Quote from: 50ft-trad on September 07, 2011, 07:41:08 PMDrifting back to the tool for a bit ...I applaud your passion John, but I suppose I draw the line in a different place as to what is a fake. Is a vaccuum cleaner other than a Hoover a fake? What about a mass produced car other than a Ford? Too diverse - OK - what about ball point pens?I must echo again that these are not counterfeit. These are not items pretending to be something they are not, or pretending to be made by someone they are not. They are just cheaply produced similies. You relate to the Atwood tools as an art form made by someone who is an artist first and a tool maker second, so lets examine other art forms .... fashion ... yes you have firms making knock off Levis, trying to scam buyers into buying their inferior good by fraudulently assuming the name of a market leader ... then you've got other firms just making cheap jeans with a nondescript totally seperate branding. I would not knowingly buy knock off Levis - I would buy otherwise branded cheap jeans - even if they were styled after one of the bigger name's products.Hopefully this clarifies the differentiation that a lot of people are putting on this topic. Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and it's not IMHO fraud or theft is this particular scenario. If I thought it was theft, I wouldn't condone it and I'm very sure there ain't many others here that would either.EDIT: I ought to add I've been in manufacturing all my working life, both from the perspective of a service provider and a OEM so I fully understand the passion behind your views. We just have different interpretations of where imitation/inspiration becomes theftActually, fashion makes a very good example because there is a lot in common between fashion and tools.Namely, it was decided a long time ago in US and International Courts that individual parts of clothing and design could not be patented because the holder of a patent on say... men's shirt collars could control the market to the detriment of the consumer for *years*. This has not, to my knowledge, proven negative in any way to the consumer or the fashion industry as a whole.It's the same in tools - individual components cannot be patented. You can't hold a patent on a box wrench, you can't hold a patent on a hammer. You might be able to get a patent on a very specific mechanical means of doing the job a box wrench or hammer does, but even that's kind of murky - Spyderco was unable to trademark the round opening hole even though it was a Spyderco design for 20+ years. Benchmade has a patent on the Axis lock but that didn't stop a ton of companies from taking the basic design, tweaking it very slightly and making their own versions (Spyderco Ball Bearing Lock, Sog Piston lock, Sog Arc Lock, etc.). Look and feel patents wouldn't work either - Mr. Atwood himself has said that he was inspired by old style alligator wrenches, and they would be considered prior art.
Drifting back to the tool for a bit ...I applaud your passion John, but I suppose I draw the line in a different place as to what is a fake. Is a vaccuum cleaner other than a Hoover a fake? What about a mass produced car other than a Ford? Too diverse - OK - what about ball point pens?I must echo again that these are not counterfeit. These are not items pretending to be something they are not, or pretending to be made by someone they are not. They are just cheaply produced similies. You relate to the Atwood tools as an art form made by someone who is an artist first and a tool maker second, so lets examine other art forms .... fashion ... yes you have firms making knock off Levis, trying to scam buyers into buying their inferior good by fraudulently assuming the name of a market leader ... then you've got other firms just making cheap jeans with a nondescript totally seperate branding. I would not knowingly buy knock off Levis - I would buy otherwise branded cheap jeans - even if they were styled after one of the bigger name's products.Hopefully this clarifies the differentiation that a lot of people are putting on this topic. Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and it's not IMHO fraud or theft is this particular scenario. If I thought it was theft, I wouldn't condone it and I'm very sure there ain't many others here that would either.EDIT: I ought to add I've been in manufacturing all my working life, both from the perspective of a service provider and a OEM so I fully understand the passion behind your views. We just have different interpretations of where imitation/inspiration becomes theft
For your information, the Spyderhole has been AA registered trademark since Jan 1995.
Quote from: Death's Head on September 07, 2011, 11:43:32 PMFor your information, the Spyderhole has been AA registered trademark since Jan 1995.Yet Spyderco was unable to stop Benchmade from using it in the Ally, Soldat, Vex or Pika series of knives because it was decided that it was an unenforceable trademark. The Soldat, Ally and Pika are still being produced and sold right now.Thanks for proving my point.
Wasn't there an out of court settlement / agreement between Spyderco and Benchmade?
I used to be Peter's top five customer. He would make custom pieces for me and basically make anything I asked of him. He got to the point where he was simply too busy to do that for any of his customers and that was hard for everyone, especially me. I don't cry about it though. Peter has been good to me and is a really great guy, but he cant please everyone. Peter is an artist first and a tool maker second.
The Navy tools all have their own branding applied quite clearly to them. There is no attempt to pass them off as Atwood tools. You give an "ordinary observer" an Atwood and the Navy tool and it would be easy for them to tell the difference.
Quote from: jekostas on September 07, 2011, 11:19:24 PMThe Navy tools all have their own branding applied quite clearly to them. There is no attempt to pass them off as Atwood tools. You give an "ordinary observer" an Atwood and the Navy tool and it would be easy for them to tell the difference.Well I had a strong suspicion this was wrong but figured since I had access to an expert I'd wait until I spoke with him. According to my friend you would just claim the shape of the object and not any surface treatment such as branding. So even though one tool said Navy and the other Atwood the only issue for determining design patent infringement would be whether the "ordinary observer" found the shape of the Navy tool to be substantially similar to the Atwood tool, and I think it's safe to say that Navy would lose this battle in court. Since there is no design patent on this tool this is all academic but it do think it worth noting that if an artist or designer is concerned with theft of their intellectual property they could obtain a design patent on their work for about $1000, less if they did it themselves. Utility patents on the other hand are very expensive and really need to be very carefully written by a smart and experienced patent attorney in order for the patent holder to be given good protection.
