Block plane prices

[Bill Schmitz]

I've been hunting for a used L-N or Veritas adjustable mouth block plane on ebay, but the prices they are going for always seem awfully high, frequently well over $100. Is that what I can expect? Maybe they don't lose value as much as I expected (nothing like a car, that's for sure).

New ones are going for $145-$165. Maybe I should just break down and buy new, but I was hoping to save a little more by going used. I'm pretty new to this, so I want to make sure I'm not just seeing an aberration in pricing. Should I wait and keep hunting, or pull the trigger on a new one.

Thanks for your advice.
Bill

[Peter Gavin]

Lie Neilson and Veritas both hold their values pretty well. It is in fact not uncommon for LN tools to actually end up higher than new price when the bidding frenzy on places such as E-Bay clears.

I guess I would just buy new unless you want to try the vintage route with an old Stanley or Millers Falls that could be just as good as the newer manufacturers. Block planes are not as finicky as other planes.

Peter

[Jacob Mac]

Bill,

In my experience, you are going to find your best price on a used LN or a LV bock plane here at the creek. Ebay does not offer significant savings on LN planes (I rarely see LV planes on the bay).

One option you might want to consider is the Wood River block plane from Woodcraft. I got one as a present, and it is pretty nice. It isn't low angle, but it has proven itself as a good user.

Now there are geopolitical concerns with the Wood River plane (it is made in China, potential patent concerns) but I received mine as a gift, anx I don't want to hurt the feelings of the person who gave it to me. So I use it and it is a pretty goog plane.

[David Keller NC]

"New ones are going for $145-$165. Maybe I should just break down and buy new, but I was hoping to save a little more by going used. I'm pretty new to this, so I want to make sure I'm not just seeing an aberration in pricing. Should I wait and keep hunting, or pull the trigger on a new one."

One of the reasons that L-N planes sell for what they do on e-bay is international customs. Some countries charge a very high import duty on imported new tools, so an individual in one of those countries can buy a L-N plane off of e-bay for the list price, or even above, and still save a substantial amount over ordering one from Lie-Nielsen's factory.

Anyway, there's a (good) flip side to this - it means that you can buy one new, and be reasonably confident you'll get at least 70%-80% of your money back in case you wish to sell it later. Whether you should pull the trigger on a new one depends, of course, on how badly you need it, though one way to look at it is that it's very likely you'll use at least 5 times more $$$ in wood on a simple project in the shop than the money you'll save by waiting until someone decides to part with their L-N. And, of course, the plane will last your lifetime, and probably the lifetime of your heirs as well.

[Mike Henderson]

Bill,

In my experience, you are going to find your best price on a used LN or a LV bock plane here at the creek. Ebay does not offer significant savings on LN planes (I rarely see LV planes on the bay).

One option you might want to consider is the Wood River block plane from Woodcraft. I got one as a present, and it is pretty nice. It isn't low angle, but it has proven itself as a good user.

Now there are geopolitical concerns with the Wood River plane (it is made in China, potential patent concerns) but I received mine as a gift, anx I don't want to hurt the feelings of the person who gave it to me. So I use it and it is a pretty goog plane.
I have not heard of any patent issues on the WoodRiver planes. Would you expand on that, please? Have you seen any news articles saying that, or do you know of any patents that have been asserted against WoodRiver planes.

Mike

[Matt Radtke]

I have not heard of any patent issues on the WoodRiver planes. Would you expand on that, please? Have you seen any news articles saying that, or do you know of any patents that have been asserted against WoodRiver planes.


Google "lie-nielsen wood river" without quotes, of course. First link (not posting link, as I don't want run afoul any rules) should explain it.

Basically, the autor's conclusion is while LN are basically revamped versions of Bedrocks with modern improvements, WR are basically cloned LNs. Ergo, modern improvements made my LN show up in the WR planes.

This leads many (myself included, at least slightly) to conclude that WR planes aren't an 'ethical' purchase. Especially when LNs are very "American Dream;" hand made by Americans who care and all that jazz.

-Matt

[Mike Henderson]

I did a quick read but do not see any references to any patent infringement, or even of anyone asserting patent protection.

I realize that many people feel that WoodRiver copied BedRock and LN planes but that's different than a patent infringement. If none of the elements of the BedRock or LN planes have current patent protection (or some other legal protection), WR was well within its rights to copy.

The original poster commented that there were patent issues and that's what I'm trying to find out - whether anyone has asserted one or more patents against WR.

Mike

[Let me make one side comment about the copying. Business has rules, which are called "law". Business people need to follow the letter and spirit of the law. We have legal methods for people to protect their original work, one of which is a patent. If there are no legal protections on something, like the LN planes, anyone is free to use the design. The law was set up that way to encourage people to compete in the marketplace. WR should not be faulted for following the rules. In fact, WR is doing exactly what the law and society wants them to do. They are following both the letter and the spirit of the law.]

[Prashun Patel]

If you want to find a LN or Veritas block plane < $100 (and take it from me, because I've been looking) you gotta find someone looking to sell who has no clue what the real value is...

$100-$150 for one of these looks each day like more of a bargain to me as I realize how much you can use them for. I have a cheap Footprint bplane and I use the C**P out of it...

[Sam Takeuchi]

I think it'd be hard to find a LV or LN products seller who doesn't know much about tools. Stanley planes, yeah there are a lot of clueless sellers, but LV and LN aren't something that pops up in flea markets for $5, unless it was given or found for free, even clueless person won't be able to get it for any less than going used price. Besides, anyone who's not familiar with tools probably don't even know LV or LN. I think that's a real slim chance trying to find one.

[Matt Radtke]

[Let me make one side comment about the copying. Business has rules, which are called "law". Business people need to follow the letter and spirit of the law. We have legal methods for people to protect their original work, one of which is a patent. If there are no legal protections on something, like the LN planes, anyone is free to use the design. The law was set up that way to encourage people to compete in the marketplace. WR should not be faulted for following the rules. In fact, WR is doing exactly what the law and society wants them to do. They are following both the letter and the spirit of the law.][/QUOTE]

Agreed, they, WR, assuming there are no patent problems, are acting perfectly legal. Though I would argue that society doesn't completely embrace their model, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

-Matt

[Jim Koepke]

I think it'd be hard to find a LV or LN products seller who doesn't know much about tools. Stanley planes, yeah there are a lot of clueless sellers, but LV and LN aren't something that pops up in flea markets for $5, unless it was given or found for free, even clueless person won't be able to get it for any less than going used price. Besides, anyone who's not familiar with tools probably don't even know LV or LN. I think that's a real slim chance trying to find one.

