WoodRiver 5 1/2 Jack Plane Passaround

[iNewbie]

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.

If there wasn't anything to infringe then why did said company then change its copy - and what LN describes as certain details as "Propriety".

You should get a laugh as he's been exporting to China for near two years. :roll:

LN to China

 

[Cheshirechappie]

And the Record SS was copied by Clifton. Unscrupulous pirates!

Not quite the same scenario. Record had ceased production of the SS cap-iron many years (three decades?) before Clifton made them available again. Clifton were not competing against an existing product in the market with the two-piece cap-iron.

Edit to add - Also, given that the original parent company of the Clifton brand, Clico, were formed by a management buy-out of the Record Tools aircraft tooling business and part of the Record planes business, Clico were probably the rightful inheritors and owners of the former Record intellecual property, and for all we know the MBO purchace price may have reflected that; if anybody had the right to recommence sales of the Clifton-branded two-piece cap-iron (and the Preston-inspired shoulder planes), then it was Clico.

 

[Trafalgar]

Should be hung by their thumbs I say...

Can't.

Tomás de Torquemada has a patent.



BugBear

Spewed coffee... thanks!

 

[Trafalgar]

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.

If there wasn't anything to infringe then why did said company then change its copy - and what LN describes as certain details as "Propriety".

You should get a laugh as he's been exporting to China for near two years. :roll:

LN to China

I think it's wonderful, and I think it's wonderful that he bears no grudge against the Taiwanese or at least is too smart to get mad at his own money. They sell TLN the Supertec machinery he needs, he makes products with said machinery and sells products back to them which are then marketed as a status brand. Somebody else dispenses with the pretense and just has the whole thing done in China and sells end product over here not marketed as a status brand. Consumers in both countries are the beneficiaries. You can pay Mr. Lie-Nielsen for running castings through a very fine sieve in between poetry readings and cream tea in his New England idyll, or you can pay Woodcraft for slightly less fit and finish (both are possible on the same Taiwanese machinery; indeed both are made by Taiwanese machinery). The choice is yours.

Stanley (Disston and others, too!) made various house and hardware store brands to varying degrees of fit and finish as well as homeowner/entry-level brands to a very basic level of fit and finish, and all of this out of the same production facilities. It's all about business!

And rabid nationalists on both sides of The Pond can have their needs satisfied through the market for vintage, all-Anglo tools and a wide brand selection at that.

 

[Fromey]

Who remembers when Apple patented the rectangle with rounded corners? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 ... 92439.html

The fact that an American company resorted to legal action over anything should not be used as any sort of proof of the culpability of the defendant. It's just business as usual. So sue me! (hammer)

 

[Trafalgar]

True, it's easy over here because if you lose you don't have to pay the defendant's legal costs.

 

[Jacob]

And the Record SS was copied by Clifton. Unscrupulous pirates!

Not quite the same scenario. Record had ceased production of the SS cap-iron many years (three decades?) before Clifton made them available again. Clifton were not competing against an existing product in the market with the two-piece cap-iron.

Edit to add - Also, given that the original parent company of the Clifton brand, Clico, were formed by a management buy-out of the Record Tools aircraft tooling business and part of the Record planes business, Clico were probably the rightful inheritors and owners of the former Record intellecual property, and for all we know the MBO purchace price may have reflected that; if anybody had the right to recommence sales of the Clifton-branded two-piece cap-iron (and the Preston-inspired shoulder planes), then it was Clico.

Hmm dunno. What about Mr & Mrs Record and all the little Records? Has anybody given them a thought?
Where they now - probably stacking shelves in Tesco, having been deprived of their birthright by the evil Clifton Empire. :roll:

 

[Cheshirechappie]

And the Record SS was copied by Clifton. Unscrupulous pirates!

Not quite the same scenario. Record had ceased production of the SS cap-iron many years (three decades?) before Clifton made them available again. Clifton were not competing against an existing product in the market with the two-piece cap-iron.

Edit to add - Also, given that the original parent company of the Clifton brand, Clico, were formed by a management buy-out of the Record Tools aircraft tooling business and part of the Record planes business, Clico were probably the rightful inheritors and owners of the former Record intellecual property, and for all we know the MBO purchace price may have reflected that; if anybody had the right to recommence sales of the Clifton-branded two-piece cap-iron (and the Preston-inspired shoulder planes), then it was Clico.

