Counterfeit and 'Knock-off' Tools

[iNewbie]

Martin copied Stauffer. Everyone copied Martin. X brace wasn't Martins design (everyone seems to think it was), there was prior 'art'. Same with Torres fan bracing, it predated Torres by around 80 years.
Let's move on to the modern world: Smallman does absolutely nothing to defend his carbon fibre lattice bracing, Wagner/Dammann openly let everyone 'copy' their Nomex double tops. I don't think they are the slightest bit interested in patents or anything else like that. In the instrument making world it tends to be the individuals who do the real research and the innovative designs. That's why double tops and lattice (throw in falcate bracing), sound ports (a very old design) are the stuff that's being copied.
I could go on. It's a very long tradition.

I think there are companies who steal (or borrow from non patented goods) others work and companies who license their goods. To suggest theres a long tradition of sharing in the MI industry isn't quite accurate across the board imho.

 

[MIGNAL]

Well OK, not across the entire musical instrument world but certainly across acoustic Guitars and Violins. Of course there are going to be exceptions but the general feature is that of 'passing on' design, ideas and experimental results.
It's more to do with individual/small workshops rather than large companies like Gibson. Large companies are always going to try and maximise their profits. Doesn't stop them 'stealing' or using the designs of others.

 

[iNewbie]

I think thats the sad thing. The good small guys are at the larger companies mercy - thats why I have some sympathy for Lie Neilsen when his altered work (even from goods out of patent) is mutilated by a larger company.

 

[Trafalgar]

I think thats the sad thing. The good small guys are at the larger companies mercy - thats why I have some sympathy for Lie Neilsen when his altered work (even from goods out of patent) is mutilated by a larger company.

Goodness, you guys must think Woodcraft is General Electric and ExxonMobil combined. Remember, over here the plaintiff-loser does not have to pay the other side's legal expenses. Mr. L-N ought to sue if he feels he has been wronged. Derek could start a fund to cover legal expenses, if TLN is a little short at the moment.

Mr. L-N's beef, if he actually has one, is not with China. It is with Woodcraft. China is merely the place where they have currently placed production. That can change, as it is Woodcraft's prerogative to do so. This has never been about suing a Chinese company through the Chinese legal system or attempting to sue a Chinese corporation in a U.S. court.

 

[iNewbie]

I think thats the sad thing. The good small guys are at the larger companies mercy - thats why I have some sympathy for Lie Neilsen when his altered work (even from goods out of patent) is mutilated by a larger company.

Goodness, you guys must think Woodcraft is General Electric and ExxonMobil combined. Remember, over here the plaintiff-loser does not have to pay the other side's legal expenses. Mr. L-N ought to sue if he feels he has been wronged. Derek could start a fund to cover legal expenses, if TLN is a little short at the moment.

Mr. L-N's beef, if he actually has one, is not with China. It is with Woodcraft. China is merely the place where they have currently placed production. That can change, as it is Woodcraft's prerogative to do so. This has never been about suing a Chinese company through the Chinese legal system or attempting to sue a Chinese corporation in a U.S. court.

Please point out where I said LN's beef is with China?

Goodness you must think some of can't think. Maybe its a 'merikan thing...

 

[Trafalgar]

It isn't a David vs. Goliath thing or anything close is the point I'm making. Certainly not a situation that has anything to do with accessing the Chinese legal system - though you're right you said nothing directly about that.

 

[Mr_P]

Vann you said,

The Lie-Nielsen knockoffs of Bedrock planes are, without doubt, an improvement over the Stanley Bedrock (I'm amazed at what people pay for a battleworn Stanley Bedrock when they could buy two, three or four brand new L-N Bedrocks for the same money :roll: ).

Just had a look at past prices in the UK only and amazed at the low prices Bedrocks have been fetching. Think if I wasn't in a rush I could get myself 3 or 4 for the price of one LN. OK the LN's are better and won't need fettling or
new handles etc.. but def not worth 10 times the price I paid for my most expensive no.4

http://www.axminster.co.uk/lie-nielsen- ... hing-plane

Why is the 4 1/2 £22 cheaper ?

