Counterfeit and 'Knock-off' Tools

[MIGNAL]

Big deal. So the Woodriver is a little closer to the LN than the LN is to the Stanley. Each is a 'copy'.
At what point does it become OK to copy? What exactly are these parameters?

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTo ... Gauge.html

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTo ... Cheap.html

 

[Jacob]

............
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.

Also, when it comes to the frogs, the one on the Wood River is closer to the Lie-Nielsen version than to the Bedrock.'[/i]

Regards from Perth

Derek

Makes sense - if you are going to copy an old design you might as well incorporate any improvements that others have made in the meantime - it'd be crazy not to.
Nice to know that the Chinese are working away so diligently to make us ever better and cheaper tools. Keep it up lads, I might even buy one if the price is low enough!

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Big deal. So the Woodriver is a little closer to the LN than the LN is to the Stanley. Each is a 'copy'.
At what point does it become OK to copy? What exactly are these parameters?

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTo ... Gauge.html

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTo ... Cheap.html

Ahh .. those are not for sale. They are also not copies. I simply stated where my inspiration came from - I always make a point of stating sources and crediting others with the part they play in anything I build.

There is a message on my website that offers all my designs freely to anyone who wishes to built one for their own use. I do not permit anyone to manufacture them for sale.

Mignal, what is your problem? You are trying so hard ...

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Cheshirechappie]

A brief update, folks.

The original offensive post on Sawmillcreek made by Derek Cohen has been edited to remove the offending line. A small step in the right direction, and one which I'm sure will be appreciated by all.

Unfortunately, the offending line still appears on page 2 of the thread, in a post made by another contributor quoting Derek, and I don't suppose Derek can do much about that.

I really wonder why you have been building up this thread along these lines, CC? Either you are misinterpreting what I write, or misreporting facts. Firstly, nothing has been removed from SMC. Secondly, let's go back to what I wrote originally ..

"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. In both cases the interest lies in buying as cheaply as possible. The argument/justification is usually that the original tool is too expensive."

This reflects my observations. I am not "accusing" anyone here (to use your term in your opening post ("Derek Cohen accuses some in the UK in particular of encouraging this practice, or at the very least turning something of a blind eye").

Second observation is that few here (some have) actually asked the question, "Is he right?" That is what I expect from someone who is mature and self-responsible - to try and approach things with some objectivity. Instead there is a tirade of denials and justifications - the very point that influenced my comment on SMC.

I was wrong to mention the UK forum on SMC. It was not meant with any maliciousness, just an observation that reflected identifying different views that I see as culturally based (read how differently the SMC members discussed this area). Still, I apologise for mentioning the UK forum. Hopefully some here will have gained from reflecting on the issue. Others here just enjoy a schoolyard gang up.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Hmm. Interesting. When I checked last night, the original post on SMC had been altered. I checked twice to be sure, and wouldn't have made the post Derek quoted unless that were the case. It's now reverted to it's original wording. Is something going on in the background?

Anyway - whatever.

The original blog post that gave rise to the discussion was by Kevin Glen-Drake noting the conterfeiting of his hammer, or at any rate the misuse of a photograph of his hammer. The matter was raised by a thread on SMC, to which Derek posted a comment in which he suggested that the UK woodworking forums were the most likely to recommend the purchase of knock-off tools. It wasn't clear in my mind whether Derek meant legitimate copies or counterfeits, so I posted a comment here inviting him to clarify his position, as the implication was that UK woodworkers condoned couterfeiting or passing off (subsequent comments in this thread make it very clear that UK woodworkers do not condone counterfeiting or passing off). After some polite cajoling and discussion, it seems clear that Derek did not mean that he thinks UK woodworkers condone counterfeiting or passing off, did not mean his comment in any way maliciously, or aim it at any individuals. Derek has posted a public apology for mentioning the UK forums. Fair enough.

That, as far as I am concerned, should be that.

One good thing to come out of the matter is the discussion about copying, counterfeiting, passing off, abuse of trademarks and so on. I suspect we're all a bit wiser on the ins and outs of these matters, and on what's legal and what's not, and that's one of the things forums are for. There has also been discussion about what people regard as 'right' or 'morally acceptable' or not, and here there is some divergence of opinion. That's a perfectly legitimate subject for discussion, I think. Derek has his opinion on what he regards as 'right', some broadly agree with him, and some have other opinions. Some feel it's easy to have rigid opinions if you can afford them, and some feel it's less clear-cut if that makes decent tools unaffordable for many.

 

[MIGNAL]

Derek. I noticed that you haven't even tried to answer my questions.
Must try harder Derek.

'This design is taken from a Woodjoy Tools gauge I have admired. I guess imitation is a sincere form of flattery.'
Derek Cohen.

You offer your designs 'free' to anyone who wishes to use them. . . but they aren't your designs are they Derek. You've taken someone else's idea and altered them (often in a very small way). You even admit it. The originals are commercial designs.

In the musical instrument making world there is a long tradition of copying/sharing designs. Hardly anyone gets upset about it. We take instruments and copy them directly, some to the point that the copies are so good that you would have to be a considerable expert to tell the difference. Even then those experts have been fooled. Providing they aren't sold as the originals everything is fair game. Virtually everyone shares designs/knowledge quite freely, even when that design is fresh off the press.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Just a thought about Stanley/Lie-Nielsen/Qiansheng/Woodriver (early ones).

At the time Thomas Lie-Nielsen started making Stanley copies, the originals had been out of production for some years, and Stanley showed no signs of re-introducing them. The originals were in some demand on the secondhand market, and commanded quite high prices. Stanley probably thought that the investment in a production line to make a couple of thousand or so units a year wouldn't generate a worthwhile return, but by using less capital-intensive methods, T L-N was able to fill the demand and make a living supplying something others didn't want to. He pinched business from nobody, but to cover his costs and make a return, had to pitch the price quite high.

