Counterfeit and 'Knock-off' Tools

[iNewbie]

The archetypal gadget, the workmate is one of the most useless ever designed! It's such a good idea - everybody buys one (including me) but it's only after years of struggle that you realise they are cr$p. They don't even pack away conveniently. As soon as I made up a pair of saw horses the work mate became redundant, except as an occasional clumsy table for supporting large workpieces.
So he did a bit of styling on Lotus cars - no interest or use to anybody except Lotus car enthusiasts.
His contribution to the world of design? He showed that you could make millions from daft gadgets, and a lot of people have been trying to do the same.

Somewhat ironic that Hickman's cr$p idea to you was copied by so many others and had him winning his infringement cases - and here you are arguing over infringement... Not so cr$p then, eh...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituar ... ckman.html

 

[Trafalgar]

Perhaps Lie-Nielsen should hire the same attorneys that Mr. Hickman used. Oh wait, they have no patents. You were aware of this, right?

 

[Sheffield Tony]

Where lines of design ownership become blurred - and a "loop hole" for morality (or should that be immorality) creeps in - lies with those tools that have been around for many years, and the design changes are not always obvious (but enough to say that the design is "different").
[snip]
The question is what can we do about this? The original makers could take legal action to protect themselves, but this is unlikely as most involved are small businesses that cannot afford the legal expenses. There are probably ways of taking out patents and enforcing them, but this is way outside my area of knowledge.

Are we worrying here about morality, or legality ?

Applicable legal protection might include patents, design rights, trademark or "passing off" legislation. Patent is probably the most robust protection, but as has already been widely discussed, the patents relevant have long expired. Unless any of the new manufacturers have patented their own innovative features - I can only imagine LV as having introduced any significant innovations (and not all of those are good ideas). It is worth remembering that patent means open, and heimlaga has given a pretty good summary of the ethos behind the patent system - the idea being that in return for a period of exclusivity, you make your invention open to all after that period.

Copyright does not cover 3D designs. Design rights do, but are short lived (10-15 years) and don't offer great protection internationally. Trademark and passing off protection probably aren't relevant because the copies are not pretending to be the genuine article.

So there's probably no scope for a legal case, what of morals ? As far as I am aware, there is no uniformly agreed set of morals, and no legal requirement on businesses to conform to a moral code. This always puzzles me when politicians, press etc accuse a company of behaving imorally by minimising their tax payments. Morals have nothing to do with it. If it is within the law, it is within the law. If it is morally "wrong" but within the law, the law is faulty. It is a company's duty to stay within the law and make profit for shareholders - not to abide by someone's view of what good moral conduct is - except, perhaps, their customers if they might be driven away by it.

So there it is. It is a very democratic system - if you as the customer, think that ripping off designs is immoral, don't buy the copies. If enough people agree with you, the copiers will lose out.

 

[KevM]

I was asked why I mentioned the UK forums in a reply on Sawmill Creek. Many of you should go and read the original thread there:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread. ... koff-Tools

Then return and re-read this thread.

What you will find here (if you retain an objective mind) is a large number of rationalisations and justifications why one may use pirated designs. The responses on SMC are different - consideration is instead given to the financial plight of the manufacturer. No one is seeking a reason to bend the "rules".

Regards from Perth

Derek

OK - just read part of the thread you reference and got as far as tl;dr it's just the usual spittle-flecked rubbish you'll find on all forums. Can you explain a) Your argument and b) how this thread strengthens it?

 

[iNewbie]

Perhaps Lie-Nielsen should hire the same attorneys that Mr. Hickman used. Oh wait, they have no patents. You were aware of this, right?

You are aware I never even mentioned LN's lack of patents, right? /- I'm ribbing Jacob for one of his usual colonic-episodes. The lad can't help himself.

 

[Trafalgar]

Thanks... yes I see now.

 

[Jacob]

The archetypal gadget, the workmate is one of the most useless ever designed! It's such a good idea - everybody buys one (including me) but it's only after years of struggle that you realise they are cr$p. They don't even pack away conveniently. As soon as I made up a pair of saw horses the work mate became redundant, except as an occasional clumsy table for supporting large workpieces.
So he did a bit of styling on Lotus cars - no interest or use to anybody except Lotus car enthusiasts.
His contribution to the world of design? He showed that you could make millions from daft gadgets, and a lot of people have been trying to do the same.

