Yet another Spyderco knock off...

[Edgy]

This makes me sad to see such an awesome knife produced so poorly :(

[TexSierra]

I thought Columbia was better than this. I am quite bummed

[THG]

I thought Columbia was better than this. I am quite bummed

Obviously that's not THE Columbia, assuming we're both talking about CRKT.

[Dr. Snubnose]

Not CRKT but something else.....try: (ShuangRong) SR Columbia...Doc:eek:

[jimmyh]

Haven't you guys heard the saying "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"?

It isn't trying to pass off as a genuine Spyderco, just copying a neat design that Spyderco came up with. Hell, the polywog is discontinued, so if you wanted one you'd have to pay $150 to snag one off ebay.

I actually bought one, and it's better made than you'd think. There is zero blade play in either direction while maintaining sufficiently low opening friction. It is nice and thin (thinner than my leek) as well.

The edge came obtuse and dull, but after fixing that problem, it will at least take an edge. I haven't played with it enough to judge edge retention/stability but don't have high expectations.

It's not like its actually competing with spyderco for market share. I certainly wouldn't have paid 150 bucks for 'the real deal', and at six bucks shipped you can buy it just to see if you like the shape/ergonomics without springing for the expensive but higher quality Spyderco.

Besides, you can always give Spyderco credit for the upsides and blame shoddy manufacturing for the downsides :P

[RazorSharp86]

Hey! I though that Spyderco are bringing the Poliwog back in G-10.
Supa-sweet.

[dialex]

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[brandonreed2008]

wow.... do they think they will get away with it? i mean all of the people that do this.. i hope they don't:mad:

[Praxis]

Haven't you guys heard the saying "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"?

Hardly, it's design rip-off 101 as far as I am concerned. How much R&D money and effort did Spyderco invest in perfecting the Poliwog design? Now some other company is stealing the design and trying to pass-off a cheaper product. I'm sure they aren't paying Spyderco any royalties for the design or trademarked features such as the Spyder-hole.

Do what you want, but I certainly wouldn't buy one.:mad:

[v8r]

I agree with Praxis on this one.I'm willing to bet that no royalties are being paid.You also have to consider if you or your company designed a product and put the R and D into it,that it might make you angry when a almost exact copy such as this hits the market.The eighth commandement says "thall shall not steal".True words to live by, and I consider this stealing.;)

[cobrajoe]

I have personally seen two of these knives. They both came extremely gritty and dull, and both had some noticeable side to side play.

After some cleaning (and slight modification by one owner), the knives are serviceable and smoother, but they still seem like cheap knives, even though they feel more solid than most. They seem extremely under par when compared next to a real Poli, but then again, I'm amazed by the Poliwog every time I borrow it from my coworker. :D

[Doc Pyres]

That does it! I have been wavering on getting a SS Poliwog for ages, but now I'm definitely getting one to thumb my nose at all these cheap ass rip off thieving greed pigs who steal Spyderco designs. :mad:

[JCMED]

:mad: :mad: :mad:


Hardly, it's design rip-off 101 as far as I am concerned. How much R&D money and effort did Spyderco invest in perfecting the Poliwog design? Now some other company is stealing the design and trying to pass-off a cheaper product. I'm sure they aren't paying Spyderco any royalties for the design or trademarked features such as the Spyder-hole.

Do what you want, but I certainly wouldn't buy one.:mad:

Wanabee's are just that. I'm with both of ya'll. If the knives are purchased.. then support is given to the wrong side. Kinda makes you wonder which side some folks are on. The side that stands behind product, gives impeccable quality, and provides awesome service or the side that rips off the cool design, cares less about the people they sell to, and has no remorse for being just plain thieves.:mad::mad::mad:

[CombatGrappler]

Haven't you guys heard the saying "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"?

It isn't trying to pass off as a genuine Spyderco, just copying a neat design that Spyderco came up with. Hell, the polywog is discontinued, so if you wanted one you'd have to pay $150 to snag one off ebay.

I actually bought one, and it's better made than you'd think. There is zero blade play in either direction while maintaining sufficiently low opening friction. It is nice and thin (thinner than my leek) as well.

The edge came obtuse and dull, but after fixing that problem, it will at least take an edge. I haven't played with it enough to judge edge retention/stability but don't have high expectations.

It's not like its actually competing with spyderco for market share. I certainly wouldn't have paid 150 bucks for 'the real deal', and at six bucks shipped you can buy it just to see if you like the shape/ergonomics without springing for the expensive but higher quality Spyderco.

Besides, you can always give Spyderco credit for the upsides and blame shoddy manufacturing for the downsides :P

You can play devil's advocate all you want, but you know, I know, and everyone else here knows that stealing is wrong. If you DON'T think stealing is wrong, well, that's just sad.

[GG]

So they are actually trying to rip off TWO companies - Spyderco's design and CRKT's name. As Sal I'm sure well knows, stopping the flow of these copies is practically impossible, all we can do is NOT buy them. Sadly, enough uninformed folks WILL buy them to keep them in business... :(
gg

Not CRKT but something else.....try: (ShuangRong) SR Columbia...Doc:eek:

[Jay_Ev]

:mad: :mad: :mad:

+1, agree w/ dialex

[sal]

Hi Jimmy,

What they are doing is illegal and unethical.

Many people justify their indiscretions. "I stole that because........etc."

It doesn 't make it right. My son, Eric spent hundreds of hours developing, refining and producing that design. Spyderco has spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in Intellectual property.

I was taught not to steal. I am an American. It is the way I was raised.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion.

sal

[TimmyBoston]

Hopefully this production and sale can halted with a lawsuit.

[SecSpyral]

hi jimmy,

what they are doing is illegal and unethical.

Many people justify their indiscretions. "i stole that because........etc."

it doesn 't make it right. My son, eric spent hundreds of hours developing, refining and producing that design. Spyderco has spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in intellectual property.

I was taught not to steal. I am an american. It is the way i was raised.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion.

Sal

+1 :)

[ChrisC]

If you DON'T think stealing is wrong, well, that's just sad.

Not so much sad as it is typical Chinese business practice... :(

[jimmyh]

I guess I failed to get my point across the first time.

My point wasn't about taking "the dark side", it was about using our higher methods of thinking instead of falling victim to our instincts left over from when we were apes.

We all have cognitive circuitry for detecting cheating (idea stealing in this case) and label it "wrong". In most cases, it works decently, but it *can* backfire, and *cannot* compare with learning the math that created it, and implementing *that* directly. I want to know *why* it's wrong, and find an optimal solution from that instead of relying on crude instincts to make my choices. That higher level thought is what brought us to ZDP-189 folding knives instead of knapped flint...

So, I challenge you to defend your statements without appealing to ape level emotions. What exactly are the consequences of letting them do this, who do they hurt, and how does it hurt them? Given that, what do we do about it? What will the consequences of shunning them on a Spyderco message board be?

I'm claiming that in this case, the circuits are misfiring. Everyone is better off with them making knockoffs and not paying royalties in this case than them just not making the knives.

My reasoning is thus: By using a spyderco design, buyers of said knife get a better design than the alternative. The company makes more money because they're selling a better product for the same manufacturing cost. Spyderco does not lose market share because their knives are in a different price/quality range, and in fact may gain new fans from people who buy the knockoffs and like the design.

