S35VN now available from Cold Steel. I wasn't expecting that...

[JohnKSa]

...when a knife is produced that is a visual clone of an existing knife (without any compensation to the original maker), that doesn't seem ethical.

I agree that it seems to be unethical. But I think that oversimplifies the situation.

1. There isn't any official definition of "clone" or "visual clone" and as some of the exchanges in this thread demonstrate, what one person thinks is a clone, another might think is quite different in design.

2. Just because a knife is a clone doesn't mean that anything has been done that is unethical. If the design has been around for many decades then logic says at some point it must pass into the public domain as would be the case with any other intellectual property. That brings up another question--the lack of legal protection means that there's also a lack of a legally/clearly defined time boundary for the expiration of intellectual property "rights" for knife designs. So it's a judgement call/personal opinion as to how long it takes for a design to pass into the public domain.

3. What's even worse is that because no one is officially keeping track of knife designs (a la patent/copyright/etc.) there's no guarantee that a given design that's being "cloned" (whatever that means to the person making the claim) isn't actually a clone of another design, either intentionally or unintentionally. Which means that even if we could establish what constitutes infringement, it's difficult to know who's infringing and who's not.

It appears to me entire concept of knife design rights is a wobbly construct built on a foundation of personal opinion, judgement calls and assumptions.

From a practical standpoint, only a very tiny fraction of the knife market is going to have any idea or even care about what is going on with various designs, where they originated and when, if the knife they're buying is a tribute copy, a cheap copy, a clone of a knife in the public domain or an original design. Or even what many of those things mean. Which means that getting traction to change things might be impossible--even if we could agree on what changes need to be made.

What I think it all boils down to, is that until the industry can nail down some very basic concepts about knife design intellectual property, this topic is almost totally subjective. It comes down to feelings. "I feel like knife A is an original design/common design." "I feel like knife B is/isn't a clone of knife A." "I feel that it's ethical/unethical to clone a knife that's been in the public domain 10/20/20/100 years." "I feel like company X is being unethical/ethical for making a knife that's too similar/quite different from a knife made by company Y that is/isn't their own original design."

 

[hso]

It isn't difficult to apply the criteria for patent or copyright infringement for the standards of unfair use of the design work of others, with or without there being a patent or copyright on file.

 

[ilbob]

It isn't difficult to apply the criteria for patent or copyright infringement for the standards of unfair use of the design work of others, with or without there being a patent or copyright on file.

People have been making knives for a long time. I am not sure there is anything really new or original out there.

 

[JohnKSa]

It isn't difficult to apply the criteria for patent or copyright infringement for the standards of unfair use of the design work of others, with or without there being a patent or copyright on file.

If the design work qualifies for a patent or copyright then the issue is tremendously simplified. I have been approaching this from the perspective that the whole problem was dealing with design work that does NOT qualify for patent or copyright protection.

 

[hso]

Also keep in mind that a patent or copyright has to be defended and small companies, much less individual craftspeople, can't afford to pay for them OR defend them so they get by as best they can.

 

[Slamfire]

It appears to me entire concept of knife design rights is a wobbly construct built on a foundation of personal opinion, judgement calls and assumptions.

I totally agree and what we do not need is more Government sanctioned and enforced monopolies. We have so much Corporate Rent seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking, going on and yet, the knife community wants even more! I have seen thousands of posts on one particular forum, lets call it "BadForum" where the consensus seems to be, "if I think it is a copy, then it is a copy". They are particular hateful towards Cold Steel because for years Cold Steel did not have a presence on their forum. These types then copy and paste images into their posts, to prove similarity, ignoring the fact, that what they are doing is stealing copyrighted material! You want to post a picture of a knife, buy the knife, take a picture, and post your picture. One of the strongest critics of Cold Steel and "their copies" was a Security Guard for a Community College, 3Guardsman. He later began to apply his principals to other brands, at least in that he was consistent. He must have been very depressed, unfortunately he committed suicide. http://www.ohlone.edu/org/healthcenter/20110419outofthedarknesscampuswalk.html I am grateful I don't live in a world organized around the philosophical ideas of an emotionally disturbed, suicidal Campus Cop.

As to what constitutes a copy on BadForum, it seems obey the logic of, before me and after me. If the knife design was invented before the critic was born, or opened their eyes, then the knife design is in the public domain, but if the design came out after self awareness, and it looks vaguely like a brand pattern they like, then it is a copy.

I am of the opinion that Trademark needs to be protected. The maker is stamping their name, and their reputation on the knife. I buy by brand and reputation. But in so far Government protected monopolies, I have had it with perpetual Government protected monopolies. By the way, Government protected monopolies are increasing in scope, scale and longevity precisely because the public wants them. Knives have been around since the stone age, something sharp with a handle or grasping surface. Multitude of patterns that have been developed since then, the quantity is amazing. Maybe we ought to give patent royalty payments to the monkeys and great apes since they would have the best claim to inventing knives.

