart in the industry and to at the same time argue that it is the most functional, all the while licensing it out to direct competitors? It wouldn't add up in the beverage industry, but it somehow makes total sense to some in the cutlery business.
I am still waiting for someone to demonstrate in any other business an example of one competitor licensing out its "industry symbol of quality" to other makers of similar products. We are not talking about Smith and Wesson branding "lifestyle" products, or Jack Daniels pimping barbeque sauce, we're talking about a situation analogous to Nike licensing their trademarked Swoosh to Reebok or Adidas for a line of shoes.
If it doesn't add up to have a swooshed Adidas, it doesn't add up any better to "license" a circular holed Brand X knife with Spyderco's blessing unless the math is that defending the trademark is too difficult to be cost effective and might even be lost.
That last bit is where I think the truth of the matter resides. Some companies defend their trademarkings to the last breath because the only way to ensure an enduring trademark is to litigate it with infringers when they appear.
Just try and market lingere under the name Vicky's Mystery in the same market as a Victoria's Secret, advertise in the local paper, and see how long it takes to get the first Cease and Desist letter from VS's corporate attorneys. There will not be a licensing deal waiting in the wings--ever.
An exact position is bad wording because not all blade shapes are the same which would change the nature of where the hole is positioned but yeah, that have to be at or near that point at the back of the blade at the end nearest the handle. The size is also variable. I do not know to what extent the size can vary but I would guess it is quite a bit. As Sal stated earlier in this thread the hole is on all current production Spyderco folders and has in fact been in place on all but one of their folders. They're newest fixed blades also carry the hole. Take for example the Hossom fixed blades that just came out this year:
http://newgraham.com/detail.aspx?ID=7520
There is a hole at the back of the blade at the end nearest the handle. Is it as large as those on the folders? No, it isn't. Does it fulfill the trademark, I am pretty sure it does.
Bungwrench
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 588
Boats, I couldn't agree with you more. There is a reason that a patent expires.
A patent provides the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent, usually 20 years from the filing date. A patent is, in effect, a limited property right that the government offers to inventors in exchange for their agreement to share the details of their inventions with the public. Like any other property right, it may be sold, licensed, mortgaged, assigned or transferred, given away, or simply abandoned.
When the patent expires then others are allowed to use it for their benefit. If they wanted companies to be able to have a patent forever they would have made it that way.
Spyderco's patent is expired. It's somewhat shady that they would try then to make it into a trademark and then start putting holes in fixed blades as to help make that point. Besides, trademarks don't cover function.
A patent provides the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent, usually 20 years from the filing date. A patent is, in effect, a limited property right that the government offers to inventors in exchange for their agreement to share the details of their inventions with the public. Like any other property right, it may be sold, licensed, mortgaged, assigned or transferred, given away, or simply abandoned.
When the patent expires then others are allowed to use it for their benefit. If they wanted companies to be able to have a patent forever they would have made it that way.
Spyderco's patent is expired. It's somewhat shady that they would try then to make it into a trademark and then start putting holes in fixed blades as to help make that point. Besides, trademarks don't cover function.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 2,167
Exactly the problem. It isn't JUST a hole, it is a registered trademark. It is THE Spyderhole! (accept no substitutes
..that Spyderco hasn't used on every knife. Why not?
Why are they now putting holes in the fixed blades?
- Status