I wonder what would hit the fan....?

[fredswartz]

I seem to remember that Benchmade once marketed a folder with the Spyderhole and then others using an oval hole method of opening. I am wondering what the repercussions would be if Sal and his team came up with a slight modification of the Axis-Lock? Just a thought.

[CKE]

Sal has too much integrity to stoop that low :cool:
But I would assume they would be up in arms like we were when it all happened. BM fans I assume are as adamant about their stuff as we are about :spyder: stuff.
Even the new waved Enduras have Mr. Emersons seal of approval so Sal knows how to do business. Take Care!!!

[CKE]

Oh by the way...Congrats, glad to hear everything worked out. A beautiful baby there in the pic. Take Care!!!

[hrdwrguy]

isn't the ball lock just a little like the axis? at least it is as close as the oval hole is to the round hole. did benchmade make a knife with the round hole or just the ovals, i've never seen a round one.

[ASmitty]

Their new Model 630 the Skirmish has a round hole. And the original AFCK and the Eclipse model had a round hole as well. I don't know if the original Ascent had a round hole or not.

[Stuart Ackerman]

As long as HONEST makers pay the licence fee to Spyderco( only $50-00 annual ) everyone will be happy!!

[HoB]

Well, I think Spyderco decided not to licence the hole to direct competitors anymore. Only custom makers have the option to licence the hole as far as I know.

From Mr. Glessers remarkes in BI a while back, I got the impression that he was not at all opposed to other makers and companies using a hole that isn't round to open the blade. I think Mr. Glesser stated it (badly paraphrased) as a natural progression of the entire industry, once the patent is expired. Its just the round shape that causes fuss, because it is like putting the characteristic kidney shaped radiator of a BMW on lets say an Audi. I hope Mr. Glesser corrects me if I have gotten a wrong impression considering the use of non-round holes by other companies.

As for the ball bearing lock, even though the lock is very similar to the ELU in action, the ball bearing lock represents a significant departure (and improvement) of the axis lock and is mechanically quite different. The axis lock requires two symmetric springs to prevent at least in principle the "kinking" of the bar. A spherical shape can not kink because of its inherent symmetry and thus use a simple compression spring sitting on a piston. BM seem to have had trouble with breaking springs in the beginning (I am sure that is long solved). A compression spring on the other hand is very unlikely to break. Just imagine how long you play with a ballpen for $0.50 with out the spring ever breaking. But I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't require an even smaller tolerances. Its a bit like comparing a Wankel (Rotary-) with an Otto (regular piston) engine. Just because they are both interal combustion engines and "do" the same, their mechanics are actually quite different.

[Stuart Ackerman]

I was offered a licence, and I wrongly assumed that the big guys also did the same....

[The Deacon]

Back when the round hole opening device was protected by a Patent, Spyderco could license its use to direct competitors like Benchmade, and Benchmade did license and use it on several models. Now the patent has expired and the only protection on it is as a Trademark. You can license the use of a Trademark, but not to a direct competitor. The reason is that the stated purpose of a trademark is to avoid confusion between similar products. Allowing custom makers like Jens Anso and Kevin Wilkens to license it is acceptable, since nobody is likely to confuse a hand made knife with a production one. The Skirmish is not licensed to use the hole.

As for the Axis, almost any good designer can come up with a perfectly legal (if not always totally ethical) way to mimic the operation of any patented mechanical device. If the new design represents a genuine functional improvement over the original, it's even ethical. Sal is a very good designer, whether his improved version of the Axis will ever get beyond the "concept knife" stage is anybodys guess. Didn't care for it myself when I handled it, but then, I don't care for the Axis or the Ball either.

[Slvgx]

I've wondered this myself. I will not even pretend to understand the laws, but from what I've gathered after a certain amount of time has passed other companies are allowed to use certain characteristics of the other. To my understanding you cannot take someone else's logo or anything, but as for lock systems, I thought that after "x" time has passed, other makers are allowed to use this lock system. Now I think they will not be allowed to take Benchmade's name for the lock (i.e. AXIS), but they could change the name to something else, but still use virtually an identical locking system.

I could be entirely wrong so please correct me if I am wrong.


I have never handled a ball bearing lock, but I love the idea of it. The only reason that I have not bought one is because of the lack of money to buy what I consider to be "specialty" knives. The D'Allara Rescue and the Dodo have both had very good reviews thus far, but both of the blade types seem to excel in a particular area over others.

I am very excited to hear the prospects of more conventional blade shapes on the new Ball Bearing Lock prototypes (i.e.. the new D'Allara).

