Spyderco hole all up in your face

Good thing that someone didn't trademark or patten a knife that had a sharpened edge, or one with a tip, maybe the thumbstud, jimping, coating, ect...IMO encourage your competition to be better, it will help you continue to be more innovate in your own designs...
 
I know that when I'm looking at knives in a display I look for the hole first then head toward that section.
The hole draws my eye to a Spyderco knife faster than the bug ever does.
 
Firestrike said:
Good thing that someone didn't trademark or patten a knife that had a sharpened edge, or one with a tip, maybe the thumbstud, jimping, coating, ect...IMO encourage your competition to be better, it will help you continue to be more innovate in your own designs...
Click to expand...

double_facepalm.png
 
Firestrike said:
Good thing that someone didn't trademark or patten a knife that had a sharpened edge, or one with a tip, maybe the thumbstud, jimping, coating, ect...IMO encourage your competition to be better, it will help you continue to be more innovate in your own designs...
Click to expand...

How about sarcasm, anyone patent that yet?

I know from your posts that you are a prideful Oregonian and I have read that you are very much a Benchmade fan (I am also) and do not care much for Spyderco but let's be real here.

If you're going to talk about innovating and encouraging competition to be better, Spyderco is the wrong company to call out in that regard. Maybe you should encourage Benchmade to do the same and allow their one claim to fame innovation, the Axis lock for the competition to use. Sure, the Axis lock is 100% more complicated an innovation than a mere silly hole, but that hole in the application of knives, is trademarked meaning it is not just for function but for brand recognition.

To level some reality, Spyderco has innovated and put to market a handful of folder locks as well. Innovating for the good of the industry by introducing the pocket clip in folders that Spyderco is credited for is as "helpful to competition" as it gets. You do not get more innovative in terms of steels for cutlery use than the Mule team. Serrations on folders is a Spyderco innovation as well, something Benchmade has available on their knives. What does Benchmade do? Call Chris Reeve's integral lock "the monolock" like it's theirs? Is that how we encourage innovation? By re-inventing things and calling it something else? What's a worse crux against competition than MAP pricing?

At the end of the day, the hole in a folding knife, was the first of its kind to allow one hand opening. Beyond function, it is an iconic symbol for the company and they use the hole even on their fixed blades and now flippers.
 
Firestrike said:
Good thing that someone didn't trademark or patten a knife that had a sharpened edge, or one with a tip, maybe the thumbstud, jimping, coating, ect...IMO encourage your competition to be better, it will help you continue to be more innovate in your own designs...
Click to expand...

Do you not believe in patents and trademarks? Perhaps you do not understand their purpose?

sal
 
Hi Sal, what are your thoughts on the purpose of IP? In my mind there are reasons of competitive advantage, and reasons of competitive differentiation. If a hole was better than other options, then protection could push makers to use lesser options. Or, it could push makers to come up with even better options. Free market capitalism doesn't die just because someone says "my idea is better and you can't use it." How many ways are there to open a knife? We still don't know, because plenty of ways haven't been invented yet.

Now, if the hole isn't objectively better, but is simply used as a means to idiosyncrasy, then other makers can still come up with their own options. No one is limited because they can't use a hole. Just in terms of cutouts I've seen ovals of all shapes, lengths, and symmetries (or lack thereof) and series of small holes versus one single hole. Not to mention all the indentation, stud, disk, and rail options.

So I don't think anyone is really limited from innovating new and unique concepts because one person corners an idea for reasons of either advantage or differentiation. IP protection can be used abusively, to prevent actual innovations from occurring (and even prevention of general use! US law and Marshall, Texas, you know I'm talking about you). But blatant lawsuit-baiting practices aside, IP isn't necessarily a yellow brick road to Soviet-Unionesque economic stagnation.
 
The spyderhole is brilliantly simple. It's both extremely effective as an opening widget, and as a clear statement of pedigree. If it was mine, I would look after it the best I could.
Other makers need to be careful in using it, as users of their version could easily be led into Spyderco's arms (except the knock off pirates, of course).
An axis-lock sage would just be a homage to it's designer, however.😀
 
Sal Glesser said:
Do you not believe in patents and trademarks? Perhaps you do not understand their purpose?

sal
Click to expand...

I understand what these things are, but a hole drilled into a blade does not compute with me.

