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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Londinium Armoury said:
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.
Click to expand...

One of the companies you mentioned does generally get a free pass on their involvement in a relatively prominent bit of patent infringement/IP theft...

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...

The point was to ask why this double standard exists, particularly because people have strongly-held, often irrational, opinions about it.
 
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...
Especially if the exact same suppliers are selling the exact same materials to someone to assemble them
If s35v steel is sold to a manufacturer? I guess that’s why CRK
Is switching over to s45v to have something different
 
Londinium Armoury said:
Do they? So if I drew an outline around my Sebenza, got some Titanium and S35VN, slapped a frame lock on it and called it a Titanium Framelock, I would be in legal trouble?
Click to expand...
And you are going into business selling them? It certainly would make you a scumbag cloner. As far as legalities go, I would consult with the owner of CRK about that before taking on that endeavor.
 
danbot said:
And you are going into business selling them? It certainly would make you a scumbag cloner. As far as legalities go, I would consult with the owner of CRK about that before taking on that endeavor.
Click to expand...

You said CRK owns the "design" of the Sebenza 21, and this was your argument as to why people cannot copy the design of modern knives, as oppose to copying the design of traditional knives, in which you said that is "fair game"

Thus the double standard I sought to discuss is shown clearly, you believe it is fair game to copy the design of older knives, but you will call somebody a rotten no good cloner for doing the exact same thing to a modern knife. The only difference is you see older designers as okay to rip off, but you do not allow people to rip off modern designers, when it's exactly the same action and the only difference is time.
 
Londinium Armoury said:
Do they? So if I drew an outline around my Sebenza, got some Titanium and S35VN, slapped a frame lock on it and called it a Titanium Framelock, I would be in legal trouble?
Click to expand...

Now you're asking what is legal vs. what is acceptable in the knife community. That's a very different question than the first one you asked.

If you traced your Sebenza, and built a knife with that silhouette, you just made a clone. It may be perfectly legal to make, but you are still stealing somebody else's design work and reputation, and trying to make a profit off it. That's the issue. Most of us in this community do not find that acceptable. Some of you do.
 
Londinium Armoury said:
You said CRK owns the "design" of the Sebenza 21, and this was your argument as to why people cannot copy the design of modern knives, as oppose to copying the design of traditional knives, in which you said that is "fair game"

Thus the double standard I sought to discuss is shown clearly, you believe it is fair game to copy the design of older knives, but you will call somebody a rotten no good cloner for doing the exact same thing to a modern knife. The only difference is you see older designers as okay to rip off, but you do not allow people to rip off modern designers, when it's exactly the same action and the only difference is time.
Click to expand...
It is not the exact same thing. The traditional designers are long gone and their designs are in the public domain. They cannot be "ripped off". When you rip of a modern knife design you are hurting the company and designer whose work is protected by IP.
 
Silent H said:
Now you're asking what is legal vs. what is acceptable in the knife community. That's a very different question than the first one you asked.

If you traced your Sebenza, and built a knife with that silhouette, you just made a clone. It may be perfectly legal to make, but you are still stealing somebody else's design work and reputation, and trying to make a profit off it. That's the issue. Most of us in this community do not find that acceptable. Some of you do.
Click to expand...

Yes because Danbot was making a claim for "Design ownership" which is getting into legal jargon territory. Ownership is a legal term, this is why I questioned the authority of that ownership, and where the authority to enforce that rule of ownership was coming from.
 
Blues said:
I'm starting to think L Londinium Armoury enjoys stirring it up for the sake of the stirring.
Click to expand...

I am asking a legitimate question, if people are suffering cognitive dissonance that is usually a result of people realising they hold contradictng views that cannot be substantiated through logical process. I'm not stirring anything up I'm pointing out contradictory behaviour.
 
Londinium Armoury said:
Yes because Danbot was making a claim for "Design ownership" which is getting into legal jargon territory. Ownership is a legal term, this is why I questioned the authority of that ownership, and where the authority to enforce that rule of ownership was coming from.
Click to expand...
The authority comes from Intellectual Property law. How enforceable it is, is another question and probably varies from case to case. I am no expert in IP law.
 
danbot said:
It is not the exact same thing. The traditional designers are long gone and their designs are in the public domain. They cannot be "ripped off". When you rip of a modern knife design you are hurting the company and designer whose work is protected by IP.
Click to expand...

If you don't legally or lawfully own the rights to something your modern knife design is also in the public domain.
 
danbot said:
The authority comes from Intellectual Property law. How enforceable it is, is another question and probably varies from case to case. I am no expert in IP law.
Click to expand...

As far as I know you cannot have IP over the shape of a piece of metal that isn't a unique working mechanism. There's no way to claim ownership of a fixed blade shape for example. Or the shape and look of a folding knife. You can submit a unique lock design, or a new feature that is unique to your knife. like a wave or opening system. But if your knife is just 2 slabs of titanium with a thumb stud and drop point blade, you can't claim that as an original design for utility IP it's too generic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top