Why is it okay to clone a traditional, but not clone a modern knife?

[Silent H]

In fact it's actually the "Done thing" within historical sword reproduction market and collectors circles, everybody wants an "Exact replica" of a specific historical model, and if it isn't copied 100% accurately people complain.
Same goes for traditional slipjoints in the modern knife factories, most of them are exact copies of historical models from sheffield or other cutlers in the UK dating back to the Georgian, Victorian or Edwardian periods etc sometimes even earlier from the 1700's.
You try and copy a sebenza though or a PM2 and everybody will be up in arms, even if none of the design features are patents, the mere act of copying the blade shape is sometimes enough to have the community up in arms.

I think you're looking at different markets there. If it's somebody's goal to collect replicas of historical blades, of course they're going to want an exact copy of that blade.

As for traditional folders vs modern folders, many of those traditional folders have become "patterns" that makers do their own twist on. It's not an exact analogy, but it's almost like a song or book being in the public domain. Rather than comparing a traditional pattern like a Barlow to a specific knife like a Sebenza, you should compare a Barlow to a framelock knife. There's a ton of ways to make a Barlow, and there's a ton of ways to make a framelock. When there are tons of cheap copies of a specific Barlow, or a specific framelock (like the Sebenza) that's when there's a problem.

 

[r8shell]

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe it is the equivalent of recording a song that is in "public domain"
Designs that are hundreds of years old, with no current holder of copyright or patent are generally fair game. It would only be a counterfeit if an illegitimate trademark were to be stamped on such a knife.

 

[Alberta Ed]

Tens of thousands of years have passed since the first hominid picked up a sharp stone (and cut himself with it). Since then there have been myriad variations on blade design and material, so it's pretty well impossible to say what's original or what's a copy.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

I think you're looking at different markets there. If it's somebody's goal to collect replicas of historical blades, of course they're going to want an exact copy of that blade.

As for traditional folders vs modern folders, many of those traditional folders have become "patterns" that makers do their own twist on. It's not an exact analogy, but it's almost like a song or book being in the public domain. Rather than comparing a traditional pattern like a Barlow to a specific knife like a Sebenza, you should compare a Barlow to a framelock knife. There's a ton of ways to make a Barlow, and there's a ton of ways to make a framelock. When there are tons of cheap copies of a specific Barlow, or a specific framelock (like the Sebenza) that's when there's a problem.

That's the exact term I used for it and I think it is seen as public domain. I do understand putting your own twist on a design and altering it, that has legal term aswel "transformative" where you slightly modify a copyrighted piece of media and make it your own, it then becomes a new creation in and of itself. But we don't just see those transformative homage twists, we see exact copies.
It's got to the point now that I can't even tell if i'm looking at a well preserved antique sheffield knife in mint condition, or if it's a modern copy of an old model.
A lot of the modern reproduction slipjoints coming out of factories today are exact copies of older sheffield knives and old German knives. Also a lot of these old companies are still around today, still making knives, like Boker, many of the old Sheffield companies that did come up with these designs in the 1800's are still in business right now. We have to get close up shots of slipjoints to tell who made them, because so many have been copied and cloned that it's impossible to tlell them apart from each other without reading the brand stamped on the blade. Even the exact shield designs are copied, exact bolter shape and size, exact size, exact blade profiles.
We accept cloning of older models even when the makers of those older models are still in business today or have gone out of business. But if somebody copies the blade shape and handle shape of a Sebenza 21, even without violating trademark names, putting their own brand name on the blade, people will say "No that's wrong you are cloning the Sebenza" even though they have not tried to pass it off as a CRK brand knife, just merely copying the shape of the Sebenza is frowned upon. But copying a Boker model exactly is accepted.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe it is the equivalent of recording a song that is in "public domain"
Designs that are hundreds of years old, with no current holder of copyright or patent are generally fair game. It would only be a counterfeit if an illegitimate trademark were to be stamped on such a knife.