Maybe after another generation when our grandchildren have estate sales we will see prices set by the unknowing.

If you do go the used route for old Stanley or other makers block planes, read the "look fors" that Patrick Leach mentions in his Blood & Gore. Start with the 9-1/2 and go to through the 60 and 65. (http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan2.htm#num9.25)

I have been lucky in buying old planes off of eBay. I will ask for more pictures and about cracks and damage. If there is less than what I want in a reply, I will pass. The people that answer my questions and are not being evasive get my bids.

Just about gave myself a heart attack yesterday. One of my block planes slipped out of my hand and landed on my cement floor. It came apart, but no damage.

jim

[Sam Takeuchi]

Lucky you. I shattered #60 body little over a month ago. It hit a disused crap plane (read: Anant) on the floor and split with big "cliiiiiiiing!" Fortunately I found a 60-1/2 from about the same era for decent price (and without 60-1/2 marking on the side), so I got that and transplanted the #60 parts (just for aesthetics sake) and I'm good. These guys are fragile.

[Mike Henderson]

[Let me make one side comment about the copying. Business has rules, which are called "law". Business people need to follow the letter and spirit of the law. We have legal methods for people to protect their original work, one of which is a patent. If there are no legal protections on something, like the LN planes, anyone is free to use the design. The law was set up that way to encourage people to compete in the marketplace. WR should not be faulted for following the rules. In fact, WR is doing exactly what the law and society wants them to do. They are following both the letter and the spirit of the law.]

Agreed, they, WR, assuming there are no patent problems, are acting perfectly legal. Though I would argue that society doesn't completely embrace their model, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

-Matt
You're right, but I've been surprised by the reaction to the WR planes. Take pharmacuticals for example. A company goes through enormous expenses to develop and test a drug. They get patent protection but eventually that expires and generic makers began shipping the product. That drug is an *exact* copy of the original drug, down to the molecular level, but it cost a *lot* less. But people don't seem to object to that copying. There's no actual difference between that and the WR/LN planes. If there's no patent protection (or some other legal protection), the WR plane is exactly the same as a generic drug. I suppose you could call it a generic LN.:)

If you're going to object to the WR plane, you should also object to generic drugs.

[Added note: It's unreasonable to expect a company to go beyond the law. By passing up an opportunity all you're doing is making that opportunity available to some other company. Both LN and WR know the law and the protections afforded by the law - they're both playing by the same rules. If LN wanted protection, all it had to do is file for one or more patents.]

Mike

[Joel Goodman]

You're right, but I've been surprised by the reaction to the WR planes. Take pharmacuticals for example. A company goes through enormous expenses to develop and test a drug. They get patent protection but eventually that expires and generic makers began shipping the product. That drug is an *exact* copy of the original drug, down to the molecular level, but it cost a *lot* less. But people don't seem to object to that copying. There's no actual difference between that and the WR/LN planes. If there's no patent protection (or some other legal protection), the WR plane is exactly the same as a generic drug. I suppose you could call it a generic LN.:)

If you're going to object to the WR plane, you should also object to generic drugs.

[Added note: It's unreasonable to expect a company to go beyond the law. By passing up an opportunity all you're doing is making that opportunity available to some other company. Both LN and WR know the law and the protections afforded by the law - they're both playing by the same rules. If LN wanted protection, all it had to do is file for one or more patents.]

Mike

Mike,

I don't think that any of the amateur legal opinions here hold a lot of water but there is a certain sleaze factor in the imitation of the appearance of the LN -- but that's just a personal opinion. It is interesting to note that Japan Woodworker had a line of "borg" branded planes which looked identical to the WoodRiver but had a bronze lever cap to match the LNs and they seem to have dropped them off the website for now. To me the "borg" model especially feels as if say when Grizzly or Jet started they used the Delta or Powermatic colors for their paint.

[Mike Henderson]

I guess I don't understand the sleaze factor. Our whole capitalistic economic system encourages companies to legally copy to enhance competition and bring down prices. It provides a real benefit to society.

If there was some significant barrier to copying, the "original" company would have an effective monopoly and would have no incentive to improve their products. We do have things like patents to balance the situation. If a company could not have protection for their inventions, they would have no incentive to develop new things. So we give them about 20 years of patent protection before we let other companies copy the work.

When companies follow the letter and spirit of the law, they are definitely not acting sleazy.

Mike

[Jacob Mac]

I was sloppy with my language when I referred to "potential patent issues". I merely intended to alert the OP that there are some people who have ethical problems with the WR planes. The comment was meant to acknowledge the sentimentsome people express on various ww boards, not give a legal opinion.

I don't want to rehash the arguments associated with the WR planes. And I certainly didn't mean to cause a thread hijack. I just wanted to alert the OP to another option that, in my experience, provides a viable option to the LN and LV block planes at a much lower price.

But sloppy language aside, I still stand by what I originally stated:

1. The best place to find a used LN or LV plane at a fair price is probably on this board; and

2. The WR block plane is a really nice user at a much lower price. Justbe aware that there are some who don't feel comfortable buying the plane.

Either way, good luck with your search for a nice block plane. I use my block planes all the time, and it has really helped the quality of my work.

[David Keller NC]

"When companies follow the letter and spirit of the law, they are definitely not acting sleazy."

Mike - you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but be aware that many of us hold company's behaviors and actions to higher standard than just what is legal. In some cases, competition based on price as the sole measure may provide some benefits to society, but there are many of us that perceive a dark side to this criteria. In particular, many of us would take a very dim view of Tom Lie-Nielsen firing his 100 or so employees in Maine, shifting his production overseas, and dropping their price by half. He certainly could have - and has said so in interviews. Asked why he did not, he simply stated that he has a responsibility to his American employees.

Many of us applaud that attitude.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike - you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but be aware that many of us hold company's behaviors and actions to higher standard than just what is legal. In some cases, competition based on price as the sole measure may provide some benefits to society, but there are many of us that perceive a dark side to this criteria. In particular, many of us would take a very dim view of Tom Lie-Nielsen firing his 100 or so employees in Maine, shifting his production overseas, and dropping their price by half. He certainly could have - and has said so in interviews. Asked why he did not, he simply stated that he has a responsibility to his American employees.

