When is everyone okay with copying designs?

[RX-79G]

It would be fairly easy though to argue that the shape of a knife is a necessary component of its performance and therefore of a patent. A shape of a knife directly effects is cutting performance and overall durability. I don't think that would be hard to prove. After all, the main differences of a knives true performance related to its intended use (i.e. to cut things) is in the blade shape.

Your opinion about the ease of getting a patent on a knife shape doesn't jive with the reality of patents. Demonstrating a scientific correlation between performance and a device that consists of blade + handle is pretty much impossible. A patent must show how the device brings something new to the table. That's why ZT, Kershaw, etc don't have patents on knife shapes.

So, there is no difference in your book.

What leads you to that bizarre conclusion? There's no difference in law - which is the one and only point I was making. I didn't express any feelings about my "book".

Not sure how long you've been away from the internet, but KIA has had licensing to manufacture for a while now. Only a few models come off the line where the willy's were produced anymore. They don't have to copy, it's called licensing.

You can license a product, or reproduce all the non-protected elements of a product without licensing. Both are done all the time. There are advantages/disadvantages to both. Licensed products come with complete specs and blueprints - sometimes even tooling. Copies have to be reverse engineered.

What does that have to do with the internet?

you can't trademark a thousands year old pattern. Otherwise musems would be raking in the dough. try again. Try it with tech at any scale and watch the lawyers eat you for breakfast. Let's be real.

I think you misread what I wrote, because it sounds like you're objecting. I agree that you can't trademark, copyright or patent old patterns. (Unless they're DNA.)

I really don't understand either of your posts.

 

[RX-79G]

"New" Schrade bought out the old US-made Schrade when the latter went out of business. New Schrade is usually called Taylor Schrade on BF to distinguish it from the original. And while I don't know the details, presumably Taylor Schrade bought the designs, logos, trademarks, and perhaps even the tooling of the old brand. Taylor Schrade knives are made in China, not New York State.

New Schrade knifes' quality? Variable. People here have reported some good experiences. I have a Taylor Schrade 51OT that's a good knife and much cheaper than a US Schrade 51OT would cost on the auction sites. Works for me.

I also got a Taylor Schrade 5OT, which had a absurdly abrupt kink in the blade spine. I snorted, "Typical!" and took it down to the workshop, grabbed a file, and gave it the nice drop-point profile the original 5OTs were meant to have. Fun little project.

In any case, until the collective experience says otherwise, I'm viewing Taylor Schrade as a kind of Rough Rider: cheap and cheerful, as the Brits say, and an inexpensive way to try out a pattern that's too pricy if you seek for an original.

But I believe Taylor Schrade's making of old Schrade pattern knives is entirely legit from a trademark/patent point of view.

I believe the Schrade patterns in question are those that Schrade copied from other companies. I was relating how the Schrade of old copied the Buck 110 40 years ago to the way Taylor Schrade copies CRK designs today. It was copying then just as much as now.

 

[bdmicarta]

This is a difficult subject.

Everybody and their dog has made knives based on Loveless designs. People bought them like they were totally legit, I know I did.

In the watch industry everybody and their dog has made knives inspired by the Rolex designs. And people buy them like they are totally legit. There are plenty of pure fakes too and people buy them but most people know they are buying fakes.

In firearms nowadays everybody and their dog is making guns inspired by the Colt 1911 design. And people buy them like they are totally legit. For that matter almost everybody and their dog is making guns inspired by Armalite's designs.

I can't condone the idea of making and selling a pure copy of someone else's work. In some ways there isn't anything new, we just use, repeat or build on someone else's work. And it is such common practice now to make close copies and put your name on them that it has achieved a good degree of legitimacy.

 

[B34NS]

Using subsidized automotive models to make a parallell with knives is always hard.

As chefs, for lack of better example, you can copy a dish, but you'll never have the access to the ingredients, and even if you do never the access to the talent required to deliver the same quality in terms of excecution. You can buy the French Laundry cookbook, make the recipie and sell it, but it won't ever be the same. Ever.

 

[RedLynx]

Using subsidized automotive models to make a parallell with knives is always hard.

As chefs, for lack of better example, you can copy a dish, but you'll never have the access to the ingredients, and even if you do never the access to the talent required to deliver the same quality in terms of excecution. You can buy the French Laundry cookbook, make the recipie and sell it, but it won't ever be the same. Ever.