Never tried a Bedrock old, new or Chinese is the difference that noticeable ?

 

[Trafalgar]

In the musical instrument making world there is a long tradition of copying/sharing designs. Hardly anyone gets upset about it. We take instruments and copy them directly, some to the point that the copies are so good that you would have to be a considerable expert to tell the difference. Even then those experts have been fooled. Providing they aren't sold as the originals everything is fair game. Virtually everyone shares designs/knowledge quite freely, even when that design is fresh off the press.

What part of the world is that, Mignal. Gibson love sending out Cease & Desists to copiers.

Fenders court case against a bunch of cloners: Here Then there was Gibson against PRS for the Single-Cut Design.

Dimarzio Pick-ups have the rights on the color cream for Plastic Bobbins fcs.

Here's DW Drums Patents & Trademarks

You must be talking about the violin & Recorder world.

Fender lost the case (in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board) you linked to. The Supreme Court refused to hear Gibson's appeal.

Here's an interesting quote from the decision on the Fender case:

In a 75-page precedent-setting decision, the Board ruled that the body shapes were generic and that consumers do not solely associate these shapes with FMIC. All three applications were denied.

Gibson's case:

On June 5, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Gibson Guitar’s petition for certiorari in the case Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP, 423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. ___ (2006). The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari leaves undisturbed the Sixth Circuit’s dismissal of Gibson’s suit, which reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Gibson and entry of injunction against Paul Reed Smith (PRS), as reported in the INTA Bulletin Vol. 61 No. 1, January 1, 2006.

And DW drums have patented their products but that doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot until tested at trial. It's better than nothing, though.

The makers do get upset, but they don't tend to get anywhere with it.

Courts and regulatory agencies have apparently not agreed with your characterization "copiers and cloners."

Gibson was in a bit of hot water itself (a criminal indictment) over the sources of the wood it uses in its guitars:

http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/08/gib ... lacey-act/

It cost them $300K in cash and the forfeiture of about $260K in exotic wood.

 

[Jacob]

....
Never tried a Bedrock old, new or Chinese is the difference that noticeable ?

Bedrock is basically not a good design. You have to adjust 3 screws and reset the plane blade. That hasn't stopped it being a popular retro style - it's all about fashion.
Much better design is the adjustable mouth found on various brands. LV probably best, with the little stop screw.

 

[iNewbie]

In the musical instrument making world there is a long tradition of copying/sharing designs. Hardly anyone gets upset about it. We take instruments and copy them directly, some to the point that the copies are so good that you would have to be a considerable expert to tell the difference. Even then those experts have been fooled. Providing they aren't sold as the originals everything is fair game. Virtually everyone shares designs/knowledge quite freely, even when that design is fresh off the press.

What part of the world is that, Mignal. Gibson love sending out Cease & Desists to copiers.

Fenders court case against a bunch of cloners: Here Then there was Gibson against PRS for the Single-Cut Design.

Dimarzio Pick-ups have the rights on the color cream for Plastic Bobbins fcs.

Here's DW Drums Patents & Trademarks

You must be talking about the violin & Recorder world.

Fender lost the case (in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board) you linked to. The Supreme Court refused to hear Gibson's appeal.

Here's an interesting quote from the decision on the Fender case:

In a 75-page precedent-setting decision, the Board ruled that the body shapes were generic and that consumers do not solely associate these shapes with FMIC. All three applications were denied.

Gibson's case:

On June 5, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Gibson Guitar’s petition for certiorari in the case Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP, 423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. ___ (2006). The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari leaves undisturbed the Sixth Circuit’s dismissal of Gibson’s suit, which reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Gibson and entry of injunction against Paul Reed Smith (PRS), as reported in the INTA Bulletin Vol. 61 No. 1, January 1, 2006.

And DW drums have patented their products but that doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot until tested at trial. It's better than nothing, though.

The makers do get upset, but they don't tend to get anywhere with it.

Courts and regulatory agencies have apparently not agreed with your characterization "copiers and cloners."

