Thumb Holes in Knives of Alaska

Status
Not open for further replies.
digitalrebelttu said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, I didn't post several times that people should look up trademark law. Never said anything about trademark LAW.I suggested once that somebody look up the definition of a trademark and that was to see the difference between a trademark and a patent. Further to that, it's you whom seems to be side-tracking as I suggested you not knock others for their interest in this particular subject eventhough you have done the same in the past with subjects of interest to you. You wanna go chasing threads, that's fine. I might just be a knuckle-dragging fireman, but I'm not totally incapable of all things cerebral. With this I bow out. Your turn.
 
I know nothing about IP law,trademarks or patents,heck,I don't even know enough to stay out of burning buildings:D .What I do know however is that I really like Spyderco knives.Functional designs,superior materials,reasonable prices,and a staff that cares about the ELU and thier opinions.Like Tony said,speak with your $$$,and I speak Spyderco.
 
digitalrebelttu said:
Speculate away.
Click to expand...

A lot of information for someone who agrees they don't have enough information to really give an opinion.

Here is my speculation, perhaps that is the old case where Benchmade was licensed to use the round hole on their AFCK (sp?model?) and then began using the oval. Could that be the case? Hard for me to tell since there is no date in his resume.
 
flipe8 said:
Actually, I didn't post several times that people should look up trademark law. Never said anything about trademark LAW.I suggested once that somebody look up the definition of a trademark and that was to see the difference between a trademark and a patent. Further to that, it's you whom seems to be side-tracking as I suggested you not knock others for their interest in this particular subject eventhough you have done the same in the past with subjects of interest to you. You wanna go chasing threads, that's fine. I might just be a knuckle-dragging fireman, but I'm not totally incapable of all things cerebral. With this I bow out. Your turn.
Click to expand...

you do know that federal law defines what patents and trademarks are right? So looking up a trademark is looking up the law.

Side tracking- you are the one obsessed with what my posting pattern is. I'm not involved in the couple of hundred topics on this site about everyone "stealing" from Spyderco, nor am I part of the almost 100 topics on the Spyderco forums on the same issue.
 
zenheretic said:
A lot of information for someone who agrees they don't have enough information to really give an opinion.
Click to expand...

Well actually I have gone through over 300 pages of the prosecution history of the trademark so I do know it was originally rejected as being functional and Spyderco neglected to mention in their responses to the office actions that the hole was a subject of a utility patent, which, oops, they are required to disclose. And the examiner screwed up in not finding that out. So, you could say I do have some information to form an opinion.
 
Sal Glesser said:
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...

digitalrebelttu said:
Mr Glesser, I think we are in agreement over letting it rest, I wish the fans would do that.
Click to expand...

digitalrebelttu said:
Well actually I have gone through over 300 pages of the prosecution history of the trademark so I do know it was originally rejected as being functional and Spyderco neglected to mention in their responses to the office actions that the hole was a subject of a utility patent, which, oops, they are required to disclose. And the examiner screwed up in not finding that out. So, you could say I do have some information to form an opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah anytime you wanna let it rest. :yawn:
 
zenheretic said:
Yeah anytime you wanna let it rest. :yawn:
Click to expand...

Really tell me, are you capable of an intelligent discussion? I read the materal have you? Perhaps you can explain to me why Spyderco didn't tell the PTO about its utility patent when they applied for the trademark? They are required to- not doing so looks an awful lot like willful deception- that is only a Sherman Act violation, punishable by 3 years in prison and a $10M fine. Why don't you explain that to me? Or are you, flipe8, The Deacon, and all the others who accuse Benchmade, Cold Steel, and the other manufacturers of "stealing" only capable of arguing with people who don't know the law?
 
CuriousOne said:
Does that resume really have any deep hidden meaning to you? Do you use the Paparazzi in your court cases as well?
Click to expand...

What? Yeah, the resume shows he had a favorable settlement against Spyderco when he represented Benchmade- I'm sorry if that flies over your head.
 
digitalrebelttu said:
What? Yeah, the resume shows he had a favorable settlement against Spyderco when he represented Benchmade- I'm sorry if that flies over your head.
Click to expand...

Favorable means that it was acceptable. Doesn't mean that it was any less favorable for Spyderco. Just doesn't hold water for me.

Everything else you say seems well thought out. I have neither the desire nor the reason to argue with you. I'm just saying that your opinions would have been better served by not including an ambiguous reference to someone's resume.

