Counterfeit and 'Knock-off' Tools

[Cheshirechappie]

I can just imagine the conversation:

"I said E-TYPE, you've sent me ITAL!!!!!"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[rafezetter]

Derek - quoting from your words in my original post,

"I read recommendations for handtools on many forums, but is seems to me that the one ones more likely to suggest a knock off design are either the UK forums or forums that cater to beginner woodworkers."

That seems a fairly direct accusation at UK woodworkers in particular.

A bit of googling suggests that your photographs show firstly a Quangsheng spokeshave (available in the UK, though it's hardly a cheap knock-off at about £50 - for that, it's probably a pretty decent tool); however, I have been unable to find any UK supplier of WoodRiver spokeshaves, or of the copy mallet (though Classic Hand Tools do stock the USA-made original).

Derek - it's bad enough having our cricket team regularly stuffed out of sight by Aussies without being unfairly accused by them of buying tools that aren't even available here! Give us a break, will you - and on behalf of UK woodworkers in general, a bit of a sorry for the slur would be appreciated!

(Edited to add the price of a Quangsheng spokeshave.)

Going by your own words Derek the only country mentioned is UK, neither the USA or Australia are, yet you now say the example pictures you posted later are not from UK retailers.

If you are going to air your views thus, please at least have the fortitude of not favorably editing them according to the country hosting that forum. Either they are your views or they are not, in entirety.

I have to agree your post is unfairly slanted against the UK (as it's the only country you mention), yet the USA has just as bad a record of importing cheap knock offs - some might say significantly greater than UK by simple measure of buying power - and as such would be much better positioned to counteract those manufacturers; yet that quite obvious fact was glaringly, "overlooked" (USA pop 320mill, UK pop 64mill).

I have not been in the tool acquisition game for long but I can also say that newer woodworkers may not even know to look for the "proper" brand names you mention, and so buy the cheapest tool they can so as not to waste money on a new hobby.

HOWEVER, almost invariably they either learn and buy an old tool secondhand or gravitate towards the LN's and their ilk ANYWAY, so they do not lose out at all, bought now or later, to them makes no difference.

It seems to me what you are really saying is to stamp out these "gateway" manufacturers, some of whom do actually produce something that works, to favor LN, Veritas et al, all of whom are simply more established companies selling, in most cases, their versions of even older designs by someone else.

Sure I'll go along with that, just give me the money to bridge the gap and I'll happily swap all my tools for a LN equivalent; however I won't get any more wood work done, or be any more accurate than before, I'll simply have more expensive versions.

Edit:I'd also like to point out that sometimes this happens because the legitimate producer of something does not make it easily available outside the country of origin: to whit - the "spider sander" designed by an Aussie and not available far as I can tell outside of Australia, even though it looks like a pretty good gadget; leaving them wide open to being ripped off, because of their own shortsightedness.

I too feel that either a retraction of your post, or both an edit AND a later subpost to clarify what you actually meant ideally including the post you made her with those examples from countries OTHER than UK, would be fitting.

Edit: Why are you even banging on about it anyway? If there is a breach of current copyright it's not your job or place or anything else to fight that fight - you make a conscious choice to buy "original" (whatever that means in the tool world) - fair enough; you can ask other woodworkers to do the same, also fair enough - good of you to take the time; but until LN or Blue Spruce or any of the other favored names you mentioned make a plane that makes me as good as Chris Schwarz right off the bat, I'll buy other cheaper brands that perform the same function because I have no choice.

 

[Jacob]

Funny I was thinking of this thread.
Looking at my other toys:

Music instruments; guitars, banjos and other bits n bobs. Mostly made in either Japan, China, Korea, very good, very cheap, absolute replicas of the originals involving no innovation of any sort at all. One Spanish made guitar which is OK but not brilliant, and bouzouki, balalaika similar (Greece and Russia.).