Many of us applaud that attitude.

Enough said on this subject...
The problem with holding a company to a "higher" standard than the law is, "Who decides what that standard is?" If you think something's wrong with the way business is conducted, you should take action to change the law so that everyone is subject to the same rules. You can't establish some new standard just because one of your favorite companies is affected.

All companies have to compete in the marketplace and play by the rules, including LN. If LN cannot compete, he may have to lay people off, but no one, including me, is advocating failure for LN. I think we're all pulling for his success.

When companies play by the rules, and follow both the letter and the spirit of the law, we all benefit. The free market is like free speech. You have to apply the same rules to everyone, even when you don't like the speech or the business.

Mike

[And if you want to express support for LN, please go ahead. But don't do it by making WR out to be some sleazy company because they follow the rules of business.]

[David Hostetler]

Mike - you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but be aware that many of us hold company's behaviors and actions to higher standard than just what is legal. In some cases, competition based on price as the sole measure may provide some benefits to society, but there are many of us that perceive a dark side to this criteria. In particular, many of us would take a very dim view of Tom Lie-Nielsen firing his 100 or so employees in Maine, shifting his production overseas, and dropping their price by half. He certainly could have - and has said so in interviews. Asked why he did not, he simply stated that he has a responsibility to his American employees.

Many of us applaud that attitude.

Enough said on this subject...

Agreed on the point of a small company that actually feels a responsibility to their American employees. However there is FAR more to L-N than just employees, or even design features. I got a chance to ogle some L-Ns and compare them to WoodRiver planes, the fit and finish, and flat out quality of workmanship is simply apples and oranges. If you want a tool to do a basic function for the next 10 years or so, the WoodRiver is a good bargain. If you want a tool that your great grandchildren can enjoy, the L-N is the obvious choice.

The benefit to society of product at a lower price is not without merit, but there are also factors of sustainability of a particular nations ecconomy, which exporting our manufacturing jobs definately hurts. Given an affordable difference in price, and some added benefit like better metallurgy / materials / machining / finish etc... The domestic product should pretty obviously be the choice. However the products need to be competitive.

There are a LOT of folks that buy, for example the Grizzly GO1023SL (outfitted with 7' rails, extended table, legs etc...) for under $1,500.00 versus just under $3,000.00 for a comparably equipped U.S. built UniSaw. Not neccesarily that the Grizzly is fully equivalent to the UniSaw. When you can buy 2 for the price of 1 the math is hard to justify.

This same argument can be made for tables, televisions, and automobiles. Domestic manufacturing has GOT to provide a benefit to the consumer that makes the price difference worth spending.

How having said that, and after having actually handled the L-Ns they are certainly a dream come true, but they are also Caddilac Fleetwood class tools on most people's Chevy Aveo budgets... Nice to dream about, hard to afford.

[David Keller NC]

"You can't establish some new standard just because one of your favorite companies is affected."

Ha! Sure I can - and I do, as well as quite a few other folks. Sort of like the "local foods" movement. Often the produce is more expensive, and is of no better quality. But some of us attach value to such a purpose that is difficult or impossible to value in dollars.

[Joel Goodman]

Ha! Sure I can - and I do, as well as quite a few other folks. Sort of like the "local foods" movement. Often the produce is more expensive, and is of no better quality. But some of us attach value to such a purpose that is difficult or impossible to value in dollars.

I couldn't agree more. I think it's a left brain right brain thing. But here in CA the local farmer's market produce is actually extraordinary as well as the intangible "local" value.

[Michael Faurot]

Two points.

1) I've only had the chance to experiment with one Woodriver plane, a #3, and found the fit, finish and over quality to be pretty good. The only thing I didn't like about it was the lateral adjuster. Is the Woodriver #3 a replacement for, or as good as a #3 from Lie-Nielsen? No. Can the Woodriver #3 be used to work wood? Yes.

2) It seems to me that if one is going to compare Woodriver planes to Lie-Nielsen and Bedrock, and then form opinions, should not one also look at makers such as Sargent, Miller-Falls, Dunlop, Fulton, Vaughn & Bushnell, etc. and compare those to Stanley/Bailey, and form similar opinions?

[fred west1]

The problem with holding a company to a "higher" standard than the law is, "Who decides what that standard is?" If you think something's wrong with the way business is conducted, you should take action to change the law so that everyone is subject to the same rules. You can't establish some new standard just because one of your favorite companies is affected.

All companies have to compete in the marketplace and play by the rules, including LN. If LN cannot compete, he may have to lay people off, but no one, including me, is advocating failure for LN. I think we're all pulling for his success.

When companies play by the rules, and follow both the letter and the spirit of the law, we all benefit. The free market is like free speech. You have to apply the same rules to everyone, even when you don't like the speech or the business.

Mike

[And if you want to express support for LN, please go ahead. But don't do it by making WR out to be some sleazy company because they follow the rules of business.]

Mike, et al,

This is my first post on SMC in years so I am going to apologize upfront for jumping in on a somewhat contentious thread. I have no affiliation with Lie-Nielsen whatsoever other than being a huge fan of their products, company and Tom.

I must also admit that I am very much opposed to Woodcraft position with what they have done with the WoodRiver planes. First, they are already a distributor of Lie-Nielsen and went overseas to contract with a manufacturer over there to make knock offs. Right off the bat it is a slap in the face of Lie-Nielsen and a slap in the face of American workers whose jobs they are jepardizing. I emailed Tom awhile back to ask him if he had been contacted and he said no and in addition I have emailed Jeff Forbes on a number of occasion with no response as well. I am a peon in the woodworking arena so no response to me is not so surprising but to not contact Lie-Nielsen is another story altogether.

It seems to me that while Woodcraft may have followed the letter of the law but morally and ethically they are somewhat bankrupt. Lie-Nielsen is a small American company with very high end products. None of what they have accomplished has been cheap and my GUESS is that the bottom line of a high end company like Lie-Nielsen, Lee Valley, Bridge City, etc. does not lend itself to using attorneys to obtain patents much less defend them. I am going to paraphrase here but John Economaki recently made a joke about Bridge City going out of business for the last 25 years. From what I have seen there is an awful lot of truth in what he said and that it is probably also somewhat relevant to most of the high end companies that we all cherish.

