Spyderco hole all up in your face

D

Dano1987

Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
242
What's with all the HK knives with the spyder hole? I knew benchmade had a griptillian with the hole but why the HK's? Everyone knows that the hole is for Spydercos. Seems like they are just trying to produce a knock off. Well I just sent in my delica with the defective lock on it. Hope it comes back in good shape.
 
It's too bad that Sal is too nice to use the Axis lock once the patent ends again next year as a way to stick it right back to them :p
 
You never know a Spyderco Sage 5 with the axis lock will do justice . :eek:
 
copy cat,is the next best to flatery!we all no that spyderco rule's the hole and the pocket clip to.
 
I would buy an AXIS lock Sage in a heartbeat.

What makes the AXIS different than the ball-bearing lock?
 
okto said:
I would buy an AXIS lock Sage in a heartbeat.

What makes the AXIS different than the ball-bearing lock?
Click to expand...

The AXIS lock is based around a user-actuated stop pin that is held in place by a non-coiled compression spring. In the ball bearing lock, the user operates a sliding button that is linked to a coil compression spring, which actuates the ball bearing that is used in place of a stop pin. Basically, the AXIS lock allows direct manipulation of the stop pin by the user, whereas a the user of a ball bearing lock never touches the stop bearing itself, just the button that actuates the stop bearing.
 
I know I'll get criticism for this, so let me start by saying it is not an attack on Spyderco - I think they're a great company, and honestly if everyone owned as many of their products as I do, they would make Apple look small by comparison.

That said - I do feel people here seem to treat intellectual property protection as if it were some inalienable and never-ending right. Patent laws were not created to provide someone with eternal exclusive rights to their own inventions. If society guaranteed that you could not use anyone else's idea unless you had a legal licensing agreement with them to do so, then society as we know it wouldn't exist - we'd still be in the Stone Age. Patent law exists to benefit society by:
1) Protecting the ability of the originator of an invention to exclusively profit from it for a reasonable length of time, that compensates for the effort they put into the invention and motivates others to be inventive.
2) Ensuring that after that reasonable length of time is expired, the invention is freely available for others to use. That is why patents have to be published.

A typical patent in the US is 20 years. So if Spyderco had patented their hole when first invented, the patent would have expired by now, and it would be available for anyone to use. However, they didn't patent it, they instead chose to trademark it, perhaps because trademarks don't expire or maybe because it would not have been judged sufficiently inventive to qualify for a patent. They are therefore using trademark laws for a purpose for which they weren't intended - the thumb hole was designed as a functional feature, not as a trademark or logo like the Spyderco spider. I understand why they would want to do it, but I don't feel companies should seek to exclude others from using a functional feature in perpetuity through the mis-use of trademark law. If it is a technical innovation, get a patent, and accept that when the patent expires, others will be able to use it. This is part of how private companies contribute to the public good.
 
Last edited:
Brummie said:
I know I'll get criticism for this, so let me start by saying it is not an attack on Spyderco - I think they're a great company, and honestly if everyone owned as many of their products as I do, they would make Apple look small by comparison.

That said - I do feel people here seem to treat intellectual property protection as if it were some inalienable and never-ending right. Patent laws were not created to provide someone with eternal exclusive rights to their own inventions. If society guaranteed that you could not use anyone else's idea unless you had a legal licensing agreement with them to do so, then society as we know it wouldn't exist - we'd still be in the Stone Age. Patent law exists to benefit society by:
1) Protecting the ability of the originator of an invention to exclusive profits from it for a reasonable length of time, that compensates for the effort they put into the invention, and motivates others to be inventive.
2) Ensuring that after that reasonable length of time is expired, the invention is freely available for others to use. That is why patents have to be published.

A typical patent in the US is 20 years. So if Spyderco had patented their hole when first invented, the patent would have expired by now, and it would be available for anyone to use. However, they didn't patent it, they instead chose to trademark it, perhaps because trademarks don't expire or maybe because it would not have been judged sufficiently inventive to qualify for a patent. They are therefore using trademark laws for a purpose for which they weren't intended - the thumb hole was designed as a functional feature, not as a trademark or logo like the Spyderco spider. I understand why they would want to do it, but I don't feel companies should seek to exclude others from using a functional feature in perpetuity through the mis-use of trademark law. If it is a technical innovation, get a patent, and accept that when the patent expires, others will be able to use it. This is part of how private companies contribute to the public good.
Click to expand...

Well said and, I have to agree.
 
SaintZe said:
The AXIS lock is based around a user-actuated stop pin that is held in place by a non-coiled compression spring. In the ball bearing lock, the user operates a sliding button that is linked to a coil compression spring, which actuates the ball bearing that is used in place of a stop pin. Basically, the AXIS lock allows direct manipulation of the stop pin by the user, whereas a the user of a ball bearing lock never touches the stop bearing itself, just the button that actuates the stop bearing.
Click to expand...
That is true, but remember there are non caged ball bearing locks. I like those better actually.
 
nccole said:
That is true, but remember there are non caged ball bearing locks. I like those better actually.
Click to expand...

