Counterfeit and 'Knock-off' Tools

[Trafalgar]

Just thought of another one -- Vaughan and Bushnell.

Look at the way the frog beds -- sort of a Bedrock clone I guess:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Old-Used-Tools- ... 2c971bd7af

 

[Keith 66]

A few years ago i had some experience of the copying issue, a boat that i had built some years before was copied by others without so much as a by your leave. In the boat trade this is known as "splashing a mould" & the practice has plagued the trade for years. In my case the boat was a generic type & there were no plans it having been built by eye. I did some research & the longest a set of plans could reasonably be protected was either 10 or 25 years depending on where you were USA or UK. A generic type or shape cant be protected anyway & tools would fall under this.
What is equally true is that to protect your design you have to be prepared to legal action & in that situation Right & wrong have very little to do with it.
It will turn into a peeing contest between lawyers & he with the most money will win.
In my case i had no way of winning so had to let it go. However i do believe there is such a thing as karma.

 

[Carl P]

Which is another point - the actual brand names and the actual makers have a very fluid relationship like musical chairs, often not in the same place together for very long.

Does that mean they could find somewhere cheaper, but let the quality slip to undercut the opposition, possibly resulting in a downward spiral until someone notices there's a gap in the market for new good quality hand tools, they open up the market and then someone else decides they want a piece of that, but get their's made to a lower standard to undercut the opposition....?

I can't imagine that our fine upstanding toolmakers could stoop so low!

Cheerio,

Carl

 

[Carl P]

By the way anyone wishing to explore the rammifications of what we buy should read 'The Ethics of What We Eat' by Peter Singer, not directly helpful in the QS/Clifton/knackered boot fair find choice, but certainly makes you think about the consequences of what we spend our money on are,

Cheerio,

Carl

 

[Trafalgar]

Which is another point - the actual brand names and the actual makers have a very fluid relationship like musical chairs, often not in the same place together for very long.

Does that mean they could find somewhere cheaper, but let the quality slip to undercut the opposition, possibly resulting in a downward spiral until someone notices there's a gap in the market for new good quality hand tools, they open up the market and then someone else decides they want a piece of that, but get their's made to a lower standard to undercut the opposition....?

I can't imagine that our fine upstanding toolmakers could stoop so low!

Cheerio,

Carl

Probably worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F189JB2MOBM

 

[Trafalgar]

V&B flat-top jack plane:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VB-705-Vaughn-B ... 43d263aa4a

 

[Mr T]

Probably worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F189JB2MOBM

Like showing candy to a kindergarten

Chris

 

[Jacob]

I'd give Woodriver a miss - currently they are being heavily promoted and without any price competition i.e. price fixing. Just say no and wave 2 fingers, unless you can get say 20% off.

 

[Rob Lee]

Hi -

Interesting thread (well - the first few pages anyway) with a complete round-up of all the usual suspects.... 8)

I will offer a slightly different perspective (a personal one) on offensive copies. When company A takes a product made by company B, and asks company C to make it for a lower price - I find that to be offensive - no matter what the product, or industry (some call that pure Capitalism). It is equally offensive at the individual level (but usually much less harmful commercially).

The individual (or firm) that did all of the work to design and refine the product has costs that no copying firm or individual will have, and cannot complete with a copy. That's the basic pricinciple behind intellectual property rights - limited protection for the people that do original work. We all benefit from original work - and it is in all of our interest for original work to continue (no matter what the field).

Legal does not always equate with right, or moral - just as illegal does not always equate with wrong, or immoral ..... so citing either extreme as justification for an action is somewhat lazy, in my opinion.

Cheers -

Rob
(headed back to the sidelines)

 

[Shrubby]

Plagarius awards were announced in January - a power tool won
Plagarius have a good website for anyone interested in design/IP issues
Matt

 

[G S Haydon]

Thanks for the response Mr Lee. Is there a time beyond where you feel a copy can be made? Reviewing information online European & US patents seem to be 20 years. Would that be an acceptable time frame to recoup development costs? Or do you feel a design should remain property of the originator for a longer period or indefinitely?

 

[Trafalgar]

Hi -

Interesting thread (well - the first few pages anyway) with a complete round-up of all the usual suspects.... 8)

I will offer a slightly different perspective (a personal one) on offensive copies. When company A takes a product made by company B, and asks company C to make it for a lower price - I find that to be offensive - no matter what the product, or industry (some call that pure Capitalism). It is equally offensive at the individual level (but usually much less harmful commercially).