Somewhat ironic that Hickman's cr$p idea to you was copied by so many others and had him winning his infringement cases - and here you are arguing over infringement... Not so cr$p then, eh...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituar ... ckman.html

It was a good and original idea as I said, so he was entitled to protect it Didn't stop it being a rubbish product though! That's the irony.
Whereas the trad saw horse is a good idea and an excellent product with no rights owned by anybody.

 

[Paul Chapman]

The original Workmate designed and manufactured by Ron Hickman was a brilliant design. I bought one in 1970 and I'm still using it. Unfortunately, Black & Decker, who bought the manufacturing rights, and other manufacturers of so-called Workmates, subsequently left out most of the original design features which made the original so good. That's why the present-day Workmates are rubbish.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[bugbear]

The original Workmate designed and manufactured by Ron Hickman was a brilliant design. I bought one in 1970 and I'm still using it. Unfortunately, Black & Decker, who bought the manufacturing rights, and other manufacturers of so-called Workmates, subsequently left out most of the original design features which made the original so good. That's why the present-day Workmates are rubbish.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

I think the decline was a little more gradual than that!

BugBear (owner and user of a mkII B&D)

 

[Jacob]

They are excellent except too bouncy for planing or sawing, which makes them fairly useless except for very small stuff.
I hardly ever used mine except for odd holding jobs or as a step-up so it never paid it's way.

 

[Paul Chapman]

too bouncy for planing or sawing

Not the original one. That's the trouble with Black & Decker - every time they take over the manufacture of a product, they keep tinkering with it and reducing the quality to such an extent that it's no longer fit for purpose. They are the kiss of death to everything they touch.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[bugbear]

To avoid repetition:

black-decker-workmate-do-you-t30007-15.html

BugBear

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Some interesting, informed and thoughtful discussion.

I'd like to add a couple of thoughts.

Firstly, I give you the example of Disston saws. Widely regarded as a fine manufacturer of very good saws. However, consider how Henry Disston started - he copied the Sheffield-made saws that were available at the time. When he started making his own steel, he imported Sheffield steelmakers to set up his factory. He marketed very aggressively (for example, by putting on his 'second quality' saws the 'Warranted Superior' mark used by Sheffield makers on their best saws), and bought out his competitors wherever he could. He ended up making a lot of very good saws, and his products keep many an American woodworker happy to this day. But.....he started by copying.

Secondly - A2 steel. Now, I've been kicking around the woodworking world (as a bumbling amateur) for about three decades. I can remember back in the late 1980s or early 1990s when A2 first came on the scene. I'm pretty sure it was first used by Karl Holtey (Perhape David Charlesworth or somebody of like ilk would confirm or correct my recollection, please. Since then, it had become the default steel choice for quite a few manufacturers. Should they be paying Karl a royalty for using his idea?

When I started woodworking in the mid 1980s, the tool choices were limited. There was no high end stuff at all (except Karl Holtey and Bill Carter), and the decent quality of the old stagers was being eroded (think Stanley and Record). The variety of tools they offered was being slowly reduced, as well. There were grumbles in the magazine letter pages about the difficulty of finding good tools. Then along came Thomas Lie-nielsen, then Clifton and Lee Valley, and a variety of boutique makers. That left a gap in the middle, especially for people who couldn't afford to kit themselves out with high-end stuff. A few enterprising sould spotted the gap in the market, and developed ranges of good quality but reasonably priced tools, in some cases taking advantage of low manufacturing costs in the Far East - Quangsheng, for example.

Finally, just a thought for Derek Cohen. Derek, you do a lot for the woodworking world by posting reviews of new tools (such as your current enthusiasm for CBN grinding wheels, for example). That's great - we're all better informed for it. However, you are in the very fortunate position of having the disposable income to indulge your passion for high-end woodworking. I'm quite sure you've worked long and hard to get yourself to that position, so you've every right to enjoy your money as you see fit. But - and here's the rub - please be aware that there are many who wish to work wood who do not have the luxury of a high income. They must acquire their tools as they can, and however much they may admire or aspire to things like Tite-Mark marking gauges, the household budget just won't stretch. It's a thoroughly good thing that there are options for them to put together a kit of decent tools, and not to forced away from woodworking because it's an activity outside their financial reach. Do have some consideration for them.