Is the hole in a Benchmade taking money from you in any way? Does slightly elongating the hole into an oval really change the overall intent of function, but make it acceptable because then it is not a trademark infringement? A patten was what would be called for here which would eventually expire, but a trademark??? No! I am certian holes have been drilled into knves before they were ever put on a folder. It does not make the brand, just because it is included on fixed blades as well. If the argument is that its trademark due to it being on all blades, we could take this to infinity with almost any product. How many manufactures make dinner forks with 4 tines? The first company to make them could argue it was a trademark, then we would have a bunch of retarded forks with 3, 5, 6, 7, ect...tines. Now if said hole was cut out into an actual shape of a Spider, that would indeed make for a trademark.
 
Last edited:
Stays Sharp said:
How about sarcasm, anyone patent that yet?

I know from your posts that you are a prideful Oregonian and I have read that you are very much a Benchmade fan (I am also) and do not care much for Spyderco but let's be real here.

If you're going to talk about innovating and encouraging competition to be better, Spyderco is the wrong company to call out in that regard. Maybe you should encourage Benchmade to do the same and allow their one claim to fame innovation, the Axis lock for the competition to use. Sure, the Axis lock is 100% more complicated an innovation than a mere silly hole, but that hole in the application of knives, is trademarked meaning it is not just for function but for brand recognition.

To level some reality, Spyderco has innovated and put to market a handful of folder locks as well. Innovating for the good of the industry by introducing the pocket clip in folders that Spyderco is credited for is as "helpful to competition" as it gets. You do not get more innovative in terms of steels for cutlery use than the Mule team. Serrations on folders is a Spyderco innovation as well, something Benchmade has available on their knives. What does Benchmade do? Call Chris Reeve's integral lock "the monolock" like it's theirs? Is that how we encourage innovation? By re-inventing things and calling it something else? What's a worse crux against competition than MAP pricing?

At the end of the day, the hole in a folding knife, was the first of its kind to allow one hand opening. Beyond function, it is an iconic symbol for the company and they use the hole even on their fixed blades and now flippers.
Click to expand...

Just because it is on all Spydies does not make it iconic, the blade shapes of Spyderco does enough, what the hole does on a fixed blade IMO is create a weakness.

As far as Axis locks and BM goes I could care less if Spyderco had it or anyone, I would still prefer BM all day. As far as MAP pricing an all American product more power to them. I never pay MAP but I certianly would for 100% American company. If you have read my previous posts then you already know I am all about the 100% American product which sadly almost all other production companies are not, I always will pay more to support American jobs.

In the End we are talking about a hole, which to me is not a big deal.

Also as for the Mono Lock vs Integral Lock
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/131028-Sebenza-and-Pinnacle-too-similar

From Chris Reeves himself on page 2...he said popularized and perfected, not invented...as well as he owns a copyright on the name Integeral lock.
 
Last edited:
Here's my opinion, I've never seen spyderco use a thumbstud, a certain percentage of people prefer them. Take BM's patent axis lock, it's fairly iconic but they also have several frame locks, liner locks etc. If part of having the hole trademarked means you have to use it. I consider that pretty fair.

And I also don't know how hard it is to get approval to use it from sal, if all you have to do is ask and make sure to credit spyderco, then I don't see it being trademarked as a problem at all
 
Hi Firestrike,

Perhaps because it does not compute with you, doesn't mean that there it isn't there, it just means that you don't understand it. We do have a trademark and most in the industry understand and respect that trademark. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

sal
 
Sal Glesser said:
Hi Firestrike,

Perhaps because it does not compute with you, doesn't mean that there it isn't there, it just means that you don't understand it. We do have a trademark and most in the industry understand and respect that trademark. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

sal
Click to expand...

Sal, when I see a hole in a blade, I think Spyderco. That's what a trademark means to me. :cool: :thumbup:

Anyone who wants to ignore that, should research where the moniker "Spydiehole" came from!
 
DAVE_M said:
Sal, when I see a hole in a blade, I think Spyderco. That's what a trademark means to me. :cool: :thumbup:

Anyone who wants to ignore that, should research where the moniker "Spydiehole" came from!
Click to expand...

Hard to argue with that:thumbup:
 
Firestrike said:
Just because it is on all Spydies does not make it iconic, the blade shapes of Spyderco does enough, what the hole does on a fixed blade IMO is create a weakness.

As far as Axis locks and BM goes I could care less if Spyderco had it or anyone, I would still prefer BM all day. As far as MAP pricing an all American product more power to them. I never pay MAP but I certianly would for 100% American company. If you have read my previous posts then you already know I am all about the 100% American product which sadly almost all other production companies are not, I always will pay more to support American jobs.