BTW - if this thread can't die by itself, why not either close it or move it to the legal sub-forum?
 
digitalrebelttu,

You will never satisfy the die hard Spdyerco fanboys.

The rest of us appreciate the info. For me this put many questions to rest and I have to smirk and chuckle inside. Life goes on.
 
CuriousOne said:
Favorable means that it was acceptable. Doesn't mean that it was any less favorable for Spyderco. Just doesn't hold water for me.

Everything else you say seems well thought out. I have neither the desire nor the reason to argue with you. I'm just saying that your opinions would have been better served by not including an ambiguous reference to someone's resume.

BTW - if this thread can't die by itself, why not either close it or move it to the legal sub-forum?
Click to expand...

Do you see Benchmade using the hole? If it was favorable to Spyderco would they be using it?

And why is it that literally hundreds of topics are posted on everyone else stealing from Spyderco but they are not closed, the fanboys jump onto every one of those topics but when someone doesn't toe the line, everyone wants the topic closed? amazing how that goes.
 
Bungwrench said:
digitalrebelttu,

You will never satisfy the die hard Spdyerco fanboys.

The rest of us appreciate the info. For me this put many questions to rest and I have to smirk and chuckle inside. Life goes on.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, thanks. I would be happy debating the law or directing people to valid authority on the web, which is what I have tried to do in my posts. No one has to believe me, they can read what the PTO has to say or the DOJ or the FTC. It is ironic that people who are so quick to scream about IP law and morality, integrity, etc... are the first to resort to personally attacks or diversions to talk about anything but the substance of the issue.
 
digitalrebelttu said:
Do you see Benchmade using the hole? If it was favorable to Spyderco would they be using it?
Click to expand...

If that's what you meant, why use some guy's resume to say it?

And why is it that literally hundreds of topics are posted on everyone else stealing from Spyderco but they are not closed, the fanboys jump onto every one of those topics but when someone doesn't toe the line, everyone wants the topic closed? amazing how that goes.
Click to expand...

Yawn... Read what I said... move it to the right forum or close it. It is a legal thread. Bladeforum does have a legal forum, right?

Just seems like Sal and you were right a while back when both of you (and others) suggested to leave the subject alone. Nothing will be resolved in this thread.
 
CuriousOne said:
If that's what you meant, why use some guy's resume to say it?



Yawn... Read what I said... move it to the right forum or close it. It is a legal thread. Bladeforum does have a legal forum, right?

Just seems like Sal and you were right a while back when both of you (and others) suggested to leave the subject alone. Nothing will be resolved in this thread.
Click to expand...


Well, here is a novel concept- if you don't like the thread, don't read it or post in it. If you want it closed, take it up with the poster who started the topic or a moderator. I'm sure that you will now post in every topic of this kind that comes up, asking that it be locked or moved but I haven't seen that before and somehow, I bet you won't do that. The only time I see that is when the argument isn't going the way that someone wants it to. If you don't like what I have to say, put me on your ignore list.
 
digitalrebelttu - I have no problem with what you say, if you took my saying that the thread should be closed as directed towards you... My appologies - I was only suggesting that posting in this thread is like kicking a dead horse. Again, not directed towards any one person.

The reason I suggested it be moved is that perhaps more lawyer-types would read it if it were in this sub-forum: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=735

You must like your job to read up on legal cases like Spyderco in your spare time, I'm happy for you, really...
 
All this legalese has given me a headache. If Benchmade wants to use someone else's idea rather than continue with their own so be it. We can argue about it until we are blue in the face, but it won't change a thing. There has been an agreement made & whether or not we approve they will probably continue to use the round hole. As consumers we have the power to decide whether we want to support the company that created the idea or the company that copied it. The personal attacks and legal tirades are getting ridiculous. As Sal said, "Let it rest." I'm going to go cut something...
 
digitalrebelttu said:
I'm sure that you will now post in every topic of this kind that comes up, asking that it be locked or moved but I haven't seen that before and somehow, I bet you won't do that.
Click to expand...

No, I won't, that's correct. I may from time to time as I like to be a pain. In general, I like to argue for the fun of it.

However, I avoid topics like this one that could affect someone (like the employees of Spyderco). Go take a look, if you find a post where I have said that any company is responsible for stealing... PM me and I will ask a moderator to delete it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top