Thumb Holes in Knives of Alaska

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sal Glesser said:
Mr. Digitalrebelttu,

This situation is far more complicated than it might appear from the outside. You would really need history to have a meaningful deeper understanding.

As far as why care? That's more than just IP.

We can respect your position as an IP Lawyer. Spyderco is just a small company, but we have many patents and trademarks (90+). You can respect us as inventors / designers, right?

sal
Click to expand...


I can certainly respect you, I own a number of your products (and no Benchmades) but it makes me wonder why it is that only Spyderco fans are the ones constantly accusing other knife companies of theft. This happens frequently on this forum and on your company's forum, a number of your fans have siglines that accuse Benchmade of theft and they show up every time that they post. The Deacon (aka Paul Beretta) has a website which goes into detail of why he thinks that Benchmade is "stealing" from your company. I've seen you post that there was no theft and yet these fans of yours continue to post this stuff, including on your company website. It makes me wonder if there is a tacit approval of your company for that. Let's not BS, I can guess what your lawyers have told you about the spyderhole trademark- I'll bet they also told you of the anti-trust implications too. What I can't respect are the constant accusations against every other knife company of "stealing", especially when they are on such tenuous grounds.
 
somebody lock this thread up and let it die. speak with your $$$, buy what you want and ignore the others.
 
digitalrebelttu said:
I can certainly respect you, I own a number of your products (and no Benchmades) but it makes me wonder why it is that only Spyderco fans are the ones constantly accusing other knife companies of theft. This happens frequently on this forum and on your company's forum, a number of your fans have siglines that accuse Benchmade of theft and they show up every time that they post. The Deacon (aka Paul Beretta) has a website which goes into detail of why he thinks that Benchmade is "stealing" from your company. I've seen you post that there was no theft and yet these fans of yours continue to post this stuff, including on your company website. It makes me wonder if there is a tacit approval of your company for that. Let's not BS, I can guess what your lawyers have told you about the spyderhole trademark- I'll bet they also told you of the anti-trust implications too. What I can't respect are the constant accusations against every other knife company of "stealing", especially when they are on such tenuous grounds.
Click to expand...

I will say that we do have loyal customers that are more closely involved with our company than might be expected. We are pleased and proud to have them. I'm sure other company's have their dedicated customers.

Regarding accusations of "stealing", I think the reference is more to "copying without giving credit", rather than the "legal" term, "stealing".

I've seen it done many times with dedicated customers of many companies, we are not unique in that area. ( Chris Reeve, Extreme Ration, Strider, etc.)

Many of our long time customers have noticed that much of what we did bring to the industry, like pocket clips, have been enjoyed by almost every knife company and custom maker. Our "hole opener" patent was knocked off long before expiration (loopholes).

I'm just guessing, but the Benchmade useage of the Spyderco round hole has irritated some of our customers. The only information I can provide is that "we reached an agreement". As a lawyer, I'm sure you understand.

My guess is that without more information, they discuss it, read between lines, and formulate opinions, which are further discussed. At times, argued.

I don't think the issue is so much; legal, or IP, but other values, which some hold dear.

As I said earlier, there is a history. Perhaps we'll get an opportunity someday to discuss that over a beer? Any discussion here would not serve.

When I see these threads, I ask that we "let it rest".

sal
 
Sal Glesser said:
I will say that we do have loyal customers that are more closely involved with our company than might be expected. We are pleased and proud to have them. I'm sure other company's have their dedicated customers.

Regarding accusations of "stealing", I think the reference is more to "copying without giving credit", rather than the "legal" term, "stealing".

I've seen it done many times with dedicated customers of many companies, we are not unique in that area. ( Chris Reeve, Extreme Ration, Strider, etc.)

Many of our long time customers have noticed that much of what we did bring to the industry, like pocket clips, have been enjoyed by almost every knife company and custom maker. Our "hole opener" patent was knocked off long before expiration (loopholes).