Gibson was in a bit of hot water itself over the sources of the wood it uses in its guitars:

http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/08/gib ... lacey-act/

It cost them $300K in cash and the forfeiture of about $260K in exotic wood.

I know who won and lost what. Fender lost the body shape, not the headstock shape(s). Fender got somewhere though you see it as a loss. Name companies previously using that HS quit using it.

Gibson wanted to stop PRS from making a Single-cut body shape and the headstock of a guitar is an identifiable thing. Gibson own that Open Book shape. They're still sending cease and decist letters to small builders who know Gibson's lawyers will drain 'em dry. Do't tell me they don't get anywhere. Both these high-profile cases got this **** sorted out.

This guy was making a small LP model and had his back-side slapped. Here So they DO get somewhere. He's one of many told to NOT copy - and his are miniature!

My point was they DO care. The court cases prove they care.

The wood is nothing to do with this. And there was two cases...

 

[Trafalgar]

And your point(s) are reasonably well taken, though nobody has apparently gone out of business or is even close to doing so -- certainly not Gibson and Fender. You referred to small makers: one would hope custom makers wouldn't need to copy current model mass-produced guitars or even key features. What's the point in being a custom maker and doing that? The logic of this eludes me a bit I must say, though we have an example of it in woodworking with Mr. Lie-Nielsen who set up shop essentially making copies, though he had the decency to choose a design that nobody produced any longer.

 

[iNewbie]

You want irony.

Having sold Fender, Leo Fender later licensed his own body design for the G&L Legacy model! Fender later losing the body shape case! LOL!

Ask Tom, Charles.

I'll say this - and importantly for Derek in this going no-where argument: If Tom doesn't care - and he doesn't by his silence, why should you. Because thats the bottom-line. Ker-ching!

 

[Trafalgar]

You want irony.

Having sold Fender, Leo Fender later licensed his own body design for the G&L Legacy model! Fender later losing the body shape case! LOL!

Ask Tom, Charles.

I'll say this - and importantly for Derek in this going no-where argument: If Tom doesn't care - and he doesn't by his silence, why should you. Because thats the bottom-line. Ker-ching!

That is indeed the bottom line.

Wouldn't it have been hilarious if L-N set up shop making copies of the ECE Primus range? Why not? They're pretty good planes. I'm sure there must be a tweak or two somebody could make that would make them better. I'd better get on the phone to Woodcraft. Maybe the adjustable mouth could be made of manganese-bronze.

Come to think of it, ECE look a lot like Ulmia and vice-versa. Is there some sort of common ownership of these companies? Wonder if Derek could put on the scent?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I'm a tad surprised nobody's mentioned the Stanley Sweetheart planes yet. After all, the Stanley 62 low-angle jack is a knock-off of the Lie-Nielsen low-angle jack, which is a knock-off of the .... oh, hang on...

Joking aside, I wonder what the sales figures are like for the Sweetheart range? Must be reasonable, since Stanley haven't dropped the line. The few reviews I've seen of them are quite positive. They may well be doing more damage to the LN/LV/Clifton premium market than the Far East copies.

 

[G S Haydon]

I had to rewind a bit and find the original point of this. That's not a bad thing, interesting thoughts etc so far.

I'm not sure we even all agree on what a "knock off" is. I see a "knock off" as something of inherently poor quality, perhaps including theft of trademark, passed off as something appearing to look like a better quality original, used for showing off, vanity or the like.

Derek, perhaps, uses the term "knock off" to cover very "similar to another" but without patent or trademark theft. So perhaps by those terms we do on UKWS promote "knock offs" in Derek's mind?

The law seems very clear on this. Original ideas need to be protected for a period of time to allow the original maker time to profit from their creation. The branding and trademarks are unique and take time to build and should never be used by others unless there is an agreed sale of a trademark to another business.

If this was not the agreement progression of ideas would just not happen. The world would be a monopoly. This is a tough place to be if like tool makers you operate in a world where your contribution can not be protected as it offers nothing truly unique. I think beyond all this the biggest contribution people like Mr L-N have made is raising the bar for quality that being honest had slid so far as to make some tools fit for only basic DIY.

