Counterfeit and 'Knock-off' Tools

[custard]

I want to make a copy of this product :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB0MBGiX8TQ

Absolutely brilliant!

 

[lurker]

I want to make a copy of this product :lol:

Somebody is already making them - every bricky and plasterer I know of already has one. At least based on the right angle corners they do :roll:

Many of us here are what 150 years ago would be termed gentlemen woodworkers and there have always been the likes of LV and LN to cater for such people

Speak for yourself - I'm one of the hairy-tongued sons of toil (it's a Sunday aftrernoon, think about it). To me it's all a bit of a non-argument because I look at L-N or Veritas planes, think how much they cost and how little (if anything) they'll add to my bottom line (i.e. nil or almost!) and then mostly turn away and buy a cheaper plane which may need to be fettled or modified. And here we have a "maker to the gentry" who apparently hasn't taken the basic steps to trademark protect his name and products or copyright his designs who is then complaining about other, presumably in his opinion less scrupulous manufacturers, stealing "his" designs. Sorry mate, but you are in business and that's the way it works

You prove my point exactly. As a real woodworker LV & LN are not going to get your custom so they "target " gentlemen woodworkers.

 

[Job and Knock]

As a real woodworker LV & LN are not going to get your custom so they "target " gentlemen woodworkers.

That's not to say I wouldn't like them. I do own ONE L-N plane (#62) and ONE Veritas block plane (I know quite a few trade guys who've bought one or two fancy bits of plane bling as well). They are good, but not really that much better than, say, a Quangsheng or Wood River with a bit of fettling, or even an old Stanley/Record with a decent modern blade

 

[G S Haydon]

If the tools are "Knock Off", i.e. dodgy, replica's likely to fail or inherently dangerous that is a very bad thing. If photos and marketing has been stolen from one maker and used by someone else that is also a bad thing. If trademarks and and patents are abused that is also wrong. And if there are tools like that in circulation that put people at risk let's hope trading standard or whoever deal with those situations.

If there are no patents or trademarks then sadly for the original designer it will be open season. If ownership of a design allows only one person to own a concept or a design forever then that will not help anyone and will stop innovation. If a large business or government did that it would be corrupt or called a monopoly.

Small "craft" makers such as Kevin will always be that. Putting care and attention to detail into unique items. That caters to a segment. Some things they make don't catch on http://www.glen-drake.com/Two-Handed-Joinery-Saw.html no matter how innovative.

Large scale makers can make volume products that are within the reach of most. Some things offered by large scale makers make a defining contribution https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stanl ... CAcQ_AUoAg .

It's a tough call that only we can make when we buy.

 

[murdoch]

I wonder how many woodworkers who take the high road when it comes to there tools, would then turn down a job when a customer walks in their workshop with a set of plain english kitchen plans which have taken them time and money and says ' they've quoted me 65k, if you'll do it for 50k I'll give you the job'

 

[Trafalgar]

Assuming the other firm collected a design fee up front, I wouldn't hesitate. At that point, the client owns the plans. Even if no fee was obtained, if the plans were so plain vanilla as to be essentially public domain (i.e. probably already 'ripped off' from another source) I wouldn't worry one bit.

Moral of the story: charge for the design like it's the only thing the client wants from you. After a while, you might just like it and give up building altogether. It's in building that the money evaporates out the window.

 

[bugbear]

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

And yet it's the only thing worth copying. A beautiful contradiction (or paradox, as some people call it)

Ron Hickman had some useful opinions on the subject.

BugBear

 

[heimlaga]

In my oppinion nobody should be blamed for copying as long as they sell their product under their own brand which is distinctly different from the original. If we didn't copy ideas invented by others and sometimes tweak them a little or maybe use them as besis for further developments then we would still live in caves and be forced to buy our flint axes froim the heirs of the first flint knapper. Those who could not pay the high shelf prizes at the Flint Monopoly outlets would be forced to fell trees and hunt animals using round beach pebbles. Every pint of beer would be bought from the Grain Monopoly somewhere in Syria and transported in dugout canoes owned by the Seafaring Monopoly.
A society built on those premises would be forced into decline.