Bikes; Gears brakes transmission all Shimano. Not copies at all, all extremely innovative and a great improvement on their predecessors (Cyclo Beneluz, Simplex, Campagnolo etc). Frames probably far eastern too - copies with small improvements but very good quality.
NB modern western makers (SRAM, Campag) have had to copy far eastern innovations.

So bike bits and musical instruments couldn't be more different except for being very good quality.

Where does LN / LV fit into this scheme of things?
Nowhere really: "engineered up" yes but they are neither accurate copies nor innovatory. Quite the opposite; stepping backwards in many ways (thick blades, Norris adjusters). More of a pointless steam punk marketing exercise.

What about Quansheng et al? Copying in the good old fashioned way (including copying LN/LV), keeping up the quality. Will they go the Shimano way and eventually capture the whole market by innovating?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Gentlemen - I think it's only fair to point out that earlier in the thread (about page 7, I think) Derek Cohen did state that he shouldn't have singled out UK woodworkers in making his comment. He also pointed out that he hadn't named any individual, or intended offence. As far as I was concerned, that drew a line under the matter; the point has been made, and rather than re-open old arguments, I think it's best that we accept that hands have been metaphorically shaken, the matter is closed, and we've moved on.

There was a long conversation about what constitutes a 'knock-off', what constitutes a legitimate copy, and a counterfeit. There was information presented about trademark infringement, patent law, 'common knowledge', and the morality or otherwise of purchasing tools that constitute any of the above. I don't think any firm conclusion was reached, but I did form the strong impression that woodworkers everywhere condemn the practice of counterfeiting and trademark infringement. After that, it's really down to personal opinion and preference. Even concerning the Morris Ital.

 

[Owl]

[quote
Edit: Why are you even banging on about it anyway? If there is a breach of current copyright it's not your job or place or anything else to fight that fight - you make a conscious choice to buy "original" (whatever that means in the tool world) - fair enough; you can ask other woodworkers to do the same, also fair enough - good of you to take the time; but until LN or Blue Spruce or any of the other favored names you mentioned make a plane that makes me as good as Chris Schwarz right off the bat, I'll buy other cheaper brands that perform the same function because I have no choice.[/quote]


I have been wading through this thread (plus the USA linked one) until I got dizzy.

I'm confused by it all so if I seem thick you'll just have to overlook it, but here's my thoughts.

SOMEONE in the distant past invented a wood plane... note ONE person did this ....
SOMEONE long ago invented a wood saw ... again ONE person did it .....
etc, etc, etc etc, for all tools
Therefore to my way of thinking ALL planes, saws etc since the original ones are COPIES.

 

[Sheffield Tony]

SOMEONE in the distant past invented a wood plane... note ONE person did this ....
SOMEONE long ago invented a wood saw ... again ONE person did it .....
etc, etc, etc etc, for all tools

Do we even know that ? There seems to be a great human tendency to incorrectly attribute inventions to single inspired individuals - like Marconi and wireless (which might better be attributed to Prof. D. E Hughes) or Edison and electric lamps (might be better attributed to Humphry Davy or Joseph Swan) , but in reality lots of things were independently invented more then once, or arose from an evolution like process. Patents are supposed to encorage this evolution, by giving those who make a significant new contribution a fair period of exclusivity to reap the rewards of it, whilst ensuring disclosure so that after this period further development is not suppressed. I often wonder if in some fields, the rate of progress has not increased enough that the duration of patents ought to be revised downward.

 

[MIGNAL]

From what little that I've read it seems awfully difficult to pin the invention of the electric light on to one single person.
Wireless much the same. Certainly not Marconi. Even the invention of the Bell labs transistor is contested.

 

[RogerP]

Seems almost as if there is a time for some things to be discovered or invented and they surface concurrently from different sources.

 

[Owl]

The point I was trying to make was that since a specific tool was first produced to do a certain job and now there are umpteen similarities, doesn't this imply that the originals were copied ?