I'm just guessing, but the Benchmade useage of the Spyderco round hole has irritated some of our customers. The only information I can provide is that "we reached an agreement". As a lawyer, I'm sure you understand.

My guess is that without more information, they discuss it, read between lines, and formulate opinions, which are further discussed. At times, argued.

I don't think the issue is so much; legal, or IP, but other values, which some hold dear.

As I said earlier, there is a history. Perhaps we'll get an opportunity someday to discuss that over a beer? Any discussion here would not serve.

When I see these threads, I ask that we "let it rest".

sal
Click to expand...

Mr Glesser, I think we are in agreement over letting it rest, I wish the fans would do that. I have nothing against you or your company, I carried an old Endura for several years on the street as a medic and I carry an Endura 4 as part of my rotation now. I will admit that I don't know why some are so obsessed over this stuff, some people take your words (or the lack of them) to mean things; then they combine a mish mash of IP law, much of which is out dated or not valid, to draw conclusions and accuse others.

I certainly understand the confidentiality of your business agreements and I'm not the one saying you have to disclose them. I think you would find in some of my other posts that I tend to say that all business people should keep their mouths shut on the internet about business details.

I think from the other topic you can probable see how I feel about the trademark. I'm in this area of law because I love it and it is an area that has a tremendous effect on society. Our laws here are arguable the best in the world for encouraging competition and innovation. There are, of course, a large number of people who work the system- whether that is right or wrong is debatable, but I call things like I see them.
 
digitalrebelttu -

I don't disagree that there are those that have lines in their signature regarding Benchmade. However, at least for this thread, it wasn't Spyderco fans that started the "obsessive" defending of the hole. Read the first post in this thread.

Recently, folks have had threads discussing both Benchmade and Spyderco without turning the discussion into a debate (or worse).

(I wasn't going to post again, but I found your view point interesting to read and wanted to make this comment)
 
digitalrebelttu said:
I find it sad- and I find it sad that people will go on and on about IP law when none of you even know what you are talking about. Do any of you have anything better to do than argue about things that you don't know about? If spyderco feels that someone is wronging them, fine, they can use their lawyers to do something, but I really don't get why those of you who are not even connected to the company care so much about this.
Click to expand...

There is the letter of the law and the intention of the law. I freely admit that I don't know much about the letter of the law with regard to intellectual property. However, laws are tools to help people, so the law should align with some collective sense of right and wrong. By discussing this point, we're taking a real situation (knives with round holes) and seeing if our internal compasses match with the letter of the law.

I care for a couple of reasons. One is that when I see a round opening hole, it identifies that knife to me as a Spyderco. Then I can pick it up and fiddle with it and know that it's similar in quality to other Spydercos I've been used. Having a different company use the round hole muddies the waters. Two, in my experience Sal Glessner is an upstanding person who invests heavily in his product and the knife community at large. Other companies should not be able to undermine his business unfairly. If they want to apply their brains to producing a better product, so be it. They should not be able to copy his product for their profit.

As for Spyderco pursuing legal redress, you should know the minefield that litigation represents. First, it's expensive. Even if you win, you could cripple your business. Just negotiating a settlement bleeds money that is not going to produce or improve your product. If you get to a courtroom, the result could deviate significantly from what is "fair" or "reasonable". Even if you're right, you have to convince the judge and jury of that. Personally, I'm not a fan of private settlements because they never actually test the key issue. If Spyderco and Benchmade went to court, the validity of the round hole trademark would be decided. Like it or not, the solution would be clear and we'd be left to whine and complain about something tangible rather than the legal vageries we don't know much about. However, I empathize with the practical decision to settle rather than to win a Pyrrhic victory.

Hopefully I'll work through some of my IP-law ignorance when I read your posts in the other thread.
 
digitalrebelttu said:
So aren't you doing what you're telling me not to do?