Anyway everyone of us is free to purchase what we will where we will. I just want to know that great companies like Lie-Nielsen, Lee Valley, Bridge City, Blue Spruce stay around and continue to produce the amazing tools that they do. This is all strictly my point of view and since the only way that I can make even a little bit of difference is through my wallet that is what I will use. Because of this I will either save until I can buy the fine tool I need or want or go wihout it until I can buy it rather than ever go with a knockoff especially one that takes away North American jobs.

Fred

[Mike Henderson]

I'll repeat my previous points. Companies need to follow the letter and spirit of the law. Those are the rules for engaging in business. When you start saying that some company is not "moral" you get into a very difficult area because morals are not universal. What one person considers to be moral, another person may consider immoral.

You comment that Woodcraft was carrying LN planes and then created their own line of planes. Just because a company is selling one product, they are not barred, either ethically or legally, from entering that business. Their carrying of LN planes was a mutual business deal between them and LN - it benefited both companies. LN was not making a gift to Woodcraft by allowing them to carry the LN products. Woodcraft did not need LN's permission to enter the business, nor did they have any obligation to notify LN that they were entering the business.

Woodcraft did nothing wrong that I can see and there have been no legal claims brought against them that I know of because of their planes.

If you do not wish to purchase WoodRiver planes, fine. But don't try to make Woodcraft out to be some sleazy company just because they don't meet your moral standards. Personally, I welcome the fact that someone is offering good planes at a lower price than presently existing in the marketplace. That's what capitalism and free markets are all about. In the long run, we (as woodworkers) will have more selection, better products, lower prices and better service because of the competition.

You can't have capitalism and free markets and at the same time protect your favorite companies from competition (although, as a country, we try sometimes:)).

Mike

[I'll also comment that Woodcraft has no obligation to do anything to protect the jobs of the LN employees. Their job is to be successful and because of that, to protect the jobs of their employees.]

[Patents are not that expensive when a company does them. We had a contract with an outside law firm who did patents for $3K each, fixed rate. Original designs can also be registered. So LN and others have relatively low cost ways of protecting their work. If they choose not to, they can't come crying when someone copies it. But actually, I haven't heard any cries from LN, only from other people. It seems that some people have developed an "attachment" for LN and feel personally affected by anything that might negatively affect LN.]

[Richard Niemiec]

Gee, getting back to the OP's question, and avoiding the rehash of the LN clone issue (beaten to death here and on WoodNet, IMHO, somebody call the ASPCA as there's a half dead horse somewhere in this thread), I'll offer the following:

You can spend large dollars on a LN or LV for a "retail" block plane, but honestly, spend much less than half for a decent vintage stanley, low angle or 9 1/2, and get your feet wet. They regularly sell in the classifieds below and on Woodnet for $35 to $45 for nice examples. I actually have a recent vintage 60 1/2 type which works well with a bit of fettling; some say the knuckle jointed cap #18 was the best Stanley made and they can be had in the same price range, just keep looking.

Keep it simple and don't confuse yourself. BTW, if you don't know how, learn how to sharpen, that IMHO is the differentiator on how a plane performs.

YMMV. RN

[fred west1]

I'll repeat my previous points. Companies need to follow the letter and spirit of the law. Those are the rules for engaging in business. When you start saying that some company is not "moral" you get into a very difficult area because morals are not universal. What one person considers to be moral, another person may consider immoral.

You comment that Woodcraft was carrying LN planes and then created their own line of planes. Just because a company is selling one product, they are not barred, either ethically or legally, from entering that business. Their carrying of LN planes was a mutual business deal between them and LN - it benefited both companies. LN was not making a gift to Woodcraft by allowing them to carry the LN products. Woodcraft did not need LN's permission to enter the business, nor did they have any obligation to notify LN that they were entering the business.

Woodcraft did nothing wrong that I can see and there have been no legal claims brought against them that I know of because of their planes.

If you do not wish to purchase WoodRiver planes, fine. But don't try to make Woodcraft out to be some sleazy company just because they don't meet your moral standards. Personally, I welcome the fact that someone is offering good planes at a lower price than presently existing in the marketplace. That's what capitalism and free markets are all about. In the long run, we (as woodworkers) will have more selection, better products, lower prices and better service because of the competition.

You can't have capitalism and free markets and at the same time protect your favorite companies from competition (although, as a country, we try sometimes:)).

Mike

[I'll also comment that Woodcraft has no obligation to do anything to protect the jobs of the LN employees. Their job is to be successful and because of that, to protect the jobs of their employees.]

[Patents are not that expensive when a company does them. We had a contract with an outside law firm who did patents for $3K each, fixed rate. Original designs can also be registered. So LN and others have relatively low cost ways of protecting their work. If they choose not to, they can't come crying when someone copies it. But actually, I haven't heard any cries from LN, only from other people. It seems that some people have developed an "attachment" for LN and feel personally affected by anything that might negatively affect LN.]

Mike,

First let me say that what you or your firm may consider expensive and what another firm may are also not mutually inclusive. As far as not hearing any cries from LN, no you have not but you certainly have from Lee Valley. That is also not to say that this is not hurting LN just because they have not said so. I said up front that I am a huge LN fan but that does not mean that all of a sudden I lost my ability to reason.

You also made mention that walking into the morals arena was maybe a murky subject as morals are not universal. Very true statement and would possibly apply here were we discussing a company in another nation vs one here in the USA. However, we are not and I believe that as a nation we pretty much share the same morals. Accordingly while Woodcraft did not have a legal reason to contact LN in my opinion they had a moral one and on many fronts. First they are contracting with another manufacturer to make knockoffs, not of Bedrock's but of Lie-Nielsen and that has been written up and published. Secondly, while again it may be legal for Woodcraft to do what they did they ARE possibly taking away American jobs. Lastly Woodcraft has as many stores as LN has employees. Even taking into account that many of the stores are franchises the sheer size of Woodcraft is such that a small company like LN could be wiped out in a legal battle. I am sure that no one here will dispute that the majority of cases like this are won by the one last standing and that is the one with the capital.

So, Mike, if you are saying that morals have no place in this kind of situation then what does? LN more than likely cannot fight a legal battle and win so does that mean that the bigger, wealthier company has carte blanche and too bad for the little guys? I just do not want to believe that we live in a society dominated strictly by legalese and/or wealth.