Hmm dunno. What about Mr & Mrs Record and all the little Records? Has anybody given them a thought?
Where they now - probably stacking shelves in Tesco, having been deprived of their birthright by the evil Clifton Empire. :roll:

At some point in the 1960s, Ridgway and William Marples amalgamated. At some point in the 1980s (I think), Marples Ridgway amalgamated with Record tools, forming Record Ridgway (hence the use of the Marples brand name on Record planes during the 1980s an early 1990s). Then, the whole group was bought by Bahco tools, who sold the whole shebang on the the American company Irwin Tools, who were later absorbed into Newell Rubbermaid (I think). At some point during this sequence of events, The management of the (then) subsidiary of Record tools that made specialist tooling for the aircraft industry bought out that subsidiary - it became Clico Tools. They also took some of the Record handplane intellectual property, and started making Clifton planes in the late 1990s, first the multi-plane, then shoulder planes, and latterly (some time in the early 2000s) the bedrock-type bench planes.

So - at some point in this sequence, the intellectual property of Record handplanes was split, some of the older designs then out of production going to Clico, and the current production of Bailey-type bench planes remaining with Bahco/Irwin/Newell Rubbermaid (where it currently remains).

Some of the details and dates may not be absolutely accurate, but that's the basic picture. The original Record handplane business became split in two directions, part of the intellectual property remaining with the current parent company, and some going with the Clico MBO. Hope that clears things up for you.

 

[Trafalgar]

Funny how a very, very close copy can somehow become 'intellectual property' of the copyist. But it doesn't, and didn't. It may have been referred to in that manner in legal documents but there were more than a dozen companies making essentially the same planes as Record during the shank of its existence. The Stay-Set was an innovation and a few other things but the majority of the rest was not. Trade protection in the end didn't help Record.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I'm just glad that Clico had the foresight to re-introduce the Stay Set cap iron with their Clifton planes. The best cap iron design ever, IMHO. I have them fitted to all my bench planes.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[iNewbie]

I think it's wonderful, and I think it's wonderful that he bears no grudge against the Taiwanese or at least is too smart to get mad at his own money. They sell TLN Supertec machinery, he makes products with said machinery and sells products back to them which are then marketed as a status brand. Somebody else dispenses with the pretense and just has the whole thing done in China and sells end product over here not marketed as a status brand. Consumers in both countries are the beneficiaries. You can pay Mr. Lie-Nielsen for running castings through the finest sieve in between poetry readings and cream tea in his New England idyll, or you can pay Woodcraft for slightly less fit and finish (both are possible on the same Taiwanese machinery; indeed both are made by Taiwanese machinery). The choice is yours.

Stanley (Disston and others, too!) made various house and hardware store brands to varying degrees of fit and finish as well as homeowner/entry-level brands to a very basic level of fit and finish, and all of this out of the same production facilities. It's all about business!

And rabid nationalists on both sides of The Pond can have their needs satisfied through the market for vintage, all-Anglo tools and a wide brand selection at that.

I'm not sure what your argument is over Nielsen using Taiwanese machinery - he paid for it with no shadiness, theres no copy involved...

The old rabid nationalist gem as the cherry on top for a cream-tea - not my cup-of-tea, mind.

 

[Trafalgar]

The Taiwanese machines are essentially copies of machines originally conceived, designed, and proven in Western countries.

Besides that, it addresses the undercurrent that the Chinese hand planes are substandard when all the while the premium plane brands we know and love are in fact made with Chinese machines most of which, again, are copies of Western designs. See the irony?

 

[G S Haydon]

Very pleased to see LN selling in China. People making good stuff and trading with other people around the world. I'm equally happy to see good things made all over the world with no patent law broken and giving us options.

On the machines and country or origin the bottom line is the right quality for the task at hand. People all over the world are more than able to make great stuff. Made in UK/US/China has little meaning. The ability to deliver the right quality over time and the reputation earned is what is most important.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Funny how a very, very close copy can somehow become 'intellectual property' of the copyist. But it doesn't, and didn't. It may have been referred to in that manner in legal documents but there were more than a dozen companies making essentially the same planes as Record during the shank of its existence. The Stay-Set was an innovation and a few other things but the majority of the rest was not. Trade protection in the end didn't help Record.

If we're not careful, we're going to end up dancing on the head of a pin, here. However, just a couple of facts that may or may not inform the debate. The Record benchplane business did not go to Clico Tools, but the stayset cap-iron (which at the time of Clico's formation had been out of production at Record for at least a couple of decades) did. Also going to Clico at the same time, and also out of production at Record for many years, were the multi-plane and the Preston style shoulder planes that Record (C & J Hampton) had acquired in 1932 when they bought out Preston's plane business, selling on Preston's rule-making business to (I think) Chesterman. Record never made a bedrock-style benchplane, but as the design had been around for a century and more, it was classed as 'common knowledge' - well out of copyright or patent, so Clico's use of that design was perfectly legitimate.

