Benchmade speaks re Vex

[J Smith]

Well I can only hope that a few Spyderco axis locks comes out of this.

[steve andrews]

Well said Pete.

I too am a proud Spyderco owner. I camped out in the woods last night - what knife did I take? A BG42 CF Milie.
What knife did I use to prepare my lunch? A plain edged Pacific Salt.

However I don't believe that Spyderco have a legitimate claim to be the sole owner of the round whole opener.

I also think that they don't need a monopoly on the round hole to remain one of the best knife companies in the world.

[florijn]

Well I can only hope that a few Spyderco axis locks comes out of this.

I can second that as an BM and Spyderco fan,
that would be great!
The best of two worlds :)

[steve andrews]

I can second that as an BM and Spyderco fan,
that would be great!
The best of two worlds :)

Hear Hear.

[4 s ter]

I didn't register over a year ago to lurk around and wait for the Vex issue to pop up.

Sure does seem like it however. 75% of your total of 4 posts are to lecture to us on the subject.

[bh49]

I'm in agreement with Deacon. At this point I don't see myself purchasing any more benchmades. They are going to have to work to re earn my trust, then come up with something better than what I can get by purchasing a spyderco knife, with all the benefits that come with spyderco ownership.

That's a tall order, and it takes a while to regain my trust once lost. Heck, they don't have M2 steel any more, and the Axis lock to me doesn't feel as right as Spyderco's back lock ( I'm still deciding about the compression lock). Call me old fashioned. Joe

I am with you. NO BMs

[florijn]

What I wrote on an other topic before,

What I don't understand :confused: is.
Why make such a fuss about a knife from an other company .
What I see here is that a lot of US people are complaining about the "hole" issue.
They are reacting as if BM bombed the Spyderco factory.
All based on incomplete info and trademark issues we knife nuts haven't got any influence on.
Lets be glad for you US guys that the knife business is stil flourishing
and that most of the quality knives are still made in the US,
(at least I am as an US-knife buyer).
I welcome all collaboration projets to make an stronger knife industry
and to keep the manufacturers from going to China with all their knives!
I welcome all collaboration projets to make a better product for the end user,
is it by a Spyderco hole, by a axis lock or by a waved blade.
I'm in for it for the knife itself, not because Sal is such a great guy,
(he actually is a great guy, had the chance to meet him in Amsterdam).

Concerning official info.
The statement of BM is vague (at least, must say) and by Spyderco there is none.
So we knife nuts just don't have all the info.
Is there an agreement between both companys,
Fine I would welcome that.
Isn't there an agreement, so be it,
and let the lawyers do their work.
This is the Spyderco forum site for people who like the Spyderco knife
just as there a Benchmade site for those who like the BM.
Liking a knife is in my opinion the main thing here.
If you like something, you buy it and use or collect it,
and you may praise it and share thoughts.
If you don't like something than simply don't buy it and don't nag about it.
If you like somthing and buy it and afterwards you are disappointed,
now that's an complete other issue.

Let me state clearly I'm a knife collector in general,
I collect some great brands of American made knives.
They all have advantages and disadventages in sharpness, finish and use
but the main thing is I like the designe and quality.
I like my hobby and get a positive kick out of it,
what I regret to see is that people flip out over even the smalest things.
I don't want to insult any knife nuts here or anywhere.
But these are my two cents,
PEACE and happy collecting or EDC-ing :)

[Slick]

To all Spydernuts... Stop whining. Trvth will out.

To redhawk44p, Sal can not comment. Ask the fr'cken lawers how this works.

The round hole and profile are unique and generally recognized as Spyderco.

Long ago I jokingly suggested a Nascar sponsership deal where a Spyderco in profile should grace the thin edges of a wing without any representation of the name Spyderco. The hole and profile are in and of themselves solely identifiable as Spyderco. No name logo required.

Oh! wait.... There are no wings in Nascar *yet*.

Whether or not Spyderco can protect its hole it deserves trademark protection.

Sc**w Benchmade, they are d***s anyway.

[The Deacon]

Pedropcola, Spyderco did not "trademark a patented item". They trademarked one specific implementation of a much broader patent.