Of course, a *better* policy is for them to continue to make the knives but pay Spyderco some royalty. In that case, good design work will be properly incentivised and it will no longer be under supplied (like it currently is)

Deciding to follow crude instinctual heuristics and publicly shunning the makers and buyers is not an effective way to stop the manufacture and sale of these knives, and isn't actually what you want anyway (This shouldn't be suprising given that these heuristics were developed because they worked when we were hunter gatherers, and neither online forums nor buisiness men on other continents existed then). Instead, it just filters out "outsiders" and makes a tighter "die hard spydeco fan" group. If you really want to do that, then go ahead, but realize that it's no different than "racism" or religious fanatics or other groups that draw arbitrary boundries around their "tribe" and treat outsiders differently. It really *is* the same thing that makes racism and such bad, though it is a less extreme example, obviously.

There are costs to doing this. You form opposing sides that didn't exist in the first place, and you lose the ability to think rationally and come up with answers that are right. If all you're allowed to say is "this new design is good", then you can transfer exactly 0 bits of information, and Spyderco can't gain any useful feedback from its fans.

I'm not just a hypocritical outsider that doesn't understand what "idea theft" feels like. I do know what it's like to have a design "stolen" and used without receiving royalty. The difference is that in my case I'm proud of how well my design did because I had a different mind set.

I'm not trying to advocate the devil here - I am not taking "the dark side". My analysis may even be flawed in that it would be better to shut them down. What I'm trying to do is see if I can get people to think about this rationally. If you care about being right (as opposed to signaling loyalty to your tribe by saying specific false statements), then you cannot treat arguments as soldiers (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/policy_debates_.html)

Even though I'm a Spyderco fan and know that the quality of the knife in question is not near that of the Spyderco Poliwog, I can admit that the knife is great quality for $6 shipped. Even though it isn't nice or optimal for them to use spyderco's design without paying royalties, I can admit that it is better than them not using the design at all instead of grabbing my pitchfork and torch and yelling "death to them all!".

You guys can decide to shun me for not taking your side in an imaginary war , but you will lose my input and what exactly would you gain?

If this offends anyone, I'm sorry- that was not the intention. Honestly, I am not judging any of you. Even the best fall prey to this kind of thinking. The true test is how people respond when it's pointed out.

[The Deacon]

The problem with your theory is that, even assuming you are correct that a really inexpensive, relatively low quality, imitation does no harm to the party whose product has been copied, that assumption will not hold for a higher quality imitation only slightly less expensive than the original. So, under your "rules" where would the line be drawn? Or would you still not consider it a problem even if harm to the original company could be proven?

My contention is, some things are best left as absolutes.

And, for the record, several of the statements in your original post are incorrect. The Poliwog is still in production. The all stainless version was discontinued in favor of the G-10 one. I also seriously doubt anyone would consider $150 "the going rate" for an all stainless Poliwog. There are several listed on eBay right now with BIN prices considerably lower than that.

[jimmyh]

The problem with your theory is that, even assuming you are correct that a really inexpensive, relatively low quality, imitation does no harm to the party whose product has been copied, that assumption will not hold for a higher quality imitation only slightly less expensive than the original. So, under your "rules" where would the line be drawn? Or would you still not consider it a problem even if harm to the original company could be proven?

My contention is, some things are best left as absolutes.

Sure, you have to make rules. If you're going to make absolute rules though, you have to make sure you draw the lines the right way or people get screwed over. If you are in a situation where the rules say one thing, but a cost benifit analysis says another, the rules need to change.

The rules that I think most closely maximize average expected utility are the basic rules of capitalism - they can't use Spyderco's design without coming to a royalty agreement. I'm not so much advocating any particular set of rules though, just saying "given that this is the situation, do we get all pissed off or not, and what do we try to do?".

In this case, I'm pretty confident that the knockoff knives should be made, so with rational negotiators and enforced intellectual property rights, I would expect them to still make just as many knives, but spyderco to get some money out of it. If that doesn't happen it's a sign that somebody is not negotiating right.



And, for the record, several of the statements in your original post are incorrect. The Poliwog is still in production. The all stainless version was discontinued in favor of the G-10 one. I also seriously doubt anyone would consider $150 "the going rate" for an all stainless Poliwog. There are several listed on eBay right now with BIN prices considerably lower than that.

Fair enough. I just typed "spyderco polywog" into google shopping search and came up with http://www.google.com/products?q=spyderco%20polywog&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wf

That says "discontinued" and is over $150 once you count shipping. Once I spell it right (pol*i*wog), more do show up and there's an ebay auction for one at $55.50 shipped, which is significantly cheaper. However, at nearly an order of magnitude more expensive than the knockoff, I think my point stands.

[sal]

Hi Jimmy,

I don't think that I missed your point, despite my ape level emotions ;). I just do not agree with you. That is acceptable as an answer, is it not?

And for the record, I don't think I'm being emotional, ape level or otherwise. I am an inventor and a designer. I have been dealing with copies throughout my career. Perhaps my understanding is just diffferent than yours?

sal

[jimmyh]

Hi Jimmy,

I don't think that I missed your point, despite my ape level emotions . I just do not agree with you. That is acceptable as an answer, is it not?


Hi Sal,

Initial disagreements are fine, but there is actually a theorem (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem) that basically says that you can't continue to disagree or you're doing it wrong :p


And for the record, I don't think I'm being emotional, ape level or otherwise. I am an inventor and a designer. I have been dealing with copies throughout my career. Perhaps my understanding is just different than yours?


Well, you're certainly being civil and don't have your head 'clouded' by emotion or anything, but what I'm talking about can be a more subtle beast :eek:. It's possible to be completely cool headed and yet, still not question *where* these "right" and "wrong" things come from (and by default, trust your instinctual, aka 'ape level' heuristics). But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/benefit_of_doub.html) if you explain your thoughts in more detail.

I do, by the way, agree with everything you said in your first post, it just didn't address everything I was getting at.;)

EDIT:



I was taught not to steal. I am an American. It is the way I was raised.

While I'm sure these are all true statements, and in general it's a good rule to live by, but it makes it look like you're doing it *because* you were raised that way and not because its *a good idea*. If things are the way they should be, people are raised with good ideas, but in reality it's a good idea to keep the two things distinct in your mind.

If it turns out that in a particular instance it's not a good idea, then you want to do the *right thing* not the thing that you were taught to do.

[The Deacon]

I'm with Sal on this. I think you are wrong. I further think that you've put yourself in a position where you feel the need to justify your own actions by claiming "no blood, no foul" in a situation where you have absolutely no way of knowing for certain if damage has been or will be done to Spyderco by this particular knockoff. So you are not the impartial and dispassionate observer that you would like to imagine yourself to be.

I wonder if you are aware that people have already sent "imitations" in to Spyderco for warranty work, assuming they were Spyderco products. I do not claim to know whether any of them were the knife which is the subject of this thread, but that is of no importance. The fact such "mistakes" have occurred is enough to discredit your assumption of no damage. I think it would be safer to assume that, for every person who one sent in, several others have now written off Spyderco products based on a bad experience with a cheap knock off and that, out of that ten, at least one is now bad-mouthing Spyderco to anyone who will listen.


Your proposal of "rational negotiators and enforced intellectual property rights" assumes the party doing the copying would be willing to pay a royalty without one shred of evidence that would be the case. If I have to choose between ape level emotions and pseudo-intellectual snobbery, I'll share a banana with Sal. ;)

[Sequimite]

To elaborate on the area where I think Jimmy, Deacon and possibly even Sal agree, more harm is done by Spyderco's "legitimate" competitors that steal design components because they actually do more closely compete with Spyderco, so they are potentially taking sales directly away from Spyderco, and because they legitimize all intellectual property theft.

I will confess that after trying in vain to find an affordable Lil' Temp, I bought a Chinese copy to try out the design. Because of the brilliance of the design, it is a great knife, albeit not nearly as nice as the real lil' Temp. As a consequence I bought a real Spyderco Lil' Temp and am even more eagerly awaiting the Lil' Temp 2.

