Sprints

[yablanowitz]

I think there are a lot of people here who don't know the difference between a Sprint Run and an Exclusive. Many of the "it sold out before I could order one" whines are coming from Exclusives, and Spyderco has no control over those numbers other than saying "No, we won't do that for you" and losing many thousands of dollars on that and any future sales to that customer. And Exclusives are a great thing for Spyderco, because those knives are already sold. If they sit in a warehouse and gather dust, it isn't Spyderco's problem.

Sprint Runs are entirely at Spyderco's risk. If it doesn't sell, they have capital tied up in inventory that they can't use for new production, or making payroll for that matter. Think that isn't a problem? How many years did it take for the last G-10 Worker Sprint to sell out everywhere? If all of those had had to go through the SFO, they'd have sold them at a loss just to get rid of them. Not a good business plan

[Ankerson]

I personally feel that there is far too much monitoring, marketing and both corporate and government meddling in my life already. I would rather miss out on a few knives than add one more layer of someone tracking my purchases.

The internet operates because Federal Government allows it to.

It's all under Government regulation, always has been from the beginning.

The Federal Government started the Internet.

[Ankerson]

I think there are a lot of people here who don't know the difference between a Sprint Run and an Exclusive. Many of the "it sold out before I could order one" whines are coming from Exclusives, and Spyderco has no control over those numbers other than saying "No, we won't do that for you" and losing many thousands of dollars on that and any future sales to that customer. And Exclusives are a great thing for Spyderco, because those knives are already sold. If they sit in a warehouse and gather dust, it isn't Spyderco's problem.

Sprint Runs are entirely at Spyderco's risk. If it doesn't sell, they have capital tied up in inventory that they can't use for new production, or making payroll for that matter. Think that isn't a problem? How many years did it take for the last G-10 Worker Sprint to sell out everywhere? If all of those had had to go through the SFO, they'd have sold them at a loss just to get rid of them. Not a good business plan

Yes, there is a large difference, I think most people already knew that.

Nothing to stop the Store or Distributor giving 30 knives or more to someone to put in EBAY or whatever before they are on the stores website and selling them for crazy prices. That is unethical, but it is legal....

Could also explain why they seem to sell out as fast as they do?

Not saying that it does happen, but I can see how it could happen, and very easy...

[Monty]

It's easy for someone to look at a sprint's popularity in hindsight and say "you should have made more." Not so easy when you're guessing what you can sell and fronting the money.

I also find it a bit silly for Nick S. To be criticizing sprints yet have a drawer full of sprints.

[Ankerson]

It's easy for someone to look at a sprint's popularity in hindsight and say "you should have made more." Not so easy when you're guessing what you can sell and fronting the money.

I also find it a bit silly for Nick S. To be criticizing sprints yet have a drawer full of sprints.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

I think Sprint runs are a great idea personally.

[AwayFromMySpydieHole]

That's why the serial number idea is best. :)

Only in the sense that at least some of the folks who object to extraneous writing on their knives would stop buying Sprints.

You do know that any dishonest activity over the internet is illegal right?

It's all fraud....

Then once they mail it that's mail fraud etc....

Yes, you can actually put these people in jail and they can do real time...

The min they buy it under false pretenses it becomes illegal merchandise and anything that happens after that is also illegal. So anyone involved can all be charged... They could actually tack on weapons charges too if they got really picky and really wanted to nail them to the wall..

Then there is also income tax evasion on both the State and Federal level while they are adding the charges up.

That's the reason why I have been screaming about it....

Having a hard time figuring how you make that jump in logic. I'm not understanding where"fraud" of any kind is involved. Seems to me that you're confusing behaviors that might be morally or unethically questionable with behaviors that are criminal.

Once a person, or a business, buys something, they own it and it's theirs to do with pretty much as they please. Spyderco can set, and enforce, MAP pricing for its dealers, but cannot legally prevent a dealer from selling at MSRP or higher, selling on eBay at a premium under a different name, or selling all their stock of an item to one person who offers to pay a premium for them and then sells them on eBay and/or the forums at an even higher premium.

You also seem to be assuming that those who sell knives on eBay do not report the profits from those sales as income. I have no way of knowing if the do, but suspect that you have no way of knowing they don't.

Exactly. This is absolutely not "fraud" or even illegal in any way. A crappy thing to do? Sure. Immoral? Sure. Unethical? Absolutely.