Rigid scruples about only buying from high-end makers are great if you can afford them. Not so good when there's a lot of month left over at the end of the money.

We should be very grateful that we have choice. It's up to the individual and their particular circumstances how they exercise that choice, and it should not be for anybody else to tell them what they should and shouldn't do.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Finally, just a thought for Derek Cohen ...

CC, firstly, none of my comments were aimed at individuals here. I'm sorry if feelings were hurt. That was not - and never would be - my intention. Very clearly we view the world a little differently, and perhaps we had best leave it at that. Usually at this point we all head for the pub for a beer or two.

Secondly, I do not have any "high end" tools. High end to me is Karl Holtey, Konrad Sauer, a fleet of NOS Spier or Norris planes (see - there has always been high end stuff around. It did not just appear in the last few decades). In planes I own Stanley, LV and LN, but also have built many of my own tools: saws, planes, knives, even chisels. High end is all relative. And what I earn and how I spend my money has nothing to do with anyone, and I do not ask to justify how anyone spends theirs. The basis of the original issue has had less to do with what one can afford, but what one coverts.

Cheers.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

You're a little out of touch on this one Derek. Laying in a kit of Lie-Nielsen tools would leave a huge swath of craftsmen with no money for wood, finishing supplies, a decent place to work, etc. if they could even buy the tools in the first place.

One can impose one's ethic all day long with regard to tools but if the money isn't there it just isn't there. People have to look elsewhere. They they look in places that irritate you is your problem, not theirs.

And trust me, you have high-end tools (your specially ordered Japanese chisel set comes immediately to mind) and you do look at the world differently.

For some unknown reason you do have some Stanley and Record lying around, that's true, though one is hard-pressed to come to a rational conclusion as to why given the composition of the rest of your kit. Maybe it makes you feel better about something, maybe it's just plain old tool hoarding, or as handy foils du jour in some tool comparison/review. Seems wasteful to me. There is somebody in the world for whom they would be a Godsend, the difference between making a living or perhaps not.

 

[GLFaria]

Originality isn't all it's cracked up to be.

The archetypal gadget, the workmate is one of the most useless ever designed! It's such a good idea - everybody buys one (including me) but it's only after years of struggle that you realise they are cr$p. They don't even pack away conveniently. As soon as I made up a pair of saw horses the work mate became redundant, except as an occasional clumsy table for supporting large workpieces.
So he did a bit of styling on Lotus cars - no interest or use to anybody except Lotus car enthusiasts.
His contribution to the world of design? He showed that you could make millions from daft gadgets, and a lot of people have been trying to do the same.

Fully disagree. It all depends on what you want it for. If you put it to a use it was never intended to - like trying to use the thing as a professional woodworker's bench - that doesn't mean the product is rubbish, it only means you are exceeding its intended capabilities, and I would dare say also exceeding Hickman's purpose.
As a full amateur and an appartment dweller, I use mine almost daily - for small work, as you noted in a later post, but that includes planing. I would never manage to place a "real" workbench there, I don't have the floor space required - so, as far as my present requirements are concerned, a full-fledged workbench is an inconvenient gadget (not that I wouldn't like to have one, though, but in the circumstances one of us wold have to go - either the bench or me! A typical case of too small a world for the two of us)
End of rant!
Cheers
G.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Finally, just a thought for Derek Cohen ...

CC, firstly, none of my comments were aimed at individuals here. I'm sorry if feelings were hurt. That was not - and never would be - my intention. Very clearly we view the world a little differently, and perhaps we had best leave it at that. Usually at this point we all head for the pub for a beer or two.

Secondly, I do not have any "high end" tools. High end to me is Karl Holtey, Konrad Sauer, a fleet of NOS Spier or Norris planes (see - there has always been high end stuff around. It did not just appear in the last few decades). In planes I own Stanley, LV and LN, but also have built many of my own tools: saws, planes, knives, even chisels. High end is all relative. And what I earn and how I spend my money has nothing to do with anyone, and I do not ask to justify how anyone spends theirs. The basis of the original issue has had less to do with what one can afford, but what one coverts.

