Knife IP and Clones Explained

[EDC Honeybee]

When reading many forums and sites regarding gear I see a lot of misconceptions regarding trademark infringement and IP in general. I have a little knowledge on the topic so I figured I would write up something to clarify terms and explain why any counterfeiting hurts consumers, companies, and the market. This has been a hot topic in another thread so I figure the timing might interest some of you.

IP is "intellectual property." It is different from physical property. If you make a chair, it is easy to maintain control over the physical chair. If you come up with a great song, design, logo, etc, it can be duplicated for pretty much no cost. In America we have laws to protect IP to protect consumers and innovators.

First, trademarks are generally given for logos or names, not for products. Think the spyderco name, spyder logo, or the apple "apple".
Patents are given for actual innovative designs. Many products that people think are patentable are not. Usually patents are over single mechanisms, like the Benchmade Axis lock (expiring this year I believe btw).
Design patents are also a thing, and these are commonly applied for for individual designs. These relate to the visual aspects of the product rather than the utility. A product may have both a utility and a design patent. Knives that aren't eligible for a utility patent can still maybe get a design patent.
Copyright is for creative works generally, and would apply mostly to advertising materials in the knife world more than knives themselves. Even "art" knives may not be protected by copyright because they are also useful items.

To be fair, I have not researched what IP Spyderco owns, but it is likely that it has trademarks in its name, logo, and "reliable high performance" as indicated by the TM. It is likely that Spyderco owns patents or has patents pending for many designs (including many many design patents.) A quick patent search shows many patents that have been applied for. Give it a browse, shows the amount of innovation in the company: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... D2=&d=PTXT
Sypderco likely owns copyright for its website, images, calendars, catalogues, etc.

Many knives from overseas violate the IP of American companies. Some violate more than others.

Companies like Ganzo and Sanrenmu violate patents of american companies (we have all seen the PM2 with axis lock), but do not violate the trademarks of the company. These companies use their own logo, their own advertisements, and do not ever claim to be Spyderco, Benchmade, etc. I have seen arguments that there is a cultural divide in IP between America and China, Vietnam, etc. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these cultural claims. At any rate, here is why these companies hurt us.
-Patents are designed to promote innovation. By protecting unique inventions and allowing the inventor to have exclusive use or licensing rights, the inventor can fully realize the profits of their invention. I think we have seen this well in Benchmade. the exclusivity of the axis lock has sold MANY knives for Benchmade. If others use the invention without paying the inventor, there is reduced incentive to innovate. We want to incentivize innovation because it results in cooler, safer, and overall better designs for us consumers. Support the companies that innovate, not those that steal. It helps the knife world as a whole and gives us better products in the long run.

Other companies are more egregious, stealing every aspect of the company's IP. These are counterfeit knives. They have nearly identical design, shape, logo, packaging, advertising, etc. These are also known as clones. Generally clones are made of higher end knives. These are worse than the above because they infringe on patents AND trademarks AND copyrights. In addition to the patent problems I outlined, infringing on the company's trademarks hurts. Trademarks have a few justifications. One is to indicate the source of origin. Think of it like a return address on an envelope. By knowing the source of origin, the trademark also serves as a mark of quality. People hear about Spyderco's great factories, quality control, etc, and assume that any product that has the mark will carry this quality. If there is a large clone market, it diminishes the value of the quality control efforts of a company. Additionally it can hurt the reputation of the company when people get confused between the original and the clone. Lastly, it directly hurts the company by diverting a sale. If we did not enforce trademarks, you couldn't walk in a knife store and buy with confidence. Every purchase would be unpredictable. Further, it mostly impacts the best companies, and drags them down. We want to lift up the best companies, not drag them down. As consumers, we wouldn't want to buy knives in a world where there are many clones/copies.

Some arguments I hear frequently:
-I love the design, but I can't afford the knife. This is the closest I can get so I will buy the copy.
There is no justification here. Every major brand offers a budget line, and there are good genuine designs to be had at any price range. If you really want that design, save for it or find a legitimate alternative.
-I want to test out the design before putting down the full money.
You are fooling yourself if you think you can test a design based on the knockoff. The details are what make a high-end knife great. If the action isn't the same, the grind isn't as good, the jimping isnt as refined etc, you will be getting a skewed perception of the design. Details matter.
-I didn't know I was buying a counterfeit.
Sometimes this is true. Many times it isn't. When you are getting a deal that is too good to be true, it is your responsibility as a consumer to follow-up and make sure you are getting the real deal. Too good to be true usually is just that.
-Buying the counterfeit is helping the company by giving them advertising and support for the brand.
While it is true that counterfeits somewhat increase brand exposure, it still injures the VALUE of the brand you are exposing. The value of the brand is at least as important as the overall exposure, and I would argue that any gained exposure is more than overcome by loss in value. Also, c'mon, you know that if you are making this argument you are being disingenuous.

