Why no spydiehole on the Murray Carter collection?

sogflash

sogflash

Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
1,588
I thought Spyderco had to put a hole in all their blades to keep the "spydiehole" as a trademark.

What is different about the Murray Carter collection? I'm looking at the website now and see that some kitchen knives have a hole in them and some don't.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer fixed blades with no holes in them. It would be interesting to learn more about this.
 
I thought that was in the Byte. I don't have the email anymore. December copy.
 
The Santoku as well as several other of their kitchen knives have no Spydiehole. The Z cuts and some others do.
 
I'd have the opposite question, "why do they put holes in any of their fixed blade knives?". I'll admit my understanding of trademark law may be flawed, but the way I understand it, trademarks are, contextual. For Spyderco, that context would be a round hole in the blade of a folding knife that is intended to be used as the opening device for that knife. Non-functional round holes on folders by other makers do not violate that trademark. Neither would holes on any fixed blade knives whether functional, as in the case of hanging holes on some kitchen knives or holes meant to be used as lanyard holes on cutting competition knives, or not.
 
Trademarks are contextual. Like a knife with a spider next to a hole. Therefore every knife, fixed or folder. If considering an "opening device", that's functional, which would fall under patents, and was not in the cards as I understand it. But doubt it would need to be in every fixed blade to preserve the mark.
 
It was patented, but patents expire. It was also registered as a trademark, and those don't expire. The function cannot be trademarked, only the appearance, hence the hole in a fixed blade that serves no other purpose but a visual identifier that the knife is a Spyderco. Why not on the Murray Carter collection? Have you asked Murray? Maybe he didn't want them on there.
 
It's the inconsistency of it I don't get. Some kitchen knives have the hole, some don't.

Does all their non kitchen fixed blades have a spydie hole?
 
I don't believe that you can Patent a "hole". A hole isn't a thing....it's where something was and no longer is.
 
bflying said:
Trademarks are contextual. Like a knife with a spider next to a hole. Therefore every knife, fixed or folder. If considering an "opening device", that's functional, which would fall under patents, and was not in the cards as I understand it. But doubt it would need to be in every fixed blade to preserve the mark.
Click to expand...

You can trademark the shape of a functional item. For example, most fountain and ballpoint pens have a pocket clip, but Parker has a trademark on a clip shaped like an arrow in the context of writing pens. Bottles are functional, but Coca-Cola has a trademark on the "coke bottle" shaped bottle, at least in the context of soft drinks.

OnceBitten said:
I don't believe that you can Patent a "hole". A hole isn't a thing....it's where something was and no longer is.
Click to expand...

Spyderco's original patent covered any depression in the blade of a folding knife that could be used to open that knife one handed, using your thumb. Up till the time the patent expired, Spyderco only ever produced one Spyderco branded knife with any implementation of that patent other than a round hole in the blade. That was the C27 Jess Horn
 
yablanowitz said:
It was patented, but patents expire. It was also registered as a trademark, and those don't expire. The function cannot be trademarked, only the appearance, hence the hole in a fixed blade that serves no other purpose but a visual identifier that the knife is a Spyderco. Why not on the Murray Carter collection? Have you asked Murray? Maybe he didn't want them on there.
Click to expand...

correct.

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