What would you like to see on a pocket tool???

[Gadget Guy]

Stretched O-Ring huh? Sounds very Atwoodish, make sure it's not so close to the "captive bit system" as to run over anyone toes.

How about epoxy? 

[Freudian Frog]

Stretched O-Ring huh? Sounds very Atwoodish, make sure it's not so close to the "captive bit system" as to run over anyone toes.

How about epoxy? 

I kinda wanna know what toes can be run over with this... kinda like accusing someone of stealing your idea of rubber banding an object to another object...

[Gadget Guy]

Stretched O-Ring huh? Sounds very Atwoodish, make sure it's not so close to the "captive bit system" as to run over anyone toes.

How about epoxy? 

I kinda wanna know what toes can be run over with this... kinda like accusing someone of stealing your idea of rubber banding an object to another object...

Hey frog, don't start that again!    You punk kids have no respect!!!! 

[Freudian Frog]

Hey! I have respect! Just not for certain ideas, things or people.

I'm just saying... if someone complains about the copying of a creative use (putting one on the other *snickers*) of two objects (o-rings and driver bits) that aren't his own intellectual property anyway... gets all kinds of weird.

Though I guess the actual bit detaining system could be... even if it's just a metal slot...

Okay maybe not.

Or maybe, I don't really know how that'd work.

[Freudian Frog]

By the way, what do you folks think about the o-rings Atwood uses? Thanks to the Gadgeteer I'm now playing with a Shiner, my first Atwood, and it sports three of these rubber o-rings for grip.

My gripe on this grip is that the damn things just about triple the tool in thickness! I was considering keychain or neck pendant duty but it seems a bit distracting to the design.

I also tried to remove the o-rings but it turns out their retaining indents don't serve as good jimping. I think I'd prefer some regular more aggressive jimping! I know it's more premium being another part and having to be put on by hand and all that but...

What do you guys think? I might try my hand at a review for this thing later...

Also, Shiner is a terrible name! I'm calling mine Wagglepog!

EDIT: Ah yes, and glowing praises for the finish and overall good design, though I still can't wrap my head around this little piece of metal costing upwards of $55...

[Gadget Guy]

By the way, what do you folks think about the o-rings Atwood uses? Thanks to the Gadgeteer I'm now playing with a Shiner, my first Atwood, and it sports three of these rubber o-rings for grip.

My gripe on this grip is that the damn things just about triple the tool in thickness! I was considering keychain or neck pendant duty but it seems a bit distracting to the design.

I also tried to remove the o-rings but it turns out their retaining indents don't serve as good jimping. I think I'd prefer some regular more aggressive jimping! I know it's more premium being another part and having to be put on by hand and all that but...

What do you guys think? I might try my hand at a review for this thing later...

Also, Shiner is a terrible name! I'm calling mine Wagglepog!

EDIT: Ah yes, and glowing praises for the finish and overall good design, though I still can't wrap my head around this little piece of metal costing upwards of $55...

Remove the o-rings and try this:

http://www.plastidip.com/home_solutions/Plasti_Dip

BTW, I'm not a big fan of the o-ring concept for edc carry. It's better suited for a bag or pack. 

[Freudian Frog]

Ah, a good idea... I'll have to try that.

Thanks again!

[AHB]

I would like to see a cutout for the Lm flat bits, then there's no need to carry a hex adapter.. 

[DoughDTD]

Though I haven't seen anyone try to take advantage of jimping as an excuse to include wire strippers, that might be interesting.

I have that designed into the Crony.  I think I'll also make an attempt to work a gut hook into it, even though the bottle opener works so damn well    maybe i can keep the bottle opener and still find a spot for the gut hook.  I was throwing around an idea for a flat leatherman bit opening, but I think it would be better to have a full 1/4" opening that would also work with the lm bits.

-Dough

[Benner]

I totally see where David is coming from here.  I may be wrong (and do correct me if I am wrong David) but the problem isn't a "copying" issue it's more of a giving a tool your "own" identity issue.  In the one piece tool world Atwood is probably the most well known out there and so by adding a method to your own tool that is used by him, well you just run the risk of losing the identity of what you have created and making it more Atwood like.

If that makes any sense at all? 

[Gadget Guy]

I totally see where David is coming from here.  I may be wrong (and do correct me if I am wrong David) but the problem isn't a "copying" issue it's more of a giving a tool your "own" identity issue.  In the one piece tool world Atwood is probably the most well known out there and so by adding a method to your own tool that is used by him, well you just run the risk of losing the identity of what you have created and making it more Atwood like.

If that makes any sense at all?  