So there it is. A (not-so) quick summary of IP and why clones and other violators hurt the brands we love as well as us individually as consumers.
Also, I apologize if this belongs in off-topic. I was torn on which forum it fit best with, but because of the spyderco clone talk here, I decided to post it here.

[jimmyjohnjohn]

I was dating a Chinese girl once. I was showing some of her family members my rifle collection, including some WW2 rifles with battlefield provenance. I explained that the markings on the rifles told its history and could drive up the value for collectors. Her sister in law looked at a Finnish Mosin and said, "It's worth how much? This can be faked and we can sell them." I was shocked that was her knee jerk reaction to holding a piece of history in her hands.

[Blerv]

Very cool write-up. Thank you for your time and thoughts :).

Keeping people from doing things overseas is very difficult. As a community, not supporting the market for fraudulent knives is easy.

My plead to the people buying the fake instead of the real one isn't one of emotion because they likely don't share my feelings. It's not one of legality because the consumer shopper is risk-free (besides bad locks and cut fingers). Rather it's one of effective use of finances:

* The tool you buy likely is questionable in terms of safety and overall performance. The maker only intended to profit off you and nothing else.
* A tool warranty is very valuable and often knife makers provide them for a life time of normal wear & tear.
* The secondary market for fake knives is nil.

If you have one knife, five knives, or a hundred they have real tangible value. If anything, their value increases over time. If your car breaks down or you need a root canal they can easily (and quickly) be sold for close to what you paid. You can't do that with fakes.

[EDC Honeybee]

Very cool write-up. Thank you for your time and thoughts :).

Keeping people from doing things overseas is very difficult. As a community, not supporting the market for fraudulent knives is easy.

My plead to the people buying the fake instead of the real one isn't one of emotion because they likely don't share my feelings. It's not one of legality because the consumer shopper is risk-free (besides bad locks and cut fingers). Rather it's one of effective use of finances:

* The tool you buy likely is questionable in terms of safety and overall performance. The maker only intended to profit off you and nothing else.
* A tool warranty is very valuable and often knife makers provide them for a life time of normal wear & tear.
* The secondary market for fake knives is nil.

If you have one knife, five knives, or a hundred they have real tangible value. If anything, their value increases over time. If your car breaks down or you need a root canal they can easily (and quickly) be sold for close to what you paid. You can't do that with fakes.

I agree with everything you said. Even if the cost of real knives are higher, the depreciation is lower.

[Sharp Guy]

Great educational write up EDC Honeybee!

[bearfacedkiller]

This bad boy should be stickied in the counterfeit subforum.

Thanks for your thoughts and effort EDCHB. :)

[EDC Honeybee]

This bad boy should be stickied in the counterfeit subforum.

Thanks for your thoughts and effort EDCHB. :)

Glad you found it helpful. If this is going to be used as an ongoing resource I would definitely like to do some format and content editing to make sure it is more readable.

[zhyla]

That's an informative writeup but I think a little one-sided.

It's entirely possible to make a clone of a knife in a legal manner. Most knives have no patent protection (liner locks, flippers, thumb studs, etc, are all fair game). There's nothing illegal or unethical about this as long as you're not putting someone else's name on it. Many knife makers specialize in clones of specific famous knives. Machetes from many manufacturers are very similar. When I see people get worked up about a knife being legally copied by another company all I see is a lack of innovation.

Spyderco's trademark protection of the spyderhole to me is contrary to the spirit of innovation. It's an innovation that they will keep to themselves forever because they've cleverly claimed it as a trademark. You can't blame them, it's legal and it's given them quite a competitive edge, but it's sad to see that idea stay proprietary forever. I expect what I'm saying here will not be popular with some people. Imagine Ford made the steering wheel a trademark!

Of course a patent is a patent. I don't understand how Ganzo etc have been able to get away with importing axis locks. Maybe it's so close to the patent expiring that nobody cares, I really don't know.

[paladin]

That's an informative writeup but I think a little one-sided.



Spyderco's trademark protection of the spyderhole to me is contrary to the spirit of innovation. It's an innovation that they will keep to themselves forever because they've cleverly claimed it as a trademark. You can't blame them, it's legal and it's given them quite a competitive edge, but it's sad to see that idea stay proprietary forever. I expect what I'm saying here will not be popular with some people. Imagine Ford made the steering wheel a trademark!