When someone makes locking pliers under the name Knipax or plane irons under the name Sheffeld Steel they have gone too far in my oppinion. However if I made an exact copy of a Lie Nielsen plane down to the smallest detail and branded it "Northern Tools" that would be all right.

The exception from this freedom to copy is valid patents within reasonable limits. The basic idea with patents is to give an inventor legally protected sole rights to exploit his invention for a certain period of time in exchange for publishing his invention for anyone to read and exploit once that period if sole rights has expired.
In the era before patents inventors usually tried their best to keep their inventions secret which means that very important inventions were forgotten when the inventor died and had to be reinvented centuries later. That was a serious obstacle to progess.
Theese days certain big companies try to patent a whole field of research to keep it to themselves. That abuse of patents is just as bad as the old habit of hiding inventions. Unfair obstacles to progress.
However I think that patent laws are a good thing if responsibly used and not abused.

Just my oppinions...based on common sence.....

 

[Jacob]

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

And yet it's the only thing worth copying. .....

In the wonderful world of traditional crafts everything is copied: woodwork, food, music, fabrics, pottery, you name it.

Ron Hickman had some useful opinions on the subject.

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.

 

[KevM]

As has been noted by several posters there's nothing new under the sun, and manufacturers who produced fettled versions of designs that have been effectively in the public domain for a century have little grounds for complaint when companies in emerging economies start producing their own variants. However, there are then decisions for the consumer to make on where they want to spend their money based on supporting quality manufacturing, local jobs, sound environmental policies, ...

What's disturbing is when companies re-brand products with their house brand to give a veneer of quality, effectively misleading the consumer. In some cases this may be justified because of a higher standard of materials, quality control and warranty support (e.g. Supermarket own brand products - don't mention the horse-meat!), but in many cases it is just branding as a marketing tool. This re-branding is at the heart of the sometimes questionable badge engineering racket where a factory pumps out a dozen versions of essentially the same product which is tarted up with different logos, mouldings and buttons and called a Woodstar, Record, Challenge, Craftsman, .... This is why companies frequently can't sell you spares and consumables for equipment that carries their brand-name.

What's clearly wrong is 'passing off' or counterfeiting where shonky knock-offs are sold as genuine goods, e.g. the sunglasses, jeans, handbags available at markets up and down the land. This is a growing problem for industry where counterfeits are inserted at the component level, e.g. contractor X builds their design, buying in components from suppliers Y & Z as required only to find that the finished product fails. Surprisingly maybe, this is a major issue in the defence, avionics and medical industries where supply chain management is critical (all part of your ISO certification, up to a point...) and yet counterfeit components are still creeping into production through apparently legitimate channels.

Of course there's also the legitimate OEM/OES industry of car components, plumbing components, home appliance components, generic pharmaceuticals... in which counterfeits are also an issue - it's endless.

Personally I wouldn't buy a Chinese hand-plane - I'd rather buy an old Record or a new Clifton/Veritas/Lie-Nielsen; but I happily use a Record bandsaw manufactured somewhere east of Suez which while exploiting a legacy brand offers reasonable UK support, and I use a Japanese Makita thicknesser, which is made in China but is sound as a pound (OK it's actually sound as a Chinese Yuan Renminbi).

 

[bugbear]

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

And yet it's the only thing worth copying. .....

In the wonderful world of traditional crafts everything is copied: woodwork, food, music, fabrics, pottery, you name it.

IIRC, when some unoriginal information you posted about sash windows was copied for a magazine article, you felt affronted.

Why was that?

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

......

And yet it's the only thing worth copying. .....

In the wonderful world of traditional crafts everything is copied: woodwork, food, music, fabrics, pottery, you name it.

IIRC, when some unoriginal information you posted about sash windows was copied for a magazine article, you felt affronted.

Why was that?

BugBear

You've been in the archive again! Well done! Let me know when you have completed the index.

 

[bugbear]

......

And yet it's the only thing worth copying. .....

In the wonderful world of traditional crafts everything is copied: woodwork, food, music, fabrics, pottery, you name it.

IIRC, when some unoriginal information you posted about sash windows was copied for a magazine article, you felt affronted.

Why was that? The data wasn't even original, yet you still objected to the copying.

BugBear

 

[KevM]

......

And yet it's the only thing worth copying. .....