Quote from: theonew on September 08, 2011, 09:50:58 AMQuote from: jekostas on September 07, 2011, 11:19:24 PMThe Navy tools all have their own branding applied quite clearly to them. There is no attempt to pass them off as Atwood tools. You give an "ordinary observer" an Atwood and the Navy tool and it would be easy for them to tell the difference.Well I had a strong suspicion this was wrong but figured since I had access to an expert I'd wait until I spoke with him. According to my friend you would just claim the shape of the object and not any surface treatment such as branding. So even though one tool said Navy and the other Atwood the only issue for determining design patent infringement would be whether the "ordinary observer" found the shape of the Navy tool to be substantially similar to the Atwood tool, and I think it's safe to say that Navy would lose this battle in court. Since there is no design patent on this tool this is all academic but it do think it worth noting that if an artist or designer is concerned with theft of their intellectual property they could obtain a design patent on their work for about $1000, less if they did it themselves. Utility patents on the other hand are very expensive and really need to be very carefully written by a smart and experienced patent attorney in order for the patent holder to be given good protection.You realize that the cases you posted earlier in this thread blatantly contradict the advice you just received from this attorney, yes?
Never mind Atwood vs Navy, I wanna see Navy vs Nate's Tractor
Quote from: 50ft-trad on September 08, 2011, 01:12:09 PMNever mind Atwood vs Navy, I wanna see Navy vs Nate's Tractor I have a few "tests" in mind...(Image removed from quote.)
Am I the only one here that would consider buying an Atwood because of the maker/name, with the tool itself being a very distant secondary consideration?
Quote from: turnsouth on September 08, 2011, 03:30:49 PMAm I the only one here that would consider buying an Atwood because of the maker/name, with the tool itself being a very distant secondary consideration?That is because you are buying a piece of art. Art is something you put on the wall and smile at becuase wow, you have it, and owning that art makes you feel good.A tool is, well, a tool. You use it to do things with. It gets dirty. It gets hot and cold and wet and muddy and scratched up and you don't freak out, you just break out the oil and maybe the steel wool. Don't own an Atwood. Once he made tools. Now he makes art. Wish he made tools again and on a somewhat predictable pattern rather than his erratic dribs and drabs, then maybe I'd own a few Atwoods.
Quote from: ironraven on September 09, 2011, 04:47:32 AMQuote from: turnsouth on September 08, 2011, 03:30:49 PMAm I the only one here that would consider buying an Atwood because of the maker/name, with the tool itself being a very distant secondary consideration?That is because you are buying a piece of art. Art is something you put on the wall and smile at becuase wow, you have it, and owning that art makes you feel good.A tool is, well, a tool. You use it to do things with. It gets dirty. It gets hot and cold and wet and muddy and scratched up and you don't freak out, you just break out the oil and maybe the steel wool. Don't own an Atwood. Once he made tools. Now he makes art. Wish he made tools again and on a somewhat predictable pattern rather than his erratic dribs and drabs, then maybe I'd own a few Atwoods.I use every single Atwood tool that I own. It may be art, but it works pretty good as a tool.
Quote from: Gadget Guy on September 09, 2011, 05:04:39 AMQuote from: ironraven on September 09, 2011, 04:47:32 AMQuote from: turnsouth on September 08, 2011, 03:30:49 PMAm I the only one here that would consider buying an Atwood because of the maker/name, with the tool itself being a very distant secondary consideration?That is because you are buying a piece of art. Art is something you put on the wall and smile at becuase wow, you have it, and owning that art makes you feel good.A tool is, well, a tool. You use it to do things with. It gets dirty. It gets hot and cold and wet and muddy and scratched up and you don't freak out, you just break out the oil and maybe the steel wool. Don't own an Atwood. Once he made tools. Now he makes art. Wish he made tools again and on a somewhat predictable pattern rather than his erratic dribs and drabs, then maybe I'd own a few Atwoods.I use every single Atwood tool that I own. It may be art, but it works pretty good as a tool. I agree John. All but one of my Atwoods have been used. I havent used the Rainbow Perfbaby yet.
Quote from: David on September 09, 2011, 07:23:26 AMQuote from: Gadget Guy on September 09, 2011, 05:04:39 AMQuote from: ironraven on September 09, 2011, 04:47:32 AMQuote from: turnsouth on September 08, 2011, 03:30:49 PMAm I the only one here that would consider buying an Atwood because of the maker/name, with the tool itself being a very distant secondary consideration?That is because you are buying a piece of art. Art is something you put on the wall and smile at becuase wow, you have it, and owning that art makes you feel good.A tool is, well, a tool. You use it to do things with. It gets dirty. It gets hot and cold and wet and muddy and scratched up and you don't freak out, you just break out the oil and maybe the steel wool. Don't own an Atwood. Once he made tools. Now he makes art. Wish he made tools again and on a somewhat predictable pattern rather than his erratic dribs and drabs, then maybe I'd own a few Atwoods.I use every single Atwood tool that I own. It may be art, but it works pretty good as a tool. I agree John. All but one of my Atwoods have been used. I havent used the Rainbow Perfbaby yet.Wow, somebody actually agrees with me in this thread!
Dumb question:Am I the only one here that would consider buying an Atwood because of the maker/name, with the tool itself being a very distant secondary consideration?
Hmmmm... The ebay auction listing this item abruptly ended this afternoon. Someone complained perhaps....
Quote from: frugalscotty on September 12, 2011, 06:28:04 AMHmmmm... The ebay auction listing this item abruptly ended this afternoon. Someone complained perhaps....Or, you know, the auction just ended. This seller only lists stuff for 1 or 2 week auctions, not for a month. The auction ended at exactly 7:45:00PM PDT. It would be incredibly unlikely for a pulled auction to end on an exact minute mark, but incredibly likely if it was a scheduled start and end.