It WAS a good move <IMHO> to trademark the Spyderhole, but it's far from an innovation Sal & Co. keep to themselves...Sal often allows honorable makers <some on this very Forum> to use the Spyderhole on their blades-- no strings attached. I feel it is entirely a different story when a business venture <I use the term in the loosest possible connotation> hijacks his intellectual property with the express reason for profiteering. With these criminal clonings, safety and quality are sacrificed-- not only breaking the law but perhaps even more importantly it detracts from the TRUE spirit of innovation that the Spyderhole IS.

Here's my comparison....using "Spyderco" & the phrase "contrary to the spirit of innovation" in the same post is like using "Apple Pie" & "Un-American" in the same sentence!

[EDC Honeybee]

Accidental double post

[EDC Honeybee]

@zhyla This is a common argument. Our system of IP law specifically tries to balance the incentives. Patents for instance get 20 years of control. That is why the axis lock patent is expiring, the time has run. Protections like this do encourage innovation overall, even if there may be examples to thecontrary. Do you think that a drug company would put in the enormous research and development if the competition could just relabel it when it is released? No, because then the competition would get equal profit without any of the costs of development. It is the same in the knife world, just on a different scale. That is an oversimplification, and some innovation would certainly be made without protections for ip, but not as many.

And the above/your argument is only really applicable to patents and (maybe) copyright, not trademark.

You also seem to defend direct clones that do not use logos or utility patents. It is worth noting that many production knives have design patents that are probably being infringed. At the very least it is tacky and lacks any additional creativity.

I did not mean to suggest that all overseas knives infringe on American products, which is why I said "many", not "all". There are undoubtedly some great knives from the east. I apologize if that was not clear from the tone.

Finally, for the trademark spyderco hole. As far as I understand it, spyderco owns a TRADEMARK in the hole, not a PATENT. These are different protections protecting different things, as I outlined above. A patent would protect strictly the utility of the feature. Spyderco may have owned such a patent but it may have expired, I have not researched the status of that. I assume they do not have a current patent from the fact that they never mention it in articles about the hole. Instead, the hole receives trademark protection. This is protected in the same way that the spyder logo is. When people see a spyderco, they can immediately identify it as a spyderco by the hole, even without the logo. The argument is that the hole in that location functions as a sort of logo. This does not protect the function of using a cutout to open the blade. I have seen many many brands use an opening hole rather than a stud, they are often ovals or other shapes. Spyderco themselves use the hole even when it serves no function, like in many of their fixed blades. Treat the hole like a logo, not an axis lock. I hope I have not misstated the status of spyderco IP in this paragraph, I am working without any inside knowledge on the matter. Anyone with a more complete picture be sure to correct me.

As for being one-sided, this is the state of the law (though a largely simplified one) and the motivations expressed by the judges are lawmakers that create the statutory and common law for IP. When a company uses an unlicensed patented feature, they ARE breaking American laws. The law is one sided by nature. If you disagree with how the laws should be, your congressman is the person to let know. These protections have been changed and refined over the last century or so by smart people. It isn't perfect and it will continue to change as society demands different values.

[Cujobob]

IP is such a tricky subject imo because there's no right answer. Allowing a creator of an idea to own a monopoly of that idea for a period of time makes some sense, but in today's world of being able to bring products to market so quickly to such a widespread audience, the timelines need updating and every product type should be treated differently. Knives are incredibly simple. They generally have few parts and since there are so few, most every idea used was at least partially based on someone else' work. After all, is a framelock or compression lock really different from a liner lock?

Right now you can buy an inexpensive Shiragorov clone for under $80. Many people would buy them at the price Shiragorov sells them for, but greedy parties who get their hands on the limited knives raise the costs tremendously and prevent that from occurring. Another example is Rolex... There are plenty of homage sub watches on the market now, but if Rolex decided to make a lesser expensive and more affordable version, that market wouldn't exist. No product should be able to pass off as being from any other company than that which created it, obviously, but there's a line where a company needs to decide whether they are going to enter a certain market or not.

[The Deacon]

Spyderco's trademark protection of the spyderhole to me is contrary to the spirit of innovation. It's an innovation that they will keep to themselves forever because they've cleverly claimed it as a trademark. You can't blame them, it's legal and it's given them quite a competitive edge, but it's sad to see that idea stay proprietary forever.

That's simply not true. Spyderco's trademark is specifically for a round hole positioned so as to be usable as an opener. So it does not prevent other makers from using an opening hole, it only means their opening holes must be some shape other than round. That's why you don't hear folks here complaining about companies using opening holes that are oval and other shapes. At least one of those companies has even claimed their hole shape is superior to Spyderco's. So, if anything, the trademark spurs other makers who want to use a hole opener to be innovative in creating a shape.

