Copying tools

[nabs]

companies abide by the law and we abide by our morals - it's one of those discussions with no right answer, other than if you don't like how a company behaves then buy from someone else

 

[Bodgers]

There's only so much you can do with a spokeshave design anyway, the differences between models aren't that significant, surely?

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[D_W]

companies abide by the law and we abide by our morals - it's one of those discussions with no right answer, other than if you don't like how a company behaves then buy from someone else

That's what I'm advocating. Just like I don't like to be told what to do, I don't have a wish to tell someone what they have to do. Just what they have to do if I'm buying from them. If things don't line up, that's OK.

Personally, I don't love the boutique tool scene in the US, either. Too much favoritism, and I've gotten too many PMs from people telling me that I can't express an opinion about boutique makers unless they're positive.

I guess I'm a sub boutique maker. Here's my statement about that. If you think my tools are crap, you're free to say so.

 

[patrickjchase]

While I generally agree, I don't think there's an ethical problem here. As I pointed out in another post that design is very likely out of patent. The entire point of the patent system is to encourage makers to disclose their designs (by providing a term of initial government-enforced exclusivity), so that others may freely use them once the patent term has run out. That appears to be exactly what WC has done here.

I'm not talking about what's legal, I'm talking about what's ethical.

What exactly do you think is unethical about copying a design, and why?

Keep in mind that in the absence of government intervention, everything is copyable. For a long time that was the general state of affairs, and it led to a bad collective outcome (stagnation, lack of development) because everybody hoarded and kept their designs and knowledge secret. See also "medieval guild".

Patents were devised to improve that collective outcome, by providing for a governmentally enforced period of exclusivity in exchange for requiring the inventor to fully disclose their design and how to make it. The intent of the disclosure requirement is specifically to allow others to copy it after the exclusivity runs out, and ultimately build upon it. Copying is not only legal but explicitly encouraged, because we know that it ultimately creates positive outcomes (cheaper stuff, further innovations, etc). I therefore fail to see an ethical issue here.

I love Pfeil carving tools and also wish that WC didn't have their US distribution locked up as they do, but the fact that I (like you) am frustrated in my purely selfish desire for cheaper Pfeil carving tools does not make WC's behavior unethical. It's not like they're preventing anybody who wants to from making and selling a competing line of carving tools. Same with the Japanese tools you reference.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Hi,

I have both the Veritas low-angle spokeshave: http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.a ... 1182,44834

and the - spookily similar - Rapier metal spokeshave (from a car-boot): http://www.rapierplanes.com/rapier-all- ... pokeshave/

In use, they are both excellent and I'm sure the WoodRiver/QS one is too.

I suspect that Veritas should apologise to Rapier before WoodRiver/Quangsheng should apologise to Veritas/LV !

Personally, I have no problem with innovation and competition in the tool market-place, within the law.

Cheers, W2S

PS sorry - just spotted that someone else noticed the Rapier similarity!