Counterfeit and 'Knock-off' Tools

[Terry - Somerset]

There seem to be a number of different issues which are confused within the thread above. Here is my attempt to add some clarity:

Money

Except for those blessed with deep pockets through hard work or good fortune, money (or lack of it) is an issue. High quality tools manufactured in the UK, Germany, US etc are expensive if only because labour rates are several times that of China - although the difference is narrowing. Shipping costs (Shanghai - Felixstowe) for a 40 ft container are less than £1 per cu ft!. To criticise those who need/prefer to save money rather than contribute towards top end UK/European manufacturers is not reasonable, any more than being critical of Ikea customers for undermining traditional woodcraft.

Morality

Misuse of a trademark or deliberately misleading buyers into believing they are buying a particular brand is clearly unacceptable. Copying designs that are out of patent is not illegal and evidences only the strategy of the manufacturer - probably seeking to win market share through minimising costs and maximising sales volumes. Manufacturing lookalikes may suggest a lack of innovative and design capability, but the key issue is the extent to which cost efficiencies compromise quality and function. Historically many now developed countries first copied or licensed, and now innovate. The Japanese car industry owes much of its success to the Austin A40!

Quality

Copies of proven designs can be poorly executed but again this is not always the case. Even as an fairly inexperienced hobbyist I realise that poor quality tools, whatever the price, are not worth buying. A real benefit to people like me would be an objective comparison of lower spec common lookalikes (bandsaw, lathe, thicknesser etc) to understand whether differences are more than skin deep and extend further than a different paint job and badge.

Branding

For some branding is an important consideration. For woodworking tools this is no different to other items - cars, watches, suits, trainers, deodorant etc. People chose brands because of perceptions (status, quality, ego, fulfilment etc) and promise (not always fulfilled). Brands are generally more expensive than lookalikes and occupy a premium market segment which needs to be maintained through service, spares back-up, promotion and can make innovation affordable. This does not make brand an irrational choice, but neither is it wholly rational where alternatives of equal quality and function may be much cheaper.

 

[bugbear]

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

It's almost as if you're being deliberately provocative...

NB Again.

BugBear

 

[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

It's almost as if you're being deliberately provocative...

NB Again.

BugBear

Not really. I meant it. Stanley made a low price but good quality tool and copied some of the (dubious) fashions (thick irons, heavy construction etc) but slipped up with the adjustment; a version of Norris, which works but is clumsy. Sensibly they avoided the clumsy "bedrock" design and had adjustable mouth instead. Clifton should drop it too.
LN and LV adjustment; also clumsy except where they have stuck to the Bailey pattern, paradoxically. You actually need a little plane adjusting hammer!

PS the trap of the Norris adjuster is that it looks good, is cheaper to make (simpler design) but in fact it doesn't work nearly so well as the Stanley/Bailey. But unfortunately it's all about fashion and appearance is first. Pity that Stanley got caught out with the new SW planes - following fashions is for losers!

 

[ali27]

I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to have any knowledge expertise about this matter. The LN and QS plane things just doesn't make sense to me.

LN copies the Bedrock design, which is no problem. The argument is that at that moment Stanley wasn't making any bedrock planes and woodworkers needed good quality planes. The LN bench planes are still a complete copy of the bedrock plane no matter what the reason was.

Then QS copies the Bedrock design and some people start to complain. QS is copying LN is what is put forward. No, it's not! It's a copy of the original Bedrock plane. A thicker blade does not mean anything. Clifton is also making bedrock planes with thicker blades. So is Clifton copying LN?

''The QS plane looks more like a LN plane that it looks like a Stanley Bedrock plane'' is a weird argument. The LN looks like 99% like a bedrock plane with some minor improvements. Even if a QS plane looks somewhat the same as a LN plane, it's still 99% a bedrock plane.

Here is what I found another site:

He compared the planes on several points, including physical measurements, blade, chipbreaker, amongst others. Here is one example ...

The body-castings show some other differences between the Lie-Nielsen and the Bedrock. On the Lie-Nielsen, the wood knob mounts to a double boss; the Bedrock has a single boss surrounded by a raised ring. Wood River has a double boss much like the Lie-Nielsen.

