Spydiebenza 25

[dirc]

Absolutely this. Seen a lot of Hinderer ZTs broken this way.

thanks for sharing this... I really didn't know it was a source of failures, I would not have expected it to be as they are really quite small

 

[Dallas T]

How’d ya do that?

 

[The Aflac Duck]

How’d ya do that?

Batoning.

 

[Dallas T]

Lol that’ll do it! Seems that those locks and the delicas have blades break before the lock fails

 

[The Aflac Duck]

It's a good thing I wasn't in a survival situation.

 

[dirc]

 

[Sharp & Fiery]

Probably so but the hole just looks too big too me.

Not the 1st time I've seen a SpydieHole on "other" knives. BM has already ripped off the SpydieHole and I'm not sure if they've paid a licensing fee to Spyderco for it or if Spyderco just doesn't think it's important enough to sue to enforce their trademark (assuming that the SpydieHole is actually trademarked; don't know if it is or not).

For me, if I want a knife w/a SpydieHole, I'll buy another Spyderco to add to the over 100 that I already own, rather than buy a ripoff of the idea on a knife from another company (or bother "custom" drilling such a hole in an already desirable knife like a CRK.

Ummm...when did BM rip off the spydie hole? Which models?

 

[dirc]

they didn't 'rip off' the spydie hole, my understanding is they paid to use it ->
grips and mini-grips use it

 

[Reitwagen]

Benchmade AFCK had a round hole then they changed to oval.

 

[GronK]

they didn't 'rip off' the spydie hole, my understanding is they paid to use it ->
grips and mini-grips use it

If I recall correctly (and that's a big if!) Benchmade started using the hole, got called on it and came to an agreement with Spyderco.

 

[Justin Schmidt]

Batoning.

Did you expect a different result?

 

[patrickguignot]

Not sure what is "stupid" about trademarking it.

It's a little bit off-topic and IANAL but let's try to explain why I think it's "stupid".
Imagine you're the first to invent the wheel. You patent it and you enjoy 20 years of exclusivity. During this period you have the right to exclude others from making and selling wheels.
In exchange of this very important temporary monopoly you must disclose to the public how to make or practice the invention. And after this 20 years period it's fair game for others to make and sell wheels. Patents are a mutual benefit contract for the inventor and for the society.

But imagine after 20 years you don't want to lose your monopoly about wheels. So you have the idea of trademarking your invention. You define the wheel as a "recognizable sign" of your brand in order to exclude others. You said : "All my cars have 4 wheels so the wheel is a recognizable sign of my brand. They exclusively identify my company and as such they are my trademark and others can't use them".

It's a complete betrayal of the meaning of trademarks.
That's an awful thing to do because :

1) The extinction of the monopoly after 20 years is the counterpart of the exclusivity period you enjoyed. It's a treason of this mutual benefit contract to try to keep your monopoly at the end.
2) Wheels or round holes on folding knive's blades to open them are first and foremost technical inventions. Not design elements. To call them "design elements specific to my brand" is a lie you’re making in order to keep your previous patent monopoly.

In my opinion the Round Hole™ should never have been accepted as a trademark for Spyderco.

 

[hhmoore]

In my opinion the Round Hole™ should never have been accepted as a trademark for Spyderco.

But, if it was, Spyderco is obligated to protect it...anybody remember why CM stopped doing wave mods for people?

 

[dirc]

it's the legal doublespeak system strongly influenced by $ since about the 12th century, thus, a logical outcome
let's hope they actually bother making it reasonable some day

 

[Lance Leon]

why would you spend that much on a 15 or 20 minute dremmel job?? honestly curious

(also, personally I'd make it a bit smaller, and might not actually make a hole all the way thru, as that is not needed to give you purchase)

I'm assuming the blade was also refinished (tumbled or blasted) to cover up the milling/drilling marks made when creating the hole. If that's the case, it not only needs the refinishing process, but sharpening it afterwards. $75 is a fair price for that job in my eyes.

