Ethical question

[cabfrank]

If you think you need a haircut, do you need one?

If you don't think you need one, should you get one anyway?

[yablanowitz]

...

The first model with a compression lock was the Gunting (2000). The provisional patent application was filed in February 2000, and the final patent (US6553672) was issued 2003-04-29.

Thanks, good Info!

Did totally not know this ... figured the Paramilitary ("1") was the first comp.lock Spydie...

Nope, Sal invented the comp lock on demand for the Gunting, then used it on the Centofante Vesuvius, the L'il Temp, the ATR and the Salsa before the Paramilitary.

[James Y]

I remember a long time ago handling a Vesuvius in a (now long-defunct) knife shop, and at the time, I did not like the compression lock. It somehow pinched the web of my hand or something when opening. I'm not even sure anymore how that could have been, but because of that, I thought the comp lock wasn't for me.

Then years later, in 2011, I gave the PM2 a try. I wasn't getting pinched at all. Still, it took me another 6 years for the PM2 to grow on me. Not because of the comp lock, but because at first I thought the design itself was bland. Now the PM2 is one of my favorite designs, and the comp lock is one of my favorite locks.

I apologize for straying off-topic...



Jim

[Wartstein]

Nope, Sal invented the comp lock on demand for the Gunting, then used it on the Centofante Vesuvius, the L'il Temp, the ATR and the Salsa before the Paramilitary.

Thanks, always and still great to learn from you guys!!

[akapennypincher]

CopyRights, TradeMarks, and Patents are law of land, if you have money to enforce great, if not you are SOL.

If I make a Spyderco Bug to attach to something no harm, no foul, if I mask for profit, and sell I am violating the law.

[zhyla]

So i really do not think the Cbbl was even on a piece of paper back then let alone far enough to ask for a patent.

Are you not able to read the patent link? It clearly says when it was applied for and that it was more than 20 years ago. It is a matter of public record (regardless of what you think was on a piece of paper).

[apollo]

So i really do not think the Cbbl was even on a piece of paper back then let alone far enough to ask for a patent.

Are you not able to read the patent link? It clearly says when it was applied for and that it was more than 20 years ago. It is a matter of public record (regardless of what you think was on a piece of paper).

For a fact no i am not able to open that link atleast not on my smarthphone as it has giving me trouble lately and regretably i have bin to busy the last couple of days to spend any time behind my Laptop. Because life happens.... So excuse me that i was not able to know the information before posting my reply!!!!

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Someone asked this before. Is it a form of theft and facilitating trademark theft if you the customer purchase a knife or knife part that has the basic shape of the original designed by the company or only if its using thei name and logo? Example: there are Endura abd Buck 110 looking knives that do not say Spyderco or Buck. Is that unethical to purchase those or okay since they are not outright claiming to be made by Spyderco or Buck?

[James Y]

Someone asked this before. Is it a form of theft and facilitating trademark theft if you the customer purchase a knife or knife part that has the basic shape of the original designed by the company or only if its using thei name and logo? Example: there are Endura abd Buck 110 looking knives that do not say Spyderco or Buck. Is that unethical to purchase those or okay since they are not outright claiming to be made by Spyderco or Buck?

That’s a good question, SEF.

I personally would NOT purchase a direct knockoff that is trying to pass as a cheaper alternative, even if they aren’t directly claiming to be made by the brand by using the actual brand name.

IMO, someone who does purchase such a knife is not being unethical if he or she wasn’t savvy about what is made by the actual company and what is a knockoff. It’s about intent, or lack of it. IMO.

Jim

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Someone asked this before. Is it a form of theft and facilitating trademark theft if you the customer purchase a knife or knife part that has the basic shape of the original designed by the company or only if its using thei name and logo? Example: there are Endura abd Buck 110 looking knives that do not say Spyderco or Buck. Is that unethical to purchase those or okay since they are not outright claiming to be made by Spyderco or Buck?

That’s a good question, SEF.

I personally would NOT purchase a direct knockoff that is trying to pass as a cheaper alternative, even if they aren’t directly claiming to be made by the brand by using the actual brand name.

IMO, someone who does purchase such a knife is not being unethical if he or she wasn’t savvy about what is made by the actual company and what is a knockoff. It’s about intent, or lack of it. IMO.

Jim

I agree 100 percent, James. And by the way, it is very good to see you again on here and be back, my friend. I enjoy your great posts.

[endura3]

One other thing I'd add is that Spyderco has always been fantastic about respecting other companies' IP, even going beyond what's legally required. For example no Spydercos are described in official materials as having a "frame lock" but rather a "Reeve Integral Lock", even though that's no longer an enforceable trademark.

I think that respect is one of the things that makes this company great, because it facilitates more transparent information sharing/partnership with other orgs. That's how we get Emerson openers, all the various collabs, and (AFAIK) even some early ideas that were fundamental to the company's success like the Al Mar front-lock (and in turn the use of "spyderedge" style serrations on Al Mar knives).