The excuses I made to justify my purchase were that the knife I bought didn't really compete with Spyderco's knives and that Sal had already made it clear that the old design was going to be significantly altered.

In my case the purchase may have actually generated sales for Spyderco, but as Deacon pointed out, where do you draw the line? Many here refuse to buy from any maker stealing intellectual property, whether high or low end and I would agree that this black and white view is the most satisfying ethically. From a purely economic perspective, I also think Jimmy has a legitimate point.

Ethical and economic considerations are two decidedly different dimensions.

[jimmyh]

I'm with Sal on this. I think you are wrong. I further think that you've put yourself in a position where you feel the need to justify your own actions by claiming "no blood, no foul" in a situation where you have absolutely no way of knowing for certain if damage has been or will be done to Spyderco by this particular knockoff. So you are not the impartial and dispassionate observer that you would like to imagine yourself to be.

I'm not sure what you think my biases are or why you think I have them, but I can assure you that I actively work (http://lesswrong.com/user/jimmy) to remove them where ever I can. If I'm indeed biased in a way that you can point out, I'll happily fix it :).

It's true that I don't know for certain, but no one ever knows anything to absolute certainty. The best we can do is to reason with what information we have. My estimate put them at helping Spyderco more than hurting and I saw a greatly differing reacting so I thought I should say something.


I wonder if you are aware that people have already sent "imitations" in to Spyderco for warranty work, assuming they were Spyderco products. I do not claim to know whether any of them were the knife which is the subject of this thread, but that is of no importance.

I was not aware. Whether any of them were this specific knockoff does say something about this specific knifes threat in that area (it could be that the offending knives all said "spdrco" on them or something that makes it much easier to fool you), but that is a strong point. It's strong enough that I've gone from thinking "90% sure that this knockoff either helps Spyderco or does insignificant damage" to being only around 50% sure. Do you know quantitatively how big this problem is? How many non Spyderco knives get sent to Spyderco?


Your proposal of "rational negotiators and enforced intellectual property rights" assumes the party doing the copying would be willing to pay a royalty without one shred of evidence that would be the case.

That's a little unfair... I might even say that you don't have a shred of evidence that I don't have any evidence :p

For reasons I stated earlier, I suspected that the pareto optimal solution was for them to still make knives, and that necessarily implies that they'd be willing to pay the required royalty. Even without that, the cost of paying royalties goes to 0 as the size of the royalties goes to 0, and at some finite level, they'll be better off paying the royalties and being allowed to make the knives.

Your point about people sending knockoffs to Spyderco for repair makes it more likely that the optimal royalty is higher than they would pay, but it seems like adding "you must write 'NOT SPYDERCO! CHEAP KNOCKOFF!' on the blade" would take that problem away.


If I have to choose between ape level emotions and pseudo-intellectual snobbery, I'll share a banana with Sal.

You don't have to chose between the two. You can choose real intellectual nonsnobbery. My analysis may not be perfect as I don't have all the data, but in general you can expect higher level cognitive processes to do better than instintual ones. I'm not sure where the pseudo part comes in.

As far as the snobbery implied accusation, I'm sorry if it comes off that way. I'm actively trying not to, but don't have that sort of skill with words apparently.

How should I go about making a point like that without coming off as a snobbish A-hole?

[MLR]

How should I go about making a point like that without coming off as a snobbish A-hole?

xx

[Sherpa]

I'm not going to get into all kinds of high-end vocabulary tricks, I will keep this simple.

Stealing is bad. It is bad because it is not good, good people know this. It isn't honest, honorable, or fair.

Bootlegged movies are illegal. They are stolen ideas. Sure the picture isn't always as good (compare to not as good of steel), the sound can be crappy (lets say weak handle material), the packaging poor. The knife they are making is a bootleg. It's a crappy copy that criminals create to put money in their pocket. Not to increase Spyderco's pseudointellectualmarketsharediaphragmdollarcostav eragingpercentageroyalty.

Bootleg = bad!

If that doesn't make sense then I don't know what does???!!113!

[Brad S.]

Jimmy,

Ive been following this thread all day, reading comments, thinking about your comments, others, the works. What you are arguing is completely beside the point. You are defending theft. Theft is theft is theft, wither or not the theft is beneficial to someone or not is a completely pointless to argue. It's never acceptable to forcibly take from one and give to another. What has happened here is a company has taken Ideas, designs, property and used them for their own benefit. Not only is that illegal, unconstitutional, biblically wrong, unethical, morally wrong, but its a rule society and humanity as we know it is built on.

Your analysis sir is based on a weak thought that theft "might" be acceptable. No... WTF are you thinking. You are quarrelling and trying to prove that Sal, Spyderco, everyone else here is wrong. When your argument alone is trying to change a basic law of human nature... that theft is wrong.

What Spyderco choses to do about this situation is up to them, let them decide if its worth prosecuting, or if they are better off letting this continue. Thats up to them, or opinion is fine sir, but stop trying to argue it beyond the fact that it is nothing more than "your opinion"

C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity "The truth is, we believe in decency so much-we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so-that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility"

[cobrajoe]

There is also a flip side to the "cheaper designs inspiring people to buy more expensive knives" theory. What if someone buys that knife, and completely hates it. It could create the thought that "all knives that look like that are bad".

As humans, we do tend to think in absolutes, especially in areas that we do not spend much time studying. For the great majority of the population, pocket knives are not worth studying. The difference in quality between the poliwog and the copy would be lost among the grand majority of the buying population, so price would end up being the determining factor. This would easily lead to the "All knives with holes in the blades are bad" type of thinking.

The way I think it should be is that anyone or any company wanting to make a profit from using :spyder:'s intellectual property (including the use of the round opening hole) should be licensed by Spyderco themselves, so that any product with their design or logo would be up to the same or better quality standards. Anything less would be just someone trying to stick an expensive name on a poor quality product to make the poor quality product appear better.

Remember, when you're buying a Spyderco, you are buying quality. Quality in materials, quality in construction, and quality in design. If you take away any one of those, it's not a true spyderco and shouldn't masquerade as one.

[duff72]

I'm with Sal on this. It is flat out theft weather it be cheap knock off of if a high end custom maker did it without paying royalties. If this custom maker used the super steel of the week,fancy bone handles inlaid with gold,and super titanium liners hypothetically he could make a superior knife but if it includes design ideas that are stolen it does hurt spyderco even though it is still a different price point and market(and in my opinion lessens the product of that maker for his lack of morals and ingenuity). Sal correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember an advertisement in one of the knife magazines you guys did thanking many makers (By Name) for respecting your patents and paying royalties for use of your patents in their products. How many companies and people do you know that would thank competitors in a costly print add? Spyderco is a great company that has my respect admiration for turning out an incredible product at a fair price,and standing behind it. These rip offs get under my skin and just fill table space at gun and knife shows (and internet) for people who don't know any better (or who do know better and just don't have the moral compass to pass on this junk).

[TexSierra]

I guess I failed to get my point across the first time.

My point wasn't about taking "the dark side", it was about using our higher methods of thinking instead of falling victim to our instincts left over from when we were apes.

We all have cognitive circuitry for detecting cheating (idea stealing in this case) and label it "wrong". In most cases, it works decently, but it *can* backfire, and *cannot* compare with learning the math that created it, and implementing *that* directly. I want to know *why* it's wrong, and find an optimal solution from that instead of relying on crude instincts to make my choices. That higher level thought is what brought us to ZDP-189 folding knives instead of knapped flint...

