wow, its amazing how crap companies get away with stuff like this

Cynic wrote:
In synthesizing the ideas of these philosophers, and from statements made by them outside of these works, I would argue that in fact there exists no current thought or knowledge that was not made possible - and therefore must be grounded in - previous knowledge. Epistemic violence and discourse forcings have shaped what we know, and how we think. Knife design, whether contemporary or traditional, is epistemically based on posteriori knowledge: it is therefore an intrinsically derivative and impure knowledge system.

Ah, Cynic, you're forgetting the web theory of knowledge which, given the construction of knowledge based on interconnected facts & ideas, allows for larger concepts and facts to be built on more simple atom-like pieces and, therefore, finally break through the concept that there are no original ideas. This is a very serious part of western epistemology -- and far more modern than those names you mentioned.

But why bring up Kant? He was an ethicist. Actually, wasn't Hegel a metaphysicist, Foucault an existentialist, & Derrida another metaphysicist? Aren't all of these purportedly a priori concepts? How does this support your argument?

On that topic, do you have an argument? Or are you just trying to confuse these kind people by looking at all those unread tomes on your bookshelf...?
 
Kant is a moralist (Kantian morality). Foucault is a post-structuralist (for some reason many mistake much of what he wrote as merely an extension of Sartre). Derrida is also a post-structuralist. Gayatri Spivak, who translated Of Grammatology earlier in her academic career, would argue that Derrida is in fact a greater theorist than either Foucault or Deleuze.

I'm uncertain as to how you are applying the concept of a priori knowledge.

I would agree with you that all too often these theorists go unread--however, they were not so by me.

Kant is not, as you argue, an "ethicist". He is a moralist. He argues for the existence of morality a priori through the good will. In fact, the first sentence of Chapter I of the Groundwork is the following "It is impossible to conceive of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will." From this, he postulates his famous categorical imperative, and how the rational being should act only according to that maxim which becomes universal of itself.

Earlier, I was attempting to condense my argument into a very few sentences, rather than a 100 page manuscript.

If you wonder as to why I would bring up Kant, one need only to think on how Kantian morality applies to modern knife design--as well as this thread.

Hegel created a system whereby history serves as the building, and focal, point of every thought thereafter. His system, envied by Fichte and Schelling, has had perhaps the most profound affect on modern thought. If you haven't read much Hegel, I would recommend starting with Reason in History; if you could find a translation by Robert S. Hartmann, that would be ideal.
 
Last edited:
I would suggest that you read Gayatri Spivak's piece "The Politics of Interpretation" before you make sweeping statements on modern thought.
 
MplsAtty said:
A really simple set of issues here is overlooked when talk about "copying" comes up -- knives, like other tools and mechanisms, are generally considered under the realm of patents and not copyrights. For this reason, knife designs become public domain much more quickly than movies or songs.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you there. Knives should really be protected by industrial design IP rights. It's a shame that IP law concerning industrial designs is so under-developed compared to copyright and patent law, but that's no reason to shoehorn knives into a legal shoe that doesn't fit.
 
singularity35 said:
Ah! I now understand clearly that I am now very confused. :D
Click to expand...

Just the young uns, home from college on summer break trying to impress with their new found Philosophy 101 / 200 jargon. :D

Why buy an MTech? I've sold them (read - handled them) and they're terrible CCC that you could scrape the diamonds off a DMT benchstone with and they still wouldn't cut a seat belt. Something I can't say about Cold Steel's cheapest offerings. :)
 
cziv said:
Just the young uns, home from college on summer break trying to impress with their new found Philosophy 101 / 200 jargon. :D
Click to expand...

Eh, come on now, I really do read this stuff for fun in my spare time :D

Actually, I did my undergrad as an English major, and now I'm in grad school for literary theory.

Joyce ftw!
 
Cynic2701 said:
Eh, come on now, I really do read this stuff for fun in my spare time :D

Actually, I did my undergrad as an English major, and now I'm in grad school for literary theory.

Joyce ftw!
Click to expand...

Well, I was close. Keep up the good work, but remember a lot of us don't understand all of that high brow lingo. :)
 
Cynic,

Why would you need 100 pages to provide some evidence (draft a quick outline) of your relation of the categorical imperative to knife design?

