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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Londinium Armoury said:
This is where my contention lies though, I'mnot neive 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 fromt he knfie community for using something people see as owned by Benchmade.
Click to expand...

So... what is your point? That knife makers shouldn't reproduce historic patterns (at least not without giving credit to the first or latest maker from whom they copied) or that modern knives should just be a non-judgemental free-for-all of imitation as long as existing copyrights, trademarks, and patents are respected?
I infer that you are trying to point out some great hypocrisy among knife enthusiasts, but a lot of us have clear ideas (not all in agreement) as to what constitutes fair use.
 
At one time, every knife manufacturer made a knife similar to a Buck 110 and many people called them Buck knives, regardless of who made them. I don't remember it being a big deal. Buck still sells the 110 by the train load, so it doesn't seem to be a big deal to them, either. If it's not a counterfeit product sold under false pretenses, or theft of intellectual property, then using an existing product as a design inspiration has been fair game for a long time.
 
S-3 ranch said:
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
Click to expand...
No. Not worth buying. That's just blatant theft.
 
Traditional knives come in patterns. For example, the Barlow, Canoe, Stockman, Trapper, and Scout Knife, to name but a few. Most if not all brands made (and make) the same patterns. Always have, always will. I'm ot aware of a single proprietary pattern made by just one company.

Currently, Case, Buck, Boker, Rough Ryder, Imperial, Old Timer, Uncle Henry, Marbles, and others all make a stockman and a trapper. All but Buck and Case currently make a Barlow. (Case "took the Barlow out of the Vault" two years ago, made them again for a year, the put the pattern" back in the vault". Why Case wants to force their customers who want a Barlow to buy from someone else is beyond me. I see this years "from the vault" is the Copperhead pattern. Needless to say other companies make the pattern as one of their core patterns, just as the Barlow is.) Buck hasn't had a Barlow (and several other patterns) since Buck started making their slipjoints in-house, rather than contracting with Camillus for them. The current Buck canoe and trapper are contract knives made offshore. (the 371 and 373 stockmans are, as well.)

There are differences between a Case Stockman, Buck stockman, a Bear and Sons Stockman, a Rough Ryder or Marbles stockman, ad one of the various Schrade brands, including but not limited to Handle materials, blade steels, bolster design (square vs rounded) and number of back springs. (some are two, others three.)
Same for other patterns like the Barlow, Canoe, and Trapper.
 
r8shell said:
So... what is your point? That knife makers shouldn't reproduce historic patterns (at least not without giving credit to the first or latest maker from whom they copied) or that modern knives should just be a non-judgemental free-for-all of imitation as long as existing copyrights, trademarks, and patents are respected?
I infer that you are trying to point out some great hypocrisy among knife enthusiasts, but a lot of us have clear ideas (not all in agreement) as to what constitutes fair use.
Click to expand...

My point is that there is a double standard, and people should maybe give a little more freedom and understanding to makers using other peoples blade shapes and knife shapes. I'm all for making replicas of historical blades. In fact I wish more modern makers would actually get them right for a change, it's very difficult to get a decent production british military sabre, none of them are ever as good as my antique 1845 infantry officers sword. They are always too blade heavy , have poor guard construction, or flex in the wrong portion fo the blade. Also the distil taper is always wrong, and the tang is never thick enough at the base of the blade, and always too thick at the foible.
But poor quality reproduction sabres aside, I think it's actually quite difficult to make a "unique" knife shape, most of the practical and good designs have already been done, there's only so many knife designs out there until you start making weird fantasy blade looking things that are useless.
I think people take copying blade shape and handle shape too seriously, because lets be honest even your favourite knife designer never invented his blade shape, he took it from somebody else in history to begin with (99% anyway, you always have 1 weirdo who makes a tracker like object)
 
On the topic of the controversy regarding clones, copies, etc-

I've been on this forum for awhile, and I've seen the topic discussed several times over the years, often degenerating into insults. Here's my take on peoples reactions to the topic- it boils down to three things, the law, ethics, and posturing.

The law- There are, and have been, many knife makers who blatantly copied the legal, and legally protected property of other knife makers. Many people, including myself, believe this is wrong, and will speak out against it. Such a practice can hurt the legitimate knife makers, and the knife buying public in a variety of ways.

Ethics- Even if it isn't technically illegal to copy a design, many believe that it is unethical to copy a design without permission, or without giving credit. I have mixed feelings on the subject of applying ethics to knifemaking. Some things bother me, some don't bother me as much as they bother others.

Posturing- This is the internet, and there are always going to be people on the internet who want to feign outrage and posture themselves as "morally superior" to others. In the knife community, the subject of "clones/copies" is one of those topics that some look upon as the perfect opportunity to say "I'm better than you because I won't buy those knives". Some people just need to feel superior to others, and will jump at the chance to publicly proclaim their sense of moral superiority.

Personally, I have my own rules when it comes to knife buying. I've thrown knives away after discovering that the maker stole another knife makers patent because I wasn't comfortable owning them. That's me, but what I never do is pass judgement on other knife buyers for what knives they buy or look down on them because they don't follow the same rules I do. I don't look upon copying a knife design as a crime against humanity. I save my outrage for more severe atrocities.
 