So, I challenge you to defend your statements without appealing to ape level emotions. What exactly are the consequences of letting them do this, who do they hurt, and how does it hurt them? Given that, what do we do about it? What will the consequences of shunning them on a Spyderco message board be?

I'm claiming that in this case, the circuits are misfiring. Everyone is better off with them making knockoffs and not paying royalties in this case than them just not making the knives.

My reasoning is thus: By using a spyderco design, buyers of said knife get a better design than the alternative. The company makes more money because they're selling a better product for the same manufacturing cost. Spyderco does not lose market share because their knives are in a different price/quality range, and in fact may gain new fans from people who buy the knockoffs and like the design.

Of course, a *better* policy is for them to continue to make the knives but pay Spyderco some royalty. In that case, good design work will be properly incentivised and it will no longer be under supplied (like it currently is)

Deciding to follow crude instinctual heuristics and publicly shunning the makers and buyers is not an effective way to stop the manufacture and sale of these knives, and isn't actually what you want anyway (This shouldn't be suprising given that these heuristics were developed because they worked when we were hunter gatherers, and neither online forums nor buisiness men on other continents existed then). Instead, it just filters out "outsiders" and makes a tighter "die hard spydeco fan" group. If you really want to do that, then go ahead, but realize that it's no different than "racism" or religious fanatics or other groups that draw arbitrary boundries around their "tribe" and treat outsiders differently. It really *is* the same thing that makes racism and such bad, though it is a less extreme example, obviously.

There are costs to doing this. You form opposing sides that didn't exist in the first place, and you lose the ability to think rationally and come up with answers that are right. If all you're allowed to say is "this new design is good", then you can transfer exactly 0 bits of information, and Spyderco can't gain any useful feedback from its fans.

I'm not just a hypocritical outsider that doesn't understand what "idea theft" feels like. I do know what it's like to have a design "stolen" and used without receiving royalty. The difference is that in my case I'm proud of how well my design did because I had a different mind set.

I'm not trying to advocate the devil here - I am not taking "the dark side". My analysis may even be flawed in that it would be better to shut them down. What I'm trying to do is see if I can get people to think about this rationally. If you care about being right (as opposed to signaling loyalty to your tribe by saying specific false statements), then you cannot treat arguments as soldiers (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/policy_debates_.html)

Even though I'm a Spyderco fan and know that the quality of the knife in question is not near that of the Spyderco Poliwog, I can admit that the knife is great quality for $6 shipped. Even though it isn't nice or optimal for them to use spyderco's design without paying royalties, I can admit that it is better than them not using the design at all instead of grabbing my pitchfork and torch and yelling "death to them all!".

You guys can decide to shun me for not taking your side in an imaginary war , but you will lose my input and what exactly would you gain?

If this offends anyone, I'm sorry- that was not the intention. Honestly, I am not judging any of you. Even the best fall prey to this kind of thinking. The true test is how people respond when it's pointed out.


your logic is flawed. I will tell you why.

First a facts you have incorrectly stated
1. spyderco still makes the poliwog

Remember this simple economic concept; there is infinite want and limited resources.

Spyderco has spent a significant chunk of change to develop this wonderful knife. Because they have spent this money, they retain the right to sell this product. Its not only the law, but its sound business practice and ethically valid.

Intellectual theft impacts the victim in many ways. The most important one is that if someone was looking for this knife, and they weren't a real knife person, they would purchase the knock-off, and Spyderco would never see a return on their investment. No return on investment means no reason to invest. If there is no investment, there is no product, no company, and no good knives in my hand.

Similarly, If someone purchases this flimsy knife and doesn't like it for whatever reason, they then flip through the Spyderco catalog and see it in there, it would be easy for them to decide to go a different route due to past experience. For a non knife person, looking similar is enough to assume the same product/company

Having a gut reaction is not a bad thing, it is what has kept us alive as a species. However, one has to question the gut reaction to asses its value. The gut reaction to theft comes from our view of equality that we as humans all share. One entitled to what they earn, stealing isnt earning, by definition.

[JCMED]

My Grandpa always said..."The bitterness of poor quality and service remains long after the sweetness of the low price is forgotten." yet people spend alot of money buying the cheapest thing they can get. I think your looking at this thing like... it's a knife. You know..blade, pivot, handle. Everyones making em'. My profession is tires. You know... black, round(some of them). Your thought process is like saying that GOODYEAR can take the tread pattern of a MICHELIN and no big deal. You just can't justify that. I think that most of us are upset because we are in support of a company that believes in INTEGRITY! No "caveman" instincts here, just keeping it real. What do you do for a living? If someone does your job cheaper in your market hurting you bottom line how would you take it? If you were producing quality and someone was hurting you... we would defend you as well. Don't take our comments as a "diss". We're just standing up for what we believe is right.

[Praxis]

I think jimmyh could have saved 14+ paragraphs and simply said he supports moral relativism. According to his logic, it's okay to steal other peoples' ideas and designs if no direct harm is done to them. Nothing is ever really wrong, it just depends on the situation. In fact, the categories of right and wrong are just social constructs.

Most of us are taking a morally absolute stance on the issue. Theft of ideas and designs is wrong, no matter who does it.

I have a feeling we could spend hours trying to convince jimmyh of our moral position and accomplish little. It's like speaking two completely different languages.

As for me, I won't support knock-offs. That's how I choose to live my life.

[David Lowry]

Knock offs are no different than stealing someones identity. How'd you like it if someone did it to you?

Nuff said....

[jimmyh]

Wow, lots of responses this time. Is it because I said something that was more offensive than before, or is it that hold outs finally decided they had to say something?

Sequimite: I agree with most of what you said, and thank you for providing some evidence to back up my point.

However, as far ethics and economics are concerned, ethics in a large part came from economics (individuals with ethics that made sense outbred those that didn't because they were able to produce more, etc), and to the extent that they differ, your ethics are just confused (ie If act X makes everyone better off, why in the world would it be unethical?).


I encourage you to read up on the theoretical underpinnings of intellectual property protection. Many of the points you make reflect recognized principles, so it cannot be said that the points you make are "wrong." However, there are other competing principles that, in a narrow view, you fail to consider.

I doubt you will reach any sort of resolution by seeking validation or contradiction of your views here.

I am familiar with the foundations of intellectual property protection. If I said something that you think is actually incorrect, then please point it out. If not, please back me up at least a little :p

It's not that I was searching for validation/contradiction of my research in intellectual property policies, but that there seemed to be a gut level negative reaction rather than a well reasoned objection, and I was curious how people would respond if I tried to make this point. Curious enough that I was willing to risk my reputation as a "Spyderco Fan".



I'm not going to get into all kinds of high-end vocabulary tricks, I will keep this simple.

Stealing is bad. It is bad because it is not good, good people know this. It isn't honest, honorable, or fair.

I'm not sure which vocabulary you thought was too snooty, but my guesses are:
1)heuristic: just means 'rule of thumb'
2)pareto optimal: just means "no one can benifit without harming someone else". and is a necessary condition for a good solution

This is exactly the type of thinking I was trying to counter. You say it's bad because it isn't good, and that it is agreed upon that it isn't good.

Things that are "dishonerable" and "unfair" are "bad" and "not good". The question is "where did these clusters of ideas come from in the first place?" you have an ingrained instinct for detecting cheaters, and at a gut level it feels wrong. I'm suggesting that in this case your gut might be wrong- or at least not the best source of truth.


You are defending theft. Theft is theft is theft, wither or not the theft is beneficial to someone or not is a completely pointless to argue. It's never acceptable to forcibly take from one and give to another.
...
Your analysis sir is based on a weak thought that theft "might" be acceptable. No... WTF are you thinking. You are quarrelling and trying to prove that Sal, Spyderco, everyone else here is wrong.