This is true, but people aren't just taking issue with legal violations, people in the knife community take issue with coping blade shapes and handle shapes, even the silhouette of a well known knife. If you bring out a knife that has the same silhouette as a PM2 like Ganzo did, nobody in the knife community would acceppt that knife.
People treat blade shape and handle design as if they are patents and owned by the company that made them popular. Nobody can release a knife that looks like the Sebenza 21, it won't be accepted.
I could literally get a stencil rent a CNC machine, get my Boker Barlow or my Taylors Eye Witness Antique completely clone and reverse engineer those blades, and market them for sale and nobody would question me. But those 2 companies are still around right now making knives. Nobody would tell me I'm wrong for doing it.
If I did that with my Sebenza 21, eveybody in the knife community would call me a filthy thief.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

Tens of thousands of years have passed since the first hominid picked up a sharp stone (and cut himself with it). Since then there have been myriad variations on blade design and material, so it's pretty well impossible to say what's original or what's a copy.

Well we do have quite extensive records, museum, private collections, books, historical findings and even company records dating quite far back. We obviously can't trace pre history flint knives to original makers. We can however trace design origins from the 1700's and 1800's. We can find out what Early Boker models were made, and find out which town, country and even company first created certain types of knives and swords.
Especially when talking about swords and military issued objects, we have extensive data on military pattern sabres for example. We know exactly when each pattern was created and by which country, for example I have an 1845 pattern infantry officers sabre next to me right now. I know who made that, it was made by Pillin, in London, and we know who it was issued to and what exact period and even what battles it was in. We can trace knife models and see who came up with them if we dig for the info.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

I used to get angry when several companies and makers copied Fred Perrin's "Griffe". But to no avail. Some folks cannot be shamed, and if it isn't or wasn't against the law, it's not enforceable but by people voting with their wallets.

Copyrights and patents expire, and as my late, dear friend Harold "Kit" Carson used to say to me when we had this discussion about others copying his work, he'd say "there's nothing new under the sun and we all stood on the shoulders of others that came before us in producing our designs".

If he could have that level of equanimity on the matter, with the skin he had in the game, I felt it wasn't something I should let my blood pressure boil over.

I still try my best not to knowingly support ripoff artists.

I remember a few years ago I was having trouble drawing the outline of a curved blade onto some bar stock. I tried about 5 times to get the curve perfectly right, aand I kept messing the depth up. So I went into my large safe, pulled out a long curved blade, slapped it down on the bar stock and drew around it with my sharpie.
I think put the blade back in the safe and thought to myself "As if anybody will ever know, it's just a curved line"
To this day I have never told anybody that, well untile now haha.

 

[Danke42]

Not being rude but you're post is missing the actual point of this thread, you are kind of answering the wrong distinctive question here. This isn't about why people buy clones or why makers clone knives. It's specifically about why the knife community view cloning modern knives as bad, but cloning traditionals is respected and fully accepted.
Not counterfeits or stealing brand names, but copying knife design, blade shape, handle shape, directly copying the look and style of a knife.
Copying a CRK design is a no no, copying a Joseph Rodgers, or Taylors Eye Witness that's A Okay.

Not to be rude to you but you are missing the point by quite a bit.

Copying recently living makers or companies is disrespectful and dishonest. In almost all cases the modern thieves steal the IP and then do their best to obscure the back story of their product. Sometimes to the point of copying packaging and literature.

Early knives patterns have become common property of all. Just like you don't need to pay a royalty on purchasing a house or a car to the original innovator. Will that happen in 100 years with modern knives? It's hard to say. I suspect at some point you'll be able scan and the 3D print a knife in your home mill; some will buy a plan from a maker and others will pirate a copy of the file and sell that.

 

[OrangeBlueOrangeBlue]

Probs because the makers of the traditional have long past and can not challenge you in court but say an Andrew Demko can.

