When is everyone okay with copying designs?

[RedLynx]

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.

I have to agree with RX above.

There may have been something there, but even so, Schrade (or any of the companies that have made numerous 110 "copies,") could make a slightly different internal design and call it their own. Regardless, there was really nothing to be done about how the visible parts of the knife looked, I believe.

I'm by no means a Buck expert of spokesperson, but I feel that if they could have patented any sort of internal arrangement of the knife, they just wouldn't have seen it as "worth it." I wouldn't, but I'm not a knifemaker.

 

[AreBeeBee]

I have to agree with RX above.
There may have been something there, but even so, Schrade (or any of the companies that have made numerous 110 "copies,") could make a slightly different internal design and call it their own. Regardless, there was really nothing to be done about how the visible parts of the knife looked, I believe.
I'm by no means a Buck expert of spokesperson, but I feel that if they could have patented any sort of internal arrangement of the knife, they just wouldn't have seen it as "worth it." I wouldn't, but I'm not a knifemaker.

Perhaps the company researched it with a lawyer and got a discouraging reply, or perhaps they simply felt it wasn't worth the hassle and paperwork. In any case, putting the 110 on the market with no patent protection meant that they gave it to the world. And other companies' 110-like knives would resemble the original 110 as closely as those other makers chose to go.

 

[rob32]

OK, it's an assumption on your part. But fine.So do you mind if I ask you, when you are done using your fake/clone/counterfeit, and decide to shell out the bucks
to buy the real thing, do you sell that knife as a fake/clone/counterfeit?

Absolutely not. I'm a collector, and I don't really like to part with anything in my collection. My counterfeit Spyderco has turned out to be a great beater/work knife. I'd rather not use a $100+ knife for some of the hardcore stuff I do at work, so a clone works well for that. I really enjoy comparing the clones to their genuine counterparts too. It really is amazing the what the Chinese can build for as cheap as they do it.

I've known a few people who are into the counterfeit knives. They seem to belong in one of two camps. Either they refuse to spend the money for the real thing altogether, or having the counterfeit just makes them eventually break down and buy a genuine knife.

 

[RobertA.R]

I bought the Titanium Doc clone before i really had an opinion on counterfeits, i just wanted a knife like that for cheap. I hate to say but i have a couple 400 dollar knives from some good makers, and their fit and finish isnt even close to the clone, and it was like 125 bucks. I still will not buy another clone no matter how nice they are but it really is weird how that works.

 

[RX-79G]

Perhaps the company researched it with a lawyer and got a discouraging reply, or perhaps they simply felt it wasn't worth the hassle and paperwork. In any case, putting the 110 on the market with no patent protection meant that they gave it to the world. And other companies' 110-like knives would resemble the original 110 as closely as those other makers chose to go.

What protections? What do you think Buck "invented"? The lockback already existed.

When the wheel has already been invented, you can't get a patent because you've built a bigger wheel.

 

[Todd21969]

What protections? What do you think Buck "invented"? The lockback already existed.

When the wheel has already been invented, you can't get a patent because you've built a bigger wheel.

Really????? You have never heard of the Walker liner lock? A modified updated version.of an existing lock?

 

[RX-79G]

Really????? You have never heard of the Walker liner lock? A modified updated version.of an existing lock?

And the Axis lock, the Tri-action lock, compression lock, etc. But we are talking about the lockback or back lock, which already existed prior to Buck. Like Walker, Buck didn't receive a patent for whatever they changed (if anything) from the existing design.

Walker was not able to patent his refinement of the liner lock, either. Instead, he trademarked the name "linerlock".

 

[RedLynx]

And the Axis lock, the Tri-action lock, compression lock, etc. But we are talking about the lockback or back lock, which already existed prior to Buck. Like Walker, Buck didn't receive a patent for whatever they changed (if anything) from the existing design.

Walker was not able to patent his refinement of the liner lock, either. Instead, he trademarked the name "linerlock".

Interestingly I've always used Walker lock and linerlock interchangeably. Is the Walker lock a type of liner lock only?

 

[RX-79G]

Interestingly I've always used Walker lock and linerlock interchangeably. Is the Walker lock a type of liner lock only?

This electricians knife uses the original 1906 liner lock patent.

My last post said Walker "could not patent". I should have said "did not patent". I don't know what prevented him. His liner lock was a radical redesign of the liner lock. Much more radical than the difference between the 1950s lockback I posted on the Buck 110.

 

[RedLynx]

This electricians knife uses the original 1906 liner lock patent.

My last post said Walker "could not patent". I should have said "did not patent". I don't know what prevented him. His liner lock was a radical redesign of the liner lock. Much more radical than the difference between the 1950s lockback I posted on the Buck 110.

Fancy that! Learn something new everyday. Ever since I'd heard of Walker and seen diagrams of the Walker lock years ago, I assumed he was the inventor of this newfangled liner lock.

 

[Todd21969]

My last post said Walker "could not patent". I should have said "did not patent". I don't know what prevented him. His liner lock was a radical redesign of the liner lock. Much more radical than the difference between the 1950s lockback I posted on the Buck 110.

Right.... did not, not could not.

Mr Walker invented a Bigger Wheel

 

[RX-79G]

Right.... did not, not could not.