Ben, nothing else in the world looks like a Prybaby (except the Gerber copies  ) but Peter didn't invent the pocket tool industry. He has basically taken old designs and put his own spin on them. As long as you don't copy the spin that a maker put on a tool then it's fine. There are only so many different tools you can add to a pocket tool. Having a pry, bottle opener, screwdriver isn't original at all. It also goes a long way to talk to the maker if you think you're stepping on their toes. I know Joshua (JDR Knife & Tool) asks Peter for his blessing if he thinks something might be too close to one of Peter's designs.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.pocketwrenchtool.com/products.html

http://www.atwoodknives.com/home/21491228.php

I bought my first Pocketwrench in '98 long before Peter was making tools. Did Peter steal this idea? No, he put his own spin on it.  

[Freudian Frog]

I totally see where David is coming from here.  I may be wrong (and do correct me if I am wrong David) but the problem isn't a "copying" issue it's more of a giving a tool your "own" identity issue.  In the one piece tool world Atwood is probably the most well known out there and so by adding a method to your own tool that is used by him, well you just run the risk of losing the identity of what you have created and making it more Atwood like.

If that makes any sense at all?  

Makes sense. Really I was just musing over if there was an issue or not. But I agree it would make your tool seem more like a copy than your own tool.

I bought my first Pocketwrench in '98 long before Peter was making tools. Did Peter steal this idea? No, he put his own spin on it.  

Therein lies the problem! When does the barrier of "copying" start to prevent innovation and improvement? Thusly you can only patent certain tangible things, and even those patents will run out. It's up to the consumer to decide if they want an original or a "knock-off (and certainly the quality IS better), but I don't think anyone should hold a monopoly over one idea.

And how would you decide if it was a direct copy, or a parallel development of their own?

[Gadget Guy]

I totally see where David is coming from here.  I may be wrong (and do correct me if I am wrong David) but the problem isn't a "copying" issue it's more of a giving a tool your "own" identity issue.  In the one piece tool world Atwood is probably the most well known out there and so by adding a method to your own tool that is used by him, well you just run the risk of losing the identity of what you have created and making it more Atwood like.

If that makes any sense at all?  

Makes sense. Really I was just musing over if there was an issue or not. But I agree it would make your tool seem more like a copy than your own tool.

I bought my first Pocketwrench in '98 long before Peter was making tools. Did Peter steal this idea? No, he put his own spin on it.  

Therein lies the problem! When does the barrier of "copying" start to prevent innovation and improvement? Thusly you can only patent certain tangible things, and even those patents will run out. It's up to the consumer to decide if they want an original or a "knock-off (and certainly the quality IS better), but I don't think anyone should hold a monopoly over one idea.

And how would you decide if it was a direct copy, or a parallel development of their own?

It depends how you look at it. Gerber decided to rip Peter off no two ways about it. It's a little different, but looks exactly like a Prybaby. In my book that is crossing the line. Sure it's cheaper, but it's still ripping off an original design and I'm totally against that concept.

[Benner]

I'm all up for people putting a spin on their tools, my "concern" (too strong a word really) is that the tool would lose it's individuality and ties to the maker himself and it would seem to some as something more "Atwood like".  Joshua for example makes fantastic looking tools and in his own right has created a great reputation.  But even with Peter's permission, IMO he would run the risk of loosing the tools identity of being his own by using something Peter has already done, and that only really comes from Peter's tools being so well known (comparatively).  It's a bit like people calling all plier based MT's Leatherman's.  I just like the thought of these custom tool guys getting all the good rep they deserve.

[Freudian Frog]

It depends how you look at it. Gerber decided to rip Peter off no two ways about it. It's a little different, but looks exactly like a Prybaby. In my book that is crossing the line. Sure it's cheaper, but it's still ripping off an original design and I'm totally against that concept.

Oh no no no no no no no no no no, that's compleeeetely different. They added an EXACTO KNIFE.

I'd agree the format is the same, though it's pretty much a prybar with a bottle opener on the side.

Oh, that means I agree if you can't figure it out.

Though I'm still happy someone decided to take a design like it and go into production.

I'm all up for people putting a spin on their tools, my "concern" (too strong a word really) is that the tool would lose it's individuality and ties to the maker himself and it would seem to some as something more "Atwood like".  Joshua for example makes fantastic looking tools and in his own right has created a great reputation.  But even with Peter's permission, IMO he would run the risk of loosing the tools identity of being his own by using something Peter has already done, and that only really comes from Peter's tools being so well known (comparatively).  It's a bit like people calling all plier based MT's Leatherman's.  I just like the thought of these custom tool guys getting all the good rep they deserve.

However, all of these items are built as tools and function as thus, and you would hope to limit them in their ability in order to preserve design aesthetics or something?