Fred

[Mike Henderson]

So, Mike, if you are saying that morals have no place in this kind of situation then what does? LN more than likely cannot fight a legal battle and win so does that mean that the bigger, wealthier company has carte blanche and too bad for the little guys? I just do not want to believe that we live in a society dominated strictly by legalese and/or wealth.

Fred
I am saying that morals have nothing to do with the situation. What applies here is the law and Woodcraft has done nothing that I know of that violates the law. The rules of business are the law, not someone's idea of what's moral. You can think of the law as "common morals", the beliefs in what's right and wrong that we all (generally) share. The job of the government is to maintain a level playing field in the marketplace so that all companies can compete fairly under the law. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than many other countries.

If you have no legal protections on a design (such as a patent), that design is in the public domain and *anyone* can copy it. You may not like it but that the way the law works. And it works that way to encourage competition, which benefits all of us. As as for whether what Woodcraft did "hurt" LN, that's completely besides the point. It is not Woodcraft's duty to protect LN and do nothing to "hurt" them.

When you start to bring "morals" into the situation, how is Woodcraft, or anyone else, going to satisfy you since the rules are not specified in advance? No matter what they did, you could call "higher morals" into play and damn them.

When you do business, you play by the rules, which is the law. That's all we can demand of our business people. Anything beyond that is usually for PR purposes.

And, yes, I want to live in a society/country which has the rule of law. I certainly do not want to live in a theocracy where some religious leader decides what's moral and what's immoral after the fact.

Mike

[You seem to think that LN has some legal protections and is not pursuing their remedies because of cost. I have not heard of any patents or other legal protections that LN might have regarding their planes. If you know of any, please let the rest of us know.
And if you think $3K for something that will protect your business is too expensive, I just don't know what to say.]

[fred west1]

I am saying that morals have nothing to do with the situation. What applies here is the law and Woodcraft has done nothing that I know of that violates the law. The rules of business are the law, not someone's idea of what's moral. You can think of the law as "common morals", the beliefs in what's right and wrong that we all share.

If you have no legal protections on a design (such as a patent), that design is in the public domain and *anyone* can copy it. You may not like it but that the way the law works. And it works that way to encourage competition, which benefits all of us. As as for whether what Woodcraft did "hurt" LN, that is completely besides the point. It is not Woodcraft's duty to protect LN and do nothing to "hurt" them.

When you start to bring "morals" into the situation, how is Woodcraft, or anyone else, going to satisfy you since the rules are not specified in advance? No matter what they did, you could call "higher morals" into play and damn them.

When you do business, you play by the rules, which is the law. That's all we can demand of our business people. Anything beyond that is usually for PR purposes.

And, yes, I want to live in a society/country which has the rule of law. I certainly do not want to live in a theocracy where some religious leader decides what's moral and what's immoral after the fact.

Mike

[You seem to think that LN has some legal protections and is not pursuing their remedies because of cost. I have not heard of any patents or other legal protections that LN might have regarding their planes. If you know of any, please let the rest of us know.
And if you think $3K for something that will protect your business is too expensive, I just don't know what to say.]

Mike,

First off let me say again directly. I am in NO manner affiliated with Lie-Nielsen and Tom Lie-Nielsen would not know me if he tripped over me. I say this as a manner in again directly addressing the issue of what LN is or is not doing from a standpoint of legal redress. I am speaking solely as an individual woodworker who also once owned and ran a few small companies. Now as to their legal protection I do not know where they stand but from a purely objective viewpoint based upon my observations and the review by Tom Begnal, here is the link, http://finewoodworking.taunton.com/item/14189/who-begot-who-comparing-planes-from-lie-nielsen-wood-river-and-stanley LN does appear at the very least to have a Trade Dress issue.

Mike, I happen to agree with you that the law is very important and indeed helps keep us from anarchy. However, you skipped over the fact that at this point the law is greatly biased toward those with the money. To say that LN should go head to head with Woodcraft legally is to forget that a protracted legal case could potentially bankrupt LN. Any law firm worth its weight in gold would look at this case and tell Woodcraft that even if LN have a true case we can bury them with briefs, depositions and continuances until LN caves under the weight of the cost and the disruption to the business. Do you truly believe that is not the case?

Practically speaking because the wealthier, whether they be individuals or corporations, have a dramatic upper hand when it comes to the legal end of our society we need to also include morals. Mike, I am not suggesting nor interested in having our country become a theocracy. However, I am saying that we cannot afford to live solely by the law. That is every bit as bad as having a religious leader deciding our morals for us. If the law were truly for everyone and justice had to do with right and wrong than I would agree wholeheartedly with you. That is not the case, so I am saying that YES, Woodcraft and all of our other companies should be run by the law and with a moral and ethical compass.

In this particular case, LN has little to no chance of winning a lawsuit even though it appears that they may have a very valid Trade Dress issue and who knows what else. It is just not right that might makes right. It is a souless way to live whether you are a corporation or an individual.

Fred

[Mike Henderson]

I understand your position, Fred, but I'm not as pessimistic about a company being unable to press its case in court. LN is not without resources and there are ways to share the cost of litigation by giving up part of the recovery*.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Woodcraft did what any other business would do in deciding to enter the business - they followed the law. I understand that what they did might have a negative impact on LN (and others), but that's the way capitalism and free markets work. Schumpeter's "creative destruction" is often very painful but provides the dynamic growth that makes our country what it is.

Mike

*When I was with Rockwell Semiconductor, an individual (not another company) sued us for infringing his patent. We didn't think he had a case and went to trial. He won $52M. Maybe we didn't do a good job in court, but we had a LOT more assets than he did. We probably could have settled prior to trial for a tenth of that.

[Mike Davi]

If you go the "new" route, you can save a few dollars on shipping here.

https://www.finetoolj.com/ftj.php/store/view/12

[fred west1]

I understand your position, Fred, but I'm not as pessimistic about a company being unable to press its case in court. LN is not without resources and there are ways to share the cost of litigation by giving up part of the recovery*.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Woodcraft did what any other business would do in deciding to enter the business - they followed the law. I understand that what they did might have a negative impact on LN (and others), but that's the way capitalism and free markets work. Schumpeter's "creative destruction" is often very painful but provides the dynamic growth that makes our country what it is.

Mike

*When I was with Rockwell Semiconductor, an individual (not another company) sued us for infringing his patent. We didn't think he had a case and went to trial. He won $52M. Maybe we didn't do a good job in court, but we had a LOT more assets than he did. We probably could have settled prior to trial for a tenth of that.