Assume for a moment that Parker had come up with, and patented, the idea of using a clip on a writing instrument. Assume that, over the life of that patent they had consistently (even if not exclusively) used one specific implementation of that patent, a clip shaped like a broadhead arrow, with the feathered end at the top, which they trademarked. Would you consider then consider that trademark on that "arrow" shaped pocket clip to be invalid? The "round hole opener" issue is the same thing. The only "difference" is that while I doubt Parker ever actually held a patent on the use of a pocket clip on writing instruments, Spyderco did hold a patent on the broader concept of a "depression" in the blade of a folding knife into which the ball of the thumb could be placed in order to open the knife with one hand. They trademarked only one specific implementation of that patent, the round hole opener, which they had used on the vast majority of their products during the patent's life.

As for my misimpression that you were among those who joined this forum solely to chime in on this issue, please accept my apologies for that. The fact that others had done that to post in one or more of the several threads on this issue, coupled with a bit of laziness on my part, caused me to misinterpret the significance of your post count coupled with the thread in which you chose to post.

Just for the record, and not that it matters, but I don't think you will find anyone here with a listed "join date" earlier than mine. All existing accounts were reset to that date during a software upgrade. Only listed join dates later than 9-24-04 can be assumed to be identical with the member's actual join date. Even then, there is danger of false assumption, as occasionally someone has to rejoin with a new name after their computer crashes, they can't remember the password for the old one, and they no longer have the email account they registered with. By "actual" join date/first post date, I'm still a relative "noob", freely admit that, and have never claimed otherwise. There are quite a few here who have been here and contributing to this forum since it opened in mid-May of 2000, while I only "discovered" Spyderco, and this place, in 2003.

As for your opinion, you are entitled to it. I choose neither to assume that Benchmade's statement is true, or to equate a "secret agreement" with an equitable one.

[pedropcola]

Deacon, didn't know about the resetting of join dates so if I offended, I'm sorry. I have lurked on this forum for years without throwing out my opinion. This thread piqued my interest because I am an unabashed fan of the products from BM as I am of Spyderco. I don't agree with the general direction the discussion here has taken. I am no troll, I just disagree. I don't feel the arguments presented are cogent, nor do I feel that they will hold sway in our courts. Time will tell.
pete

[zenheretic]

Here is a visual. Which of the following knives in the enclosed add on the left side of the page is a Spyderco? It should be visually obvious even if you don't know the model involved but do know about Spyderco's trademark. The visual is exactly what a trademark does for a knife. It clearly identifies the product presented as a specific company's in a visual manner..i.e. a shape, two or three dimensional, people have demonstrated both exist under a trademark.


It is totally unsurprising that there are those that see nothing wrong with trampling on a competitor's trademark. You have voiced your opinions. No amount of verbal Ju-Jitsu is going to change anyone's mind on this issue at the present time under the present conditions. This issue was dying down to dull roar until today. Let it return or I shall be forced to sic Fluffy upon you.

[PSU]

"I'm still not sure if it was right to do to go from a patent to a trademark..." -David Lowry

This is the biggest misconception of the entire issue. I keep seeing people state that it was unfair for Spyderco to transfer a patented item to a trademark just to "extend the patent". If people would just read a little bit about patent/trademark law as well as the pertinent Spyderco patent and trademark documents then they would see that this is not the case. Deacon has written some of the clearest posts regarding this issue...

Pedropcola, Spyderco did not "trademark a patented item". They trademarked one specific implementation of a much broader patent.

Assume for a moment that Parker had come up with, and patented, the idea of using a clip on a writing instrument. Assume that, over the life of that patent they had consistently (even if not exclusively) used one specific implementation of that patent, a clip shaped like a broadhead arrow, with the feathered end at the top, which they trademarked. Would you consider then consider that trademark on that "arrow" shaped pocket clip to be invalid? The "round hole opener" issue is the same thing. The only "difference" is that while I doubt Parker ever actually held a patent on the use of a pocket clip on writing instruments, Spyderco did hold a patent on the broader concept of a "depression" in the blade of a folding knife into which the ball of the thumb could be placed in order to open the knife with one hand. They trademarked only one specific implementation of that patent, the round hole opener, which they had used on the vast majority of their products during the patent's life.

I wish that some people would do a little more research on the topic at hand before regurgitating false information.