Can you even patent a blade shape or handle shape of a knife? doesn't a patent have to include a name and or unique design function rather than just look like something. Because if a skateboard maker copies another skateboard design, aren't they both just skateboards. Like a butter knife, can you really patent a butter knife shape, and challenge another butterknife maker for cloning your butterknife design?
Demko can only patent the name of his product, and his lock function, not really his knife shape and style.
I mean aren't all of Demkos knives just drop point blades with sabre grinds (or 90% of them) He borrowed those designs from old makers anyway.

Generally speaking, you can't patent a blade shape or handle shape (at least under US law). The American patent system only covers novel, useful inventions (traditional utility patents) and novel non-functional/purely decorative designs (design patent). Other than pure "art knives" that can qualify for design patents, you won't really have much in the way of protection. Copyright covers creative works, so again, not much help for most knifemakers. Trademark is also very limited, because it needs to be something so distinctive that it's associated with a particular source. In the knife industry, locks are really the primary thing that gets protected (through patents), although logos, model names, etc. are also protected through trademarks.

If you take a design like the Sebenza and copy it, that's perfectly legal. You can't call it a Sebenza (trademark) or use any of CRK's other trademarked IP, but the actual blueprint design of the knife is not protected in any way. SRM/Land make an entire series of knives that are clearly copying the look of a Sebenza, but are branded with their own logos. This is where the line between a counterfeit/knockoff and a legal "homage" is drawn. Ganzo takes a lot of heat around here, but they very clearly do not try to pass their knives off as anything other than a Ganzo. In some cases, they do something I wholeheartedly support: taking features of different knives/brands and making something novel, like a RAT 2 with an Axis Lock.

As to why people care about "homage" knives that use modern designs but not traditional ones, I think it's a combination of things.

• As many have said, the traditional patterns have been around for hundreds of years in some cases, so they've long since passed into the "public domain"; basically, people have been making copies of them since before any of us were born, so it's not a problem; "that's the way it's always been"
• Economic arguments: you will see claims that "legitimate" companies lose out when other companies utilize unprotected IP; that blanket assertion is, given the number of variables involved, very speculative; since most of these tend to be sold on the lower end of the market, it will very much depend on whether the "clone" competes in the same price category as the original; does CRK actually lose Sebenza sales to $20 versions sold on Amazon? No, probably not. Does Ontario lose RAT sales to Ganzo versions at or just below their pricing? Arguably yes.
• Misunderstanding of the law: despite the legal protections for knife designs being relatively scant, some people will look at this sort of copying and immediately assume it's illegal
• Moral arguments: for some, even if they acknowledge that it isn't illegal, they'll fall back to "just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean it's okay"; if somebody thinks something is inherently immoral, it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks, they're not going to change their mind
• "Value": if you derive personal gratification from having an exclusive, expensive product, that's devalued when someone can get a knockoff for a fraction of the cost of the real deal; a lot of knife enthusiasts participate in areas of the hobby where value and utility are secondary to craftsmanship, artistry and intangible feelings, whereas the general public views the idea of expensive knives as being unjustifiable; in a hobby where the difference in utility is relatively insignificant between a $1000 knife and a $20 version of the same design, and value is largely determined by exclusivity and the presence of details that are generally not obvious to someone who isn't an enthusiast, clones can be a personal affront
• "Geographic issues": a not insignificant number of people in the knife community have very negative feelings toward the place that most modern clones come from...
• Double standards: on its face, this entire discussion is premised on a broadly accepted double-standard; very generally speaking, people are more willing to create/accept a double standard when it helps protect their own views; this is most apparent when people will selectively excuse or ignore IP theft by brands they like but bash on companies they don't like for doing similar things

 

[Londinium Armoury]

Michael Walker didn't invent the liner lock. He improved it and popularized it, but it has around been since at least WWII.
Traditional knife patterns are not patented (or any patents have long expired) and you cannot patent a blade shape on its own.
The reason the knife community gets so up in arms over modern cloning is because it hurts our hobby and does financial damages to the companies that spend all of the time and resources to innovate and develop the tools that we love.
We respect those companies efforts, and clone makers disrespect them.