Illegal? Not hardly. That is quite the logical leap it takes to get to that conclusion.

Actually it is illegal.

Jim I respect you and your opinion with most things but in this case, you're simply wrong. And your argument of "actually yeah it is" isn't really an argument.


You are conflating breaking a "rule" with breaking a law. If someone uses deceptive practices to purchase more of a knife than allowed, they are still only breaking a rule. Despite whatever they choose to do with the knives after the fact. There is no law against buying more of a product than a PRIVATE dealer allows, despite how morally bankrupt it is.

The individual is still trading goods for money. The item is still being paid for. There is no one being damaged. No law being broken.


There is simply a RULE set by a PRIVATE company being broken. There is absolutely no way, shape, or form that this could be interpreted into someone being criminal. Even if they choose to sell the knives after, it STILL isn't criminal.


Look no further than the issue with John Cena selling his Ford GT after purchasing it. All purchasers literally signed a contract stating "I will not sell this vehicle in the first 2 years." That rule was set forth by a PRIVATE company (just like a knife dealer) but actually had a contract behind it. Cena broke the contract and sold the car for a profit. Ford literally had an "anti flip" clause in the contract. John broke the contract, yet STILL didn't do anything criminal.

There is no contract between knife buyer and private dealer, so your case would be even weaker than Ford's. At best it could be a civil matter if someone were foolish enough to pursue it. Not in any sense of the word would it be a criminal matter.

[TkoK83Spy]

No more sprints would solve all the problems! :eek:

[Ankerson]

Only in the sense that at least some of the folks who object to extraneous writing on their knives would stop buying Sprints.




Having a hard time figuring how you make that jump in logic. I'm not understanding where"fraud" of any kind is involved. Seems to me that you're confusing behaviors that might be morally or unethically questionable with behaviors that are criminal.

Once a person, or a business, buys something, they own it and it's theirs to do with pretty much as they please. Spyderco can set, and enforce, MAP pricing for its dealers, but cannot legally prevent a dealer from selling at MSRP or higher, selling on eBay at a premium under a different name, or selling all their stock of an item to one person who offers to pay a premium for them and then sells them on eBay and/or the forums at an even higher premium.

You also seem to be assuming that those who sell knives on eBay do not report the profits from those sales as income. I have no way of knowing if the do, but suspect that you have no way of knowing they don't.

Exactly. This is absolutely not "fraud" or even illegal in any way. A crappy thing to do? Sure. Immoral? Sure. Unethical? Absolutely.


Illegal? Not hardly. That is quite the logical leap it takes to get to that conclusion.

Actually it is illegal.

Jim I respect you and your opinion with most things but in this case, you're simply wrong. And your argument of "actually yeah it is" isn't really an argument.


You are conflating breaking a "rule" with breaking a law. If someone uses deceptive practices to purchase more of a knife than allowed, they are still only breaking a rule. Despite whatever they choose to do with the knives after the fact. There is no law against buying more of a product than a PRIVATE dealer allows, despite how morally bankrupt it is.

The individual is still trading goods for money. The item is still being paid for. There is no one being damaged. No law being broken.


There is simply a RULE set by a PRIVATE company being broken. There is absolutely no way, shape, or form that this could be interpreted into someone being criminal. Even if they choose to sell the knives after, it STILL isn't criminal.


Look no further than the issue with John Cena selling his Ford GT after purchasing it. All purchasers literally signed a contract stating "I will not sell this vehicle in the first 2 years." That rule was set forth by a PRIVATE company (just like a knife dealer) but actually had a contract behind it. Cena broke the contract and sold the car for a profit. Ford literally had an "anti flip" clause in the contract. John broke the contract, yet STILL didn't do anything criminal.

There is no contract between knife buyer and private dealer, so your case would be even weaker than Ford's. At best it could be a civil matter if someone were foolish enough to pursue it. Not in any sense of the word would it be a criminal matter.

You are missing the whole point.... Not surprising however because you have to think about how they did it in the 1st place.

Acquiring merchandise in a fraudulent manner in the 1st place is what makes it illegal.

If they do it over the internet in some way gaming the system that makes it illegal because they used the internet to do it, cyber crime... Federal Crime....

Now since that merchandise was acquired in a fraudulent manner it becomes illegal merchandise automatically.

Some idiot on a computer that creates whatever to get around the order system is actually hacking if you get technical.

