Cheap and cheerful???

[Death's Head]

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

Actually, 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.

For your information, the Spyderhole has been AA registered trademark since Jan 1995.

[jekostas]

For 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.

[Death's Head]

 

For 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.

No problem.  I'm glad you feel I proved a point you had difficulty proving yourself.  Just kidding buddy.   
On the same token, the knifemaker Mick Strider has attained the license to use the Spyderhole on his customs which he does, but he refuses to use the Spyderhole on his productions because of trademark infringements, whether it can be enforced or not.  I give Mick Strider respect for his decision on his usage Spyderco's hole.

[cerbera147]

For 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?

[jekostas]

Wasn't there an out of court settlement / agreement between Spyderco and Benchmade?

They did for a while, but that agreement was annulled because Benchmade wasn't giving credit to Spyderco for for the Hole in literature.  Didn't stop Benchmade from continuing to use it, though.

[Death's Head]

Has there been any release of any new models from Benchmade using the Spyderhole?   I'm just wondering if an agreement was made for it's use with currently released models and no future releases from Benchmade.

[jekostas]

Edit: Forget it.

[shecky]

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.

This hints at one reason I suspect some folks take umbrage at copied things: defenders against copying often have some kind of skin in the game, even if it's not tangible, like pride. I've seen this with other things, like knife designs and so on. It seems that the more pricey and exclusive ownership is, the more passionate the opinion over copies.

I realize yours is a passionately held position. But it does not strike me as particularly strong, as your case hinges on your personal moral authority, not on any particular damages perpetrated. 

[Freudian Frog]

Awww, I'm in late on this party. Anyway, there is nothing patentable on an Atwood tool, literally nothing.

And as an artist, he should be able to sell his art despite similar products anyway.

[theonew]

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.

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.

[jekostas]

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.

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?

The relevant quote would be:

"In so doing, the district court distinguished “the ornamental aspects from the functional aspects of Richardson’s design and then determined that an ordinary observer, after discounting the functional elements of Richardson’s design, would not be deceived into thinking that any of the Fubar tools were the same as Richardson’s Stepclaw.”

One is advice gotten over lunch from an attorney without knowing full facts of the case at hand, the other is on the books as a legal decision.

But, again, as you said this is all academic until Peter Atwood takes the necessary steps to attain design patents.

[theonew]

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.

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?

Please explain

[theonew]

Did you actually look at the Fubar vs. the Stepclaw, there are some very obvious design differences.

[Grant Lamontagne]

Navy, being a Chinese company would likely not pay much attention to a cease and desist order from a US attorney or court, which is why the so called "protection" of a patent wouldn't be terribly effective.  The last time I checked, the US legal system doesn't have any control over what goes on in China, despite what Hollywood would have us believe.

In a case like Atwood Vs Navy, chances are Peter would spend the money to obtain some kind of "protection" then spend more money to "enforce" it, and Navy would just giggle and keep on keeping on.  The "protection" of a registered patent would really only end up costing (hurting) Peter who is already the victim in said claim, although his attorney would probably be quite happy to encourage him to take action.

As an investigator by trade I spent an awful lot of time and someone else's money trying to find ways of making things like this work, and they simply don't.  Unless you have a lot of money backing you, you can't chase someone internationally, and that's even in a country that has agreements in place for things like patent law.

Def

[AimlessWanderer]

Never mind Atwood vs Navy, I wanna see Navy vs Nate's Tractor 

[Grant Lamontagne]

That's not very far off I think.  We have purchased one and it's on it's way to Nate's for a head to head with the real thing.

Def

[turnsouth]

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?

[Grant Lamontagne]

Nope- I'd buy an Atwood based on name alone. Tragically when I see them available they are a little rich for my blood.

Def

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[Mr. Whippy]

Never mind Atwood vs Navy, I wanna see Navy vs Nate's Tractor 

I have a few "tests" in mind...

[AimlessWanderer]

Never mind Atwood vs Navy, I wanna see Navy vs Nate's Tractor 

I have a few "tests" in mind...



(Image removed from quote.)

Splendid  I really hope the little feller does well
I'd expect to see it manage maybe 60-70% of what the Atwoood can do 
I'd hate to see it bend or fracture on the "cleaning under the fingernail" test 

[ironraven]

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?

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.

[Gadget Guy]

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?

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.   

[David]

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?

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.

[Gadget Guy]

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?

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! 

[David]

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?

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! 

In more ways than one John.    

[jzmtl]

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?

Oh there are tons of other people just like you, how else could apple sell so many iphone/pads? 

[frugalscotty]

Hmmmm...

The ebay auction listing this item abruptly ended this afternoon. Someone complained perhaps....

[jekostas]

Hmmmm...

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.

[frugalscotty]

Hmmmm...

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.

OK, I didn't check the time. I thought there was like a week and a half left on the auction. There were over 20 pieces still available.

You're probably right though. Perhaps it will be relisted then.

[Mercury]

Sooo....

Nate, how did the tool hold up? 

John, I hope you are still with us.

Despite the arguments presented here, from an observers point of view this forum does not condone stealing and never has IIRC.  We discuss LM knockoffs and SAK knockoffs, there is no difference in discussing Atwood knockoffs.  I personally wouldn't ever buy a knockoff instead of the real thing, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in how good a facsimile is if only for the curiosity factor.

 I agree strongly with the Freedom of Speech that is allowed here, something we all use on a daily basis.  We are a forum of MT intellectuals, not retailers.