I didn't know that, I thought he invented the lock himself, you learn something new everyday. I don't think i've ever seen a WW2 era linerlock, I'll have to try find some. I do understand the RnD issue, a company can put financial effort into developing something, and then some guys come along with a CNC machine and some computer code and replicate your efforts.
I get how that can feel, but I also think people might be over looking what's happening in the traditional market. For example aren't people doing just that when it comes to traditionals, and they are doing it to companies that are still around. I don't think people are even looking out for exact traditional clones, we see so many damn traditional slippies being pumped out they all lookt he same who can tell which one was directly cloned. For all we know Rough Ryder just grabbed 25 case knives took them apart and completely cloned them all. Or Queen cutlery just grabbed a Bunch of Bokers and Sheffield knives 40 years ago and said okay we will clone all of those knives and put out own stamp on it.
I don't think people are even trying to look for traditional clones, but everyone has their eyes peeled for modern clones. Not even clones, I was talking to some guy on YouTube the other day, and I can't remember what knife the video was about but it was black and white, monochrome looking design. I said hey that looks pretty nice. Then the guy said yeah of course it's nice it's a clone of so and so knife. I said sorry I've never heard of that knife. So I went to look it up, and the knife barely even looked the same as it. The blade shape was very similar and the choil looked the same, but evrything else was different. Handle wasn't the same, colour wasn't the same, weight wasn't the same, length wasn't the same. Just there mere vague resemblance was enough to convince this guy that the knife was blasphemy, because it had a rough blade resemblance, that was enough to condemn the knife to the lowest level of hell for him lol.
I mean if that's enough to call a knife a clone, couldn't you say the Benchmade Anthem is a clone of the Sebenza 21 drop point blade? I mean to me the blade shapes look the same (outline maybe not grind geometry) If Ganzo made the Anthem with a framelock everyone would probably say it's a Sebenza clone.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

Generally speaking, you can't patent a blade shape or handle shape (at least under US law). The American patent system only covers novel, useful inventions (traditional utility patents) and novel non-functional/purely decorative designs (design patent). Other than pure "art knives" that can qualify for design patents, you won't really have much in the way of protection. Copyright covers creative works, so again, not much help for most knifemakers. Trademark is also very limited, because it needs to be something so distinctive that it's associated with a particular source. In the knife industry, locks are really the primary thing that gets protected (through patents), although logos, model names, etc. are also protected through trademarks.

If you take a design like the Sebenza and copy it, that's perfectly legal. You can't call it a Sebenza (trademark) or use any of CRK's other trademarked IP, but the actual blueprint design of the knife is not protected in any way. SRM/Land make an entire series of knives that are clearly copying the look of a Sebenza, but are branded with their own logos. This is where the line between a counterfeit/knockoff and a legal "homage" is drawn. Ganzo takes a lot of heat around here, but they very clearly do not try to pass their knives off as anything other than a Ganzo. In some cases, they do something I wholeheartedly support: taking features of different knives/brands and making something novel, like a RAT 2 with an Axis Lock.

As to why people care about "homage" knives that use modern designs but not traditional ones, I think it's a combination of things.