The whole field of design copyright, patent, intellectual property and entitlement is legally complex, but in general, if something has been around for a long period of time, it becomes 'common knowledge', and fair game for anyone to commercially exploit. Both the Bailey-type and Bedrock-type bechplane designs fall in that category - they've been around for a century or more. Some more recent minor improvements may not be 'common knowledge', so copying them may be naughtier if covered by patent or design copyright. If a design is destinctive enough to be associated with one manufacturer, then it may be covered by design copyright, and copying that exact design may be a legal infringement; the (distinctive) Preston design of shoulder planes may fall in this category (I suspect that's dabateable, though!), even though it's a century old.

Another factor is that what may be a legal infringement under one legal jurisdiction may be allowable under another. Thus, it may be fine to copy a recent, distinctive design fro America or Europe in China, but selling it in America or Europe may be a problem (Myford won a suit against a UK-based supplier of Myford 7-series lathe knock-offs made in the Far East some years ago, for example).

Working out excactly who is legally 'right' or 'wrong' with specific plane designs in specific countries could be a prolonged battle. The individual may make their own personal decisions, however.

 

[Trafalgar]

"Both the Bailey-type and Bedrock-type bechplane designs fall in that category - they've been around for a century or more. Some more recent minor improvements may not be 'common knowledge', so copying them may be naughtier if covered by patent or design copyright."

Any firm in possession of such patents and copyrights should enforce them with as much vigor as the law allows. If these protections cannot be gotten (lack of uniqueness, unpatentable, etc.), or a decision was made not to get them, then too bad. Try again when the product is differentiated enough to be patented. Otherwise, it's a race to see who can strike the right balance between cost and performance.

Positioning as a premium brand is a great place to be. It is. But is has its own set of unique risks too. You'd better know your market. Intimately.

 

[n0legs]

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


Well guys since reading that I've been in bits.
So I went to the shed, coffee cup and *** in hand to come to terms with the fact that none of my tools are original.
How dare they, how very dare they ???
Stanley, Draper, Marples, Record, Dewalt, all of them have, every single one, has left me in utter turmoil.
They've lied I cried, they've all bloody lied. Not a gentleman among them, they are all fake. I can barely bring myself to say it, they are copies , there is not one among them that is original.
Who are these people ? What gives them the right to make me feel this way ? Is there no honor ?
I, like many of you other members, have worked tirelessly to build a toolkit, to own all there is to own. But let me tell you, we are on a path to ruin. For we have become party to this terrible crime. Why has no one told us until now ?
We have sinned. There will be no heaven for you and I.
Tom Begnal, thank you. You have opened my eyes, for I am not comfortable with this fact of life. I must now beg forgiveness for my failings.










































Yea right !!!
What a pompous ass, ****ing ********.

 

[Trafalgar]

Well the Stanleys are more original than the rest of those you mentioned, take comfort in that. Time to thin the herd?

 

[iNewbie]

The Taiwanese machines are essentially copies of machines originally conceived, designed, and proven in Western countries.

Besides that, it addresses the undercurrent that the Chinese hand planes are substandard when all the while the premium plane brands we know and love are in fact made with Chinese machines most of which, again, are copies of Western designs. See the irony?

I thought the irony was you pulling LN for using what you describe as copy machines while saying its ok to copy...

BTW - TLN is a Grinding machine. He uses "a" John Ford (Taiwanese) CNC. The factory isn't outfitted with a ton of CNC by any stretch of the imagination, its more Bridgeport and other american machines.

And FTR nobody is mentioning the quality of the chinese made goods, here - in the sense that they're the real rubbish made ones. Its the way the original cloner cloned them. Bad form old-boy! :mrgreen:

 

[Jacob]

.....
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)
.....

These frogs are to all intents and purposes identical. Would it have made the slightest difference if WR had copied the original instead? Obviously not.
All this bar-room moralising is very entertaining though. There used to be a poster who regularly suggested that thin blades in Stanley/Bailey planes were an evil plot* to sell inferior goods to an unsuspecting public.
Keep it up chaps! :lol:

PS were Chinese triads involved - the plot thickens!

 

[Rhossydd]

And FTR nobody is mentioning the quality of the chinese made goods, here

Actually that's what this thread is all about, how good the WR 5½ is.

they're the real rubbish made ones.

Not according to all the reports from people that have actually used them. The clear concensus is that the current models of Wood River/Quansheng/Jumma hand planes is that they are very good indeed.