Mike,

Thank you as if nothing else this has been a very interesting conversation and I will apologize to the vast majority whom I have probably bored out of their gourd and the rest that probably see me as a whacko. :D

Mike, I am no expert on economics by any stretch of the imagination but I do think that perhaps Schumpeter's "Creative Destruction" is a little bit different than you stated and not truly applicably to this discussion. What I vaguely remembered and then looked up it seems that he was speaking more toward "Creative Destruction" as a force that entrepreneurs with their new and innovative companies, tools,, etc.gradually destroy the value of companies that have a monopoly or near monopoly.

So, the Wood River planes are neither new or innovative and LN certainly does not enjoy any type of monopoly. In the paragraph above I paraphrase a portion of "Creative Destruction" in Wikipedia but I also found many other pieces written specifically about this in the many books written by Schumpeter as well as about him and his economic theories. Amazon is wonderful for allowing access to pages in books without having to but them all. :D

So, all in all I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Though quite politely.:) Mike, I know that the wealthier/deep pocketed/larger, etc. do not ALWAYS win court cases but you must admit that it is true the vast majority of the time.

Thank you again as it was very interesting.

Fred

[Mike Henderson]

Thank you, also, Fred. I often think that we, as a society, do not discuss our differences and disagreements enough. Often, each side attempts to paint the other as unreasonable and/or uneducated or worse. But most people are reasonable/thoughtful and have good reasons for their beliefs. If we stop and listen to their side of the issue we often find interesting and valid points that we might have missed.

I believe I understand your point of view on this issue but as a former business person, I also understand why Woodcraft did what they did. Thank you for the discussion.

Mike

[george wilson]

I fail to see the arguments that plague this thread. If a patent is expired,it is expired.Others are free to make copies. There are TONS of other things that are copies. What about generic medicines? Are you going to pay $25.00 per pill for original patent medicines like Zomig,if a much cheaper generic comes on the market eventually?

I'll bet that a very significant number of things of all types owned by the people on this forum are copies of expired patents.Who invented the Crescent wrench? Everyone makes that wrench. Who invented vulcanized rubber? Are all of you running on Goodyear tires?

And,don't forget the numerous inventors whose inventions have been taken from them by more powerful companies,or the military. Some Englishman invented a range calculator of some kind. The British government seized it,and it was something like 40 or 50 years before that government gave the poor guy a penny. He fought that case in court all his remaining life. And,so did the guy who invented the marine chronometer,in spite of the large prize the Admiralty had offered for it.

There is no telling how many of the products you are loyal to have been taken from their rightful owners. My memory fades when I am tired,but was Bailey fairly compensated by Stanley? I could be entirely wrong,but I seem to recall something to that effect.

[jerry nazard]

Good post, George (as usual)!
-Jerry

[george wilson]

I just did some googling,and there was a lot of "bitter fighting" between Bailey and Stanley over patent infringments.Stanley apparently eventually won. That might just mean that they had more money for lawyers. It might be better researched by a collector,which I am not. I am a pack rat,not a collector,who is a selective packrat.

Also,the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. had nothing to do with Charles Goodyear,inventor of vulcanized rubber. He died poor,and the company came along 38 years after his death. How that ties together,I'm not sure.

Now I've thrown out a host of things to catch flak from!!!

[John Keeton]

And just think....all poor ol' Bill wanted was to find a good price on an LN 60 1/2 - who coulda guessed the war that would ensue:D Isn't that how it often happens??;)

[Bill Schmitz]

As the original poster, I've been following the discussion with much interest . . . couldn't help following it, since I subscribed to the thread :-). Unfortunately I still haven't found a block plane I want that's within my self-imposed budget. However, the discussion is interesting and applies to all sorts of different settings far beyond Woodcraft and LN, so I'll weigh in.

Let me say as disclaimer that I am a lawyer, so I have my own bias . . . but I really think that the disagreement between Mike and Fred can't be fully resolved because they aren't really arguing the same issue.

If the issue is simply whether or not Woodcraft's production of "copycat" planes in China is legal, then that is something that ultimately needs to be resolved in a courtroom if LN wants to make an issue of it. I don't buy the argument that LN is too small/scared to take on Woodcraft legally. If LN believes Woodcraft has done something illegal, and feel they are suffering a significant loss of their business and profits, then they will (and should) take Woodcraft on in court. It's a basic cost-benefit analysis done by businesses everyday.

While there are some advantages a bigger and wealthier company has in the legal arena, and there are examples of little guys getting buried by paper, the reality is still that the American courtroom is one of the great levelers ever devised. It still allows people and companies to air their grievances, and get them resolved.

Is it perfect? Far from it, but in most cases it works. Unfortunately the only court stories most people hear about are those that result in aberrations . . . that's why they get reported. There is no news story when a car crash get litigated and the plaintiff recovers their $5k in medical bills, $2k in lost wages, and $1k in pain and suffering . . . no one cares . . . just like no one cares when a jury finds the defendant wasn't negligent for a crash or a slip and fall. The individuals involved care, but those cases/results aren't newsworthy and therefore don't get reported. It's why most people in this country have a warped sense of our civil justice system. Also, I always remind my clients in a courtroom justice is not about the result, but about the process. All we are guaranteed is the right to tell our story, nothing more, nothing less. The outcome is never guaranteed.

The other issue is, legal or not, whether a person (like Fred), has the right to decide that he doesn't want to support, through his purchases, a company (like Woodcraft) that is producing a lower priced product by having it produced in China or some other 3rd world country, rather than by well paid American workers. And the answer to that is of course he can. I think even Mike agrees that Fred can choose to spend his own money however he so chooses.

But, does that same person also have the right to advocate for the company whose business practices he supports (i.e. LN) and against the company he doesn't support (i.e. Woodcraft)? Again, I don't see why not. Just because a business is operating legally, shouldn't mean they can't be criticized for their business practices. There can be, and often is, a difference between legal and good. For instance, it's legal to sit in the privacy of your own home and drink until you pass out every night, but you can certainly be criticized by your wife for doing so (except in Wisconsin, where it would be celebrated - LOL).

So, Fred, I think you are free and welcome to advocate for LN or any other business whose practices meet your standards, whatever they are, and against those who do not. But, we don't have to necessarily agree with you or your standards.