Most of my knives are Spyderco, with the exception of one S&W knife that I bought many years ago before I looked into good knives. Right now I am looking to buy my first Benchmade myself, for the only reason being the AXIS lock, just to have one to see what the fuss is about. I much prefer the spyder hole opening method opposed to thumb-studs, and I like the acquired taste of the spyderco style. I sure would like to see some of these new Ball Bearing Lock protos. I'm sure given enough time Spyderco will fine tune the BBL into a fine product.

[The Deacon]

I've wondered this myself. I will not even pretend to understand the laws, but from what I've gathered after a certain amount of time has passed other companies are allowed to use certain characteristics of the other. To my understanding you cannot take someone else's logo or anything, but as for lock systems, I thought that after "x" time has passed, other makers are allowed to use this lock system.

Slvgx, you're correct, and I should point out that the my original post here is a very, very simplified and limited explaination of an extremely complex topic. What follows is the same way.

With a patent, after 17 years, anyone can flat out copy the mechanics of something and, unless it is protected in some other way, even the appearance. But things other than names and pictures can become trademarks as well. First example that comes to mind is the shape of the Coca-Cola bottle. Since there were other shape bottles that other comanies could use, Coca-Cola could trademark that one particular shape when applied to a bottle containing a beverage. A bleach manufacturer would, however, be able to sell bleach in a bottle that shape - no chance of confusion between the two products.

Since other shape holes exist, and other manufaturers were in fact already using them by the time Spyderco's patent expired they elected to trademark the particular combination of a round hole being used as the opening device for a folding knife, as they rightly could claim that the public had come to associate the Spyderco name with a knife having that set of characteristics. Only that limited scope is protected by trademark law, but it is protected. Other makers have every right to use any other shape hole as an opening device for a folder, and have every right to use one or more strictly decorative round holes as a logo. What they do not have the right to do is to camoflage a round hole used as an opening device for a folder by surrounding it with a flock of non-functional holes.

Of course the problem with trademark law, and with civil law in general, is that the cost of bringing an action to stop someone from violating it is often prohibitive. In some ways that's a good thing, I'd probably be sued for libel on a fairly regular basis and be sueing others on a equally regular basis otherwise, but it does mean that not every violation gets challenged in court.

[Balazs]

I think, it's pointless to argue about who stole what. It could be an endless battle about opening holes, pocket clips, Axis locks, spring loadad bali latches,... There is a demand for customers for them and the companies have to integrate the imrovements. And fans always will call this integration for a creative impovement if "their" company did it, and a f**ing theft, if the evil competitor.

[The Deacon]

I think, it's pointless to argue about who stole what.

I would tend to agree. Yet, at the same time, I think presenting the facts of a situation, and allowing people to thus make an informed decision is reasonable. How they choose to act, once in posession of that knowledge, is their business. As an extreme example, unlike many Americans, I would have no qualms about eating horsemeat, or human flesh for that matter. Not to say I would like either one, but I'd be willing to try them. On the other hand I'd be very upset if someone told me the burger I just finished eating was horsemeat or "long pork".

[golem]

Yeah, maybe someday there's a folder with multiple small bolts on its handle, just one of them happens to lock the blade. Or some knife with bugs printed all over its body, just one of them happens to be a butterfly right on the butt of the blade. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[John Frederick]

As an extreme example, unlike many Americans, I would have no qualms about eating horsemeat, or human flesh for that matter".

Well, that's something you don't hear everyday! :eek:

[mrd74]

In defence of Benchmade,the knife in question has multible holes in the blade not one(Spydies trademark).The multible holes are the recognized trademark of Neil Blackwood who is the designer of the Benchmade knife in question although I can't attest as to whether Neils multible hole design is registered.My point is the blade perforations are the intended replication of Neils design,not Spydercos at least that is my interpretation.

[Stuart Ackerman]

hey, deacon,
remind me not to accept a lunch invitation from you...

[HoB]

Well, as he just pointed out, Deacon would tell you before hand what you are going to eat....so you have the choice to stick to the salad :D .

Well, that is exactly the problem here. Neil Blackwood would certainly be able to licence the hole from Spyderco (and maybe even has). But when the design went to BM, they would have been required to make changes. If Kevin Wilkins would design a knife for anybody but Spyderco, he wouldn't be able to use the round hole, even though he himself is licenced to do so.

[CKE]

Correct me if I am wrong but Neil Blackwood has 3 holes not 4. As the prototype 630 had 3. Then after some flack they made the production with 4 holes. Poor business...but that horse has been beat'n to death :D


Yep, just checked his site. He uses 3 holes. Doesn't Viele also use 3 holes????

[dialex]

Now I wonder... what if someone will trademark a cylindrical thumbstud as an opening device?