Mr Walker invented a Bigger Wheel

My analogy of the bigger wheel was that Buck, if anything, beefed up the size and tension of the existing lock back. They didn't invent something new, they just made it stronger than before.

Walker did something entirely new with the liner lock concept. He should have sought a patent, because his liner lock is so different from the previous design.

 

[AreBeeBee]

What protections? What do you think Buck "invented"? The lockback already existed.

When the wheel has already been invented, you can't get a patent because you've built a bigger wheel.

Ah, yes, locking knives certainly existed before the 110. But with patents, the devil is in the details. In other words, what counts with patentability (or not) of the 110 is specifically and exactly how the 110's locking and unlocking mechanism works.

In the case of Buck, presumably they felt the fight to patent the specific mechanical design of the 110 wasn't worth it, or had little chance of being awarded. So they didn't pursue it. And it's now in the public domain.

 

[EBHM4]

I don't buy counterfeits or blatant, unauthorized copies of unique designs. Counterfeits (items marketed or sold as originals or with imitation markings) piss me off because they can easily pollute the market and often misrepresent their materials. The copies part is more sketchy so I can't really claim a moral absolute on that one. I just try to encourage original designs, or original takes on old designs by giving those my money instead. Really it's mostly because in most cases when I'm knife shopping, I'd rather have something a little original. Probably not the most black and white or morally satisfying answer for lots of people, but I'm happy with my collection and who I've given money to, so I guess that's what matters. If I got too upset about this kind of stuff in my day to day life I would give myself an ulcer.

 

[RX-79G]

Ah, yes, locking knives certainly existed before the 110. But with patents, the devil is in the details. In other words, what counts with patentability (or not) of the 110 is specifically and exactly how the 110's locking and unlocking mechanism works.

In the case of Buck, presumably they felt the fight to patent the specific mechanical design of the 110 wasn't worth it, or had little chance of being awarded. So they didn't pursue it. And it's now in the public domain.

Or, that what they were using was already in the public domain, and its only a bunch of guys 50 years later who think that Buck invented anything. The 110 was the first folder deemed strong enough to replace a fixed blade. That doesn't mean the lock was new, just that the knife was strongly built.

 

[RedLynx]

Or, that what they were using was already in the public domain, and its only a bunch of guys 50 years later who think that Buck invented anything. The 110 was the first folder deemed strong enough to replace a fixed blade. That doesn't mean the lock was new, just that the knife was strongly built.

The whole discussion is largely academic but, this is more likely. The 110 got a lot of hype (and deservedly so in my personal opinion) and it was a great take on a folding lock knife. They just didn't use anything new, from the locking mechanism to the brass bolsters, that likely could have been patented. For the most part, nothing new under the sun.

 

[AreBeeBee]

I don't buy counterfeits or blatant, unauthorized copies of unique designs. Counterfeits (items marketed or sold as originals or with imitation markings) piss me off because they can easily pollute the market and often misrepresent their materials. The copies part is more sketchy so I can't really claim a moral absolute on that one. I just try to encourage original designs, or original takes on old designs by giving those my money instead. Really it's mostly because in most cases when I'm knife shopping, I'd rather have something a little original. Probably not the most black and white or morally satisfying answer for lots of people, but I'm happy with my collection and who I've given money to, so I guess that's what matters. If I got too upset about this kind of stuff in my day to day life I would give myself an ulcer.

Bingo. That's what drives designs. Makers need to stay ahead of the copiers (not to mention counterfeiters), so they introduce changes on existing models and entirely new models. This is the basic dynamic of an open market, however relentless that may seem from the point of view of a heavily-infringed-upon maker.

 

[EBHM4]

Bingo. That's what drives designs. Makers need to stay ahead of the copiers (not to mention counterfeiters), so they introduce changes on existing models and entirely new models. This is the basic dynamic of an open market, however relentless that may seem from the point of view of a heavily-infringed-upon maker.

Another important aspect no one brings up is the warranty aspect of copies and counterfeits. I understand that with something like a $20 Sebenza clone warranty isn't a problem, but I saw some ZT0777 clones a while back going for $200 from China. What happens if one of those has an issue? As far as I could tell you were SOL. So I think that's another competitive advantage quality companies can (and do) use to compete with the counterfeiters. Now if we're talking about a quality company copying designs, that's kind of a moot point but for dealing with counterfeiters it certainly is worth remembering.

 

[Will Batayte]

I think patents and intellectual property rights should be made stronger and more strictly enforced.
Where is the incentive to bring new things to market in the first place if someone with low morals and integrity is just going to copy you and profit from your hard work?

You have a good point but patents can also be a double edged sword. For example when competing technologies buy and bury patents for things that would greatly help society or the environment. Like big oil.

Patents expire and have to be pretty specific so that they give the person who has a good unique idea time to make some money but at the same time allow people to use and expand on those ideas.

 

[Will Batayte]

Disagree if you like but don't twist my words. If you don't innovate with your product you will fail. Doesn't matter if you are dealing with a counterfeiter or a legitimate competitor. I get that you disagree but to be honest I don't really feel like you're listening to anyone you're arguing with. Read up on the issues with patent trolls and the problems with patent office itself. Or just keep a more simplistic view of the world. I'm cool with that.

Exactly what I'm talking about. Patent trolls are worse then people copying ideas. if I has to choose one or the other to get rid of it'd be the trolls and patent buryers