When is everyone okay with copying designs?

[bodog]

Is anyone here familiar with how Monsanto puts seed saving companies out of business?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/monsanto-wins-lawsuit_n_3417081.html

Essentially, Monsanto sued 147 farmers and seed savers as well as threatened to sue many more because if their patented genes end up getting mixed in with a non-Monsanto crop, that's patent infringement.


The other problem is one that those familiar with Edison will understand. Most of Edison's innovations came from assembling previous smaller innovations into new combinations. Had he not had the enormous resources to buy up those patents, he would not have been able to invent the motion picture camera, for instance. The inability to build something new out of existing technology due to existing patents is an obvious example of stifled innovation.

Yes, i have a huge problem with Monsanto too, but that's exactly what I was speaking of when I spoke of monopolies, shady government regulations, corporate influence etc. That has nothing to do with patents alone.

 

[bodog]

I didn't seem to stifle Edison at all. He did so legally. Your strawman argument is invalid.

Edison may have done things legally, but not necessarily morally. Tesla is more along the lines of doing things legally and morally, but guess whose name is in the history books as the quintessential American inventor.

 

[B34NS]

Just curious, how do patents, trademarks, and copyrights stifle innovation? Monopolies stifle innovation. Restrictive tax laws stifle innovation. Asinine environmental laws stifle innovation. Corporatacrocies stifle innovation. Corrupt governments stifle innovation. But a patent? Come on. That only helps protect those people who are trying to innovate.

Patent trolls.

 

[squarebox86]

Just food for thought... Everything is a just a remix of everything before...
[video=youtube;JGHEhybXvOs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGHEhybXvOs[/video]

 

[RX-79G]

I didn't seem to stifle Edison at all. He did so legally. Your strawman argument is invalid.

Straw man? What are you talking about? I don't think you're using that term correctly. I didn't make an argument - just gave an example of a type of innovation that patents can get in the way of. Are you offended with me or something?


And I didn't say anything about Edison doing anything illegally. I said that Edison was only able to do some of the things he did BECAUSE he had the wealth to buy the component patents. Another inventor with the same idea would not have been successful without that kind of funding.

 

[KenHash]

They were clone/counterfeits. Those knives are all sold in the same couple places, so it is safe too assume that most of the people buying them know they are counterfeit and are not being deceived.

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?

 

[B34NS]

Theres no real viable rationale to purchase a counterfeit.

This. :thumbup:

 

[sabre cat]

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?

I would, or maybe give it away.

I find it amazing just how firm you folks feel on both sides of this issue. Is it because someone is making a clone, copy, etc. of a well known and respected product? The reason that I ask that question is this, I don't find anyone ready for war when someone like Gerber copies a knife made by CRKT. Yet, that is what I see here.

Another question, I have seen time and time again forum members claim that copied knives hurt our hobby and BF. Would someone please explain how that can be? I'm sorry, but I just don't see the tie in.

 

[B34NS]

I would, or maybe give it away.

I find it amazing just how firm you folks feel on both sides of this issue. Is it because someone is making a clone, copy, etc. of a well known and respected product? The reason that I ask that question is this, I don't find anyone ready for war when someone like Gerber copies a knife made by CRKT.

Another question, I have seen time and time again forum members claim that copied knives hurt our hobby and BF. Would someone please explain how that can be? I'm sorry, but I just don't see the tie in.

There is a fine line between homage and ripping off. The economic perspective is as varied as the knifemakers themselves.

 

[Balls Deep]

[QUOTE/]I'm ok with copies that say they are copies, much like Wall handmade knives , that say they are styled after Randalls.

Even if I manufactured knives I wouldnt feel as bad is someone smaller or as big as me copied my design stating that it is based on my design.

I can understand the problems of big manufacturers copying designs from smaller makers, and appropiating them, which is just filthy and the worst kind of bad.

As a note I would like to expose a recent kick in the groin one of my fave brands gave me:

TOPS knives has copied a Kizlyar design not saying it is their original design but not stating the contraty either. This pisses me off. I'm a faithful fan of Kizlyar and it hurts me, because as a fan also of TOPS, if they told the truth I'd probably considered also buying their knife.

Here in the pictures you can see a TOPS "Wild pig hunter" and down two iterations of the Kizlyar model, the (more or less famous and very appreciated) Phoenix 1.

I'm ok with copies that say they are copies, much like Wall handmade knives , that say they are styled after Randalls.

Even if I manufactured knives I wouldnt feel as bad is someone smaller or as big as me copied my design stating that it is based on my design.

I can understand the problems of big manufacturers copying designs from smaller makers, and appropiating them, which is just filthy and the worst kind of bad.

As a note I would like to expose a recent kick in the groin one of my fave brands gave me:

TOPS knives has copied a Kizlyar design not saying it is their original design but not stating the contraty either. This pisses me off. I'm a faithful fan of Kizlyar and it hurts me, because as a fan also of TOPS, if they told the truth I'd probably considered also buying their knife.

Here in the pictures you can see a TOPS "Wild pig hunter" and down two iterations of the Kizlyar model, the (more or less famous and very appreciated) Phoenix 1.