I'm not entirely sure that's equitable, since you and I could make the exact same recipe of a given dish, and simply because of the nature of cooking (or baking) and us being two different people, it will come out slightly differently. My mum's chili is different from my granny's but both are exactly the same recipe.

However provided we had the exact specs and materials, and machinery, you and I could make the same knife (although a handmade knife would doubtless be somewhat different from each of us.)

 

[RX-79G]

Using subsidized automotive models to make a parallell with knives is always hard.

As chefs, for lack of better example, you can copy a dish, but you'll never have the access to the ingredients, and even if you do never the access to the talent required to deliver the same quality in terms of excecution. You can buy the French Laundry cookbook, make the recipie and sell it, but it won't ever be the same. Ever.

The same knife out of the same factory is going to vary due to set up skill, material lot differences, tooling wear, etc. And if another company wants to make a knife effectively identical to what came out of the first factory - they can. They just need to accurately study the design and purchase the same materials.

There is no voodoo with the high end production knives. They are made on CNC machines and heat treated by the book. They are simple machines no more complicated to make than any number of household items.

"Carbon copying" is not easy, though. Reverse engineering a machine design for authenticity and accuracy is more time consuming than designing something from the ground up. Copying a basic shape or design concept is easy. A good designer could do it from memory. But the parts won't interchange.

 

[craytab]

What leads you to that bizarre conclusion? There's no difference in law - which is the one and only point I was making. I didn't express any feelings about my "book".

Bizarre conclusion? You are the one that said it is the same for a company to copy a design and mass produce it as it is for a pimper to make aftermarket scale. Was that not your point? Not did I say anything about "feelings". Oh, never-mind, it is clear you just like to argue to argue....

 

[RX-79G]

Bizarre conclusion? You are the one that said it is the same for a company to copy a design and mass produce it as it is for a pimper to make aftermarket scale. Was that not your point? Not did I say anything about "feelings". Oh, never-mind, it is clear you just like to argue to argue....

You said "in your book". What do you think that phrase means?

I was talking about the law, not my opinion about the morality, ethics or anything else like that for those two situations. Legally, they are the same.



I think it is funny that you have problems with lots of people's opinions. You find them when they don't even exist. I was stating a fact, and I don't understand how that is confusing for you.

 

[AreBeeBee]

I believe the Schrade patterns in question are those that Schrade copied from other companies. I was relating how the Schrade of old copied the Buck 110 40 years ago to the way Taylor Schrade copies CRK designs today. It was copying then just as much as now.

Well, my understanding is that Buck deliberately didn't patent the 110's mechanism (for reasons I don't know). So if other makers copied it (which was widely done), then that happened with Buck's tacit permission.

As for old Schrade copying patterns — which ones are you thinking of? The Stockman, Barlow, and other traditional patterns became established in the industry back in the late 1800s if not earlier, and even if a pattern was originally protected, the patent would have long since expired.

Case has a patent on the name "Sodbuster" and so it alone can sell knives with that name on them. But knives that are sodbusters in design — conforming to the traditional design in other words — are made and sold legally by many others. These makers just can't call the knives sodbusters without paying a royalty to Case.

I notice in this discussion commenters are often blurring the distinction between proprietary designs (which are protected by law) and ones that are effectively in the public domain, such as the Stockman. The line between protected features of a knife design and what's public domain is often gray. But this is a crucial distinction, and it's one that patent lawyers earn their trade at.

 

[RX-79G]

Well, my understanding is that Buck deliberately didn't patent the 110's mechanism (for reasons I don't know). So if other makers copied it (which was widely done), then that happened with Buck's tacit permission.

As for old Schrade copying patterns — which ones are you thinking of? The Stockman and other traditional patterns became established in the industry back in the late 1800s if not earlier, and even if a pattern was originally protected originally, the patent would have long since expired.

I notice in this discussion commenters are often blurring the distinction between proprietary designs (which are protected by law) and ones that are effectively in the public domain, such as the Stockman. The line between protected features of a knife design and what's public domain is often gray. But this is a crucial distinction, and it's one that patent lawyers earn their trade at.

I was talking about the Buck 110.