In the End we are talking about a hole, which to me is not a big deal.

Also as for the Mono Lock vs Integral Lock
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/131028-Sebenza-and-Pinnacle-too-similar

From Chris Reeves himself on page 2...he said popularized and perfected, not invented...as well as he owns a copyright on the name Integeral lock.
Click to expand...

Benchmade is not a 100% American company. They pulled that illusion over your head by rebranding their China brands as HK or Harley Davidson etc etc. Sorry, but your favorite brand is also paying Chinese people to make knives :) Probably more than Spyderco in volume. It's founder is Filipino who started his knife career making Filipino knives. It's not exactly an all American apple pie story. Nothing wrong with that but dont frame your brand like it has this aura of American-ness lmao. I brought up MAP pricing because you got on your soap box about competition being a good thing. Your brand doesnt even allow knives to be sold competitively in the open market.

Yes the hole isnt a big deal to you or Benchmade, that much is obvious. It doesnt mean that it isn't an identifying attribute to Spyderco for others and if the roles were reversd and BM had something protected and others thought werent a big deal, Im sure you would have your Oregon juices flowing up in arms for it.

Yes you shouldnt care if the Axis lock gets used by other companies... For one, it supports your argument here and two the patent will expire next year anyway so disagreeing wont win you anything anyway.

Chris Reeve allows anyone to use the term integral lock. For one, any patent he had on it would have expired anyway. BM calling it monolock which may even be trademarked like its their innovation is the problem here. Of course, thats not a problem to you since its BM all day.
 
Even their Autos have a hole. Its clear that they aren't just utilizing it as a function for opening a knife. While some may think its pointless to put it on fixed blades, autos, and flippers: They put their money where their mouth is... and use their trademark AS a trademark. A branding for their brand.
 
Firestrike said:
Just because it is on all Spydies does not make it iconic, the blade shapes of Spyderco does enough, what the hole does on a fixed blade IMO is create a weakness.
Click to expand...

What makes it iconic is the fact that nearly everyone other than you thinks it is iconic. This is one of those social proof things that your comment isn't going to reverse.

Also, I haven't seen any evidence that the hole is structurally compromising to Spyderco's fixed blades. And if I did, I would tell the person who broke the knife to quit using it wrong.
 
Honestly. Let me ask you guys. If spyderco did not have the trademark, would it effectively make the thumbstud obsolete? I think there would still be a lot who prefered the thumbstud. So I really don't see how this hurts the industry. Especially as since spyderco let's custom makers use it I suspect it's more a case of benchmade wanting to take full credit than spyderco asking for unreasonable royalties or flat out refusing
 
Firestrike said:
I understand what these things are, but a hole drilled into a blade does not compute with me.

Is the hole in a Benchmade taking money from you in any way? Does slightly elongating the hole into an oval really change the overall intent of function, but make it acceptable because then it is not a trademark infringement? A patten was what would be called for here which would eventually expire, but a trademark??? No! I am certian holes have been drilled into knves before they were ever put on a folder. It does not make the brand, just because it is included on fixed blades as well. If the argument is that its trademark due to it being on all blades, we could take this to infinity with almost any product. How many manufactures make dinner forks with 4 tines? The first company to make them could argue it was a trademark, then we would have a bunch of retarded forks with 3, 5, 6, 7, ect...tines. Now if said hole was cut out into an actual shape of a Spider, that would indeed make for a trademark.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I think you believe this post actually makes sense. :(
 
Shapes can be trademarked. Look at the Coke bottle.

It's clear that the hole is a point of pride for the people who work at Spyderco.

I know here where I work we've had our stuff ripped off in the past and we don't ever pat ourselves on the back about it. When our stuff get's copied it's in a diminished manner that casts a shadow on us.

Is there some moral requirement for them to allow others to profit from their inventions? Not really; it's not the only way to open a blade, and they're making it widely available at fair prices. If they tried the pharma move of raising prices 500% they'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face so there's no need to level the playing field and force them to open the IP to all comers.
 
I personally don't believe spyderco is entitled lifetime complete monopoly on blades with holes that's insane. But they've never done that, any knives designed by another maker they pretty much give complete credit to that maker for doing everything but manufacture, eg southfork, gayle bradley, If they use a design inspired or popularized by someone else they give credit even if not required to. Eg kit carson flipper, reeves integral lock walker liner lock.

So why is spyderco wrong for not liking an exact clone of their design? If benchmade wants to do their own take on hole opening fine. But it should in some way be different or more innovative if they don't want to give credit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top