Cheers.

Regards from Perth

Derek

"I read recommendations for handtools on many forums, but is seems to me that the one ones more likely to suggest a knock off design are either the UK forums or forums that cater to beginner woodworkers." (quoting from Derek's words in the original post)

Derek, I'm well aware that you didn't aim any comments at individuals. That's not the issue. You did take a public side-swipe at UK woodworkers in general, and so far you haven't retracted the comment or apologised to UK woodworkers generally for it. I'm not really inclined to 'head for the pub' yet. I do think we deserve a retraction of the public slur.

I do regard LN, LV, Clifton etc as 'high end', and so, I suspect, do most other people. They are high quality tools, aspirational for many, and bearing in mind that they are made in relatively small volumes in a high-cost manufacturing environment, they are inevitably expensive to the final consumer. In that sense, I concur with Charles (though I might phrase my points a little differently).

We've had a thoughtful debate about the relative merits and history of copying of tool designs, and I suspect most of us have learned a bit. One thing that has come across is that nobody condones outright counterfeiting, and nobody would knowingly support counterfeiters. After that, it's all a bit less black and white. Conequently, the somewhat insulting accusation that UK woodworkers are "the ones most likely to suggest a knock off design" don't really stand up, do they?

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Mmm ... Cheshirechappie ... you started this thread, did you not? Sounds like this is more about you than me.

We shall have to agree to disagree. To repeat what I said earlier, no malice was intended from my side. Re-read the two threads. Try and be objective.

I'm out of here.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Cheshirechappie]

No, Derek - you posted the comment insulting UK woodworkers on an American forum.

I note that no malice was intended, and I'm sure most woodworkers reading this forum regularly will take that at face value. However, the original comment remains, and it was unwarranted.

You won't retract or apologise. So be it. We all know where we stand.

If you take nothing else from this exchange, please be aware that there are plenty of people around who are not in a position to 'splash the cash' as you are fortunate enough to be able to. Consequently, their priorities may be somewhat different to yours; don't condemn them for not doing what they can't afford. (There have been times in my life when I have had very little discretionary money. There have also been times when I could afford what I wanted, and from that I know how easy it is to assume that just because you can afford something, everybody else can too. However, in my case, I remember the hard times, too.)

 

[bugbear]

Finally, just a thought for Derek Cohen ...

CC, firstly, none of my comments were aimed at individuals here. I'm sorry if feelings were hurt. That was not - and never would be - my intention. Very clearly we view the world a little differently, and perhaps we had best leave it at that. Usually at this point we all head for the pub for a beer or two.

Secondly, I do not have any "high end" tools. High end to me is Karl Holtey, Konrad Sauer, a fleet of NOS Spier or Norris planes (see - there has always been high end stuff around. It did not just appear in the last few decades). In planes I own Stanley, LV and LN, but also have built many of my own tools: saws, planes, knives, even chisels. High end is all relative. And what I earn and how I spend my money has nothing to do with anyone, and I do not ask to justify how anyone spends theirs. The basis of the original issue has had less to do with what one can afford, but what one coverts.

Cheers.

Regards from Perth

Derek

"I read recommendations for handtools on many forums, but is seems to me that the one ones more likely to suggest a knock off design are either the UK forums or forums that cater to beginner woodworkers." (quoting from Derek's words in the original post)

Derek, I'm well aware that you didn't aim any comments at individuals. That's not the issue. You did take a public side-swipe at UK woodworkers in general, and so far you haven't retracted the comment or apologised to UK woodworkers generally for it. I'm not really inclined to 'head for the pub' yet. I do think we deserve a retraction of the public slur.

I'm afraid (and there are threads extant to prove it, including this one) that there is evidence of a greater degree
of unconcern at this kind of copying on UK forums. (*)
I don't see why Derek should retract or apologise for an observation
which is based on fact.

Indeed, this thread seems more concerned with justification or defense of buying knockoffs, rather than denials.

BugBear

(*) this is a relative statement. If 2% of people seem unconcerned on 1 forum, and 5% seem unconcerned on another forum, the second forum has over twice as many unconcerned people as the former, despite the proportion still being only 5%