So yes it is in fact illegal and a Federal crime.

[The Deacon]

You are missing the whole point....

Acquiring merchandise in a fraudulent manner in the 1st place is what makes it illegal.

If they do it over the internet in some way gaming the system that makes it illegal because they used the internet to do it, cyber crime... Federal Crime....

Now since that merchandise was acquired in a fraudulent manner it becomes illegal merchandise automatically.

Well Jim, I'm pretty sure it's you who is missing the point. For fraud to exist, you would have to:

• obtain something without paying for it by use of false ID (credit card fraud, check fraud, etc)
• obtain something at a discounted price by claiming to be something you were not (senior citizen LEO, veteran, etc)
• obtain something you were not legally entitled to purchase using false ID (cigarettes, liquor, etc)

Simply visiting two different locations of a given business to obtain two of something marked "one to a customer" is not fraud.

Some idiot on a computer that creates whatever to get around the order system is actually hacking if you get technical.

So yes it is in fact illegal and a Federal crime.

Do you have any proof anyone is actually "hacking" merchants ordering systems to buy Spyderco knives?

[blues]

That it has come to this level of angst and gnashing of teeth is sad in and of itself.

I remember when buying custom and production knives was fun.

[Ankerson]

You are missing the whole point....

Acquiring merchandise in a fraudulent manner in the 1st place is what makes it illegal.

If they do it over the internet in some way gaming the system that makes it illegal because they used the internet to do it, cyber crime... Federal Crime....

Now since that merchandise was acquired in a fraudulent manner it becomes illegal merchandise automatically.

Some idiot on a computer that creates whatever to get around the order system is actually hacking if you get technical.

So yes it is in fact illegal and a Federal crime.

Well Jim, I'm pretty sure it's you who is missing the point. For fraud to exist, you would have to:

• obtain something without paying for it by use of false ID (credit card fraud, check fraud, etc)
• obtain something at a discounted price by claiming to be something you were not (senior citizen LEO, veteran, etc)
• obtain something you were not legally entitled to purchase using false ID (cigarettes, liquor, etc)

Simply visiting two different locations of a given business to obtain two of something marked "one to a customer" is not fraud.

It's how they got it that makes it illegal.

They illegally acquired the products in the 1st place, if they paid for them or not.

If they game the order system over the internet, that is a cyber crime from the start.

So anything that happens with those products after is also illegal.

I didn't miss a thing.

Fraud is just one of a long string of charges that could be brought against them.

And they are all Federal charges.

The PROOF would come from an investigation after it was reported to the FBI.

They can track all of it.

[curlyhairedboy]

I don't think everyone has the same definition of "illegally acquired" in this thread. Ankerson, how would you define it?

[yablanowitz]

No more sprints would solve all the problems! :eek:

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a Winner!

[Ankerson]

I don't think everyone has the same definition of "illegally acquired" in this thread. Ankerson, how would you define it?

If someone acquires something doing something illegal, breaking the law it is illegally acquired.

Just because someone pays for something doesn't make it legal if they broke the law doing it.

It was illegally acquired....

[Wartstein]

No more sprints would solve all the problems! :eek:

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a Winner!

THIS sounds like a winner to me too... ?!

(Quoting David / "Evil D"):

"I think a possible solution here is to make a system like the collector's club for forum members where pre-orders are literally pre-sales where sprints are paid for up front and then production is based on the total number of pre-sales plus maybe a bit more to cover any possible warranty/replacement issues. Make the pre-sale open for X amount of time so everyone who wants one can get in on it."

[jdw]

Regardless of whether it's legal or not, this all sounds like a tremendous waste of law enforcement's time over a few people missing out on a pocket knife.

[Ankerson]

Regardless of whether it's legal or not, this all sounds like a tremendous waste of law enforcement's time over a few people missing out on a pocket knife.

Cyber Crime is a huge problem...

It goes way beyond just a few people not getting a knife.

[yablanowitz]

Yes, there is a large difference, I think most people already knew that.

You couldn't prove to me by anything I've read here in the last few years. They always seem to get lumped together, and called Sprints whether they are or not. Most of the gripes don't even apply to Sprints, just Exclusives.

[gull wing]

Does Spyderco exist for users or collectors?

[sal]

It seems to me that the legality of sprints is a distraction from the original question. Let's avoid an argument please.

thanx,

sal