BIG dissapointment, TOPS!. How I love you... now I dont even know how many other designs you copied... TOPS makes awesome knives of their own, why copy others? (without saying)

I think this is dishonest, correct me if Im wrong.[QUOTE/]

These knives are pretty different. The tops has a different pommel than both and a "pig sticker" design is a pretty common blade shape. This is not something that I would consider to be a stolen our counterfeit product. The pommel and handle scales are different than the two other knives shown as is the blade coating. You can keep liking tops.

 

[craytab]

This may be true of something as small and unimportant as the luxury/hobby knife industry.

But patent enforcement is killing agriculture and biomed.

I thought this thread was about knives.

At the end of the day, people purchase CRKs and Striders for the name, not just the look. Counterfeits are never going to rival real luxury goods for profits.

You have contradicted yourself. If it is just the name then a knife with a counterfeit CRK logo surely hurts legit business.

That is your opinion and I respect that. My personal opinion is that I am not willing to shell out the prices some of these genuine knives command without first being able to get an idea of what to expect from that knife. There is a thread on here right now where a buyer purchased a Sebenza and is disappointed with it. It's a shame to drop over $400.00 on a knife and not like it. The fact that I was able to purchase those clones to try out led me to purchase the real deal when I would not otherwise have done so.

They were clone/counterfeits. Those knives are all sold in the same couple places, so it is safe too assume that most of the people buying them know they are counterfeit and are not being deceived.

It is not my opinion. It is fact. You are buying counterfeit knives. You admit so. You have no problem hurting legit business by supporting illegal ones. This is a fact.

Selling things isn't always so cut and dry. I just finished an hour long conversation with Ebay today because of some complications that arose when I sold some katanas to an international buyer. After Ebay and Paypal fees taking a chunk of my money, I lost quite a bit selling those swords. I also recently saw a Sebenza 25 sell on Ebay for $250.00. That means the owner got around $200.00 bucks for a knife worth over $400.00.

This is why Ebay sucks. You don't have to let go of stuff for less than you want. The guy who sold that seb was either stupid or the thing was really only worth $200. Using examples of other peoples stupidity to prove your point is not a good idea. Go look on the exchange and you will see what folks who know what they are doing get for their used Sebs.

Is anyone here familiar with how Monsanto puts seed saving companies out of business?

Again, I thought we were talking about knives.

Opinions are just that. They are not facts. Despite my purchase of a Spyderco clone, Spyderco seems to be doing rather well. I've even bought a few of their knives myself.

They are not opinions. Go ask Sal what he thinks the counterfeits you buy are doing to his business.

I find it amazing just how firm you folks feel on both sides of this issue. Is it because someone is making a clone, copy, etc. of a well known and respected product? The reason that I ask that question is this, I don't find anyone ready for war when someone like Gerber copies a knife made by CRKT. Yet, that is what I see here.

If Gerber copies a knife from CRKT Gerber can take CRKT to court. There is recourse. With overseas counterfeiting of American knives the recourse is difficult if not impossible.

Another question, I have seen time and time again forum members claim that copied knives hurt our hobby and BF. Would someone please explain how that can be? I'm sorry, but I just don't see the tie in.

Counterfeits hurt our hobby by directly hurting the pockets of the company that makes the legit product and by lowering the quality level of the product to an unsuspecting buyer. People who get a crappy PM2 counterfeit unknowingly might write Spyderco off because of the bad experience. Not to mention the safety needed to make a quality locking mechanism for a folding knife. Do you trust your fingers to that Chinese knock off?

 

[bld522]

Still at it, huh? We can argue until we're blue in the face, but those who support counterfeiting will not have their minds changed by those that don't and those who don't support counterfeiting will not have their minds changed by those that do. And it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to figure out which side is winning.

Let the good times roll!

 

[RX-79G]

I thought this thread was about knives.

I thought this thread (which I started) was about copying designs and styles. It is not about counterfeit or direct patent infringement. But if you insist on discussing such things, you'll have to forgive me also failing to stick to the topic. Fair enough?

You have contradicted yourself. If it is just the name then a knife with a counterfeit CRK logo surely hurts legit business.

No I haven't. "Fake CRK by Kevin John" is not a name brand. People who want a CRK want a CRK, not just something that says CRK. "The Name" usually means that we're talking about the real deal, not just anything with that name written on it. Knife people buy CRKs to satisfy their own need to own something excellent, not to appear ritzy to their friends.

Since you seem unclear about this thread or what I personally think:

- I don't think there is a clear line where knife people will ever agree on when copying a design is an act of homage, and when it is stealing someone's property. I gave the examples of the Nessmuk, Randall, Loveless and Buck 110. Even individuals with apparently strong beliefs like Karda couldn't define what they were talking about.

- I am never in favor of violating patents or copyrights. They directly hurt the folks that hold them. However, I can still see how patents have been misused and abused to the detriment of society. I think knives are hobby items and their patents or lack thereof are unimportant to society, aside from the need to maintain law and order. No knife patent is going to spawn a new era of technology - they are just tiny variations on a very basic concept.

- Counterfeit is counterfeit. Doesn't matter if it is a fake CRK or a fake Treasury bill.