I try to be more respectful of companies' IP when they have a stance like that and consistently apply it. It just makes the industry and corresponding community better IMO.

[zhyla]

Is it a form of theft and facilitating trademark theft if you the customer purchase a knife or knife part that has the basic shape of the original designed by the company

Nobody owns the shape or design of a thing. I can make a Para 2 minus the trademarked hole and sell it and nobody has any right to tell me not to.

Patents and copyrights expire and works pass into the public domain, where they belong, because intellectual property is not real property and it belongs to all of us.

It’s natural and desirable for makers to iterate on the designs of others. Nothing immoral about it.

[Danke]

Well that's bananas.

[Mushroom]

Is it a form of theft and facilitating trademark theft if you the customer purchase a knife or knife part that has the basic shape of the original designed by the company

Nobody owns the shape or design of a thing. I can make a Para 2 minus the trademarked hole and sell it and nobody has any right to tell me not to.

Patents and copyrights expire and works pass into the public domain, where they belong, because intellectual property is not real property and it belongs to all of us.

It’s natural and desirable for makers to iterate on the designs of others. Nothing immoral about it.

Actually, there are a number things that are immoral in doing that. Theft being at the forefront of it.

I won’t mention the company by name for the sake of keeping shiny footprints but there is a company that steals existing knife designs from hardworking companies, makes a minuscule change to it, and then sells it as their own.

Stealing is unethical. What that company is doing is stealing. They are thieves, through and through. There’s no way to justify what they do without abandoning a basic moral compass.

[zhyla]

Actually, there are a number things that are immoral in doing that. Theft being at the forefront of it.

You can’t steal what can’t be owned. Ever notice how similar every claw hammer looks? Is everyone “stealing” from the original claw hammer designer? Kitchen knives? Who owns the western chefs knife design?

Putting someone else’s name on your copy is wrong (and illegal). But

[Danke]

Actually, there are a number things that are immoral in doing that. Theft being at the forefront of it.

You can’t steal what can’t be owned. Ever notice how similar every claw hammer looks? Is everyone “stealing” from the original claw hammer designer? Kitchen knives? Who owns the western chefs knife design?

Putting someone else’s name on your copy is wrong (and illegal). But

Same thing for cars. They all have 4 wheels. Who are they trying to fool?

[zhyla]

Same thing for cars. They all have 4 wheels. Who are they trying to fool?

Exactly! Cars mostly try to differentiate. And the vast majority of knife companies do as well outside of traditional designs (Bowie knives, etc).

If people would just stop buying clones that wouldn’t even be a thing.

[Wartstein]

.....
I won’t mention the company by name for the sake of keeping shiny footprints but there is a company that steals existing knife designs from hardworking companies, makes a minuscule change to it, and then sells it as their own.

Stealing is unethical. What that company is doing is stealing.....

Just out of interest: The name of that company starts with a "G" ?

[SchoonerBum]

This design discussion raises an interesting question. I don’t know how it works in the knife world, but with boats, the basic ethical and legal stance is that if you draw the design yourself, even if it’s quite similar to existing designs and takes a lot of inspiration from them, then it is your design. If you copy, trace, etc someone else’s design, then you are over the line both morally and legally.

I would guess that knife design works somewhat similarly, but I don’t actually know.

[Mushroom]

Actually, there are a number things that are immoral in doing that. Theft being at the forefront of it.

You can’t steal what can’t be owned. Ever notice how similar every claw hammer looks? Is everyone “stealing” from the original claw hammer designer? Kitchen knives? Who owns the western chefs knife design?

Putting someone else’s name on your copy is wrong (and illegal). But

You’re moving the goal posts now. You originally claimed you could sell a PM2 if you removed the trademark opening hole. Now it’s, you can make a kitchen knife even if someone else makes a kitchen knife…

It sounds like you’re conflating general categories of things with specific designs now. Not only are there dozens of types of hammers in general but even claw hammer designs differentiate themselves in many ways. White Labeled products are common in that industry but that’s a whole other can of worms to get into.

Now you’re basically deducing a PM2 down to a “pocket knife.” Obviously one company making a pocket knife is not necessarily stealing from other companies that make pocket knives. If one company takes a PM2, puts a thumbstud and Benchmade lock in it, then sells it as their own - they are doing nothing but stealing from those who have invested real time and effort into actually designing those things. I’m not speaking to the legality of this practice, just the ethics and it’s wrong.

Same thing for cars. They all have 4 wheels. Who are they trying to fool?

Exactly! Cars mostly try to differentiate. And the vast majority of knife companies do as well outside of traditional designs (Bowie knives, etc).

If people would just stop buying clones that wouldn’t even be a thing.

He was being sarcastic.

.....
I won’t mention the company by name for the sake of keeping shiny footprints but there is a company that steals existing knife designs from hardworking companies, makes a minuscule change to it, and then sells it as their own.

Stealing is unethical. What that company is doing is stealing.....

Just out of interest: The name of that company starts with a "G" ?

Yes, it does.