Ethical question

[zhyla]

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.

Agree we’re talking about ethics and not legality. The above is clearly legal.

Again, you cannot steal what cannot be owned. Designing a certain blade shape does not mean you own that blade shape. Copying it is not stealing.

What’s the difference between copying a PM2 (minus the trademarked bits) and copying, say, a katana? A “traditional” design becomes traditional only by people copying it. Katanas are all so similar that they often differ only by the hand guard ornamental pattern and other subtle artistic flourishes.

My point is it’s not wrong to make something that someone has made before. We have patents to encourage makers to invest their time in innovation so that the public benefits. The patents are not to protect the inventor’s “property” but to incentivize them to make innovations that pass into the public domain.

[Scandi Grind]

Technically almost everything we make as people uses something "stolen" from someone else. There are times this is ethical, and times it's not. I've read a lot of firearms history and you quickly discover that almost every firearm is made with many peoples individual engineering contributions, but only the person who brings the final product to market tends to get historical credit. This isn't wrong in many senses, it is how almost everything is developed over time. Most polymer handguns are basically spin offs of the Glock, which I don't have an issue with, it was clearly worth imitating much of the design, but when S&W infringed on Glocks patent early on, it obviously wasn't legal and they rightfully wound up paying royalties. Eventually though everybody was going to have to be able to copy the idea and that's where we are today.

Copying different mechanisms or designs of knives that you didn't invent, combining them, then selling them as another product doesn't seem that strange to me where legal. Just because somebody copies something doesn't automatically make it a knock off for me either. When more first-person-shooters started hitting the video game market, they were called Quake clones, but nowadays they represent a whole genre.

I think using other peoples ideas is the fundamental of progressing technology, and while there are times I don't agree with copying, I don't think it can be considered fundamentally wrong.

[Mushroom]

This is why clones and fakes are so prevalent, unfortunately.

Ethics and morals are often abandoned just to save a buck.

It is what it is, I guess. Won’t catch me supporting any disreputable copies though.

[akapennypincher]

Ethics are something we use to have, it is fast going away fast the Golden Rule is forgotten. A hand shake means nothing to some. Good example is auto business, you need not believe one word of what you’re told without verification. Warranties, Guarantees are in some cases work on paper or web-site that mean zero.


Two kinds of people those who word is great, and as good as legal contract. Those who are liars, cheats, thieves, and copy kats.

Golden Rule is good rule, treat out like you would want be treated if hats were switched.