 

[Sharp & Fiery]

As far as my limited knowledge of the spydie trademark is that it is the hole at an exact size.
Also, near the beggining of BM and Spydercos existence, a couple designers (the designer of the pika 2 and the AFAK?) actually pitched their idea for a knife shape to Spyderco. So those blades had the hole. Spyderco passed, thinking they wouldnt sell well, and BM picked up the designs. This was before the trademark Spyderco now holds.
So today, as long as the hole isnt the exact size as the trademark it is fair game.
Also, i know, for a fact, that you can license the spyderco hole. I have a good friend who holds a license to do so.
Trademarking a hole is absurd to me...its a hole. Same with blade shapes. There are only so many shapes and holes you can do.

If there is someone here who can correct any of this information, i am open to that. This is all just to my understanding.

Not trying to argue, just sharing what i have heard over the years.
Im not a BM fan (or a Spydie fan for that matter), although i do own a couple models from both companies.
But a blanket statement like "BM already stole the spydie hole" bothers me. To make a statement like that, you better be sure your information is correct.
No hard feelings at all...just having a discussion.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

There are plenty of options on the market for knives. To me, I would argue that the Spyderhole really is a design element of their blades. Even their fixed blades have it and it typically makes a Spyderco produced knife distinctly Spyderco.

Appreciate your feedback P patrickguignot

 

[Twinsdad]

In a positive note for the op this all but guarantees he will keep it lol. You take a beating selling a sebenza with a missing birth certificate let alone a hole in it lol.

 

[James Y]

As far as my limited knowledge of the spydie trademark is that it is the hole at an exact size.
Also, near the beggining of BM and Spydercos existence, a couple designers (the designer of the pika 2 and the AFAK?) actually pitched their idea for a knife shape to Spyderco. So those blades had the hole. Spyderco passed, thinking they wouldnt sell well, and BM picked up the designs. This was before the trademark Spyderco now holds.
So today, as long as the hole isnt the exact size as the trademark it is fair game.
Also, i know, for a fact, that you can license the spyderco hole. I have a good friend who holds a license to do so.
Trademarking a hole is absurd to me...its a hole. Same with blade shapes. There are only so many shapes and holes you can do.

If there is someone here who can correct any of this information, i am open to that. This is all just to my understanding.

Not trying to argue, just sharing what i have heard over the years.
Im not a BM fan (or a Spydie fan for that matter), although i do own a couple models from both companies.
But a blanket statement like "BM already stole the spydie hole" bothers me. To make a statement like that, you better be sure your information is correct.
No hard feelings at all...just having a discussion.

IIRC, it wasn't the size of the hole, but the Spyderco round hole.

I'm not quite sure if Spyderco passed on the AFCK, or if Chris Caracci ended up deciding he didn't want Spyderco producing it(?). IIRC, it was meant to be a liner lock version of the Spyderco Police, or was at least inspired by the Police.

Jim

 

[GronK]

It's a little bit off-topic and IANAL but let's try to explain why I think it's "stupid".
Imagine you're the first to invent the wheel. You patent it and you enjoy 20 years of exclusivity. During this period you have the right to exclude others from making and selling wheels.
In exchange of this very important temporary monopoly you must disclose to the public how to make or practice the invention. And after this 20 years period it's fair game for others to make and sell wheels. Patents are a mutual benefit contract for the inventor and for the society.

But imagine after 20 years you don't want to lose your monopoly about wheels. So you have the idea of trademarking your invention. You define the wheel as a "recognizable sign" of your brand in order to exclude others. You said : "All my cars have 4 wheels so the wheel is a recognizable sign of my brand. They exclusively identify my company and as such they are my trademark and others can't use them".

It's a complete betrayal of the meaning of trademarks.
That's an awful thing to do because :

1) The extinction of the monopoly after 20 years is the counterpart of the exclusivity period you enjoyed. It's a treason of this mutual benefit contract to try to keep your monopoly at the end.
2) Wheels or round holes on folding knive's blades to open them are first and foremost technical inventions. Not design elements. To call them "design elements specific to my brand" is a lie you’re making in order to keep your previous patent monopoly.

In my opinion the Round Hole™ should never have been accepted as a trademark for Spyderco.

Round hole in blade = "Spyderco", not "some guy with a drill". Simple business practice is to protect that trademark if possible.