I don't understand what you mean about "proprietary designs". Designs are not protected by law unless they involve a patent, copyright or trademark. And those protections rarely can be used for a simple shape like a knife blade or scales. In the case of the Buck 110, there was no way to prevent Schrade from making a knife that looks just like it.

"Proprietary" generally refers to a process that is not made public. It is the opposite of a patent. How something looks could not be proprietary from that perspective.

 

[AreBeeBee]

I was talking about the Buck 110.

I don't understand what you mean about "proprietary designs". Designs are not protected by law unless they involve a patent, copyright or trademark. And those protections rarely can be used for a simple shape like a knife blade or scales. In the case of the Buck 110, there was no way to prevent Schrade from making a knife that looks just like it.

"Proprietary" generally refers to a process that is not made public. It is the opposite of a patent. How something looks could not be proprietary from that perspective.

"Proprietary" as you describe usually applies to software, but all the word means is that somone or a company owns the rights to a particular thing, feature, or process. Patenting your proprietary process gives you the legal right to take to court someone who copies your process without your say-so.

Whenever a maker puts a new design of knife on the market, if it is not patented, then that design becomes public domain and anyone can copy it. No knife maker with an eye to a good reputation would copy a Buck 110 in shape, size, and features and put Buck's name on it. (That would be a forgery.) But there's nothing stopping a maker from producing an exact copy of a Buck 110 and putting his own name on it. And that's pretty much what happened, although Schrade and others modifed the shape somewhat, probably so they wouldn't be accused of directly copying. (Though I'm sure some people accused them anyway.)

I have no idea why Buck decided not to patent the 110. But when they put them on the market without patent protection, they gave the design to the world. Which is why you'll find some truly awful "110s" coming out of places like Pakistan. I'd love to do an isotopic analysis of the brass, steel, and wood in those things to see where the material was sourced.

 

[RX-79G]

"Proprietary" as you describe usually applies to software, but all the word means is that somone or a company owns the rights to a particular thing, feature, or process. Patenting your proprietary process gives you the legal right to take to court someone who copies your process without your say-so.

Whenever a maker puts a new design of knife on the market, if it is not patented, then that design becomes public domain and anyone can copy it. No knife maker with an eye to a good reputation would copy a Buck 110 in shape, size, and features and put Buck's name on it. (That would be a forgery.) But there's nothing stopping a maker from producing an exact copy of a Buck 110 and putting his own name on it. And that's pretty much what happened, although Schrade and others modifed the shape somewhat, probably so they wouldn't be accused of directly copying. (Though I'm sure some people accused them anyway.)

I have no idea why Buck decided not to patent the 110. But when they put them on the market without patent protection, they gave the design to the world. Which is why you'll find some truly awful "110s" coming out of places like Pakistan. I'd love to do an isotopic analysis of the brass, steel, and wood in those things to see where the material was sourced.

A patent protects for a period of time. A secret proprietary process, like a special heat treat, lasts as long as you can keep it a secret. Like the Colonel's blend of 11 herbs and spices - which is still locked in a vault.

But not everything is patent-able. And Buck may not have had anything to patent for the mechanism. Here's a lockback from the 1800s:

 

[B34NS]

I'm not entirely sure that's equitable, since you and I could make the exact same recipe of a given dish, and simply because of the nature of cooking (or baking) and us being two different people, it will come out slightly differently. My mum's chili is different from my granny's but both are exactly the same recipe.

However provided we had the exact specs and materials, and machinery, you and I could make the same knife (although a handmade knife would doubtless be somewhat different from each of us.)

That why the TFL reference. People are paying for the team and their excecution.

No offense to your cooking, but you won't confuse your dining experience if you drop a few hundred dollars on the real thing. Excecution is what seperates those motivated by quality, and those by riding the other guys coat tails.

 

[choombak]

If here are no shades of wrong then why do we have shades of acceptable punishment for a given action. Or do you feel a person who runs a stop sign should be treated on the same way as a person who commits a violent crime? As for your question how do we know the counterfeit knife market doesnt fuel a larger more sinister plot? You dont. But i am willing to bet you cant know for sure that ANY company is or isnt tied into some higher organized crime. There simply is no way to tell. But if i am to make assumptions for one then i have to make assumptions for all. And i dont really like to assume anything, good or bad.