Tom concluded that the similarities between the LN and Wood River were notable, so much so that it was much more likely that the Wood River eminated from the LN than the Stanley.


LN isn't jumping up and down and making a scene in the forums, or the courts, because he doesn't need too. He isn't sending out his legal dogs because he doesn't need too. Why fight a legal battle to try and prove he has been wronged when you can get your loyal customers to boycott suppliers and shame buyers instead.

Can you believe that last sentence! ''Shame buyers instead''. WOW.

So it's no problem when LN copies the Bedrock design, but when QS copies the same thing with an improvements/modificiation that LN has made, it becomes a problem. Please somebody explain to me why LN can xerox the Bedrock plane, but QS cannot. I guess it's ok for some people to copy, but not for others.

When I look at a LN plane, I see a LN plane, when I look at a QS plane I see a QS plane.

Ali

 

[Trafalgar]

Repugnant. "Shame buyers." That's as stupid a thing as I have read in a long time. I suspect that's Derek's own hyperbole but I'll happily impute it to Mr. Lie-Nielsen. Maybe he'll send his "legal dogs" to silence Derek since he certainly is doing him no favors at this point. Quite the contrary.

It takes a train-load of chutzpah to believe that stuff like this would have actual influence.

 

[Jacob]

:lol: :lol:

What about shaming sellers into reducing their prices? I've found them pretty thick skinned on the whole.

 

[t8hants]

I can't really afford LS or QS planes new so dabble in the 2nd hand market, with an illogical preference for Record. Guess I'm attempting to put both companies out of business by insisting on buying dodgy Stanley knockoffs instead of consigning them to the scrap bin.

P.S anyone got a handle/tote for a Record 4 1/2 spare?

G

 

[iNewbie]

I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to have any knowledge expertise about this matter. The LN and QS plane things just doesn't make sense to me.

LN copies the Bedrock design, which is no problem. The argument is that at that moment Stanley wasn't making any bedrock planes and woodworkers needed good quality planes. The LN bench planes are still a complete copy of the bedrock plane no matter what the reason was.

Then QS copies the Bedrock design and some people start to complain. QS is copying LN is what is put forward. No, it's not! It's a copy of the original Bedrock plane. A thicker blade does not mean anything. Clifton is also making bedrock planes with thicker blades. So is Clifton copying LN?

''The QS plane looks more like a LN plane that it looks like a Stanley Bedrock plane'' is a weird argument. The LN looks like 99% like a bedrock plane with some minor improvements. Even if a QS plane looks somewhat the same as a LN plane, it's still 99% a bedrock plane.


So it's no problem when LN copies the Bedrock design, but when QS copies the same thing with an improvements/modificiation that LN has made, it becomes a problem. Please somebody explain to me why LN can xerox the Bedrock plane, but QS cannot. I guess it's ok for some people to copy, but not for others.

When I look at a LN plane, I see a LN plane, when I look at a QS plane I see a QS plane.

Ali

People can do -and will- what they like. Thats their prerogative.

For me the thing isn't that its an out of Patent thing. LN worked his *** off and put his life/savings into building a quality tool, tools that some people wanted to buy but couldn't because they were collectors items. He didn't make a direct copy as such, he made improvements from his perspective.

He had a USA company selling his wares who allegedly decide to say: you know what, we could sell a bunch of these at a lower price. Next thing his plane has a Fu manchu dopple-ganger. Sure its not illegal. Its still kind of distasteful to me.

I couldn't give a rats about its being Chinese - thats the way of the world these days.

Life ain't fair but there sure are some s***s out there...

 

[bugbear]

If they could see your £2k version side by side with the cheapo one there's just a chance that they might recognise the difference. But if price is all, then it's a customer you don't want!
BTW where "marketing" come in is in trying to explain the difference; why they should buy yours instead of a cheapo. Have a go, educate them a bit!

 

[bertikus_maximus]

I've found this topic pretty interesting to read so thought I'd throw in my opinion.