If you want to apply the label "theft" to the actions that I'm defending, then that's your label, not mine. The only force in your argument comes from the negative connotations attached to the word "theft" and the fact that people can agree "theft is wrong", which is exactly the point in question (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/arguing-by-defi.html).

I tried my best to explain my thinking, but somehow I sense that the question is rhetorical.

Would you at least accept that this "theft" would be acceptable if the main effect was that people like Sequimite bought the knockoff as a trial run and ended up buying the real deal later and actually making Spyderco better off?

I don't know how I can make this any more clear, but my intention is not to quarrel. I do think that some people here might be wrong, or are at least thinking suboptimally, and I was trying to help out and correct that (and if I was wrong, to be corrected myself).

It doesn't have to be a war- that all depends on how you choose to respond. Sal, for example, was very civil and it didn't feel like I was "quarreling" with him at all, which is a good thing.



What Spyderco choses to do about this situation is up to them, let them decide if its worth prosecuting, or if they are better off letting this continue. Thats up to them, or opinion is fine sir, but stop trying to argue it beyond the fact that it is nothing more than "your opinion"

Of course it's up to them. That doesn't mean that advice on the situation is worthless to them, and it doesn't invalidate the truthfulness of any of my points. "Opinion" is a wrong word (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/wrong-words.html) in a few senses, and while I think you just mean "it is nothing more than what you think", but to be honest, I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

[jimmyh]

I couldn't find any rules against double posting, but I could not fit my entire response in one post. If this does break a rule, I'm sorry :(

Cobrajoe: yes, that point has been made, and is valid. I am not fully convinced that this effect is strong enough to invalidate my point, but the evidence about the warranty returns has changed my views to about 50/50.


If this custom maker used the super steel of the week,fancy bone handles inlaid with gold,and super titanium liners hypothetically he could make a superior knife but if it includes design ideas that are stolen it does hurt spyderco even though it is still a different price point

Well sure, people might buy an expensive custom instead of a (relatively) cheap production Spyderco. My point, however, is that not many people would buy a $6 made in china knife instead of a $60 Spyderco knife.


your logic is flawed. I will tell you why.

First a facts you have incorrectly stated
1. spyderco still makes the poliwog


Yes, that has been stated, and I acknowledged it. That does not change my point.


Remember this simple economic concept; there is infinite want and limited resources.

What? At any finite price there is always a finite demand.


Spyderco has spent a significant chunk of change to develop this wonderful knife. Because they have spent this money, they retain the right to sell this product. Its not only the law, but its sound business practice and ethically valid.

Agreed.


Intellectual theft impacts the victim in many ways. The most important one is that if someone was looking for this knife, and they weren't a real knife person, they would purchase the knock-off, and Spyderco would never see a return on their investment. No return on investment means no reason to invest. If there is no investment, there is no product, no company, and no good knives in my hand.

Yes, that is the standard argument for intellectual property rights. I've already stated why I think that it does not really apply very much in this case.



Similarly, If someone purchases this flimsy knife and doesn't like it for whatever reason, they then flip through the Spyderco catalog and see it in there, it would be easy for them to decide to go a different route due to past experience. For a non knife person, looking similar is enough to assume the same product/company

Agreed, this is an effect. Learning about knockoffs being sent to Spyderco made me think that this is a bigger deal than I did before, but I'm still not sold on the idea that Spyderco is better off without the knockoffs than with the knockoffs.


Having a gut reaction is not a bad thing, it is what has kept us alive as a species. However, one has to question the gut reaction to asses its value.

That is a well put way of saying exactly what I've been trying to say. Where we differ, however, is that I think that it does not do well in this situation, though I'm not confident.

I was hoping the discussion would raise to the level of discussing whether or not the gut instinct turned out to be right or not.


The gut reaction to theft comes from our view of equality that we as humans all share.

At a deeper level, the gut reaction to theft came from the fact that the cavemen that let others steal their food starved to death. Any value put on "equality" has similar sources.


One entitled to what they earn

This heuristic is a very good one, but in the end is still a heuristic.


stealing isnt earning, by definition.

You have to be very wary of arguing by definition (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/arguing-by-defi.html). If you're defining "stealing" as "not earning", then you cannot use the definition "bad" or "copying someones design" at the same time.

If you're choosing to define "stealing" as "not earning", then you still have the task of convincing people that this is indeed "stealing"- or equivalently "not earning". The chinese company did copy the general shape and locking mechanism, but they had to do the detailed design work and actually do the construction and pay all the associated costs. There is more than a little "earning" going on, even if they didn't do all the work.

This discussion is expanding rapidly, so I thought I'd take a moment to summarize what I'm arguing, and to what level of confidence I believe these things:

1) Some people's negative viewpoints are founded on specialized instinctual heuristics and have failed to consider whether the heuristic works in this case.

2) The heuristic very well may not work in this case. I have weakened this to ~50% instead of ~90% in my view due to the evidence presented.

3) Some people are making the knife sound worse than it actually is because of their bias (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/halo-effect.html).

4) Publicly shunning offenders on a Spyderco forum is not an effective way to deal with the situation.

5) Shunning of people that think differently than you leads to "evaporative cooling" (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/12/evaporative-coo.html) where the ability for Spyderco to even get any feedback, or for anyone to have their beliefs challenged dissapears.

6) I agree with all of you that: Spyderco makes cool knives, the knockoff knife isn't as high of quality as a the real deal, Sal is a cool guy, Stealing is (usually) wrong, a better outcome is for the knockoff company to pay Spyderco royalties, and probably more.


If you still have problems with my arguments, I think it would be productive if you said which point you specifically disagreed with and why it's wrong.

[brandonreed2008]

honestly this is getting annoying.. I'm just going to say this and leave this thread alone. Something should be done about this imitation crap. I would be pissed if someone stole my design of whatever.

[Dr. Snubnose]

Bottom line and simply put...SR Columbia did something very wrong, they stole a design. I guess you really wouldn't understand that unless it happened to you. There are no words which can explain away this kind of behavior. The offending company should be tarred and feathered and by mentioning their name here in this thread will alert the world of their offense (as soon as the bots roll over this page). SR Columbia "Shame on You"...... You don't deserve any of the knife market's share...You might make cheap knives and I have nothing against cheap knives...What I do have against you is that you are thieves. And the more people who know about it the better.... I see this behavior no different than a knife dealer taking your money and order for a knife and never sending it to you....And if that happened to you, you would be screaming that dealers name all over the knife world for anyone and everyone in ear shot to hear.... Stealing is Stealing....period!...Doc;)

[cobrajoe]

...
Cobrajoe: yes, that point has been made, and is valid. I am not fully convinced that this effect is strong enough to invalidate my point, but the evidence about the warranty returns has changed my views to about 50/50.



Well sure, people might buy an expensive custom instead of a (relatively) cheap production Spyderco. My point, however, is that not many people would buy a $6 made in china knife instead of a $60 Spyderco knife.


...

1) Some people's negative viewpoints are founded on specialized instinctual heuristics and have failed to consider whether the heuristic works in this case.

2) The heuristic very well may not work in this case. I have weakened this to ~50% instead of ~90% in my view due to the evidence presented.

3) Some people are making the knife sound worse than it actually is because of their bias (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/halo-effect.html).

4) Publicly shunning offenders on a Spyderco forum is not an effective way to deal with the situation.

5) Shunning of people that think differently than you leads to "evaporative cooling" (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/12/evaporative-coo.html) where the ability for Spyderco to even get any feedback, or for anyone to have their beliefs challenged dissapears.

