Any offical word from Spyderco?!?!?!?!?!

[yablanowitz]

Read more carefully. I made that mistake at first, too. Byrd steel is 8Cr13MoV, the ripoff...excuse me, Benchmade...steel is 8Cr14MoV. :rolleyes: I have no idea what effect that has on the steel.

[STR]

That must be what makes it better than the rest with that touch more Chromium in the mix huh?

Please. The steel is the steel. Its the same thing would be my guess. Its China's version of 440C. Buck used it, Byrd line uses it and not BM? I have a hunch many of the China made knives that say 440 on them are the same steel.

STR

[ghostrider]

That must be what makes it better than the rest with that touch more Chromium in the mix huh?

Please. The steel is the steel. Its the same thing would be my guess. Its China's version of 440C. Buck used it, Byrd line uses it and not BM? I have a hunch many of the China made knives that say 440 on them are the same steel.

STR

That's been my opinion ever since they anounced that the Chinese "440C" was in fact not "440C", but instead "8etc...".

[KSDbass]

Zac, please add me to that list too...

[zenheretic]

I would like to take a moment to welcome our newest members to the Spyderco forum. It must be a harsh transition from their more familiar Benchmade forums.

[steve andrews]

Spyderco registered the opening hole. It is the single one stand out feature about all Spyderco knives that sets them apart from all others.

Not all Spyderco knives.
What about the Ronin, Maddox, Kitchen knives, Moran, Temperance and Vagabond?

If the round whole is a trade mark, why isn't it on all Spyderco knives?
The round hole was a patent on an opening device, and it has expired.

I'm one of the "immoral" people who don't mind Benchmade using the round hole.
It could mean better knives for me, knives that will enable me to do my job better - rescuing people.

And yes, I also look forward to seeing the Axis lock on Spyderco knives when the patent expires.

[Big-Target]

Now, for the record,I'm using the Delvagne book on :spyder: as a reference. But the "royalties" one must pay for the the use of the :spyder: -hole is not that much. So BM credit rating shouldn't take a hit.
But Law suits do hit one credit rating!!

Wouldn't it be easier just to pay????

Or am I being naive again????

[The Deacon]

Not all Spyderco knives. Ronin?
The Spydie bug is a trademark as is Benchmade's butterfly.

The round hole was a patent, and it has expired.

I'm one of the "immoral" people who don't mind Benchmade using the round hole.
It could mean better knives for me, knives that will enable me to do my job better - rescuing people.

I look forward to seeing the Axis lock on Spyderco knives when the patent expires.

Fact: The round hole opening device has been used as the opening device on every FOLDING knife except one that has been marketed under the Spyderco label from their first, the C01 Worker to their latest the C113 Caly 3. The sole exception was the C27 Jess Horn. Fixed blades such as the Ronin do not require opening, so they do not need the round hole opener.

Fact: A manufacturer's use of a trademark on one distinct group of products (in this instance folding knives) and their non-use of it on other distinct product groups (fixed blade knives, kitchen sharps) does not impact the legitimacy of the trademark.

Fact: Companies are allowed to have more than one trademark, so the existence of other Spyderco trademarks, such as the "bug", does not does not impact the legitimacy of the round hole opener as a trademark.

Fact: "Functional" features CAN be given trademark protection, as long as the functionality does not confer a functional advantage. As an example, paint on a vehicle serves a functional purpose, but John Deere has a trademark on a specific color of green.

Fact: Manufaturers, including Benchmade, who have used oval and other shaped opening holes have asserted, and continue to assert in their advertising that their opening hole is superior to the round one. By that assertion, they have eliminated the argument that the round hole opener has a functional advantage over other shaped holes. The fact that ANY hole opener of reasonable size, regardless of shape, has a functional advantage over thumb studs, disks, nail nicks, etc. is beside the point.

Fact: Spyderco's patent was for a depression in the blade of a pocket knife that allowed the thumb to open the blade - the trapezoidal depressions in the C27 Jess Horn fit that just as the round hole opener does. The patent neither specified or precluded the depression going all the way through. Spyderco's trademark, on the other hand, is for a single specific implementation of the patent, the one they have used, to the exclusion of all other implementations (except the single specific one I noted) since they began producing knives.

[steve andrews]

Fact: The round hole opening device has been used as the opening device on every FOLDING knife except one that has been marketed under the Spyderco label from their first, the C01 Worker to their latest the C113 Caly 3. The sole exception was the C27 Jess Horn. Fixed blades such as the Ronin do not require opening, so they do not need the round hole opener.

Fact: The round hole opening hasn't been used as the opening device on every FOLDING knife.
:rolleyes:

If a trademark infraction has been made it will be sorted out in court. Try not to worry about it too much.

[ASmitty]

Fact: The round hole opening hasn't been used as the opening device on every FOLDING knife.
:rolleyes:

If a trade mark infraction has been made it will be sorted out in court. It's that simple.

Yes, Steve, not EVERY FOLDING KNIFE. But, if I'm not mistaken, The Deacon revealed that on page two of this thread.

[steve andrews]

Fact: Andrei Chikatilo never killed anyone, apart from 53 people, possibly more, between 1978 and 1990.

Do you see my point?

[zenheretic]

Do you see my point?

That a Brit is trying to argue American law?

[Th232]

Fact: Andrei Chikatilo never killed anyone, apart from 53 people, possibly more, between 1978 and 1990.

Do you see my point?

Likewise I can say:
Andrei has killed people. Therefore, it follows he is still a killer, even up to the present date.