There is a big difference between counterfeit and 'knock offs' than with imitation products. A counterfeit/knock off is a fake product that is being presented as having been made by a well known manufacturers. For example, cheap trainers sold at the local market with the Nike logo on are examples of a counterfeit. In terms of woodworking tools, this would be equivalent to somebody presenting a plane they'd knocked together in their own garage as having been made by LN. That is morally wrong and we do have a duty, I feel, to avoid dealing with pirated and fake goods.

That said, imitation products are similar in nature to the branded/high end product but are presented as their own product. For example, cereals in the shop: you can buy the real deal Kelloggs cornflakes or you can buy Sainsbury own. The Sainsburys cornflakes are imitating the Kelloggs ones but the consumer is under no illusion that the product was made by Kelloggs. It seems that quite a lot of the tools highlighted by Derek on page 1 are, in my opinion, in the imitation camp.

Arguably, it is a shame that products that have taken a long time by somebody to develop and retail are shamelessly ripped off and copied but it is reflective of the consumer driven world we live in. People want things cheaper all the time. (Also, one should not discount that branding can also unnecessarily drive prices up: painkillers are a prime example of this. They're all the same product but the branded version will cost you at least £3 more than bog standard own branded).

Additionally, one should not discount the difficulties that patenting present to property holder. Whilst I am not a patent expert, I gather it can be pretty difficult to get something patented and once you have this, you need to pay each year to retain this patent. Just ask James Dyson: product documentation that comes with his vacuum cleaners make it very clear that his engineering is protected, at great cost, by patents.

For Dyson, in the early years, it was pretty difficult to afford these patent. With something like a reasonably niche woodworking product, shelling out on patents could well be an additional overhead that sinks the business. So businessess run the gauntlet of having their designs copied by imitators. The way to distinguish themselves - as LN have done - is to operate to a high level of quality. Consumers then know that whilst it'll cost more, they'll be getting a far superior product to the cheaper imitation.

 

[ali27]

I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to have any knowledge expertise about this matter. The LN and QS plane things just doesn't make sense to me.

LN copies the Bedrock design, which is no problem. The argument is that at that moment Stanley wasn't making any bedrock planes and woodworkers needed good quality planes. The LN bench planes are still a complete copy of the bedrock plane no matter what the reason was.

Then QS copies the Bedrock design and some people start to complain. QS is copying LN is what is put forward. No, it's not! It's a copy of the original Bedrock plane. A thicker blade does not mean anything. Clifton is also making bedrock planes with thicker blades. So is Clifton copying LN?

''The QS plane looks more like a LN plane that it looks like a Stanley Bedrock plane'' is a weird argument. The LN looks like 99% like a bedrock plane with some minor improvements. Even if a QS plane looks somewhat the same as a LN plane, it's still 99% a bedrock plane.


So it's no problem when LN copies the Bedrock design, but when QS copies the same thing with an improvements/modificiation that LN has made, it becomes a problem. Please somebody explain to me why LN can xerox the Bedrock plane, but QS cannot. I guess it's ok for some people to copy, but not for others.

When I look at a LN plane, I see a LN plane, when I look at a QS plane I see a QS plane.

Ali

People can do -and will- what they like. Thats their prerogative.

For me the thing isn't that its an out of Patent thing. LN worked his *** off and put his life/savings into building a quality tool, tools that some people wanted to buy but couldn't because they were collectors items. He didn't make a direct copy as such, he made improvements from his perspective.

He had a USA company selling his wares who allegedly decide to say: you know what, we could sell a bunch of these at a lower price. Next thing his plane has a Fu manchu dopple-ganger. Sure its not illegal. Its still kind of distasteful to me.

I couldn't give a rats about its being Chinese - thats the way of the world these days.

Life ain't fair but there sure are some s***s out there...

The issue was that QS was supposedly copying LN and that it was wrong and maybe even against the law. Both points make no sense at all since the original design is from Stanley. LN xeroxed the Bedrock design period. Sure he made some tiny changes, but it's still a copy. And QS did the same thing. If LN can do it, so can do it, so can QS.