6) I agree with all of you that: Spyderco makes cool knives, the knockoff knife isn't as high of quality as a the real deal, Sal is a cool guy, Stealing is (usually) wrong, a better outcome is for the knockoff company to pay Spyderco royalties, and probably more.


If you still have problems with my arguments, I think it would be productive if you said which point you specifically disagreed with and why it's wrong.

Let me just reply with my own experience. One of my coworkers bought a poliwog mainly because of my own insistence of the quality of spyderco and the impressiveness of the designs. Once I found out about this ripoff for 6 bucks, I informed him about it as a joke. Soon afterwards, two other coworkers order three (or four, I'm not exactly sure, but I know he bought one for himself and at one or two for his kids) of the ripoff knives. The coworker who ordered the multiples has a good job and enjoys quality knives, but he opted to buy the cheapos instead of the spyderco that he was contemplating. That makes a 3:1 (or 4:1) ratio of cheapos to true poliwogs just among the guys in the office.

I have a couple of other points to mention though too:
1. You say you are opposed to the "gut-check" reaction. I think you fail to take into account the possibility that we have individually thought this through and have come to our own conclusions.

3. I have personal experience with the knife in question. It does seem better than the average $5 "gas station knife" (I collected those before I came to spyderco), but it is leagues beneath the SS Poliwog that it is nearly identical to in size and looks. Though I guess one could argue that we're biased to expect spyderco quality in a knife that looks like a spyderco.

4. Publically shunning probably isn't the best way to deal with the problem, but posting a link to where the knife is available alerts Spyderco to the copy and allows them to deal with it in whatever way they choose.

6. Is it really a better scenario for Spyderco to get royalties from a company doing a shameless ripoff? The way I understand it, this is equivalent to hiring out a cheaper company to make your knives for you. If someone gets a knife that they know as a spyderco, and it turns out to be horribly made, then the spyderco name will soon become synonymous with poor quality knives, and they will loose all credibility as a quality knife company. If you think this is an extreme scenario, Take a look at Frost Cutlery. If I recall correctly, they were a very respectable company until they made too many models of poor quality, now they only make gas station quality knives.




At least that's the way I see it.

[Jay_Ev]

I will say my $0.02 and then crawl back into my hole. In a way I agree with point #5 above (Shunning of people that think differently than you...). I have seen many times here on the forum where if a person gives an opinion or viewpoint that is less than complimentary he is ganged up on and attacked. I have refrained from giving my opinion and feedback on things in the past for this very reason. If there are others out there who have felt as I do, then Spyderco isn't getting accurate feedback, only praise and compliments. If they don't know what's wrong, how can they fix it? A company should be prepared to deal with critique, scrutiny and criticism. I am aware of the whole "shiny footprints" thing and will continue to abide by it, but just be aware that there may be others who aren't giving their honest opinion in order to avoid confrontation.

[jimmyh]

@branon & snubnose: I have had a design copied big time without royalty. I'm proud (I can prove it if you care)

@snubnose: that is exactly the kind of comment that makes me think 1)

Cobra joe, that is more good evidence and I'll update on that. Spyderco didn't seem to benifit there, but it does look like everyone else benefited to the point where they would be happy compensating Spyderco if they had to (ie royalties instead of no knockoffs).


1. You say you are opposed to the "gut-check" reaction. I think you fail to take into account the possibility that we have individually thought this through and have come to our own conclusions.

I did consider it, but the types of responses seemed unlikely to come from purely rational thought. If everyone came to that conclusion based on unbiased thinking they could share their reasons. I have learned a bit that shifts my views closer to everyone else's, but not enough that I'm willing to take back my point 1

I agree with your 3&4

in response to your 6, they wouldn't have to put the spyderco name on it, and could even insist that "NOT SPYDERCO!!!" was engraved into the handle and blade. Spyderco did outsource to china, and instead of risking their name, called them "byrds".

[Sequimite]

Jimmy said, "However, as far ethics and economics are concerned, ethics in a large part came from economics (individuals with ethics that made sense outbred those that didn't because they were able to produce more, etc), and to the extent that they differ, your ethics are just confused (ie If act X makes everyone better off, why in the world would it be unethical?)."

We apparently have a fundamental disagreement here. Ethics and moral codes are essential to any type of functional group. My favorite quote from The Big Lebowski is, "Nihilists!?! At least the National Socialists had an ethos."; so do gangsters or any group large or small that cooperates in order to share in the wealth produced by the group. This is social, not biological evolution, and humans have gone through countless cycles of civilization building and collapse. The purpose of each group is to benefit the individuals in the group with no concern for people outside of the group. I think anyone who has read the ancient Greeks, Sumerians or the Tanakh recognizes that the writers are just like us. The advance of civilization has no parallel biological advance in our "moral" DNA and any such advance in an individual would have little survival value anyway. As Viktor Frankl wrote about Auschwitz in Man's Search for Meaning, "the best of us were the first ones in the ovens."

As a full or partial owner of four businesses I can assure you that economic and ethical optimization are often in conflict. Economically, my only concern is the profit or loss my business generates. Morally, I have duties to employees, vendors, customers, anyone ultimately using our product, others in my industry, city, county, state, country, humankind, even animals.

Finally, your "if" is and will always be unknown. The reason the ends do not justify the means is that we cannot know all the ends.

[jimmyh]

Sequimite, I'm not sure that we fundamentally disagree.

I got lazy and sloppy with my "just so" story, and you may be right about a lot of the information being encoded in human brains and passed on socially instead of being passed on in DNA. However, the machines that determine whether a meme is passed on was designed by the evolution of DNA, which is worth keeping in mind. The point that I was getting at is that our moral code isn't some sort of fundamental entity, but rather the result of a deterministic process that more or less "has a purpose", and that economics is deeply related.

To the extent that economics and our moral code differ, our moral code is flawed and everyone would benefit if we fixed it. For example, stealing is usually wrong because in a world where stealing is tolerated, nothing gets produced and everyone is screwed. If your neighbor steals your shotgun to defend your son, well.... you better get over the fact that he "borrowed it without asking", because if your moral code calls this "stealing" and therefore "bad", it could get your son killed.

It's true that you don't always have adequate information to be certain, and you have to be careful in designing rules on who to give power to, but your definition of "right" should reference the territory, not the map, and it can still be the case that we have a pretty good idea that the ends justify the means.

By the way, my favorite Big Lebowski quote is "All right, it's f***ing zero. Are you happy, you crazy f***?":p

[brandonreed2008]

maybe this thread should just be locked or deleted. any opinion for or against the knockoff wont change how the spydercrew will handle it.

[Bluntrauma]

I got to see one of these knives up close last Friday at work. One of my technicians picked one up on ebay after seeing me carrying my Spyderco's up at work. Being someone who knew nothing about knives he thought he got the real deal.

Anyway, Friday afternoon he was putting up an order and broke a big hunk off the tip of the knife cutting a zip tie. The knife slipped and caught him between the thumb and first finger. Luckily, it wasn't a Spyderco and it didn't even cut him....and that. is the only thing I will ever say that sounds somewhat positive regarding a knock-off.

He made out okay though as Tuesday when we all came back to work I gave him my Crossbill. He's a happy camper now. As to the original poster I just have a comment. You can intellectualize all you want but theft is wrong. Admiration is a form of flattery but taking a design that is not yours and slapping your name on it is theft anyway you wanna cut it. That's all I got. Carry on.

[Sherpa]

Hi Jimmyh,
You chose a part of my post to take apart and psychoanalyze to prove your point. Please do the same to this portion of the same post. Making cheap copies for your own gain is illegal. It is not even arguable. It's not ethics it's the law.