The individual (or firm) that did all of the work to design and refine the product has costs that no copying firm or individual will have, and cannot complete with a copy. That's the basic pricinciple behind intellectual property rights - limited protection for the people that do original work. We all benefit from original work - and it is in all of our interest for original work to continue (no matter what the field).

Legal does not always equate with right, or moral - just as illegal does not always equate with wrong, or immoral ..... so citing either extreme as justification for an action is somewhat lazy, in my opinion.

Cheers -

Rob
(headed back to the sidelines)

One issue, maybe the only real issue, seems to be how much "originality" is ascribed to Company B's copy (in your example). Many reasonable people see Company B's product as almost entirely a copy, though executed in a boutique environment with tighter tolerances. It's possible to make a copy of a Goddard/Townsend piece and improve the joinery here or there (or put a nicer finish on tertiary surfaces) but it's still a copy. Nobody could reasonably claim otherwise -- Company B or anybody else. One might even add inlay, a little marquetry, or otherwise perk up the piece but to anybody with even a superficial knowledge of G&T, it's still 90%++ a copy.

Company B is obviously free to strain gnats through a much finer sieve but the result is not necessarily something 'original.'

The other issue is that this is nothing new. There is an ongoing list of at least two dozen companies in this thread who have copied Stanley products (not just planes!) with impunity (or copied each others copy) with impunity. And strangely, Stanley is about the only one of these companies still standing if that's any consolation.

 

[Rob Lee]

Thanks for the response Mr Lee. Is there a time beyond where you feel a copy can be made? Reviewing information online European & US patents seem to be 20 years. Would that be an acceptable time frame to recoup development costs? Or do you feel a design should remain property of the originator for a longer period or indefinitely?

Hi -

Yes - I believe it is fair to use ideas or products that have been "discarded" by others. At the same time - there is always an opportunity to improve (create) ....

Another instance is for the greater public good (which does not mean self-interest)...

I also believe that that many current patents/methods of IP protection are misused - being filed to squat on the property - not develop it. The patent system is basically broken now.... almost unworkable for a large proportion of the entities it was intended to protect. In the US - large firms like Disney have more influence on legislation than public policy does.

Cheers -

Rob

 

[G S Haydon]

Thanks for the response Mr Lee

It is a shame to hear patent laws have become misused. Without a respected structure the balance to reward innovation and yet let others replicate/improve within a set period clearly becomes a bun fight.

 

[Jacob]

But surely the "innovation" in all the new makers is not in the sorts of design or manufacturing which would be patentable or copyrightable (they are all copyists) but is in the marketing idea of "engineering up".
So a baker maker makes a better class of loaf - is it not inevitable and acceptable that others might follow? I think it is - and to the advantage of us all, whether buying tools or bakery. Not quite the same of course - you can't get a good quality 2nd-hand 50 year-old loaf anywhere nowadays!

We used to get copied a lot years ago when selling "boutique" toys, but they were never quite the same. Usually not as good, sometimes a lot better but pricier. Didn't bother us at all. Non of our ideas were wildly original but our products were - and this was difficult to emulate.

 

[Trafalgar]

These clamps sure look a whole lot like the original Bessey K-Body clamps:

http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.a ... at=51&ap=1

 

[G S Haydon]

Interesting Charles, I don't use that pattern so I'm not familiar but after a google it is quite similar to the http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.a ... at=1,43838

 

[RobinBHM]

I was interested to read the comments about the workmate (about what seems like 200 pages back) I can remember all the diy sheds having big displays of them back in the 1980s, I dont know if they are still available, but Ive not noticed any for sale in years.

 

[Rob Lee]

(snip)
So a baker maker makes a better class of loaf - is it not inevitable and acceptable that others might follow? I think it is - and to the advantage of us all, whether buying tools or bakery. (snip)

Sorry Jacob - your bread analogy falls flat - and is not really representative of the typical examples being discussed here...

Try making your arguments using Mickey Mouse as an example...

Why should Disney lose exclusive rights to Mickey? (for the record, I don't believe they should) How would that benefit society?

Congress appears to agree with Disney - having changed US copyright law at Disney's behest for just that purpose, which just goes to illustrate some of the problems with trying to codify what's "right".....there are always examples that don't fit the intent.

Cheers -

Rob

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I'm not sure Disney have exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse products. Quite a few manufacturers and retailers have been accused of supplying those.