Point, although in that case the difference still lies in the non-coiled single compression spring & the use of a ball bearing as a blade stop.
 
SaintZe said:
Basically, the AXIS lock allows direct manipulation of the stop pin by the user, whereas a the user of a ball bearing lock never touches the stop bearing itself
Click to expand...

Very concise explanation, thank you.
 
Brummie said:
I know I'll get criticism for this, so let me start by saying it is not an attack on Spyderco - I think they're a great company, and honestly if everyone owned as many of their products as I do, they would make Apple look small by comparison.

That said - I do feel people here seem to treat intellectual property protection as if it were some inalienable and never-ending right. Patent laws were not created to provide someone with eternal exclusive rights to their own inventions. If society guaranteed that you could not use anyone else's idea unless you had a legal licensing agreement with them to do so, then society as we know it wouldn't exist - we'd still be in the Stone Age. Patent law exists to benefit society by:
1) Protecting the ability of the originator of an invention to exclusively profit from it for a reasonable length of time, that compensates for the effort they put into the invention and motivates others to be inventive.
2) Ensuring that after that reasonable length of time is expired, the invention is freely available for others to use. That is why patents have to be published.

A typical patent in the US is 20 years. So if Spyderco had patented their hole when first invented, the patent would have expired by now, and it would be available for anyone to use. However, they didn't patent it, they instead chose to trademark it, perhaps because trademarks don't expire or maybe because it would not have been judged sufficiently inventive to qualify for a patent. They are therefore using trademark laws for a purpose for which they weren't intended - the thumb hole was designed as a functional feature, not as a trademark or logo like the Spyderco spider. I understand why they would want to do it, but I don't feel companies should seek to exclude others from using a functional feature in perpetuity through the mis-use of trademark law. If it is a technical innovation, get a patent, and accept that when the patent expires, others will be able to use it. This is part of how private companies contribute to the public good.
Click to expand...

And I would respectfully disagree.

The fact is that many different hole shapes are equally effective for one hand opening. Other companies have even claimed that their non-round opening holes were superior. I don't see how protecting one specific opening hole shape, a shape that a company has used continually for 30 years, as a trademark is unreasonable. It does not deprive other companies of the right to use the idea that was the subject of Spyderco's patent, which covered any depression in the blade of a folding knife that was positioned so as to be usable for one hand opening. The patent covered all hole shapes as well as things like the trapezoidal depressions in the blade of the C27 Jess Horn.
 
I don't think spyderco actually bans the use of the hole by other companies. But rather expects to be credited for inventing it. Similar to how a frame lock is called a reeves integral lock. I'm probably wrong but I think benchmade started using it, spyderco said hey you need to call it a spyderco hole or something similar, benchmade refused and eventually a private agreement was made
 
SBaker34 said:
Sal and Benchmade have an agreement on the hole.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I don't think Sal was very happy about it.

This is a reply to 5.56 in that old Carbon Fiber thread(one in General forum that was locked), and you could tell he wasn't crazy about the hole being on a BM....
sorry again. Must have been the Benchmade with the spyderhole.

sal
Click to expand...


After reading some more on it I sold both of my Benchmades with a hole. An older large and small (ATS-34) AFCK.
 
2016, the Axis patent reaches 20 years. Its going to be interesting for Benchmade and the competition.

The trademark hole appears even in their fixed blades. Even in mules. Even in folders like the upcoming Ion that cant utilize the hole as a FUNCTION. So it is a valid trademark as well.

A shape that serves as an identifying function can be enforced as a trademark. The Coke bottle and Ipod for example. Trademark distinctiveness is an important part of trademark law. In this case, the Spyderhole is described as an "acquired distinctiveness" where consumers in the marketplace exclusively associate the mark, as used on the identified goods or in connection with the identified services, with a particular commercial origin or source (i.e. the trademark owner Spyderco)
 
The Deacon said:
The fact is that many different hole shapes are equally effective for one hand opening. Other companies have even claimed that their non-round opening holes were superior. I don't see how protecting one specific opening hole shape, a shape that a company has used continually for 30 years, as a trademark is unreasonable. It does not deprive other companies of the right to use the idea that was the subject of Spyderco's patent, which covered any depression in the blade of a folding knife that was positioned so as to be usable for one hand opening. The patent covered all hole shapes as well as things like the trapezoidal depressions in the blade of the C27 Jess Horn.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the history, I didn't know they had patented the thumb-hole in general, and then trademarked the round hole specifically when the patent expired. I still think it's a bit of a stretch to effectively trademark a circle. Given that others can use thumb-holes that are nearly spherical, I don't see that it gives them much of an advantage to continue to try to protect it. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have to put holes in all their current fixed blades.
 
Thanx for the explanation Deacon.

Hi Brummie,

The purpose of a trademark is identification, which the hole does.

sal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top