But anyway, I see that in the other thread about this you were one of the "ip experts" who disappeared when I actually quoted what the current trademark and patent law is, so I'm not playing your game.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever made a claim of being an expert in anything. I was simply reminding you of your stance on another subject that you had no real interest in (as far as I know), but that didn't stop you from posting your position over and over. In reality, if you pasted or wrote some long message I likely had my eyes glaze over and went somewhere of more interest to me.

For what it's worth, I would hope you would be able to talk circles around me when it comes to a subject that happens to be your profession. If you learned anything in school and were gainfully employed using that education daily, that shouldn't be very difficult nor should it be something to brag about.
 
Tohatchi NM said:
There is the letter of the law and the intention of the law. I freely admit that I don't know much about the letter of the law with regard to intellectual property. However, laws are tools to help people, so the law should align with some collective sense of right and wrong. By discussing this point, we're taking a real situation (knives with round holes) and seeing if our internal compasses match with the letter of the law.

I care for a couple of reasons. One is that when I see a round opening hole, it identifies that knife to me as a Spyderco. Then I can pick it up and fiddle with it and know that it's similar in quality to other Spydercos I've been used. Having a different company use the round hole muddies the waters. Two, in my experience Sal Glessner is an upstanding person who invests heavily in his product and the knife community at large. Other companies should not be able to undermine his business unfairly. If they want to apply their brains to producing a better product, so be it. They should not be able to copy his product for their profit.

As for Spyderco pursuing legal redress, you should know the minefield that litigation represents. First, it's expensive. Even if you win, you could cripple your business. Just negotiating a settlement bleeds money that is not going to produce or improve your product. If you get to a courtroom, the result could deviate significantly from what is "fair" or "reasonable". Even if you're right, you have to convince the judge and jury of that. Personally, I'm not a fan of private settlements because they never actually test the key issue. If Spyderco and Benchmade went to court, the validity of the round hole trademark would be decided. Like it or not, the solution would be clear and we'd be left to whine and complain about something tangible rather than the legal vageries we don't know much about. However, I empathize with the practical decision to settle rather than to win a Pyrrhic victory.

Hopefully I'll work through some of my IP-law ignorance when I read your posts in the other thread.
Click to expand...


Yes and the intention of the law, both in statute and caselaw, is that one can not extend the patent monopoly by securing a trademark on the feature that was the subject of a utility patent. That has been case law for years, it was codified in 1998 and the Traffix decision in 2001 gives almost dispositive effect to the fact that an expired utility patent exists. It has been the law since 1998 that one can not get a trademark on a functional feature (the spyderco trademark is from 1996 or 1997) and if one does slip by the PTO, any 3rd party can file a petition to cancel the trademark at any time. Or they can wait to be sued and turn around and counter sue for anti-trust, unfair competition, etc...

Trademark law requires one to defend their trademark, if they don't it becomes unenforceable. If one admits on the internet to "loose" licensing agreements, that is naked licensing and will invalidate the trademark. Naked licensing, assignment in gross, abandonment, laches, and acquiescence are all affirmative defenses. So posting on the net that one doesn't have the money to pursue infringers- that's acquiescence.

The functionality doctrine prevents registration or permits cancellation regardless of aquired meaning (i.e. that you are associating the hole with spyderco). So if one goes on about unfair practices, one doesn't need to look farther than Spyderco, because that is what they are doing.

Now, Mr. Glesser can accuse other companies of ripping of the patent through "loopholes"- I don't know what that means. I've found that companies tend to bitch and complain about "loopholes and lawyers" when someone else designs around or otherwise legally gets around their patents and then will gleefully laugh about screwing other companies through the same loopholes and lawyers, so that tends to go with which side the company happens to fall upon.

My posts in the other topic have the links, quotes, and case law for all of the above.
 
flipe8 said:
I don't think I've ever made a claim of being an expert in anything. I was simply reminding you of your stance on another subject that you had no real interest in (as far as I know), but that didn't stop you from posting your position over and over. In reality, if you pasted or wrote some long message I likely had my eyes glaze over and went somewhere of more interest to me.