My favorite quote from The Big Lebowski is
"this is not 'Nam! there are rules"

My favorite movie ever :D

Calmer than you are dude ;)





Bootlegged movies are illegal. They are stolen ideas. Sure the picture isn't always as good (compare to not as good of steel), the sound can be crappy (lets say weak handle material), the packaging poor. The knife they are making is a bootleg. It's a crappy copy that criminals create to put money in their pocket. Not to increase Spyderco's pseudointellectualmarketsharediaphragmdollarcostav eragingpercentageroyalty.

Bootleg = bad!

If that doesn't make sense then I don't know what does???!!113!

[JLS]

This discussion cannot progress until we come to a conclusion of whether or not theft is wrong. Until we come to an agreement that theft is wrong, without qualifiers, we won’t be able to agree on whether these rip-offs are bad.

Many of those expressing their opinions hold the 10 Commandments to be not only true principles, but sacred rules to live by. Yes, there is an emotional response when someone attacks that which we hold sacred. As I see it, my eternal soul is on the line when dealing with things that are sacred.

To tie in the economics vs. morals question, what is the economic worth of my soul? Some would argue that it does have a price; it is priceless to me personally. Is that illogical? It is, and I’m Ok with that. One of the Spyderco slogans mentions integrity. My personal spin on the definition of integrity includes being honest to your own personal detriment if necessary. This is illogical and economically unsound, yet it is always rewarded in this life as well as the future (as I believe). Logic may not support that, but I’d be willing to bet that the few hundred years of collective human experience here on this forum would back that up. I believe there are basic moral principles that are “hard-wired” into human beings. Maybe they don’t logically make sense, but my gut and my heart know they are true.

I tend to excuse the differences between the morals I know are right and the logic that makes them seem wrong by saying that we don’t have a full understanding of, for lack of a better term, “eternal logic” or God’s will. I someday hope to understand things a little more on that level. Until then, I need to trust in my faith, my gut and my heart to guide me on the things that don’t make sense. That general pattern has worked quite well for thousands of years of recorded history. I don’t think we’re likely to surpass that in this, or any other lifetime.

Getting back to the thread, Spyderco could do without the flattery offered them by the knock-offs.

[Lord vader]

I`m going to make this short.There is no way to justify theft,i don`t care how you want to analyze this,It is wrong.

[v8r]

[QUOTE=Sherpa;501660]I'm not going to get into all kinds of high-end vocabulary tricks, I will keep this simple.


I agree with Sherpa in his post.Stealing is quite simply stealing.I believe in the Ten commandments.They say not to steal,sounds cut and dry to me.I'm not one of those guys thats going to beat around the bush trying to make everyone feel ''comfortable''.I'm going to smash the bush.Stealing is wrong, I don't care how anyone trys to rationalize it.In this world there is only good and evil,and there is no middle ground.One day we will all be judged for our actions.If this makes me sound like a Religious Fanatic or whatever, I don't really care.:mad: Buy the way sorry if I miss spelled any words,or have too many run on sentences, or I'm not as intelligent as you, but I really don't care.:mad:

[JLS]

We can always count on a Texan to put it bluntly!

I agree!

[Sequimite]

Unfortunately, I can't pursue the subject further without breaking forum rules by plunging into politics and religion. Jimmy is advocating radical Libertarianism with the zeal of a twenty-something. Trusting something governed by men's personal greed, that we have proven time and again that we don't understand, the economy, to be the arbiter of moral good is also an extremely radical religious stance.

[Hannibal Lecter]

My Dear Friends,

I have watched this thread unfold with trepidation, then concern, then finally annoyance.

It is apparent that our newfound friend JimmyH sees nothing wrong with the theft of intellectual property.

Though your arguments to the contrary have been well-thought out and are sound, I for one believe that continuing to attempt to convince him that theft is morally and ethically wrong is folly; he is steadfastly and zealously attached to his opinion.

And we to ours.

I will say that for the very first time I am giving serious consideration to placing a fellow forumite on my ignore list.

I have always heard it said that a fanatic is someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject. My Dear Friends, I will respectfully recommend that we let this thread die. I don't know whether or not our friend Jimmy is being honest in his opinions and truly believes what he purports, or if he is simply inciting unrest in a more civilized and polite way than the usual troll.

Nor do I care.

Either way, his view is totally contrary to what we as Spyderco supporters believe and what Spyderco, as a company, stands for.

---------------
Hannibal Lecter

[224477]

JimmyH,

first, I believe you could spent your 1st 20 posts made here much better.
I accept people might differ in opinions, but being an evident thefts advocate, as you seem to be here wont make the others accept your words as true.

China is sadly a country which has NO RESPECT in any intelectual properties. You can spend your time browsing chinese websites offering copied products like cellphones, design clothing, electronics, furniture and even cars which are close by eye to their US or European /or rest of the world/ originals. And yes, they copy knives as well.

Doing a copy of someone else`s design for my personal joy /or use, if I am not able to pay for my so called dream/ is not bad to me. But making a dozen or more of these and selling them for PROFIT even their price is significantly lower that the one of the original is a different issue. In many countries the law is not able to cover the area. Once you have your design patented, the copycat can pass the law even by making one of a couple of minor changes, and since then its not 'your' original design anymore. But this is the time when ETHICS should come over...

I believe these threads, and I made a couple of them in the past, are here so a John Doe average user can tell the difference and get orientation, so he can pay for a real spyderco product and not for its cheap resemblance or even illegal copy (with logo and/or name on.) The copies are getting better, and sometimes, based on pics even a skilled 'affi' needs some time to spot the differences.

[cobrajoe]

@branon & snubnose: I have had a design copied big time without royalty. I'm proud (I can prove it if you care)

@snubnose: that is exactly the kind of comment that makes me think 1)

Cobra joe, that is more good evidence and I'll update on that. Spyderco didn't seem to benifit there, but it does look like everyone else benefited to the point where they would be happy compensating Spyderco if they had to (ie royalties instead of no knockoffs).



I did consider it, but the types of responses seemed unlikely to come from purely rational thought. If everyone came to that conclusion based on unbiased thinking they could share their reasons. I have learned a bit that shifts my views closer to everyone else's, but not enough that I'm willing to take back my point 1

I agree with your 3&4

in response to your 6, they wouldn't have to put the spyderco name on it, and could even insist that "NOT SPYDERCO!!!" was engraved into the handle and blade. Spyderco did outsource to china, and instead of risking their name, called them "byrds".

Yes, they could insist that the name is different or even proclaiming that it's "NOT SPYDERCO!", but then they would still effectively be licensing a company outside of their control to build their designs. This has happened before: The BRK Native (http://paulberetta.com/spy101_the_brk_native.htm). I can tell you from experience that this knife is also far below the standard Native in terms of quality, though it is better in comparison to the Poliwog copy.

In fact, one could even argue that without the materials and attention to detail, a spyderco design can't even be correctly copied.

It's not too far for a non-AFI person to go from buying a knife and thinking "This looks like a cheap version of a spyderco!" to thinking "All spyderco knives suck!". In the land of high quality, low volume sales; reputation is key.

The byrd brand is different, because the knives are still designed and refined by spyderco, built with the materials that spyderco requested, and made with the standards of quality that spyderco requires. For example: the very first byrd, the Harrier, had a couple problems:

We are working on trademarking the comet hole, but I'm not sure we can do it with all of the "variations" around. Time will tell.

The first "byrd Harrier" didn't meet standard. We closed them out and went to to other makers. We were planning an upgrade in design and materials. Then we saw the copy. The copy is not autorized, just copied. :rolleyes:

We'll probably make a new "Harrier 2", but it will look different.

sal

Consider this, if you will: If Spyderco had sold 1 poliwog in place of every 1 copy (or even 1 poliwog for every 3 or 4 copies-as indicated from my previous experiences), then Spyderco would have much more revenue to expand their product line or expand their manufacturing facilities, and therefore, reducing or eliminating the need for a "rip-off" company to relieve the demand.