A priori -- as in the opposite of empirical? Come on, you've got to be familiar that dichotomy...? Kant was a moralist, but the categorical imperative doesn't work unless it's objective -- therefore Kant was an ethicist, whether he meant to be or not.

I won't wait to make sweeping generalizations of modern (did you mean "contemporary"?) thought? My formal education is likely as extensive as yours on the topic, so I'm not sure what you're saying (ding an sich?).

If you want to make assertions on knife design based on western analytical philosophy, I'm all for it, & I'd love to hear it. A lot of us would. But beyond that, what are you trying to say?
 
Isn't the topic 'wow, its amazing how crap companies get away with stuff like this'?

This thread should be locked if we must continue to endure these Philosophical nonsense posts. :barf:
 
st burt,

From what I can tell, the industrial design aspect of intellectual property you're speaking of is really a form of patent, and it lasts only 14 years so duration is no advantage. I agree that IP is far too heavily focused on patents in the US and that other aspects of IP are severely underdeveloped, especially in comparison to the European Union, and of course the impetus for this is money & our market-driven economy.

I was not advocating for protecting knives under patents over copyright or any other form of IP approach, I was just saying that knives most likely will be protected under patent. Perhaps they should be covered under something else, I don't know. I know very little about the industrial design protection you're advocating, so I would be intrigued to hear more.
 
cziv, singularity, st burt,

Thanks for putting up with the dialogue I've had with Cynic, & I apologize for putting y'all through that.
 
MplsAtty said:
I was just saying that knives most likely will be protected under patent.
Click to expand...

If the knife features an invention, something that didn't exist in knife making before the maker came up with it, then a patent is appropriate. Something like the Axis lock on a Benchmade or blade opening hole on a Spyderco would clearly be an invention. I believe that the Axis lock is patented.

It's a tougher call for something like the frame lock. Would a person skilled in the art of knife design, who had seen a liner lock, eventually come up with the frame lock? Maybe, but maybe not. The fact that no one thought of it before Chris Reeve suggests that it wasn't obvious. The pocket clip is similar. It seems like a workshop improvement since pocket clips existed on all kinds of other pocket devices before Sal put them on knives.

To protect the look or style of a knife, I think industrial design protection could be useful, even if there's no invention. Unfortunately, I've only taken a couple IP courses at school, and neither of them had much to say about industrial designs. As I understand it, an aspect of the design that isn't essential to the function of the object can be protected. A girl in one of my classes said that some fashion designers have their plaids protected by industrial design IP rights.

Based on the above, a knife that doesn't disclose an invention could still be protected from copying by another company. The problem is that the industrial design has to registered, AFAIK. None of the companies mentioned in this thread is likely to have done this, so at the moment it's a non-issue. I just thought it was worth mentioning, since the only IP rights I ever hear about on this forum are patent and copyright. If the "atty" in your name means you're an attorney, you don't need the lecture, but I thought other people might be interested as well.
 
Me again, the mean old proponent of copying.

I find it baffling that not only do folks around here take such passionate views of copying, but do so with no real stake in the matter. Clearly this is the realm of irrational fanboyism. Projecting one's personal code of ethics on the market is fine, but getting preachy about it can be annoying when it's so clearly unhinged from the reality of the situation and often selectively based on personal biases.

IP rules are fairly cut and dried. Knives typically fall under patent protection. It is up to the designer to take advantage of the system, if he feels it's necessary. Design patents take care of industrial design IP. And there are plenty of them in the knife world. After the term of patent expires, sometimes industrial design is claimed as copyright or trademark IP. But once again, this is the responsibility of the IP creator. While there are many instances of knife makers utilizing the IP system, there are many more where they forgo those protections or simply let them lapse. In these circumstances, they don't actually own the designs they may have created. Copies are perfectly legit, and what little recourse IP law allows is surrendered.

For those genuinely interested in the subject, I recommend this very interesting TED talk with a woman by the name of Johanna Blakely. Her focus is on media and fashion, but it applies quite well to the idea of knife design IP, how IP works, and doesn't, in the real world.

Another interesting person to hear from on the subject is old school hardware hacker Don Lancaster. He's long written about the futility of patents, especially in smaller markets such as knifemakers. He's generally more blunt and firmly grounded in reality, a place where knifemakers and knife nuts really need to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top