Toolmakers and their pointless "trade secrets"

[Patrick Chase]

This is a bit of a rant, related to my other post enquiring as to the nature of Liogier's "Sapphire" coating.

I'm becoming more than a bit disappointed with tool makers that treat fairly basic details of their products as "prorietary" "trade secrets", when they are anything but.

In IP law the purpose of a trade secret is to protect intellectual property that can't be patented for one reason or another from being disclosed to competitors. Notably, trade secret status provides no protection in cases where a competitor discovers the "secret" via analytical methods.

What I see increasingly are instances where a competitor can readily obtain the "secret" by shipping a sample and $50 to a lab. Furthermore, these toolmakers' competitors are likely sourcing materials from the same supplier base, so they can probably save the $50 by chatting up the right rep (suppliers are notoriously leaky that way). Given those realities, the only possible purpose of the "secrets" in question is marketing, though IMO they're equally pointless and perhaps even counterproductive in that respect as well.

Two examples suffice to illustrate the problem.

1. PM-V11. I'm pretty confident that all of LV's competitors know that it's [edited out]. IMO that's actually a good thing - I wouldn't have bought as much of it as I have if I weren't pretty sure that it's a well-regarded alloy from a reputable source (and I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole if I actually thought that LV had developed it or was doing more than shaping and heat-treating. That's not their competency).

2. Liogier's "Sapphire" coating. I'm 99% sure that it's TiAlN, but I'm hesitating to make a purchase until I can confirm that. Once again, it would be a good thing to know that they're using a standard and well-regarded tool coating.

EDIT: I removed the presumed ID of PM-V11 of my own volition and after noting that nobody had quoted it. Nobody reached out to me or otherwise cajoled me. After a moment of post-rant reflection I decided that it served no purpose.

[Mel Fulks]

I don't call it a rant . Thanks for some good information.

[Mark AJ Allen]

If LV competitors do indeed know what PVM 11 is or what Liogier sapphire coating is ... I'm surprised they haven't considered picking it up for their own tools at this point and calling it for what it is. They are that good.

To be fair, even if the materials/processes aren't proprietary to the organizations that don't divulge the information, there is an investment in figuring out how to incorporate those materials/processes into their own products and services. To me, if they can protect that with a simple re-branding, well, that's smart IMO.

[Patrick Chase]

If LV competitors do indeed know what PVM 11 is or what Liogier sapphire coating is ... I'm surprised they haven't considered picking it up for their own tools at this point and calling it for what it is. They are that good.

In a word: Trademark. Even if a competitor knows what something is, they can't directly "leverage the brand" due to trademark protections.

I suppose you could make an argument that keeping the identity of an alloy or coating a secret makes it harder for a competitor to "connect the dots" in their marketing and thereby indirectly exploit your investment in building brand equity.

To me, if they can protect that with a simple re-branding, well, that's smart IMO.

If it were in fact the case that they could accomplish that with a re-branding then I would agree with you. The problem is that they can't, at least not in these specific instances.

I've created many trade secrets over the course of my career, and used to serve alongside IP lawyers on teams dedicated to determining the disposition of putative IP (patent, trade secret, defensive disclosure, circular file). The cardinal rule of trade secrets is that you have to be confident that nobody can figure them out other than by direct disclosure. There was once a time when the identities or compositions of alloys and coatings could be legitimately protected as trade secrets, but that ship sailed decades ago.

Note that the processes used to create alloys/coatings/etc are still often protected as trade secrets. Analytical methods can tell you "what", but they generally don't tell you "how".

More broadly, suppliers can only do what the market will accept. If you look at, say, high-end cutting tools you don't see anywhere near as much obfuscation as in the woodworking market. The folks buying things like top-of-the-line endmills simply don't accept that, and IMO neither should we.

[Jim Koepke]

More broadly, suppliers can only do what the market will accept. If you look at, say, high-end cutting tools you don't see anywhere near as much obfuscation as in the woodworking market. The folks buying things like top-of-the-line endmills simply don't accept that, and IMO neither should we.

The markets mentioned are very different from each other. Those buying top of the line endmills likely includes a lot of production shops buying more than one or two tools per year. Most woodworkers are not going to put in an order for multiple plane blades or cabinet rasps 4 or 5 times a year.

Would you be upset if you purchase a Liogier rasp and later found out it wasn't TiAlN but instead the coating was TiCN?

What if they have developed a coating similar to diamond coatings but is made from sapphires?

If the Veritas blade performs better than O1, A1 or A2, what does it matter if it is different than the metal you suspect it to be?

If the Liogier sapphire rasp indeed has three times the useful life of other rasps, is it really all that important as to weather it is Titanium Aluminum Nitride as opposed to Titanium Carbon Nitride or even some coating you are unfamiliar with but has proven itself worthy of the demands placed on it?

Maybe I'm simple for being able to enjoy the magic without having any knowledge of how it is performed.

jtk

[Stewie Simpson]

R & D is a high cost investment for most tool manufacturers. One can achieve some tax offset to those costs, but in most cases any profit to be made is likely driven by future sales. To remove or relax the current laws pertaining to the rights of intellectual property would be counterproductive to the advancement of new and improved technology(imo). The likes of Rob Lee or Thomas Lie-Nielsen would know better than I the high costs involved in R & D, but it would not be of no surprise to hear it takes as long as 12 months to 2 years before each new design is finally released for public sale.

Stewie;

[Dan Barr]

Sometimes it's not that the technology employed is new. Rather, it is that the application is new. That new employment of existing material/technology is possibly worthy of patent. You can still deduce it and develop your own applications. But, if your application is the same then, you may need to purchase a license to employ while the patent is effective.