And:
Spyderco has trademarked the round hole. Therefore, it follows that it is still a trademark, even up to the present date.

If you're trying to say that Andrei wasn't a killer with xxx exceptions, and therefore the round hole isn't a trademark, except for xxx exceptions, that just doesn't hold up, since a trademark is a trademark.

Let's expand on this type of reasoning.

Fact: The round hole is a trademark of Spyderco

Fact: Benchmade has used the round hole in the Vex.

Assumption: Spyderco has not allowed BM to use their trademark (the round hole). Note that this is an <u>assumption</u> and that if Spyderco has allowed the use of the round hole, then all is well. Until definite proof from one company or the other, this will remain an assumption.

If the two statements above are true, then it follows that:

Benchmade has not used Spyderco's trademark, except for the Vex, and possibly the Skirmish, in 2006.

Benchmade has still violated Spyderco's trademark.

Thus, if the assumption is true, Benchmade has violated Spyderco's trademark by using the round hole in the Vex.

[dedguy]

Fact: Andrei Chikatilo never killed anyone, apart from 53 people, possibly more, between 1978 and 1990.

Do you see my point?

The difference being an exception that is actually exceptional versus one that is not. It would be more akin to saying "John Smith never hurt anyone, other than the man who intruded into his house"

[Simple Man]

Cover up the BM Logo, and it looks like a real nice progression in the Spyderco/Terzoula line. The Skirmish looked like a BM otherwise, this one sure doesn't.

[4 s ter]

I'm one of the "immoral" people who don't mind Benchmade using the round hole. It could mean better knives for me, knives that will enable me to do my job better - rescuing people.

I don't have some "higher calling". Therefore, I'll still limit my business to companies who have the integrity to respect others intellectual property.

And yes, I also look forward to seeing the Axis lock on Spyderco knives when the patent expires.

Like that's ever going to happen :rolleyes: When Spyderco wishes to adopt a feature that has been patented by another company, they do it the right way, through licencing and giving credit - like the Emerson Wave. Spyderco even gives credit when they use features that someone else has developed, even if they weren't patented - like the Mar-Mcburnette front lock. They haven't shown a need to wait for patents to expire so they can use a feature for free. They pay licencing fees and give credit to inventors, unlike some other companies.

[Rogcohen]

I've probably spent to much time reading this thread and then looking up trademark information on the net this morning, but I'm finding it really interesting, and people have brought up some really good points. I found this on Wikipedia (I know it's not a definitive source, but it is good).

"While trademark law seeks to protect indications of the commercial source of products or services, patent law generally seeks to protect new and useful inventions, and registered designs law generally seeks to protect the look or appearance of a manufactured article. Trademarks, patents and designs collectively form a subset of intellectual property known as industrial property because they are often created and used in an industrial or commercial context."

I thought maybe the Spyder hole falls under designs law? Trademarks are usually words or logos, though I believe rarely they can be 3D designs.

I've got to say though I've never understood copyright's and patents (Look at what happened to Robert Indiana.)

Still this is America and business is about making money and nothing else. If Benchmade believes they'll make more money using the Spyder hole then that's what they'll do because that's the goal of the business.

I'd also like to point out that I don't endorse the above view. I'm a little bit old fashioned in that I still believe there's a right and wrong way to go about things. I respect respect.

Roger

[The Deacon]

I'm one of the "immoral" people who don't mind Benchmade using the round hole.
It could mean better knives for me, knives that will enable me to do my job better - rescuing people.

Well, at least you have the courage to admit you're devoid of scruples, I guess that counts for something. :rolleyes: To me, that's the equivalent of saying you would willingly and knowingly accept stolen money as a donation "because it was for a good cause". Personally, I find that reprehensible.

Fact: The round hole opening hasn't been used as the opening device on every FOLDING knife.
:rolleyes:

Do you not understand that the point you are so desperately trying to make is irrelevant. All you have proven is that one forumite here may have mis-spoken. If that's what your using as a defense of your view, it's no defense at all. There is no need to use a trademark on EVERY item you produce in order for the mark to be valid.

[ASmitty]

Do you not understand that the point you are so desperately trying to make is irrelevant. All you have proven is that one forumite here may have mis-spoken. If that's what your using as a defense of your view, it's no defense at all. There is no need to use a trademark on EVERY item you produce in order for the mark to be valid.

That is absolutely true. Take for example Proctor & Gamble who holds a trademark on the name Head & Shoulders Dandruff shampoo. Now, does P&G produce dandruff shampoos that are NOT called Head and Shoulders. The answer is yes, they do. There is a Pert Plus dandruff shampoo that falls under the Pert Plus trademark, there is a Pantene dandruff shampoo that falls under the trademark of that name, Herbal Essence has a dandruff shampoo under that trademark. What this means is that P&G manufactures at least three dandruff shampoos that do not have the name Head and Shoulders on them. This does nothing to weaken their trademark on the name Head and Shoulders.

[zenheretic]

That is absolutely true. Take for example Proctor & Gamble who holds a trademark on the name Head & Shoulders Dandruff shampoo. Now, does P&G produce dandruff shampoos that are NOT called Head and Shoulders. The answer is yes, they do. There is a Pert Plus dandruff shampoo that falls under the Pert Plus trademark, there is a Pantene dandruff shampoo that falls under the trademark of that name, Herbal Essence has a dandruff shampoo under that trademark. What this means is that P&G manufactures at least three dandruff shampoos that do not have the name Head and Shoulders on them. This does nothing to weaken their trademark on the name Head and Shoulders.

Your argument is Head and Shoulders above the competition.

Here have a puppy.