• As many have said, the traditional patterns have been around for hundreds of years in some cases, so they've long since passed into the "public domain"; basically, people have been making copies of them since before any of us were born, so it's not a problem; "that's the way it's always been"
• Economic arguments: you will see claims that "legitimate" companies lose out when other companies utilize unprotected IP; that blanket assertion is, given the number of variables involved, very speculative; since most of these tend to be sold on the lower end of the market, it will very much depend on whether the "clone" competes in the same price category as the original; does CRK actually lose Sebenza sales to $20 versions sold on Amazon? No, probably not. Does Ontario lose RAT sales to Ganzo versions at or just below their pricing? Arguably yes.
• Misunderstanding of the law: despite the legal protections for knife designs being relatively scant, some people will look at this sort of copying and immediately assume it's illegal
• Moral arguments: for some, even if they acknowledge that it isn't illegal, they'll fall back to "just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean it's okay"; if somebody thinks something is inherently immoral, it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks, they're not going to change their mind
• "Value": if you derive personal gratification from having an exclusive, expensive product, that's devalued when someone can get a knockoff for a fraction of the cost of the real deal; a lot of knife enthusiasts participate in areas of the hobby where value and utility are secondary to craftsmanship, artistry and intangible feelings, whereas the general public views the idea of expensive knives as being unjustifiable; in a hobby where the difference in utility is relatively insignificant between a $1000 knife and a $20 version of the same design, and value is largely determined by exclusivity and the presence of details that are generally not obvious to someone who isn't an enthusiast, clones can be a personal affront
• "Geographic issues": a not insignificant number of people in the knife community have very negative feelings toward the place that most modern clones come from...
• Double standards: on its face, this entire discussion is premised on a broadly accepted double-standard; very generally speaking, people are more willing to create/accept a double standard when it helps protect their own views; this is most apparent when people will selectively excuse or ignore IP theft by brands they like but bash on companies they don't like for doing similar things

Very good points, I posed this question earlier in the thread, about lapse of time, entering public domain. Would it be acceptable to clone a Benchmade Adamas, a PM2 or a Sebenza 21 in 100+ years time? I think it would. As long as none of us are still around to wave a stick at them for doing it.
I think time is a huge factor in this discussion if not the biggest factor and defining one. I also have noticed some companies and makers get a pass for "homage" especialy if they are American based. If Real Steel or Kizer did a homage of the wrong knife I can see people coming against them for it. But if Microtech or Benchmade copied something I can see them getting a free pass.
I mentioned the Benchmade Anthem in my last post, I can't help but notice the blade on the Anthem looks suspiciously Sebenza like.

 

[r8shell]

I didn't know that, I thought he invented the lock himself, you learn something new everyday. I don't think i've ever seen a WW2 era linerlock, I'll have to try find some. I do understand the RnD issue, a company can put financial effort into developing something, and then some guys come along with a CNC machine and some computer code and replicate your efforts.

The "TL-29" Lineman's Knife is a WWII era liner lock knife. (Different from a modern liner lock, because it also has a slipjoint backspring) Pretty much every American knife company made these for military issue and then for the civilian market. I don't know which company came up with the idea first, I'll have to do a little research.

 

[herisson]

L Londinium Armoury As someone, from what I get from your posts, quite involved in the knife world, your question comes off as a bit strange or naïve. However, I will state the obvious : traditional patterns (19th century and older, or a tad younger) were not trademarked. Any innovation was fair game to pilfer for fellow craftsmen. So much so, that as early as in the 15th century, in France, a king decided to impose a strict guild's rule upon the town of Thiers (Mecca of knife making in France at the time, still is somehow) because the ripping of ideas was getting out of bounds. In the 20th century and more so, in the 21th century, intellectual property has grown to be a thing of great importance. So, yes, seing an Axis lock on some Ganzo fake crap, as an example, makes me puke.
"Homaging" a Bowie is OK : nobody knows what the original Bowie looked like, and... there was no copyright registered. Get wild !
"Homaging" a katana would be cool for the same reasons.
Don't clone respected knife makers, because there you get the flame thrower.

