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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Danke42 said:
Remember kids! When you are drowning thrash wildly; this will attract more sharks and it'll be all over quickly.
Click to expand...

Is that your cyptic way of signalling that you want this thread to be locked because you are finding it difficult to argue my points? You know if you don't like a particular discussion you are free to not take part in it, and let the rest of us have the conversation without you.
 
danbot said:
Chris Reeve Knives has design claims on your Sebenza 21.
Click to expand...

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...

CRK has a claim to the trademark for the word "Sebenza" as it relates to cutlery, and to their logos, but that's it. There's no active patent (not that Reeve ever sought a patent for the frame lock). Copyright is for "creative works," so their website content and marketing material is protected. Nothing actually protects the physical design itself. At least in the US (I don't know much how foreign IP protection systems work) there is no legal right or mechanism that CRK can use to prevent someone from reverse engineering a Sebenza and making it on their own (the actual CAD files that CRK uses are likely a trade secret, but that's not going to help in this situation).
 
danbot said:
What makes you think that CRK isn't the owner of their designs?
Click to expand...

Could you name a specific design element that CRK own, and explain what sense you ar eusing the word own? They own the means of production, and they own their brand and name. They do not own titanium framelocks in the shape of a Sebenza 21 though. You will need to clarify what the exact design is that they own, and if you mean legally own that do you mean something is patented?
 
OrangeBlueOrangeBlue said:
CRK has a claim to the trademark for the word "Sebenza" as it relates to cutlery, and to their logos, but that's it. There's no active patent (not that Reeve ever sought a patent for the frame lock). Copyright is for "creative works," so their website content and marketing material is protected. Nothing actually protects the physical design itself. At least in the US (I don't know much how foreign IP protection systems work) there is no legal right or mechanism that CRK can use to prevent someone from reverse engineering a Sebenza and making it on their own (the actual CAD files that CRK uses are likely a trade secret, but that's not going to help in this situation).
Click to expand...

Yes, this is exactly what I have been tryning to explain to them, but they keep using vague terms like "ownership" hinting towards the legalese definition. or a definition that has the authority of the courts behind it.
 
r8shell said:
I feel like we're going in circles now.
Click to expand...

I don't feel we are going around in circles, I feel we have hit the main contention and point of the discussion, yet some are refusing to accept the matter of fact.
It's okay to copy the design of a dead man, and while it isn't unlawful to copy the design of a living man, we will throw rocks at anybody who does it.
 
Londinium Armoury said:
I don't feel we are going around in circles, I feel we have hit the main contention and point of the discussion, yet some are refusing to accept the matter of fact.
It's okay to copy the design of a dead man, and while it isn't unlawful to copy the design of a living man, we will throw rocks at anybody who does it.
Click to expand...

If that's not a great example of the sort of justice the Anglo-American legal system was built on, I don't know what is...
 
Intellectual property law deals with the rules for securing and enforcing legal rights to inventions, designs, and artistic works. Just as the law protects ownership of personal property and real estate, so too does it protect the exclusive control of intangible assets. The purpose of these laws is to give an incentive for people to develop creative works that benefit society, by ensuring they can profit from their works without fear of misappropriation by others.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress express authority to grant authors and inventors exclusive rights to their creations. Section 8 also gives Congress the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, providing further support for its right to legislate in this area. Intellectual property laws passed by Congress are administered by two government agencies, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the U.S. Copyright Office.

Patents give inventors the right to use their product in the marketplace, or to profit by transferring that right to someone else. Depending on the type of invention, patent rights are valid for up to 20 years. Qualifying items include new machines, technological improvements, and manufactured goods, including the "look" of a product. Patent protection will be denied if an invention is found to be obvious in design, not useful, or morally offensive.

Trademarks protect symbols, names, and slogans used to identify goods and services. The purpose is to avoid confusion, deter misleading advertising, and help consumers distinguish one brand from another. Since the goal is to distinguish, generic or purely descriptive marks may not qualify. Rights can potentially last forever, and they are obtained by simply using a mark. While not required, owners can register their marks for additional protection.
 
Londinium Armoury said:
I don't feel we are going around in circles, I feel we have hit the main contention and point of the discussion, yet some are refusing to accept the matter of fact.
It's okay to copy the design of a dead man, and while it isn't unlawful to copy the design of a living man, we will throw rocks at anybody who does it.
Click to expand...
Yes, we will. :thumbsup:
 
Londinium Armoury said:
I don't feel we are going around in circles, I feel we have hit the main contention and point of the discussion, yet some are refusing to accept the matter of fact.
It's okay to copy the design of a dead man, and while it isn't unlawful to copy the design of a living man, we will throw rocks at anybody who does it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should step away from your strict legal/not-legal criteria. There's far more than this involved in cloning modern knives.