If we are being honest, then maybe Stanley should sue LN, Clifton and QS. That at least would make some sense.LN has nothing to say at all.

If QS started making these planes with the same cherry handles, the same look as LN(in which it differs from the original Stanley) then it would make sense. But when I see a Clifton, LN or QS/WR plane I see which is which without a second of doubt. And the original is Stanley.

 

[G S Haydon]

I would like to suggest we remove price from the equation as it becomes distraction. Think more in terms as durable and fit for purpose. I don't think there was a demand as such for cheapo because there are already plenty of products that cover that. Marketing is important but it can also be abused. Marketing can also confuse people into thinking they need something when they don't. Convincing them to buying brand x version 3 somehow everything will fall into place is the danger.

I know I have fallen into the trap of being critical of the approach of others or products before and regret doing so, no doubt I'll make the same mistake again. It's a mark of strength that LN etc get on with the job of making good stuff and not being drawn on these issues. They don't need to be bothered with lowering themselves to take cheap shots at other suppliers. Keep positive, promote your strengths and work on your weaknesses.

I'll mention it one more time, I cant speak for all the products mentioned but the QS/WR V3 is not a cheap imitation. You have to see one for yourselves to judge that.

On another note, anyone fancy doing an LN pass around? I'll pay postage.

 

[Mr_P]

I would like to suggest we remove price from the equation

If price was removed from the equation I wouldn't be wasting my time on second hand, I'd have a full set of Cliftons, Hotley's etc.... and the Chinese firms would be out of business.

 

[G S Haydon]

Sure, but I was referring to the fact that because something is cheaper it is not inherently bad or not fit for purpose.

 

[Mr_P]

Sure, but I was referring to the fact that because something is cheaper it is not inherently bad or not fit for purpose.

Agreed think we have all bought cheap/expensive and regretted it/patted ourselves on the back.

Eventually the collectors and rust will win the day and we might be forced to buy new.

Too expensive

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/231487553109? ... 1435.l2649

too cheap ? (but very tempting).
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/291380339173? ... EBIDX%3AIT

arrived today

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181673294285? ... EBIDX%3AIT

Sadly at the moment LN & Holteys are out of my reach, I could stretch to WR/Q but choose not to.

 

[iNewbie]

The issue was that QS was supposedly copying LN and that it was wrong and maybe even against the law. Both points make no sense at all since the original design is from Stanley. LN xeroxed the Bedrock design period. Sure he made some tiny changes, but it's still a copy. And QS did the same thing. If LN can do it, so can do it, so can QS.

If we are being honest, then maybe Stanley should sue LN, Clifton and QS. That at least would make some sense.LN has nothing to say at all.

If QS started making these planes with the same cherry handles, the same look as LN(in which it differs from the original Stanley) then it would make sense. But when I see a Clifton, LN or QS/WR plane I see which is which without a second of doubt. And the original is Stanley.

My understanding is: the plane wasn't called a QS it was a Wood***** - because a LN seller requested they be built for them. LN got the s-end of the stick. Thats business I know. Doesn't make it right.

If the changes were so small/unimportant why didn't Wood***** just xerox the the Stanley plane?

Not much LN can say but suck-it-up.

 

[ali27]

The issue was that QS was supposedly copying LN and that it was wrong and maybe even against the law. Both points make no sense at all since the original design is from Stanley. LN xeroxed the Bedrock design period. Sure he made some tiny changes, but it's still a copy. And QS did the same thing. If LN can do it, so can do it, so can QS.

If we are being honest, then maybe Stanley should sue LN, Clifton and QS. That at least would make some sense.LN has nothing to say at all.

If QS started making these planes with the same cherry handles, the same look as LN(in which it differs from the original Stanley) then it would make sense. But when I see a Clifton, LN or QS/WR plane I see which is which without a second of doubt. And the original is Stanley.

My understanding is: the plane wasn't called a QS it was a Wood***** - because a LN seller requested they be built for them. LN got the s-end of the stick. Thats business I know. Doesn't make it right.

If the changes were so small/unimportant why didn't Wood***** just xerox the the Stanley plane?

Not much LN can say but suck-it-up.