 

[OrangeBlueOrangeBlue]

I didn't know that, I thought he invented the lock himself, you learn something new everyday. I don't think i've ever seen a WW2 era linerlock, I'll have to try find some. I do understand the RnD issue, a company can put financial effort into developing something, and then some guys come along with a CNC machine and some computer code and replicate your efforts.
I get how that can feel, but I also think people might be over looking what's happening in the traditional market. For example aren't people doing just that when it comes to traditionals, and they are doing it to companies that are still around. I don't think people are even looking out for exact traditional clones, we see so many damn traditional slippies being pumped out they all lookt he same who can tell which one was directly cloned. For all we know Rough Ryder just grabbed 25 case knives took them apart and completely cloned them all. Or Queen cutlery just grabbed a Bunch of Bokers and Sheffield knives 40 years ago and said okay we will clone all of those knives and put out own stamp on it.
I don't think people are even trying to look for traditional clones, but everyone has their eyes peeled for modern clones. Not even clones, I was talking to some guy on YouTube the other day, and I can't remember what knife the video was about but it was black and white, monochrome looking design. I said hey that looks pretty nice. Then the guy said yeah of course it's nice it's a clone of so and so knife. I said sorry I've never heard of that knife. So I went to look it up, and the knife barely even looked the same as it. The blade shape was very similar and the choil looked the same, but evrything else was different. Handle wasn't the same, colour wasn't the same, weight wasn't the same, length wasn't the same. Just there mere vague resemblance was enough to convince this guy that the knife was blasphemy, because it had a rough blade resemblance, that was enough to condemn the knife to the lowest level of hell for him lol.
I mean if that's enough to call a knife a clone, couldn't you say the Benchmade Anthem is a clone of the Sebenza 21 drop point blade? I mean to me the blade shapes look the same (outline maybe not grind geometry) If Ganzo made the Anthem with a framelock everyone would probably say it's a Sebenza clone.

Original "liner lock" patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US825093A/en
Walker probably could've received a patent based on the removal of the back spring and implementation of the detent to hold the knife closed, but didn't.

 

[killgar]

The "TL-29" Lineman's Knife is a WWII era liner lock knife. (Different from a modern liner lock, because it also has a slipjoint backspring) Pretty much every American knife company made these for military issue and then for the civilian market. I don't know which company came up with the idea first, I'll have to do a little research.

I once mentioned on this forum that the TL-29 was the first "liner lock". Another member explained the difference to me- the TL-29 has a backspring that keeps the blade in both the open and closed position, with the liner acting as a safety. But with the Walker liner lock the liner keeps the blade open, and closed using a ball detent. My understanding is that these are two very distinctive uses of a "liner" in a folding knife, and that each could have been independently patented.

EDIT: Late again. I was typing as Orangeblueorangeblue was posting ^ .

 

[S-3 ranch]

Michael Walker didn't invent the liner lock. He improved it and popularized it, but it has around been since at least WWII.
Traditional knife patterns are not patented (or any patents have long expired) and you cannot patent a blade shape on its own.
The reason the knife community gets so up in arms over modern cloning is because it hurts our hobby and does financial damages to the companies that spend all of the time and resources to innovate and develop the tools that we love.
We respect those companies efforts, and clone makers disrespect them.

Yep saw a CRK clone on the net for $125 s25v steel, birth certificate, same steel same exact every material
Probably worth buying just for the steel could care less about false prestige

 

[Londinium Armoury]

L Londinium Armoury As someone, from what I get from your posts, quite involved in the knife world, your question comes off as a bit strange or naïve. However, I will state the obvious : traditional patterns (19th century and older, or a tad younger) were not trademarked. Any innovation was fair game to pilfer for fellow craftsmen. So much so, that as early as in the 15th century, in France, a king decided to impose a strict guild's rule upon the town of Thiers (Mecca of knife making in France at the time, still is somehow) because the ripping of ideas was getting out of bounds. In the 20th century and more so, in the 21th century, intellectual property has grown to be a thing of great importance. So, yes, seing an Axis lock on some Ganzo fake crap, as an example, makes me puke.
"Homaging" a Bowie is OK : nobody knows what the original Bowie looked like, and... there was no copyright registered. Get wild !
"Homaging" a katana would be cool for the same reasons.
Don't clone respected knife makers, because there you get the flame thrower.