[demoncase]

Some arguments I hear frequently:

-I want to test out the design before putting down the full money.
You are fooling yourself if you think you can test a design based on the knockoff. The details are what make a high-end knife great. If the action isn't the same, the grind isn't as good, the jimping isnt as refined etc, you will be getting a skewed perception of the design. Details matter.

Equivalent argument that's equally invalid but might help the 'hard-of-thinking' :
"I wanted to find out if I'd like a dry-aged Chateaubriand steak but didn't want to spring $50, so I bought a $2 cheeseburger in a gas station to find out if I'd like it"
:rolleyes:

[bearfacedkiller]

It is important to note that IP rights provide the incentive for innovation. Countries who honor IP rights innovate more. The countries who do not honor IP rights do not innovate as much. I believe that almost everything we do as people is incentive driven. We do things for a reason. Sure, you may want to design something just to make the world a better place or to make your own life easier or more comfortable but in most cases money is the incentive that drives innovation. In the US you are given a way to be protected from losing your incentive after you are finished with your design. What if you are the best engineer or designer out there and you can come up with all kinds of great ideas but you aren't a manufacturing, marketing or sales expert. You could come up with a world changing idea and get crushed trying to bring it to market. The US does not manufacture as much as it used to but it is still an innovator in the world. Some of the countries who do manufacture a lot of goods these days do not honor IP rights and don't innovate very much.

[BostonTom]

Very interesting reading from OP. You made a lot of great points. I like the analogy about pharmaceutical companies investing huge amounts of money to develop a new drug. I believe they have a 10 year patent before other companies can make generics.
Getting back into knives, I've realized how much of a problem clones cause. I don't understand these people that knowingly buy clones. Whether it's a knife, watch, pocketbook etc. How they justify it is beyond my thinking. If I can't afford something, I don't buy it. Buying a clone would be the last thing to cross my mind. As a consumer, we need to be educated and buy from trusted sources. I just hope there is an answer to all of this in the near future.

[dplafoll]

That's an informative writeup but I think a little one-sided.

It's entirely possible to make a clone of a knife in a legal manner. Most knives have no patent protection (liner locks, flippers, thumb studs, etc, are all fair game). There's nothing illegal or unethical about this as long as you're not putting someone else's name on it. Many knife makers specialize in clones of specific famous knives. Machetes from many manufacturers are very similar. When I see people get worked up about a knife being legally copied by another company all I see is a lack of innovation

Well sure it's possible. You just have to use components and designs that don't violate anybody's IP. That covers you under the law. Now, as far as ethical, that's debatable. I'd say that if you've managed to make a clone that's close enough to be mistaken for the original but doesn't violate the IP, then you've made a knife designed to harm the company/person that designed and developed the original, and because you've done harm and profited from your actions, that's not ethical behavior, legal or otherwise.

[dj moonbat]

There is a widespread skepticism in IP law toward allowing parties to get protection under one branch of IP law that they wouldn't be able to get under another branch. Spyderco's ability effectively to extend in perpetuity a patent for an opener created by drilling a thumb-sized hole in the blade by making it a trademark would make a terrific law school exam question, frankly. There's good material to argue both sides.

[Blerv]

I think as most would agree that IP law (mostly patents) has some negative loopholes. Mainly the world of squating/sharking on patents. It's a business all in itself and not a good one.

That said, these things are very necessary. It's easy to justify why something can/should be permitted but people who create art and technology should benefit from that. By and large artists are not adequately paid for the time and passion they put into their products.

The time and energy Eric G has put into the Para2 (and 3) or Sal has put into the Stretch should be respected. Taking a knife apart and using it a blueprint for success is simply wrong. Per the law and most people's moral convictions.

As for machete (and axe) design there are very few shapes that work well and they have mostly all been figured out by now. Necessity of the mother of invention and the hardest working people on the planet have developed these tool. Folding knives certainly have more moving parts and a tendency for different silhouettes.

[EDC Honeybee]

There is a widespread skepticism in IP law toward allowing parties to get protection under one branch of IP law that they wouldn't be able to get under another branch. Spyderco's ability effectively to extend in perpetuity a patent for an opener created by drilling a thumb-sized hole in the blade by making it a trademark would make a terrific law school exam question, frankly. There's good material to argue both sides.

I agree, it could certainly be argued on both sides and is probably a close call. From my view, the spyderco hole is distinctive enough and synonymous with the brand that it seems protectable under trademark. Because of the hole my girlfriend, who is not into knives at all, can identify any spyderco knife. that sort of inherently distinctive feature probably deserves protection, but it does feel strange having one branch protect something intended by another. Still, under trademark he hole receives a much narrower protection and the protection can be lost if spyderco discontinues its use.