spyderco puukko

[Toast]

^this.^

[swanseajack]

Oh yes!

[kawasemi]

The 'trade mark' looks forced and from a company that used to pride itself in form follows function a blade weakening bit of pointlessness. That said, a future version in black micarta could still tempt me.
I liked the look of the similar Cold Steel Sisu but disliked the sheath and the price point. I'll wait and see the final Spyderco price.

Sent from my X10i using Tapatalk

2nd that/my thoughts exactly - and post 28/30 (it really is a beautiful folder).

kawasemi

[luresalive]

Not a bad looking knife (in the first post) but oh that hole!!! It just takes away so much from what looks like an otherwise nice knife, but I could still be tempted if the price was right, but again that would have to be reflected in the fact that it's a made in Taiwan knife.

[Farmer]

Not a bad looking knife (in the first post) but oh that hole!!! It just takes away so much from what looks like an otherwise nice knife...

Seems to be quite a consensus forming about the hole!

What makes its presence even more incomprehensible is that the hole doesn't appear to fall within the definition of a trademark under US [or indeed UK] intellectual property regulations. Which probably explains why lots of other manufacturers now use opening holes (eg Benchmade, Victorinox, Boker). This of course means the hole no longer distinguishes Spyderco from its competitors so there's even less point incorporating it on a fixed blade.

[sal]

For once I think the hole looks really out of place.

Yes, I know they have to for trademark and I've read all the suggestions of weakening of the blade and gunk issues but normally I see no problem with the hole.

However in this case, it just looks plain wrong. The knife looks great apart from that one detail. Doesn't sit right in the design.

Sorry Sal!

No problem Stew. We do what we have to do.

sal

[sal]

Hi Rob, Toast, Dagon, Thanx much for the confidence and support. It really is a fine piece. The knife was actually Pekka's idea and we went with it.

On our Taiwan maker; I'll stack him up against any in the world for custom quality.

The ricasso is only large enough to put names, steel and country of mfr. (although steel and wood are from the US.)

Hi Ookami, Pekka's latest design for a Spyderco folder is quite exquisite. (not the one shown) We're calling it the "Nilakka Folding Puukko" named for a lake near Pekka's house. We're doing the engineering now. Pekka is an exceptional designer/maker and very good to work with.

Hi Farmer, Our trademark is a "round hole" located on a certain part of the blade.

sal

[Farmer]

Hi Farmer, Our trademark is a "round hole" located on a certain part of the blade.

sal

Appreciate your response as always Sal

I made my comment because in the UK trademarks are not registrable if they "are three dimensional shapes, if the shape is typical of the goods you are interested in (or part of them), has a function or adds value to the goods". Source: Intellectual Property Office http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-about/t-whatis.htm

Perhaps the rules are different in the US though?

[Basemetal]

I made my comment because in the UK trademarks are not registrable if they "are three dimensional shapes, if the shape is typical of the goods you are interested in (or part of them), has a function or adds value to the goods". Source: Intellectual Property Office http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-about/t-whatis.htm

Perhaps the rules are different in the US though?

The spyderhole complies with that description
It is 3-dimensional (or are holes dimensionless? ), but as required by the regs:
... not typical of a knife blade
... has no other function on a fixed blade
... doesn't add value to a fixed blade.

Could be trickier as a trademark on a folder in the UK, but perhaps the Patent approach would take precedent over Trademark argument.

[Farmer]

The spyderhole complies with that description
It is 3-dimensional (or are holes dimensionless? ), but as required by the regs:
... not typical of a knife blade
... has no other function on a fixed blade
... doesn't add value to a fixed blade.

Could be trickier as a trademark on a folder in the UK, but perhaps the Patent approach would take precedent over Trademark argument.

Surely as it's a hole in a three dimensional object then it too must have that same number of dimensions. After all to describe the hole would require coordinates in three dimensions...

Anyway, leaving that issue aside I would agree that on a fixed blade the hole could indeed be a trademark. But on a folder (where the hole originated) it clearly does have a function and adds value too, so therefore cannot be a trademark [under UK regulations].

Interestingly the US system also seems quite clear that there are clear differences between what can be patented, trademarked or copyrighted, as per this extract:

"Do Trademarks, Copyrights, and Patents protect the same things?
No. Trademarks, copyrights, and patents protect different types of intellectual property. A trademark typically protects brand names and logos used on goods and services. A copyright protects an original artistic or literary work. A patent protects an invention. For example, if you invent a new kind of vacuum cleaner, you would apply for a patent to protect the invention itself. You would apply to register a trademark to protect the brand name of the vacuum cleaner."

Source: US Patent and Trademark Office http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basi...rect_links.pdf

However I suspect that the specifics of trademarking the opening hole is a subject that has been chewed over ad nauseam on various forums on the other side of the pond and I'm not sure we'll get any closer to resolving it!

I think my main point is still valid though. If lots of other manufacturers are using the opening hole then its value as a trademark becomes increasingly irrelevant. So why bother sticking it on a fixed blade where it will only cause a [admittedly small] decrease in performance?