For what it's worth, I would hope you would be able to talk circles around me when it comes to a subject that happens to be your profession. If you learned anything in school and were gainfully employed using that education daily, that shouldn't be very difficult nor should it be something to brag about.
Click to expand...

Actually, you posted multiple times that people should look up trademark law, something you apparently are incapable of doing. What you are doing is trying to deflect the argument by attacking me personally instead of learning the relevant law, which I posted, its a pathetic attempt to cover up your inability to read over a sentence without your eyes glazing over.
 
Mate it's a Knife Forum in the main.
He is trying to say that wading through legalise is not to his liking.
Are there no "Legal forums" for you to joust on?
 
Danno4017 said:
Mate it's a Knife Forum in the main.
He is trying to say that wading through legalise is not to his liking.
Are there no "Legal forums" for you to joust on?
Click to expand...

As for me, I'm interested in hearing what this fellow (digitalrebelttu) has to say.

I may not always agree with his opinions on things.

But regardless of which, he has been and is currently coherent, makes a good argument, and defends it with statutes and case law (at least for the US jurisdiction, which is what is applicable here.)

-j
 
digitalrebelttu said:
Thanks for the personal attack, but I won't be sinking to your level.
Click to expand...

I was genralizing about Lawyers and their trade, are you a Lawyer?
My opinion is that most are bottom feeders that milk every last cent out of their clients. Honesty is not their strong suit but I am speaking only from personal experience.
With regard to you, I do not own one product from Spyderco, nor do I intend to in the future as their style is not what I look for.
Why don't you ask Mr Glesser any queries you have via email or private message?
This forum is not for discussing legal matters and out of court agreements surely?
If the owner of the company in question has asked to leave it be, surely that is good enough.
You do what you think is right.
 
Danno4017 said:
I was genralizing about Lawyers and their trade, are you a Lawyer?
Click to expand...

he specifically mentioned his profession in this thread

Why don't you ask Mr Glesser any queries you have via email or private message?
Click to expand...

probably because the discussions/arguments are not taking place through PM/email

This forum is not for discussing legal matters and out of court agreements surely?
Click to expand...

and yet this thread exists because of concern over legal matters regarding the hole

I don't agree with Spyderco being given a TM for the hole, but I think it was reasonable for Spyderco to pursue it

I wish Benchmade wouldn't use the hole in so may models, especially the griptilian, but I'm glad they have the ability to do so.

A round opening hole doesn't prevent me from accepting and understanding that the knife bearing it isn't necessarily a Spyderco, but I also have no desire to see brands other than Spyderco use it.
 
I'm hesitant to post this because it will feed the speculation but

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1136898_1?noconfirm=0

"Spyderco v. Benchmade (D.Colo.) Represented a knife manufacturer with regard to the defense of breach of contract and the assertion of trademark/trade class counterclaims. Obtained favorable settlement on confidential terms shortly after commencement and removal of case to federal court."

This lawyer says he represented Benchmade.

"Representative Clients:

GE Capital Corporation
GE Capital Small Business Finance Corporation
General Steel Corporation
Capital Steel Industries
Agile Group, LLC
Mitel Networks, Inc.
Benchmade Knife Company
Wayne Pearson"

Speculate away.
 
digitalrebelttu said:
I'm hesitant to post this because it will feed the speculation but

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1136898_1?noconfirm=0

"Spyderco v. Benchmade (D.Colo.) Represented a knife manufacturer with regard to the defense of breach of contract and the assertion of trademark/trade class counterclaims. Obtained favorable settlement on confidential terms shortly after commencement and removal of case to federal court."

This lawyer says he represented Benchmade.

"Representative Clients:

GE Capital Corporation
GE Capital Small Business Finance Corporation
General Steel Corporation
Capital Steel Industries
Agile Group, LLC
Mitel Networks, Inc.
Benchmade Knife Company
Wayne Pearson"

Speculate away.
Click to expand...

That answers all my questions. Since he represented Benchmade, to me that says that Benchmade won.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top