[yablanowitz]

pedropcola, IF BM had aknowledged that the hole was Spyderco's trademark and was used with permission in their announcement, and IF they had put TM SPYDERCO next to the hole in letters 1 mm tall, I WOULD be happy. Using another company's registered trademark without permission or using it without aknowledging it as belonging to the company it is registered to is wrong, as well as illegal. BM has demonstrated to my satisfaction that they are not honorable. There are other makers out there that are honorable. I'll buy knives from them, rather than supporting BM.

[pedropcola]

ok. Change the direction slightly. Does anyone think that this trademark infringement will be taken towards a legal correction? Why or why not. I will be the first to state that I haven't read/researched a single item concerning patent law nor trademark violations and since this is just an internet forum for knife geeks like we are, I don't plan to either. Is trademark law so flimsy that what seems like such a blatant act is not actionable? Either way, in the interest of peace among brethren, I just made a cool lanyard for my waved Endura 4. (patent #5.878.500, sorry I just couldn't resist!) Have a nice day, I hope this is the worst thing to happen in anyones life this week , and 4 s ter, I promise to up my posting count prior to posting on this issue again!

[oregon]

Either way, in the interest of peace among brethren, I just made a cool lanyard for my waved Endura 4.

Pic please. Thank you kindly.

Here's mine. The gauntlet just hit the dirt. http://spyderco.com/forums/showpost.php ... tcount=960

All the best,

oregon

[Fred Sanford]

If the patent was not extended by making it into a trademark then I apologize.

Like I said, it depends on which day you ask me as to how I feel on the "round hole" trademark issue with Benchmade.

Some days I feel like it's no big deal because it's simply a way to open a knife blade and in the grand scheme of things does it really matter? No.

Other days I feel like being brand loyal to Spyderco due to the round hole trademark thingy.

Today I'm starting to think that maybe we (at least me) is taking this waaaaay too far. I'm starting to wonder why I'm wasting my time when I can do nothing about what is happening. Plus the fact that we (at least I) don't know what kind of deal has been made between the two companies (if any).

I do think that thumbstuds kind of stink. I do think holes in the blade should be able to be used on any knife. Oval, round, rectangular, or whatever. I think it would make the market more diverse and better if other companies could use the round hole and Spyderco could use thumbstuds or thumb discs.

I can't remember where I heard it but I heard someone from Spyderco say that it's often hard to stick with the hole because the blades all have to look the same (or have that hump).

I guess since my view can change from day to day I will just leave it at that. I love Spyderco knives, but Benchmade was my first knife. I like how Benchmade makes all of their knives in the USA other than the Red Class (which I don't buy).

It will be difficult for me not to buy Benchmade. With the Iraq war going on, and people starving, and being homeless, and unemployed, and with taking care of my family and little girl being important to me, I don't think I will worry about this "hole" issue anymore. I will let Spyderco and Benchmade handle it.

Just my $.02 folks.

[pedropcola]

First I have to get a digital camera. (I am old school) Then someone would have to explain how to attach it to the thread. Off topic, but I find that a lanyard on the waved E4's and D4's make for a much better deployment. They sit low enough that I need just that extra little grip that the lanyard allows.
pete

[pedropcola]

David,

You forgot one. BF is down, too!

[The Deacon]

ok. Change the direction slightly. Does anyone think that this trademark infringement will be taken towards a legal correction? Why or why not.

No, but simply because of the costs involved, both in dollars and in time, and the uncertainty of the outcome due to the way American civil law operates. The fact that the outcome is uncertain does not reflect lack of merit, merely an area of law so technical that most judges cannot even accurately rule on the admissiblilty of evidence, or instruct a jury properly regards what must be proved or disproved, and 99.9% or more of the potential jury pool would be totally in the dark without extensive judicial instruction. A verdict either way would leave the other side saying "We wuz robbed".

[steve andrews]

So, would it be fair to say that Spyderco either:

A) Don't feel strongly enough about the matter to persue it.
B) Don't have the time.
C) Think the money could be better spent.
D) Know they are right but don't have a strong enough case to convince the American civil law system to make the same finding.
E) Know they are wrong and think they will lose fair and square in court.
F) A combination of the above
?