Please contrast for us all what good or bad can come from copying a traditional "Pattern" vs. copying a modern "Design". In a situation were the law offers no guidance, one needs to extend reason further.

Cloning of knives is not a simple subject and can rarely be evaluated when using a tunnel-visioned approach, such as you're applying. You're seizing on one element of the clone conundrum but not considering the larger issues at hand.
 
1. It's not a problem to make versions of traditional knives. The inventor, if there ever was one, is generally dead and in no position to benefit from his or her design. If a patent had been issued (and most weren't), it would be long expired.
2. It's not a problem to use generally accepted features even when they're traceable to a specific person. Liner lock. Frame lock. Thumb stud.
3. It's not a problem to specifically copy the exact style or pattern of another maker if that maker has given permission to you or general permission to anyone. Bob Loveless didn't mind when other people made knives to his patterns, and he was quite free with giving out his actual patterns. A person of integrity would note when describing their knife that it was the pattern of another maker so credit is given where it's due.
4. It's definitely a problem to copy the specific style or pattern of another maker if they have not given you permission to do so and they are still making said knives, because you are now detracting from their reputation and business by making knives that look exactly like theirs.

Example: I like the Perrin La Griffe a lot. But Fred doesn't make them in a steel I want. Ernie Emerson has a licensed production version, but he also doesn't make it the way I want. I would not be justified in going to another maker and asking him to copy the design without Fred giving the OK.
 
Londinium Armoury said:
Is that your cyptic way of signalling that you want this thread to be locked because you are finding it difficult to argue my points? You know if you don't like a particular discussion you are free to not take part in it, and let the rest of us have the conversation without you.
Click to expand...
To be clear; you are the one in deep water here sport.

This subject is very important to the integrity of this hobby. The concept of why those copies are harmful and disrespectful has been clearly defined here if you care to look. And to top if off the quality is normally laughably low and the promised steel may not be what it's said to be. If those makers will lie to steal a design they'll also lie to steal money from their customers.

Complaining that no one is conversing with you in a proper manner is like a person complaining they can't find a NASA scientist to debate that the moon is really made of green cheese. In other words the premise ludicrous. You've been kindly given good non judgemental explanations of the problem which you have decided to ignore.

This reminds me of a favorite quote and please note no insult intended. "I can explain to to you but I can't understand it for you".
 
@Londinioum Armoury You have chosen a strange hill to die on. I can't fancy, I just can't, what is the goal here. Really. And, yes, I will trow rocks at you until you get less stupid, errr, I mean less unrelevant, of course.
 
danbot said:
Intellectual property law deals with the rules for securing and enforcing legal rights to inventions, designs, and artistic works. Just as the law protects ownership of personal property and real estate, so too does it protect the exclusive control of intangible assets. The purpose of these laws is to give an incentive for people to develop creative works that benefit society, by ensuring they can profit from their works without fear of misappropriation by others.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress express authority to grant authors and inventors exclusive rights to their creations. Section 8 also gives Congress the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, providing further support for its right to legislate in this area. Intellectual property laws passed by Congress are administered by two government agencies, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the U.S. Copyright Office.

Patents give inventors the right to use their product in the marketplace, or to profit by transferring that right to someone else. Depending on the type of invention, patent rights are valid for up to 20 years. Qualifying items include new machines, technological improvements, and manufactured goods, including the "look" of a product. Patent protection will be denied if an invention is found to be obvious in design, not useful, or morally offensive.

Trademarks protect symbols, names, and slogans used to identify goods and services. The purpose is to avoid confusion, deter misleading advertising, and help consumers distinguish one brand from another. Since the goal is to distinguish, generic or purely descriptive marks may not qualify. Rights can potentially last forever, and they are obtained by simply using a mark. While not required, owners can register their marks for additional protection.
Click to expand...

CRK would have no claim under Trademark, name, patented mechanism on any functional part of their knives. They also could not claim under artistic protection due to transformative design loopholes. As soon as somebody changes a single part of the exact look it falls outside of artistic protection, especially since it is a working tool. It would be akin to a chisel or hammer factory trying to take another hammer maker to court because they also made a 4 lb club hammer with hickory handle.
 
herisson said:
@Londinioum Armoury You have chosen a strange hill to die on. I can't fancy, I just can't, what is the goal here. Really. And, yes, I will trow rocks at you until you get less stupid, errr, I mean less unrelevant, of course.
Click to expand...
It's more of a valley on my map.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top