[Praxis]

I'll keep it simple:

I don't support theft of ideas or designs. I don't need 20+ posts and lots of intellectual obfuscation to defend my point. That's my stance.

Don't Feed the Troll

[Dr. Snubnose]

Jimmy@....I think the point has been made by others well..why come here, piss all over the place, insult the owner and designers of spyderco and carry on in this manner?...Need info for your blog do you....find another forum to annoy...will ya....Doc:D

[Spider bite]

[QUOTE=jimmyh;501712]
Things that are "dishonerable" and "unfair" are "bad" and "not good". The question is "where did these clusters of ideas come from in the first place?" you have an ingrained instinct for detecting cheaters, and at a gut level it feels wrong. I'm suggesting that in this case your gut might be wrong- or at least not the best source of truth.
QUOTE]

jimmyh- I am really enjoying this thread. Especially this quote

[clovisc]

this is a really annoying thread... the kind of thing i call an "undergraduate argument."

the way it usually works is that the aggressor, who maybe has just experienced foucault or derrida or even adorno for the first time, and who will always claim some form of "objectivity" and "non-bias" in support of their timid claims to authority, will get into a huge argument with anyone over anything at all [knife -- that's a new one!] simply to a) show off, and b) challenge everyone to consider their highly watered-down take on concepts like "subjectivity," "cultural relativisim," "multiplicity of truths," "determinate negation," "deconstructivism," etc. so that we can all reach the not-so-groundbreaking conclusion that everyone has different ideas. when all is said and done, we'll go our separate ways full of negative feelings, chips on shoulders will have grown the size of cinder blocks, and nothing positive or constructive will have happened for the human species.

sorry -- but that is not how human intellect is best used.

this is how the teenage mind learns and grows, though... by testing boundaries. frustrating though these interactions may be, they serve some supportive function to adolescent cognitive development.

i support spyderco in large part because i feel like their ethical principles and ways of doing business are very much in alignment with my own values and beliefs... but not everyone feels this way -- duh.

now let's let this embarrassing thread die, and get back to appreciating spyderco knives, and accomplishing positive and productive things.

[jimmyh]

I'm getting tired of responding to this, so from pure exhaustion I'm not gonna reply to everything, but I feel the need to respond to some.

Sherpa, I didn't respond to the other part of your post because it was right- just not relevant.


Jimmy@....I think the point has been made by others well..why come here, piss all over the place, insult the owner and designers of spyderco and carry on in this manner?...Need info for your blog do you....find another forum to annoy...will ya....Doc

I never insulted the owner or designers. My intention was to see if I could get people to actually consider the other side, which I thought might actually be true. I've been actively trying not to "get piss all over the place". I'm not trying to provoke anyone to fuel a blog (don't have one), and if this thread annoys you, why read it?

Clovisc, an "undergraduate argument" implies that it is up to the college level...

[MLR]

this is a really annoying thread... the kind of thing i call an "undergraduate argument."

+1. Goodnight, thread.

[clovisc]

jimmy -- you're capable of refined and sophisticated thought... i strongly urge you to focus your brainpower upon accomplishing positive and productive things that benefit our species. :)

[TimmyBoston]

Sal has addressed this issue. IMO, this should be a legal matter between Spyderco and Columbia and there's nothing else we can do with further discussion here besides argue. I'd rather see more discussion and learning about Spyderco than bickering between members.

[The Deacon]

Sal has addressed this issue. IMO, this should be a legal matter between Spyderco and Columbia and there's nothing else we can do with further discussion here besides argue. I'd rather see more discussion and learning about Spyderco than bickering between members.One of the problems, Timmy, is that there probably is no "Columbia" or, for that matter, any "SR". Those names are merely window dressing, put on the knife and box to make the product more appealing to Western buyers than a bunch of Hanzi characters would. Columbia was probably chosen because there are American Companies with that word as part of their names, including Columbia River Knife and Tool and Columbia Sportswear, neither of which, I'm sure, have anything to do with this knockoff.

The legal angle is difficult to pursue since intellectual property is a Western concept and courts in China and a number of other Far Eastern nations do not really consider IP theft a crime. If huge companies with deep pockets, like Disney and Microsoft, cannot successfully prevent their products from being copied, a company the size of Spyderco would not stand a chance.

The issue is really one which can only be addressed by all Western nations, or at least a large number of them, being willing to impose trade sanctions against China and other nations of the Far East if such theft is not addressed. In today's economic climate, that is unlikely.

Suing individual US dealers and distributors might work to an extent, but would be prohibitively expensive. Best that Spyderco can probably do is to monitor eBay and report any auctions for knock offs of their products. For the record, unless eBay policy has changed, only the owner of the IP can report such violations, so "we" can't really help, aside from possibly letting the seller know we will never buy anything from him.

None of that makes the companies making the copies, or those selling them, any less reprehensible. It just means there's not much chance of a satisfactory solution.

[grunt0331]

i got home from work anticipating enlightenment upon opening the fourth page of this blunderous mess, but was nonplussed at the redundant disputation. just kidding. i could write a freakin' thesaurus from this thread alone.

my knife is sharper than yours. take that!

[TazKristi]

Sal is getting ready to head to Blade Show, so his "day" job of running Spyderco isn't going to afford him the time to chime back in on this thread. Sal studied philosophy in his college days, he's extremely well educated. Jimmy I can promise you that if time allowed he could discuss this with you at great length. Perhaps when you reach his age, you'll understand as much as he does.

I think it's time to let this rest.

Kristi

[duff72]

Thank you t.k. !!!!!!

[TimmyBoston]

Sal studied philosophy in his college days, he's extremely well educated.

That doesn't surprise me in the least. This may sound like I'm making fun or a joke, but I promise I'm not, Sal has one of the most mellow relaxing vocal tones I've ever heard in my life. I would have bet anything when I saw him on the sharpener DVDs he was a very well trained actor. I'm a psych grad student and I'd give anything for that ability. IMO had he chosen not to go into knives he would have made an outstanding therapist.

Thank you Kristi for setting this thread straight.

[dialex]

Not so much sad as it is typical Chinese business practice... :(

Let's not blame the Chinese alone, many of these products are made in China, it's true, but according to the express indications of Western contractors. :mad:

[jimmyh]

I think it's time to let this rest.

I agree. I've gotten sick of it too since it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. You know... the "definition" of "fanatic" and all...

I just wanted to end with an apology. While I was trying to not piss anyone off, it seems to have happened anyway, and for that, I'm sorry.

I look forward to contributing to less controversial threads, if you'll still have me ;)

[TazKristi]

I agree. I've gotten sick of it too since it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. You know... the "definition" of "fanatic" and all...

I just wanted to end with an apology. While I was trying to not piss anyone off, it seems to have happened anyway, and for that, I'm sorry.

I look forward to contributing to less controversial threads, if you'll still have me ;)

Jimmy,
You are welcome to be here and I look forward to your participation. ;)

Kristi

[mcgyver]

The Afghani at the market outside the gate to our camp gave it to me and it's a very nice knife. I'm sure it's a knock-off but don't really care. Honestly, Spyderco charges far too much for their knives anyway. Oh, anyone that would by any CRKT piece of junk would likely buy a knock-off as well since the quality of the knock-off would probably be superior to the CRKT product. I say that with due respect to the Columbia River as I grew up on it. Most of my knives are Benchmade but I have a LOT of knives.