 

[JohnKSa]

Also keep in mind that a patent or copyright has to be defended and small companies, much less individual craftspeople, can't afford to pay for them OR defend them so they get by as best they can.

So is the issue that the design aspects we're talking about don't qualify for patent/copyright protection or is it that it's too expensive for small companies/individuals to acquire/defend such protections?

If they don't qualify, then my earlier comments apply. Without a lot of groundwork/foundation laying by the knife community to define what is protected and what isn't then it's all just a matter of personal opinion and we can see how well that isn't working.

If they do apply but it is not practical for small companies/individuals to acquire and defend then it seems like that should be a simple focal point to apply pressure to make the necessary changes.

 

[hso]

So is the issue that the design aspects we're talking about don't qualify for patent/copyright protection or is it that it's too expensive for small companies/individuals to acquire/defend such protections?

That's not necessarily an "or" question and more of a spectrum. In many cases a piece would qualify, but the expense of copyright/patent AND the legal fees and trouble to defend simply are too much for a maker or small manufacturer. I've been involved in a few of situations on both sides of the argument where a company went after a smaller company or a knifemaker "defending" their patent or copyright too broadly and send papers threatening to sue where it was clearly not an infringement, but because they were suppressing competition in the field. The threats typically include a licensing agreement that is just below what it will cost the smaller guy in lawyer fees to be dragged into court and fight. Assisted opener development lead to many of these sorts of situations. Conversely, I've worked with makers and small companies that decided spending the money to protect a design, remarkably common to have $2500 to $5000 be the cost, was a stretch, but the cost they'd face defending their design made it completely prohibitive. They didn't have to time to invest themselves or the money to invest in lawyers to protect something that struck fire. The great exception was a maker/designer who's wife was an attorney and no one wanted to mess with them since the two of them were very very talented at what they did. Then there's the "close enough to go to court over, but not close/far enough apart to be obvious" ranging to the "could go either way in court" to the "fussing bout at shows and on the net".

 

[JohnKSa]

...the cost they'd face defending their design made it completely prohibitive.

Is it that the judgements are too small to make it attractive to lawyers to take it on contingency? There doesn't seem to be any shortage of legal help willing to take on a case for nothing unless they win the case.

I really don't know what to think about a designer/maker who could protect a design but decides not to. I mean I understand the financial consideration but it's still sort of an odd situation. Is the knife buying public supposed to care more about his intellectual property than he does and try to enforce the protection of his design when he decided not to? It seems kind of backwards.

 

[hso]

Is the knife buying public supposed to care more about his intellectual property than he does and try to enforce the protection of his design when he decided not to

Most people don't understand the razor thin margins custom knife makers and small knife companies operate on and that the judgements are not going to be large when you're a little guy facing off against big guys. Also, the rapid pace of change makes one design or the other (unless you're making big changes in the industry like AOs did) pretty short lived. "they have more and better lawyers" "I have to be making knives, I can't afford to be tied up in court defending "the knife" every time some manufacturer knocks me off" ... Also, patent infringement lawyers don't want to mess with piddly product issues so the little guy faces a staff on retainer representing the big guy while they try to get by with lower caliber help if they do try.

I and a well known maker had a solid new idea and design that a major manufacturer expressed an interest in. We had a signed agreement for development with a one year window and an agreement to handle the patent I'd researched and paid for professional help researching to make sure we had something new and unique and potentially useful. All for naught. After being strung on for a year with no headway and various excuses the project was dropped and the protos were returned with the drawings. And 9 months later they came out with a similar product. I mention this because I was with another famous maker that used to work with that manufacturer and mentioned that he'd worked on that product they came out with. I started laughing and told him my timeline and even had a pic of the proto on my phone and we sat staring at each other amazed at the coincidence of our sitting beside each other across the country from where this happened so many years ago. I told him I had no hard feelings against him and he told me such practices, get an agreement and tie someone up ..., were one of the reasons he left and eventually quit doing any business with the company. The maker and I already knew first hand what makers face and the odds against them and after I personally consulted with a couple of specialists in this issue came to the conclusion that I could spend a lot of money and loose or a lot of money and not win enough to pay for the money I'd spent. This is so common that it is a truism in the business that a patent is worthless without a large manufacturer to help defend it for a designer , and that's assuming the knockoff is by an American company instead of European or Asian. As I've said, not only is it the individual designer or artisan that can't afford to fight, but even small companies can't fight bigger ones (and I've helped 2 try only to have the lawyers they use tell them it would be cheaper to settle and pay a royalty) profitably. Only where the stakes are worth the investment (and knives just aren't going to be worth it most of the time) does anyone even think about it.