And, Mike, you are similarly free to disagree with Fred and point out that the legality of those business practices Fred objects to. What I disagree with is the argument that pure capitalism necessarily invalidates Fred's objections. Capitalism is a large enough concept to embrace Fred's objections, and if enough people agree with Fred, capitalism will weed out Woodcraft's entry into this market. And, that's OK, too.

Anyway, thanks for letting me weigh in, and keeping this whole discussion so respectful. Mike is absolutely right when he says that we don't have enough discussions like this in our society. Rather, our disagreements are too often played out with sound bites and name calling. If only our politicians could learn a little from us woodworkers, maybe we could solve the economic crisis, healthcare, education . . .

Bill

PS If anyone has a Veritas block plane they want to sell . . . :-)

[Mike Henderson]

Thanks for your very thoughtful post, Bill. Regarding block planes, you should try to get your hands on the Veritas (LV) and the LN before you make a decision. The original LV block plane (I haven't tried the new ones yet) are larger than the LNs and I find them a bit too large for my hand. I prefer the LN because of that.

Another option that works perfectly well is to purchase an older block plane and replace the blade with one of the modern blades sold by LV or Hock. I have a sweetheart 65 which I put an LV blade in and it works as well as any of my modern block planes. I'm sure a 60 1/2 would be the same.

And, of course, you could try the WoodRiver block plane:) I haven't used it yet so I can't say how it works or feels.

Mike

[Bill Schmitz]

Thanks, Mike. And, a good suggestion. I have a friend who has a brother who may be able to hook me up for a test drive . . .

As for the WoodRiver, I'll admit to leaning away from companies who do their manufacturing overseas as a cost-cutting measure at the expense of American jobs. I'm not religious about it, but I don't shop Wal-Mart for instance. That said, the WoodRiver block planes are out of stock and not available for backorder, so someone must be buying them! LOL

Thanks for the good advice,
Bill

[fred west1]

As the original poster, I've been following the discussion with much interest . . . couldn't help following it, since I subscribed to the thread :-). Unfortunately I still haven't found a block plane I want that's within my self-imposed budget. However, the discussion is interesting and applies to all sorts of different settings far beyond Woodcraft and LN, so I'll weigh in.

Let me say as disclaimer that I am a lawyer, so I have my own bias . . . but I really think that the disagreement between Mike and Fred can't be fully resolved because they aren't really arguing the same issue.

If the issue is simply whether or not Woodcraft's production of "copycat" planes in China is legal, then that is something that ultimately needs to be resolved in a courtroom if LN wants to make an issue of it. I don't buy the argument that LN is too small/scared to take on Woodcraft legally. If LN believes Woodcraft has done something illegal, and feel they are suffering a significant loss of their business and profits, then they will (and should) take Woodcraft on in court. It's a basic cost-benefit analysis done by businesses everyday.

While there are some advantages a bigger and wealthier company has in the legal arena, and there are examples of little guys getting buried by paper, the reality is still that the American courtroom is one of the great levelers ever devised. It still allows people and companies to air their grievances, and get them resolved.

Is it perfect? Far from it, but in most cases it works. Unfortunately the only court stories most people hear about are those that result in aberrations . . . that's why they get reported. There is no news story when a car crash get litigated and the plaintiff recovers their $5k in medical bills, $2k in lost wages, and $1k in pain and suffering . . . no one cares . . . just like no one cares when a jury finds the defendant wasn't negligent for a crash or a slip and fall. The individuals involved care, but those cases/results aren't newsworthy and therefore don't get reported. It's why most people in this country have a warped sense of our civil justice system. Also, I always remind my clients in a courtroom justice is not about the result, but about the process. All we are guaranteed is the right to tell our story, nothing more, nothing less. The outcome is never guaranteed.

The other issue is, legal or not, whether a person (like Fred), has the right to decide that he doesn't want to support, through his purchases, a company (like Woodcraft) that is producing a lower priced product by having it produced in China or some other 3rd world country, rather than by well paid American workers. And the answer to that is of course he can. I think even Mike agrees that Fred can choose to spend his own money however he so chooses.

But, does that same person also have the right to advocate for the company whose business practices he supports (i.e. LN) and against the company he doesn't support (i.e. Woodcraft)? Again, I don't see why not. Just because a business is operating legally, shouldn't mean they can't be criticized for their business practices. There can be, and often is, a difference between legal and good. For instance, it's legal to sit in the privacy of your own home and drink until you pass out every night, but you can certainly be criticized by your wife for doing so (except in Wisconsin, where it would be celebrated - LOL).

So, Fred, I think you are free and welcome to advocate for LN or any other business whose practices meet your standards, whatever they are, and against those who do not. But, we don't have to necessarily agree with you or your standards.

And, Mike, you are similarly free to disagree with Fred and point out that the legality of those business practices Fred objects to. What I disagree with is the argument that pure capitalism necessarily invalidates Fred's objections. Capitalism is a large enough concept to embrace Fred's objections, and if enough people agree with Fred, capitalism will weed out Woodcraft's entry into this market. And, that's OK, too.

Anyway, thanks for letting me weigh in, and keeping this whole discussion so respectful. Mike is absolutely right when he says that we don't have enough discussions like this in our society. Rather, our disagreements are too often played out with sound bites and name calling. If only our politicians could learn a little from us woodworkers, maybe we could solve the economic crisis, healthcare, education . . .

Bill

PS If anyone has a Veritas block plane they want to sell . . . :-)

Bill,

Thank you for the beautifully written and cogent rehash of the major issues.I am very impressed and pleased that the members on this board are so gentlemanly in a discussion like this one that easily could have turned to a flame war.

As I wrote to Mike, I very much appreciated his side of the argument and saw that he was just as willing to look at my view point without just dismissing it out of hand. Yes, this particular discussion was initially wrapped around Lie-Nielsen and Woodcraft but it moved to at least a partial discussion of societal mores and economic theories. It was very interesting and quite enjoyable.

So, thank you Bill for starting this even if innocently in your search for a inexpensive block plane. :D In addition thanks to Mike and everyone else that participated.

Fred

[Bill Schmitz]

Thanks, Fred. I wish the judges I see in court were as kind about my writing as you!

For what it's worth, I decided to buy the Veritas low angle apron plane. LV is having a free shipping offer right now, and I had another order I needed to make, and just kinda jumped ;-)

It was a middle of the road decision. The apron plane is significantly cheaper than their normal sized block plane and I figure a decent way for me to "test" the quality of LV. Plus, the arguments about supporting a quality company swayed me. I know it's a Canadian company, but I always liked those crazy Canucks!