That left a market niche for anybody able to supply similar goods at a lower price. Qiangsheng tried by directly copying L-N planes, and probably ended up losing money on the venture because nobody (well, very few) would buy poorer quality rip-offs once they knew that was what they were. Woodriver used the same design, but their own trade-mark, and built some market share. Since then, they've developed their planes a bit to be slightly different, and still sell under their own trade-mark. That's legally legitimate, and the savvy purchaser can make their own decision whether to buy LN or Woodriver depending on their point of view as to whether Woodriver's approach is 'right' or not.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Mignal, Blind Freddy can see that you are trying so hard to discredit me. Why?

In answer to your point, there are a great number of tools I have design and built on my website. The closest that you will find to a copy is the Woodjoy homage. But mine quite different from the Woodjoy ... it is only inspired by the Woodjoy ...

Here is mine ....

.. and here is the Woodjoy ...

And the "Kinshiro on the Cheap" is about modifying a cheap Japanese gauge into a descent user. It is not about copying a Kinshiro, which are no longer made. I have a real Kinshiro, and they the Holtey of cutting gauges.

I took this cheap gauge (which has decent "bones" but is otherwise not a nice user) ..

... and modified it until it looked like this (improved ergonomics and features), with my own design ...

Here it is with a real Kinshiro ...

So, what is your problem?

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[bugbear]

Makes sense - if you are going to copy an old design you might as well incorporate any improvements that others have made in the meantime - it'd be crazy not to.
Nice to know that the Chinese are working away so diligently to make us ever better and cheaper tools. Keep it up lads, I might even buy one if the price is low enough!

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

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

As if!

 

[Trafalgar]

Perhaps lost in all of this is Chris Tribe's statement that he PREFERS his Quangsheng over its L-N counterpart.

"I recently bought the quang sheng knock off of the LN knock off of the Stanley low angle block plane for my student tool kits. I find it is a superior plane to the LN and use it in preference to my own LN."

If a copy is better is it no longer a copy? Derek seems to think this applies to L-N, that it is such a better copy that it's no longer really a copy.

Have Quangsheng upped their game to a point where the same could be said? I bet Millers Falls thought so back in the day ("Buck Rogers" plane, anyone?) Record, too? Keen Kutter? Winchester? The list of course is a long one.

Something must account for the difference in performance in Chris Tribe's hands.

 

[MIGNAL]

Derek. That gauge looks like a copy with some small modifications!
You still haven't answered my questions. At what point does it become OK to 'copy' a design? How much does one need to change?

 

[t8hants]

Non of this would have happened if Nixon had not gone to China!!

 

[MIGNAL]

Yes it would. The Europeans have been nicking design for centuries, the Americans as well.

 

[Scouse]

In the musical instrument making world there is a long tradition of copying/sharing designs. Hardly anyone gets upset about it...

Really?

Are you sure?

I seem to remember Gibson feeling somewhat aggrieved at Paul Reed Smith a year or two ago, prior to that Ibanez had some legal difficulties with Gibson and Fender I think, as did Tokai among others. Takamine and Martin?

They weren't sold as originals, and certainly were not fair game.

I'm not sure what rosy-tinted instrument making world you live in...

 

[Jacob]

Stradivarius, Guarneri, Amati et al have been copied minutely in every detail by most makers, for 400 years

 

[Trafalgar]

Stradivarius, Guarneri, Amati et al have been copied minutely in every detail by most makers, for 400 years

True. In the minutest of detail. Breathtakingly minute.

 

[iNewbie]

In the musical instrument making world there is a long tradition of copying/sharing designs. Hardly anyone gets upset about it. We take instruments and copy them directly, some to the point that the copies are so good that you would have to be a considerable expert to tell the difference. Even then those experts have been fooled. Providing they aren't sold as the originals everything is fair game. Virtually everyone shares designs/knowledge quite freely, even when that design is fresh off the press.

What part of the world is that, Mignal. Gibson love sending out Cease & Desists to copiers.

Fenders court case against a bunch of cloners: Here Then there was Gibson against PRS for the Single-Cut Design.

Dimarzio Pick-ups have the rights on the color cream for Plastic Bobbins fcs.

Here's DW Drums Patents & Trademarks

You must be talking about the violin & Recorder world.

 

[MIGNAL]

Martin copied Stauffer. Everyone copied Martin. X brace wasn't Martins design (everyone seems to think it was), there was prior 'art'. Same with Torres fan bracing, it predated Torres by around 80 years.
Let's move on to the modern world: Smallman does absolutely nothing to defend his carbon fibre lattice bracing, Wagner/Dammann openly let everyone 'copy' their Nomex double tops. I don't think they are the slightest bit interested in patents or anything else like that. In the instrument making world it tends to be the individuals who do the real research and the innovative designs. That's why double tops and lattice (throw in falcate bracing), sound ports (a very old design) are the stuff that's being copied.
I could go on. It's a very long tradition.

 

[bugbear]

Stradivarius, Guarneri, Amati et al have been copied minutely in every detail by most makers, for 400 years

True. In the minutest of detail. Breathtakingly minute.

They should sue.

BugBear

 

[Trafalgar]

Like hand planes, there are more than a few companies making essentially the same instrument(s).

If all the instrument makers are actively in litigation with each other at any given point in time then maybe L-N needs to take a page out of their book. L-N don't need to sue a Chinese company. They could sue Woodcraft, a U.S. corporation that markets the tools under their own badge and currently have the product manufactured on their behalf in China (could be Bangladesh next year, who knows, wherever you get the best deal right?). Yet, they haven't. Maybe they're counting on Derek's crusade.