 

[craytab]

I thought this thread (which I started) was about copying designs and styles. It is not about counterfeit or direct patent infringement.

It doesn't matter who started it. Once you create it, a thread is not just yours anymore. Within limits, it goes where the community wants it to go. Plus, some lively debate has ensued on the subject that I think we can both agree is needed. Karda even jumped in to help delegitimize the pro counterfeit crowd.

 

[craytab]

Still at it, huh? We can argue until we're blue in the face, but those who support counterfeiting will not have their minds changed by those that don't and those who don't support counterfeiting will not have their minds changed by those that do. And it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to figure out which side is winning.

Let the good times roll!

Very true, but there is value to be had here. It is a good way to learn who to add to your ignore list

 

[Balls Deep]

[QUOTE/]I'm ok with copies that say they are copies, much like Wall handmade knives , that say they are styled after Randalls.

Even if I manufactured knives I wouldnt feel as bad is someone smaller or as big as me copied my design stating that it is based on my design.

I can understand the problems of big manufacturers copying designs from smaller makers, and appropiating them, which is just filthy and the worst kind of bad.

As a note I would like to expose a recent kick in the groin one of my fave brands gave me:

TOPS knives has copied a Kizlyar design not saying it is their original design but not stating the contraty either. This pisses me off. I'm a faithful fan of Kizlyar and it hurts me, because as a fan also of TOPS, if they told the truth I'd probably considered also buying their knife.

Here in the pictures you can see a TOPS "Wild pig hunter" and down two iterations of the Kizlyar model, the (more or less famous and very appreciated) Phoenix 1.

I'm ok with copies that say they are copies, much like Wall handmade knives , that say they are styled after Randalls.

Even if I manufactured knives I wouldnt feel as bad is someone smaller or as big as me copied my design stating that it is based on my design.

I can understand the problems of big manufacturers copying designs from smaller makers, and appropiating them, which is just filthy and the worst kind of bad.

As a note I would like to expose a recent kick in the groin one of my fave brands gave me:

TOPS knives has copied a Kizlyar design not saying it is their original design but not stating the contraty either. This pisses me off. I'm a faithful fan of Kizlyar and it hurts me, because as a fan also of TOPS, if they told the truth I'd probably considered also buying their knife.

Here in the pictures you can see a TOPS "Wild pig hunter" and down two iterations of the Kizlyar model, the (more or less famous and very appreciated) Phoenix 1.

BIG dissapointment, TOPS!. How I love you... now I dont even know how many other designs you copied... TOPS makes awesome knives of their own, why copy others? (without saying)

I think this is dishonest, correct me if Im wrong.

These knives are pretty different. The tops has a different pommel than both and a "pig sticker" design is a pretty common blade shape. This is not something that I would consider to be a stolen our counterfeit product. The pommel and handle scales are different than the two other knives shown as is the blade coating. You can keep liking tops.

Why is the quote all screwed up? I think you know where he ends and I start.

 

[RX-79G]

It doesn't matter who started it. Once you create it, a thread is not just yours anymore. Within limits, it goes where the community wants it to go. Plus, some lively debate has ensued on the subject that I think we can both agree is needed. Karda even jumped in to help delegitimize the pro counterfeit crowd.

Since you seem to understand thread drift, why are you lecturing me?

 

[craytab]

Since you seem to understand thread drift, why are you lecturing me?

Why would you see this as lecturing?

 

[RX-79G]

Why would you see this as lecturing?

I'm pretty sure at this point that you are simply wasting everyone's time. But I will explain it to you:

1. Thread goes into patents.
2. Someone remarks that patents in general might not be such a good idea.
3. Someone else wonders how this is possible.
4. I post some examples where patents in general have served society poorly.
5. You reply to my quote with "I thought this thread was about knives," as if I was the party responsible for the thread not being about knives anymore.

If you object to thread drift (which your first response reflects, but your follow up post denies), then I suggest you use the "reply with quote" feature to chastise the first person responsible for being what you consider off topic, rather than someone who responded several posts later.

This thread was about knives and their design. You seem to understand that it isn't anymore, so maybe you'd consider acting like it.

 

[craytab]

To Karda:

Straw man? What are you talking about? I don't think you're using that term correctly. I didn't make an argument - just gave an example of a type of innovation that patents can get in the way of. Are you offended with me or something?

To me:

I'm pretty sure at this point that you are simply wasting everyone's time. But I will explain it to you:

1. Thread goes into patents.
2. Someone remarks that patents in general might not be such a good idea.
3. Someone else wonders how this is possible.
4. I post some examples where patents in general have served society poorly.
5. You reply to my quote with "I thought this thread was about knives," as if I was the party responsible for the thread not being about knives anymore.

If you object to thread drift (which your first response reflects, but your follow up post denies), then I suggest you use the "reply with quote" feature to chastise the first person responsible for being what you consider off topic, rather than someone who responded several posts later.

This thread was about knives and their design. You seem to understand that it isn't anymore, so maybe you'd consider acting like it.

Wow! I think you might be taking this whole thread thing far too seriously. I'm out until there is actually something pertinent to talk about.