I can understand that it's not nice when you are selling your planes to a company and this company starts having them made
by another company for cheaper prices. But that's not the point. It's business and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If LN
had an original product/design and the WR was a copy, that would change the whole game. However that's not what happened.

So according to you it's ok for LN to copy the Bedrock design which is from Stanley and add some minor improvements, but it's not
ok for others to make a copyof that. You have no point at all, I am sorry to say.

Did Lie Nielsen copy the Bedrock designs? Yes he did.Do you agree? Did he make some minor changes/modifications. Yes he did.
Did he add something that changed the design radically or did he do anything else which makes the products considerably different
from the Bedrock design? My opinion is no he did not. A thicker blade is not a change in design or function. It's just improving
(which some people contest) the product.

TLN is keeping quiet on the matter because he knows there is nothing he can say about it since he himself has made loads of money
by copying the Bedrock design.

Ali

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Ali

Sorry, but that is a load of nonsense (I'd write "cr@p" but I might get into trouble for that), especially this part ...

TLN is keeping quiet on the matter because he knows there is nothing he can say about it since he himself has made loads of money by copying the Bedrock design.

LN responded by pulling all their tools out of Woodcraft (I seem to recall that LV did as well). Further, we will never know the full story, because it was kept quiet. But that does not mean it was quiet.

Keep in mind that that was WoodRiver version #1. It appeared not just to be copied from the shell of a LN, but it also used the exact trade dress. Planes such as Record, Clifton and Stanley Bedrock are distinctive in their own ways. But WR version #1 sort to copy the dress of LN.

Version #2 was an attempt to create their own identity. It was criticised for poor design choices. Interesting that - firstly, that they needed to change, and secondly that they could not get it right on their own.

Version #3 was designed by Rob Cosman. The result is the current bench plane, and this one looks good.

Similarly, the original WR block plane copied the LN design (noticeable in their distinct lever cap). There were other copies from the factory that were re-badged. Since then they have developed a different version that is based on the Stanley #65 (has a knuckle cap lever cap).

Clearly, WR are trying to form their own identity. This is no doubt in reaction to bad press and pressure. It is a good move since there is a market for a good quality plane that is cheaper than the LN and LV. To some extent, as a result of the changes, the conflict is now water under the bridge. For others it left a bad taste in the mouth that remains.

One might argue that all spring from the Bailey design. That is clearly and obviously so. However, LN was not a "copy" of the Stanley insofar as it created a model that markedly improved in so many areas, and it was not in competition - Stanley had left the room. When WR entered the market it was specifically to compete with LN, but did so "borrowing" the construction and trade dress of LN - and it was that which was criticised, not that they entered the market to compete, per se.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[G S Haydon]

Sure, but I was referring to the fact that because something is cheaper it is not inherently bad or not fit for purpose.

Agreed think we have all bought cheap/expensive and regretted it/patted ourselves on the back.

Eventually the collectors and rust will win the day and we might be forced to buy new.

Too expensive

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/231487553109? ... 1435.l2649

too cheap ? (but very tempting).
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/291380339173? ... EBIDX%3AIT

arrived today

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181673294285? ... EBIDX%3AIT

Sadly at the moment LN & Holteys are out of my reach, I could stretch to WR/Q but choose not to.

wow, shows how the secondhand market has evolved! Wooden planes, still seem great value though, hope that continues! I'm finding making one quite a test!

 

[G S Haydon]

Just to play Devils advocate,

If Stanley were still making a Bedrock and then someone copied them with a few tweaks would that someone who copied be in the wrong?

If the concept of original ideas being retained by the owner forever is being put forward, is it deemed wrong for another person to make them at any time. On the basis the original maker, their business, their children might want to make them again in 10 > 20 > 40 > 100 years time.

This is part of the reason why ideas must, after a period of time, come into the public domain. Good ideas can't be owned by someone. They have to be open to copy. That applies to everything. The job of people who can't protect something unique is to explain clearly why they are a good choice.

Although it does seem brutal to have a casting copied, especially when it's from hardworking people making great stuff to protect that would not help anyone. Even though it seems it would.