This is where my contention lies though, I'm not naive of the specifics, it's the details between the specifics i'm contesting. I get the patents and functional utility fruad of mechanisms. A unique lock patent where the trademark has not expired, nobody is contesting that fact.
But you can't patent a knife design, it becomes blurry when we are talking about folding knives because everybody thinks of locking mechs. But as far as I know you simply cannot trademark a fixed blade shape. You can trademark your blades name, and company logo and name. But the actual shape of a piece of steel and wood, that can't be done. I will mention the Benchmade Anthem one more time, I personally believe the Benchmade Anthem is a direct copy of a Sebenza 21 drop point blade shape.
The patent for the Axis lock has expired, I know Ganzo used it before the expiration date, but I also feel that if Ganzo waited until the day of the expiration they would have still got pushback from the knfie community for using something people see as owned by Benchmade.

 

[r8shell]

I once mentioned on this forum that the TL-29 was the first "liner lock". Another member explained the difference to me- the TL-29 has a backspring that keeps the blade in both the open and closed position, with the liner acting as a safety. But with the Walker liner lock the liner keeps the blade open, and closed using a ball detent. My understanding is that these are two very distinctive uses of a "liner" in a folding knife, and that each could have been independently patented.

EDIT: Late again. I was typing as Orangeblueorangeblue was posting .

Yes, it is different than the modern version. I call it a liner lock because the liner locks the blade open. It's secondary to the backspring, but one does have to disengage it to close the knife.

 

[danbot]

I didn't know that, I thought he invented the lock himself, you learn something new everyday. I don't think i've ever seen a WW2 era linerlock, I'll have to try find some. I do understand the RnD issue, a company can put financial effort into developing something, and then some guys come along with a CNC machine and some computer code and replicate your efforts.
I get how that can feel, but I also think people might be over looking what's happening in the traditional market. For example aren't people doing just that when it comes to traditionals, and they are doing it to companies that are still around. I don't think people are even looking out for exact traditional clones, we see so many damn traditional slippies being pumped out they all lookt he same who can tell which one was directly cloned. For all we know Rough Ryder just grabbed 25 case knives took them apart and completely cloned them all. Or Queen cutlery just grabbed a Bunch of Bokers and Sheffield knives 40 years ago and said okay we will clone all of those knives and put out own stamp on it.
I don't think people are even trying to look for traditional clones, but everyone has their eyes peeled for modern clones. Not even clones, I was talking to some guy on YouTube the other day, and I can't remember what knife the video was about but it was black and white, monochrome looking design. I said hey that looks pretty nice. Then the guy said yeah of course it's nice it's a clone of so and so knife. I said sorry I've never heard of that knife. So I went to look it up, and the knife barely even looked the same as it. The blade shape was very similar and the choil looked the same, but evrything else was different. Handle wasn't the same, colour wasn't the same, weight wasn't the same, length wasn't the same. Just there mere vague resemblance was enough to convince this guy that the knife was blasphemy, because it had a rough blade resemblance, that was enough to condemn the knife to the lowest level of hell for him lol.
I mean if that's enough to call a knife a clone, couldn't you say the Benchmade Anthem is a clone of the Sebenza 21 drop point blade? I mean to me the blade shapes look the same (outline maybe not grind geometry) If Ganzo made the Anthem with a framelock everyone would probably say it's a Sebenza clone.

Here is a pic of a WW2 folding machete that used a liner lock.

Again, you cannot patent a blade shape.
You cannot "clone" (in the sense of what we mean here by cloning) a traditional pattern, because there is no one that can claim any IP rights to those patterns.

 

[herisson]

Yet, you get the Dozier flavour from every knife he designed, even those in collab with A.G Russell. Isn't that a thing ? And just stop mentioning Ganzo as an example in this debate. Really... I hope you are not that silly.