Certainly JDR's fish designs are unique, but Atwood's designs are purely designed around placing tools in certain way (and frou frou art).

[Gadget Guy]

I'm all up for people putting a spin on their tools, my "concern" (too strong a word really) is that the tool would lose it's individuality and ties to the maker himself and it would seem to some as something more "Atwood like".  Joshua for example makes fantastic looking tools and in his own right has created a great reputation.  But even with Peter's permission, IMO he would run the risk of loosing the tools identity of being his own by using something Peter has already done, and that only really comes from Peter's tools being so well known (comparatively).  It's a bit like people calling all plier based MT's Leatherman's.  I just like the thought of these custom tool guys getting all the good rep they deserve.

I do agree with that.    I'm on the side of the maker, but it seems lately that every single pocket tool that is made is Atwoodish which simply isn't true. Here is an example of a tool that somebody on another forum said looked like an Atwood: 


http://www.fenixoutfitters.com/knives-and-tools/customs/vector-knives/vector-knives-pry-wonder-232

[Benner]

Well it does have a bottle opener. 

[Freudian Frog]

I'm all up for people putting a spin on their tools, my "concern" (too strong a word really) is that the tool would lose it's individuality and ties to the maker himself and it would seem to some as something more "Atwood like".  Joshua for example makes fantastic looking tools and in his own right has created a great reputation.  But even with Peter's permission, IMO he would run the risk of loosing the tools identity of being his own by using something Peter has already done, and that only really comes from Peter's tools being so well known (comparatively).  It's a bit like people calling all plier based MT's Leatherman's.  I just like the thought of these custom tool guys getting all the good rep they deserve.

I do agree with that.    I'm on the side of the maker, but it seems lately that every single pocket tool that is made is Atwoodish which simply isn't true. Here is an example of a tool that somebody on another forum said looked like an Atwood: 


http://www.fenixoutfitters.com/knives-and-tools/customs/vector-knives/vector-knives-pry-wonder-232

Looks more like a P38.5 to me! WHERE DOES THE COPYING END?!

[fludunlimited]

You sed it, not me. lol

[Freudian Frog]

You sed it, not me. lol

Only in jest, sir.

But for the money I'd rather have your P38.5.
Though I can't afford it.

[David Bowen]

Even though there is a huge similarity with the P38.5 and the Pry Wonder I still think there is enough difference to say they are not too much alike. The basic shape is that of a push dagger like those sold by Cold Steel, both gentleman could have gotten the idea from that old design.

[thebullfrog]

I REALLY dig the P38.5. Especially in that stone chipped finish    but what I really want is something along the lines of the Atwood Funnybones. My multi already has a can opener etc. but an alligator wrench type set-up is a perfect compliment to a multi IMO. Gives you something to hold the other side of the bolt with that your tightening with the pliers. I want a Funnybones really damn bad actually. The Crony if it gets produced looks to be headed the right direction, but I don't want/need/like the prybar/nail puller. I'd rather have more wrench over there.

[ducktapehero]

Since the title says "pocket tools" I'm gonna put this here. I want to see a pair of pliers like the Swiss-Tech ones but maybe just a bit bigger. Even a half an inch longer would make them much more comfortable(and powerful) but yet it would still be small enough to put on a keychain.

[DaveK]

On the subject of "copying" trade marks or characteristics, explain the concept of "The Spyderco Round Hole" to me then 

It's a chuffing hole, yet Benchmade for example got Spyderco's permission to use it IIRC. Whilst respect and courtesy are actually kind of nice values, I do wonder what Benchmade would have done if Spyderco said no!

[Benner]

They would have had to get permission as Spyderco got a patent on the "spyderco hole" and it's function as a way of opening a folder.

[DaveK]

How can you patent a hole  That's just daft.

[Benner]

From what I remember, they patented the "function" or concept of the hole, and then got it as a trademark as well.

Turns out not so daft after all though was it. 

[Raker]

While it is true that Spyderco got a patent on the hole, Willima Scagel had been using it on his folders for years.  It wasn't round but it was there to open the blade for rt. or left hand people.  Maybe because it was round and made a hump on the blade.  Just a thought

[DaveK]

From what I remember, they patented the "function" or concept of the hole, and then got it as a trademark as well.

Turns out not so daft after all though was it. 

Not Spyderco no, but the system?

While it is true that Spyderco got a patent on the hole, Willima Scagel had been using it on his folders for years.  It wasn't round but it was there to open the blade for rt. or left hand people.  Maybe because it was round and made a hump on the blade.  Just a thought

Interesting point!

[Benner]

Oh the system is daft  , but I suppose it's difficult to draw the line.