Last edited:
Londinium Armoury said:
My point is that there is a double standard, and people should maybe give a little more freedom and understanding to makers using other peoples blade shapes and knife shapes. I'm all for making replicas of historical blades. In fact I wish more modern makers would actually get them right for a change, it's very difficult to get a decent production british military sabre, none of them are ever as good as my antique 1845 infantry officers sword. They are always too blade heavy , have poor guard construction, or flex in the wrong portion fo the blade. Also the distil taper is always wrong, and the tang is never thick enough at the base of the blade, and always too thick at the foible.
But poor quality reproduction sabres aside, I think it's actually quite difficult to make a "unique" knife shape, most of the practical and good designs have already been done, there's only so many knife designs out there until you start making weird fantasy blade looking things that are useless.
I think people take copying blade shape and handle shape too seriously, because lets be honest even your favourite knife designer never invented his blade shape, he took it from somebody else in history to begin with (99% anyway, you always have 1 weirdo who makes a tracker like object)
Click to expand...
Can you clarify which particular knife that's a copy of another knife that you feel is getting a bum rap?
 
Londinium Armoury said:
My point is that there is a double standard, and people should maybe give a little more freedom and understanding to makers using other peoples blade shapes and knife shapes. I'm all for making replicas of historical blades. In fact I wish more modern makers would actually get them right for a change, it's very difficult to get a decent production british military sabre, none of them are ever as good as my antique 1845 infantry officers sword. They are always too blade heavy , have poor guard construction, or flex in the wrong portion fo the blade. Also the distil taper is always wrong, and the tang is never thick enough at the base of the blade, and always too thick at the foible.
But poor quality reproduction sabres aside, I think it's actually quite difficult to make a "unique" knife shape, most of the practical and good designs have already been done, there's only so many knife designs out there until you start making weird fantasy blade looking things that are useless.
I think people take copying blade shape and handle shape too seriously, because lets be honest even your favourite knife designer never invented his blade shape, he took it from somebody else in history to begin with (99% anyway, you always have 1 weirdo who makes a tracker like object)
Click to expand...
It's not a double standard. Cloning involves much more than copying a blade shape.
 
afishhunter said:
There are differences between a Case Stockman, Buck stockman, a Bear and Sons Stockman, a Rough Ryder or Marbles stockman, ad one of the various Schrade brands, including but not limited to Handle materials, blade steels, bolster design (square vs rounded) and number of back springs. (some are two, others three.)
Same for other patterns like the Barlow, Canoe, and Trapper.
Click to expand...

Be honest though if you put a rough Rider Stockman next to a Case Stockman. Then made a knife with the same amount of differences between those 2 knives and translated it to a PM2. Do you really think people would accept the Real Steel PM2, because the handle scales are a slightly different material or colour. You know there is an accepted copying of design of traditional knife shapes and designs that would not be accepted for modern knives.
 
Londinium Armoury said:
You know there is an accepted copying of design of traditional knife shapes and designs that would not be accepted for modern knives.
Click to expand...
Nor should it be accepted for modern knives that are legitimately protected by intellectual property laws.
 
danbot said:
It's not a double standard. Cloning involves much more than copying a blade shape.
Click to expand...

Okay so lets use the Case Stockman Vs Rough Rider Stockman example as it's already been brought into the thread discussion. If there is more to cloning a knife than copying the exact shape of handle and blade etc. Would you accept it if I copied the Spyderco PM2 handle shape, blade shape and everything, so that they were as siilar as the 2 stockmans are to each other.
Would everyone here accept my PM2 copy?
 
I look at traditional designs (stockman, peanut, swayback, etc) as the blues or jazz standard of knives. Everyone knows it, has their own version of it, but no one really knows who originally designed it. Or if they did, the design is so old it was pre-patents.
 
Londinium Armoury said:
Okay so lets use the Case Stockman Vs Rough Rider Stockman example as it's already been brought into the thread discussion. If there is more to cloning a knife than copying the exact shape of handle and blade etc. Would you accept it if I copied the Spyderco PM2 handle shape, blade shape and everything, so that they were as siilar as the 2 stockmans are to each other.
Would everyone here accept my PM2 copy?
Click to expand...
See? you aren't just "copying" a blade shape. You are copying the knife in it's entirety and that is unacceptable.
 
danbot said:
Nor should it be accepted for modern knives that are legitimately protected by intellectual property laws.
Click to expand...

How exactly is the Sebenza 21 shape protected by IP? If I designed a frame lock with blue accents and titanium handle, with a stone washed blade that looked like the Sebenza 21, what laws have I broken if I put my own brand and own name ont he knife? What part of the Sebenza 21 is protected by law.
 
Londinium Armoury said:
How exactly is the Sebenza 21 shape protected by IP? If I designed a frame lock with blue accents and titanium handle, with a stone washed blade that looked like the Sebenza 21, what laws have I broken if I put my own brand and own name ont he knife? What part of the Sebenza 21 is protected by law.
Click to expand...
The blade shape in and of itself is not protected.
 
Londinium Armoury said:
How exactly is the Sebenza 21 shape protected by IP? If I designed a frame lock with blue accents and titanium handle, with a stone washed blade that looked like the Sebenza 21, what laws have I broken if I put my own brand and own name ont he knife? What part of the Sebenza 21 is protected by law.
Click to expand...
Which Ganzo did you buy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top