You confuse an action with a reaction. Actions are always right or wrong, no shades of gray. Reaction (punishment) can vary depending on the action. As an example, do we teach kids it is okay once in a while to jump a STOP sign, but never okay to commit a violent crime, just because the punishments vary? Certainly not.

Absolute - I don't know, for that matter, if ANY enterprise funds crime in the background, there is simply no way to know. Which is why, IMO, it is best to stick with companies that are honorable in dealings - reputed knife brands, for instance. At least that way, there is a less chance of my money being used to fund criminal enterprise. In the face of not knowing, you always have to assume, and these assumptions are based on your moral and ethical compass. So no, I don't support or purchase anything that "resembles" something genuine (even if it is not a counterfeit). NO GO. I am far far happy with the most expensive knife I can afford from a reputed brand, and that's what I'll stick to.

 

[RedLynx]

That why the TFL reference. People are paying for the team and their excecution.

No offense to your cooking, but you won't confuse your dining experience if you drop a few hundred dollars on the real thing. Excecution is what seperates those motivated by quality, and those by riding the other guys coat tails.

That's probably true, although I've never, and probably won't drop a few hundred dollars on a meal (or something calling itself a dining experience). But you make a good point. I can't imagine spending that money on a tangible, non-perishable, so it would be difficult to do it for a one-time experience such as eating. Dining out is such a hit and miss thing, I'd hate to drop any money without knowing for certain I'd have a demonstrably better meal. Of course, any reputable establishment will make an effort to make it right if I don't, but, still.

 

[RedLynx]

I have no idea why Buck decided not to patent the 110.

Because they couldn't. On the one hand, the Buck 110 is now an iconic design and we know it when we see it. On the other hand, it's a folding lockback knife with brass bolsters, wood scales, and a 3.75 stainless steel clip point blade. There is no way they could patent any of those things.

 

[B34NS]

That's probably true, although I've never, and probably won't drop a few hundred dollars on a meal (or something calling itself a dining experience). But you make a good point. I can't imagine spending that money on a tangible, non-perishable, so it would be difficult to do it for a one-time experience such as eating. Dining out is such a hit and miss thing, I'd hate to drop any money without knowing for certain I'd have a demonstrably better meal. Of course, any reputable establishment will make an effort to make it right if I don't, but, still.

Totally! I couldn't feel more the same! It stings even more when you're making $10 or less an hour for 6 days a week cooking those $200+ tasting menus.

 

[RedLynx]

Totally! I couldn't feel more the same! It stings even more when you're making $10 or less an hour for 6 days a week cooking those $200+ tasting menus.

Honestly man, I'm big on the whole wanting the tipping culture to change. I think cooks and waitstaff deserve a living wage so they don't have to worry about making ends meet via the customer. I hope one day the industry will change. The only thing I can think of is if people start stiffing en masse, but I don't think we ever will because it wouldn't be cool. So I don't know if it can change. I've heard cooks do get living wages but I don't know if that is true, or if it is true everywhere. Nowadays there's even electronic screens to tip your barista and if you want to tip anything below $3 or a $4 coffee you have to enter it manually. Anyway that's pretty off-topic so I'll shut up about it.

 

[AreBeeBee]

Because they couldn't. On the one hand, the Buck 110 is now an iconic design and we know it when we see it. On the other hand, it's a folding lockback knife with brass bolsters, wood scales, and a 3.75 stainless steel clip point blade. There is no way they could patent any of those things.

Really? There was nothing patentable about the locking mechanism on the tang or the internal arrangement of the spring and lock-release mechanism? I guess I'm surprised to hear that.

 

[RX-79G]

Really? There was nothing patentable about the locking mechanism on the tang or the internal arrangement of the spring and lock-release mechanism? I guess I'm surprised to hear that.

It may have had something to add to the technology, but it was probably more of a minor refinement to the way the spring is arranged than a truly radical new invention. Like I posted previously, lockbacks are not new. Additionally, the modern lockback mechanism is really just taken from the slipjoint mechanism.

So maybe Buck had something to patent, maybe they didn't. Even if they had, that wouldn't have prevented Schrade from making a knife that looks like a 110 but with one of the other locking variations.

This is a combination slipjoint/lockback from the 1950s. The basic mechanism and arrangement doesn't look much different than Buck's to my eye.