I posted a link to the FW article you mentioned in an earlier post. I wouldn't necessarily call the article 'an investigation.' The conclusions drawn were much milder than that term would suggest. These names sort of ring in one's head: Sargent, Millers Falls, Record, Craftsman, Winchester, Carter (an old Australian Stanley knock-off!), Dunlap, Marples (iron planes), Shelton, Fulton, Keen Kutter, Vaughan and Bushnell, Goldenberg, Ohio Tool Co (iron planes) good Lord the list goes on and on and on. All copies, and pretty strict copies at that.
If LN (LV?) went to court they got no redress -- apparently not as obvious an infringement as many would assert. One has to remember that there was really nothing to infringe - there were (are) no L-N patents on bench planes. Some have mentioned the issue of 'trade dress' and if that was the basis of the litigation then it didn't get very far.
At this point it's like ripping off somebody else's design for a toilet brush. Ubiquitousness trumps all. Stanley copies are flippin' everywhere. At any given point in time there are probably as many Stanley planes and copies in the used market than the combined production of Lee Valley and Lie Nielsen will have in the entire lifecycle of their respective companies -- auction sites, used tool dealers, swap meets, thousands of planes!
This is the link (however I think that you have to be a member of FWW to read it):
http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/141 ... nd-stanley
Here is an extract:
"With the measuring tools in hand, it became obvious that Lie-Nielsen made several improvements to the old Bedrock. For example, a look at the No. 5 shows that the sole and side walls are thicker than the Bedrock. Also, Lie-Nielsen introduced some current technology by using stress-relieved ductile-iron for the casting, with manganese-bronze as an option. The blade is thicker and made from tool steel, with an A-2 steel blade as an upgrade.
Then, too, a few years ago, he improved the chipbreaker, making it thicker to help reduce blade-chatter. And, he added a shallow lip on the business end, ground to a 1º angle, to help ensure gap-free contact.
Interestingly, the Wood River plane also has a thick sole and side walls. And, it has a thick blade like the Lie-Nielsen, and a similar stepped chipbreaker.
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.
Knob bosses. Bedrock (left), Lie-Nielsen (center), Wood River (right)
At the back of the body casting, the Lie-Nielsen wood handle mounts to an elongated boss. On the Bedrock, that same detail is somewhat different. But, on the Wood River, the boss nearly matches the Lie-Nielsen.
Handle bosses. Bedrock (left), Lie-Nielsen (center), Wood River (right)
Also, when it comes to the frogs, the one on the Wood River is closer to the Lie-Nielsen version than to the Bedrock.
Frogs. Bedrock (left), Lie-Nielsen, (center), Wood river (right)
So who begot who? For sure, we know there’s Bedrock DNA in both Lie-Nielsen and Wood River. And, based on my side-by-side look, it appears there are Lie-Nielsen genes in Wood River.
Copying is not new or unique to the tool trade, nor is having tools made in China to reduce cost. It’s up to each of us to decide just how comfortable we are with those facts of life."
Tom Begnal, associate editor, retired
I consider it relevant to point out that this was about the original (Mk1) Wood River. There have been two further revisions to the plane that I know of, the last one a result of the input from Rob Cosman. One could argue that the current model(s) is no longer derived from the LN. This will empower some to invest (?) in these planes. For others the memory continues to leave a bad taste in the mouth, and Wood River (and Woodcraft) remain persona non grata.
Regards from Perth
Derek