Personally I don't see any tools from a design and function perspective that are a revolution. At best an evolution and even then sometimes a sideways step and sometimes a step back.

What I would not be surprised about is seeing new offerings from QS > WR that are not currently made by others. The basic templates are out there, plough, rebate, honing guide spring to mind that need a tweak to make them even better. Sound familiar? Perhaps this has already happened with the shoulder planes?

From the perspective of "fettling" QS > WR products, I found the QS #4 I had to be excellent and the WR 5 1/2 I tried to be equally good. When I have personally said they are well worth considering it's because I know they are well made and don't need fettling. I feel to say they do, in my experience at least is simply not fair and misleading to any one considering them. In addition I personally dislike A2 and think the T10 in QS WR is better suited to me. That is a huge factor when I weigh up what's right for me. If QS could, as I mentioned, offer a couple of things that know one else has gotten around to yet, be the first to reintroduce something with a tweak, then hopefully we might review their contribution.

Then the choice is not about quality, how it works, or how the maker has contributed to the wider narrative? I can totally understand why people would choose to support LV & LN. It's just a shame that if you think QS WR are good you are labeled as someone who recommends "knock off" goods (in the way I view the term "knock off").

CC, on the SW's, if they have got their QC right they could be an option. The chisels are very nice. I have grown so unfond on A2 plane irons that alone would prevent me from going there as a long term user.

 

[Trafalgar]

I think it was your thoughtful review of these tools that made a lot of people stand up and take notice. That's a good thing. I suspect others would not agree.

Carry on!

Ditto on the A2... don't see the appeal at all.

 

[Trafalgar]

I'm a tad surprised nobody's mentioned the Stanley Sweetheart planes yet. After all, the Stanley 62 low-angle jack is a knock-off of the Lie-Nielsen low-angle jack, which is a knock-off of the .... oh, hang on...

Joking aside, I wonder what the sales figures are like for the Sweetheart range? Must be reasonable, since Stanley haven't dropped the line. The few reviews I've seen of them are quite positive. They may well be doing more damage to the LN/LV/Clifton premium market than the Far East copies.

I wish they had committed to bringing back the classic designs with some slight updating, starting with the entire bench plane line from No. 3 through 8. Wouldn't have been practical I suppose.

 

[G S Haydon]

I agree on the Stanley approach. Stanley's range would of been perfect with decent Bailey planes, 5001 chisels, plough plane etc and would of suited the perception of what Stanley meant. Make great tools available to a wide audience.

Had a quick look to see what else QS have done, bought back a preston style side rebate plane http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Plane.html, preston style shoulder planes http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Plane.html. , good quality plane irons http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Irons.html and avoided the trend of A2, revised the Y lever design to a "dog bone" style http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Plane.html and "Every Quangsheng plane we sell is warranted against material and manufacturing defects for the rest of the customer's life". Not bad for a very new company, learning the ropes of western style tool making.

 

[Jacob]

It's a pity Stanley didn't do a bit more copying with their new SW planes. The quality is really good but they should have lifted some design details from LV et al particularly re the adjustment

 

[Trafalgar]

I agree on the Stanley approach. Stanley's range would of been perfect with decent Bailey planes, 5001 chisels, plough plane etc and would of suited the perception of what Stanley meant. Make great tools available to a wide audience.

Had a quick look to see what else QS have done, bought back a preston style side rebate plane http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Plane.html, preston style shoulder planes http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Plane.html. , good quality plane irons http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Irons.html and avoided the trend of A2, revised the Y lever design to a "dog bone" style http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Plane.html and "Every Quangsheng plane we sell is warranted against material and manufacturing defects for the rest of the customer's life". Not bad for a very new company, learning the ropes of western style tool making.

The WSH link to the No. 4 ---- wow, that's a beautifully executed plane at a stupendously affordable price point. Very, very crisp execution.

The photography is better on the WSH site than at Woodcraft.