[Patrick Chase]

Sometimes it's not that the technology employed is new. Rather, it is that the application is new. That new employment of existing material/technology is possibly worthy of patent.

At least in the US that sort of combination is likely unpatentable (or will be found invalid if already patented), though it depends on the specifics. See KSR v Teleflex for starters.

In any case we're not talking about patents here, we're talking about trade secrets. A patent is less problematic in terms of the issues I raised, because you can determine what the manufacturer is selling by reading said patent. That's actually one of the big plusses of having a patent system to begin with.

[Dan Barr]

At least in the US that sort of combination is likely unpatentable (or will be found invalid if already patented), though it depends on the specifics. See KSR v Teleflex for starters.

In any case we're not talking about patents here, we're talking about trade secrets.

Read it, agreed. Good point/example.

Sorry, I went off on the patent tangent. The aforementioned "trade secret" is probably just that because they knew (or found out) that the specific application does not warrant a patent. Regardless, the company has every interest in protecting any advantage it may have in the interim until another company employs/markets it. Thus the trade secret. For the business, it is also a marketing gimmick aimed at those with little knowledge/experience or willingness to research. Much to the chagrin of those to whom it is obvious.

Dan

[Kees Heiden]

I agree with you Patrick. Those "secrets" are just silly. Marketing hype. Knife makers usually proclaim proudly what kind of wondersteel they have put in their products and knife buyers wax poetically about all the various steels. I don't know if that is any less silly, but at least you start out with knowing what you buy.


The claims from LV about PMV-11 are pretty strong:

A premium blade material, our PM-V11 tool steel (Rc62.5) has a unique composition that provides significantly greater resistance to damage from both impact and wear than A2 or O1, yet is as easy to sharpen as A2 using water stones or other common sharpening media.



Well, I have tested this stuff a little bit. With a simple setup I measured how long it takes to grind of material from O1, A2 and PMV. I don't remember exactly, will have to look up the numbers tonight, but grinding PMV was considerably slower then both O1 and A2. I think it was twice as slow as O1.


When you look at the composition of PMV, then that hardly comes as a surprise. It contains 16% chromium. So just looking at the specs I could have rejected the claim that it grinds just the same but wears a lot slower in use.


BTW, I also did a few wear tests and couldn't see much difference when planing simple wood like beech or oak. I suspect it wears a lot better when planing abrassive woods. That's exactly where the chromium, the nickle and the trace of vanadium make a difference. So no surprise there either. I am still wanting to get myself a blade for my shooting plane, because I am not really happy how my vintage irons wear on endgrain. That's an application where I can see a meaningfull difference, even when it means I have to dig out my waterstones again.


So that was a example how knowing the compostion of the steel could have been helpfull. I have no problem telling the rest of the world what it really is. With the results of an analysis of a steel sample I just looked up the various catalogues from the steel makers. This was made easy because the steel contains very little vanadium which is kind of unusual in the powder metal business. The Carpenter steel 440XH, also known as CTS-XHP, matches the sample exactly. A knife steel that is used a lot in high end knifes.


You can play with it yourself too. It is expensive though. A 0.096" thick strip, 2"wide and 36" long sets you back 96 dollar. You also can't harden it in your backgarden either so you will have to find a hardening shop capable of doing this material. http://sb-specialty-metals.com/stati...-online-store/

[Pat Barry]

I think the trade secrets are working as intended, re: selling point for unique material set is perceived by the customers as added value

[Derek Cohen]

Kees, what did you use to sharpen O1, A2, and PMV11?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Nicholas Lawrence]

]

Well, I have tested this stuff a little bit. With a simple setup I measured how long it takes to grind of material from O1, A2 and PMV. I don't remember exactly, will have to look up the numbers tonight, but grinding PMV was considerably slower then both O1 and A2. I think it was twice as slow as O1.

Now that is interesting. I had thought the attraction of the PMV was that it was as durable as A2, but as easy to sharpen as O1. I wonder where I got that idea? If it is harder than A2, are you still sharpening it on waterstones? My waterstones will sharpen A2, but it is definitely slower than some of my other tools.

[Kees Heiden]

Kees, what did you use to sharpen O1, A2, and PMV11?

Regards from Perth

Derek

I used those 3M lapping films from Workshopheaven for this test. But for more details I have to look up my notes tonight, it's been a while ago.

[george wilson]

The knife steels are indeed VERY different. 1095 is my favorite,though I don't feel like writing a sonnet about it! It is even among the very simplest of steels,containing only .95% carbon. I do think the PMVII shows real promise,though.

If a steel containing 16% of chromium is even CLOSE to beinmg as easily sharpened as 01 or A2,I'd say that is a considerable accomplishment in itself!I have used D23,at about 12% chrome,and can only get it sharpened on diamond and ceramic stones! Then,it does not hold QUITE a razor edge!

There was a now dead knife maker named Scagel(sp?) who did have a secret way of heat processing his knives that has never been re discovered,at least to my knowledge. His craftsmanship is not even the very best,but his blades are legendary. And,don't forget Wootz steel. It's secrets were discovered by some scientists back in the 70's,and,curiously,by myself just before they did. But,I never write papers about it,unfortunately.Those 2 examples are indeed what I'd call "Trade secrets". And possibly the varnish used in Northern Italy in the 17th. and 18th. C..Not sure about the varnish,though,as all the major makers in the area used it. Jacob Steiner was the only maker outside Italy who used it. He was in Austria. I think the secret of Cremona varnish was probably the flax oil that was available to them. But,like so many plants,now lost through the infernal standardization of foods now offered in the markets for sale. They probably unknowingly still have the seeds of that "magic" flax stored on a government seed bank somewhere cold.