In the wonderful world of traditional crafts everything is copied: woodwork, food, music, fabrics, pottery, you name it.

IIRC, when some unoriginal information you posted about sash windows was copied for a magazine article, you felt affronted.

Why was that? The data wasn't even original, yet you still objected to the copying.

BugBear

Stone-me! It's like deja-vu all over again!

 

[Biliphuster]

A question asked during many copyright disputes is: If someone is not going to buy your film anyway, do you lose anything by them downloading a pirate copy for their personal use?

A similar question can be posed about the luxury tool market. I am never never going to buy a Tite-mark gauge (I am too wedded to pin and knife types), if I knowingly buy a Chinese knock off for 1/4 the price just to try it out, has Glenn drake lost money? What if I knock up a facsimile on a lathe to the same design, have I stolen from him then? What if a friend lends me Tite-mark to sate my curiosity without having to buy one?

Maybe if I buy the Chinese one and get on with it I may be tempted to buy the Glenn Drake original.

I hope my hypothetical questions don't contribute to the further decline of our reputation as tool buyers and woodworkers on the world stage. For what it's worth I frequently try and support UK tool makers whom I think make a quality product.

 

[Jacob]

......

And yet it's the only thing worth copying. .....

In the wonderful world of traditional crafts everything is copied: woodwork, food, music, fabrics, pottery, you name it.

IIRC, when some unoriginal information you posted about sash windows was copied for a magazine article, you felt affronted.

Why was that? The data wasn't even original, yet you still objected to the copying.

BugBear

The piece of writing was original. To copy it without credits is the same as counterfeiting, or passing off as one's own. The information itself was freely available and there's nothing to stop anyone from reproducing it - but in their own words.

Similarly the design of mallets is very well known and there are millions just like these below - they are all copies of one another with small variations and nobody could claim the design as their own. The Chinese have also copied the nice shade of green, but it's still not counterfeit or passing-off unless they also copy the label, names and all, but even the words "The World's best mallets" would not be copyright.

Wood-is-Good mallet (USA):

Chinese copy:

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

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

 

[Trafalgar]

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

In your view, were bargain hunters ever the target market of a firm like Lie-Nielsen? Do Rolls Royce concern themselves that some people have to drive Toyotas rather than one of their cars?

There is no financial plight, but if there is and they are attributing it to Woodriver, for instance, they're likely barking up the wrong tree. Despite what you seem to believe, there is NOT a bottomless market for premium hand planes that is somehow being encroached upon by the Chinese. People who want a premium plane will buy it. If sales are drying up, there is a reason other than "Chinese knockoffs." One wonders if the manufacturers you seem bent on protecting appreciate you running around yelling about the sky falling.

The thread you linked to is so full of drivel it's hard to read. Psychology of the moment, that's about it. Half the people in the thread don't own L-N and would probably never buy one or if they do it'll be up for sale as soon as wifey discovers it and the phone bill is past-due. "It's an investment, honey." What a crock.

Lie-Nielsen's biggest problem is Lee Valley not the Chinese. Lie-Nielsen planes are likely no longer premium "enough" to differentiate themselves from Lee Valley offerings priced just lower enough to steal real market share on price and for some planes on outright functionality.

 

[Jacob]

But there's nothing particularly original in any of the designs mentioned to be "pirated" - they are all old, well known, commonplace items. Somebody notices that wheel marking gauges sell, so he makes some wheel marking gauges. It'd be the same with burgers, or anything.
Counterfeiting or passing off is a different matter altogether.

 

[marcros]

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

In your view, were bargain hunters ever the target market of a firm like Lie-Nielsen? Do Rolls Royce concern themselves that some people have to drive Toyotas rather than one of their cars?

There is no financial plight, but if there is and they are attributing it to Woodriver, for instance, they're likely barking up the wrong tree. Despite what you seem to believe, there is NOT a bottomless market for premium hand planes that is somehow being encroached upon by the Chinese. People who want a premium plane will buy it. If sales are drying up, there is reason other than "Chinese knockoffs."

The thread you linked to is so full of drivel it's hard to read.

I have to agree, there is more shortsighted generalisation about foreign manufacture than anything useful, and most of the posters seem to fail to differentiate between passing off and marketing a similar item.