Bill

[Richard Niemiec]

The apron plane is significantly cheaper than their normal sized block plane and I figure a decent way for me to "test" the quality of LV.
Bill

Bill, you will not regret your choice for a minute, and while you are entitled to your own test opinion, I can say with certain confidence you will be more than satisfied with LV quality; you can't make a bad choice with LV planes. No affiliation, just a more than satisfied customer.

[Vinny Miseo]

I have a LN LA block that is very nice and I "had to have it". I got it for a song on ebay about a year ago. I have used it twice.

I picked up a Stanley #18 block on CL for $7 about 3 years ago. http://www.cianperez.com/Photo/Exposed/album_WoodWerx/Hardware/Hand%20Tools/Block_Planes/Stanley_No18Type2_KnuckleCap_480.jpg * not mine, but the same thing

I cleaned it up, sharpend it and now that is my go to plane. It fits my hand better and it feels nice using an old tool. I am far from a 'neanderer' but for some reason that old block and my grandfather's starret are my favorite tools.

[Rob Lee]

Bill -

Give me a shout by email - rlee@leevalley.com . (I have the messaging system turned off here...) .

Cheers -

Rob

[george wilson]

Why is there so much concern over long expired patents? I wrote about it above. LN has no case against Wood River.

I doubt that LN has any competetion from Wood River. There is too much difference in their prices.LN appeals to a different class of customer who wants a finer plane.

[dan sherman]

.LN appeals to a different class of customer who wants a finer plane.

And some of the ego trip people as well.

[Billy Chambless]

And some of the ego trip people as well.

Of course, "ego trip tools" are a slippery slope in themselves, with LN being the affordable ones. ;)

[John Keeton]

..."ego trip tools" ... ;)Is that a new plane? If so, I am pretty sure I NEED one!

[Richard Dooling]

Should be the name of a new company.

Ego Trip Tools
We're smarter about your money than you are

[Billy Chambless]

Is that a new plane? If so, I am pretty sure I NEED one!

Just one? You know you want the set!


Should be the name of a new company.

Ego Trip Tools
We're smarter about your money than you are

Let's incorporate right now. Do you have time to develop some products? I have to get busy suing people.

[Jerome Hanby]

If you have a spiffy enough web site, do you actually need the products?:D

[Billy Chambless]

Not for 6 weeks or so. We'll outsource the call center to India, so that "Bob" can explain to people why their order is delayed.

[fred west1]

Thanks, Fred. I wish the judges I see in court were as kind about my writing as you!

For what it's worth, I decided to buy the Veritas low angle apron plane. LV is having a free shipping offer right now, and I had another order I needed to make, and just kinda jumped ;-)

It was a middle of the road decision. The apron plane is significantly cheaper than their normal sized block plane and I figure a decent way for me to "test" the quality of LV. Plus, the arguments about supporting a quality company swayed me. I know it's a Canadian company, but I always liked those crazy Canucks!

Bill

Bill,

Did you ever get the LV apron plane and if so how do you like it? I have three of the LN apron planes one of which is the white bronze and I absolutely love them. However, in the block plane arena I picked up the LV NX60 and what a gorgeous block plane. One of the features that I particularly like on the NX60 is the ability to set the mouth and have it return to exactly where you set it should you need to open it to clean out shavings or whatever it may be. I have two of the LN block planes as well and they are also fantastic but that little feature of having a repeatable mouth setting is really a keeper.

Fred

[glenn bradley]

I've been hunting for a used L-N or Veritas adjustable mouth block plane on ebay, but the prices they are going for always seem awfully high, frequently well over $100.

I think what you are running into is looking for a reduced price on planes that really hold their value. You could gt a lot of 1970 cars for a song but, a 1970 Mailbu two door . . . probably not so reasonable.

If the difference between a used plane and a new plane of the type you mention was only $50, I'd buy new. If you choose well, you will have this thing for the rest of your life. I was lucky enough to go to the Woodworking Shows around the time I was looking for a block plane and a shoulder plane. The show allowed me to go back and forth between the LN and LV booths trying different planes over and over until I felt I had found the best fit for me.

If possible, get to a store that carries what you are looking for because the plane that I like may not be the plane that you like even though they are both excellent planes. That way if you buy online, you know what you are actually getting. Good luck and have fun.

[Jim Koepke]

Bought a Stanley 60-1/2 plane at a yard sale today for $1. The guy gave me a lot of wood and a few other things along with it, so really it was less than a buck.

Not sure of its date of manufacture, but I think it is from before one that I bought new in the 1980s. Not much good type study information on the planes made after the 1960s.

So far, it seems like a piece of junk. There may have been a low quality period or something in the making of tools at Stanley. All the casting seems a bit rough.

I will try a different blade and see if that helps. May try to see if the awful back lash in the blade adjustment can be corrected.

jim

[lowell holmes]

One of the leading woodworking stores puts on specials from time to time that is 15% off everything in the store except for certain power tools. Sometimes they will say if you are there before 10 on the first day you can get an extra discount.
IIRC, I bought a new LN 4 1/2 for around $275. That was a good deal.

[Jim Koepke]

I bought a new LN 4 1/2 for around $275. That was a good deal.

That is a bit big for a block plane.:eek:

Got a pocket that will fit in?:D

jim

[Bill Schmitz]

Bill,

Did you ever get the LV apron plane and if so how do you like it? I have three of the LN apron planes one of which is the white bronze and I absolutely love them. However, in the block plane arena I picked up the LV NX60 and what a gorgeous block plane. One of the features that I particularly like on the NX60 is the ability to set the mouth and have it return to exactly where you set it should you need to open it to clean out shavings or whatever it may be. I have two of the LN block planes as well and they are also fantastic but that little feature of having a repeatable mouth setting is really a keeper.

Fred

Fred:

I did get my LV apron plane, and it's very nice. My law practice has been a bit busier than normal, and I've been out of town a couple times in the last month, so my woodworking free time has been pretty limited. That said, I used it to help gently shave off a piece to get it to fit in the shed we are building, and it worked like a champ!

The one thing I should mention, because so many people suggested this to me . . . is that I really couldn't appreciate the size (its small) until I had it in my hand. I'm not saying that the size or feel in my hand is a problem, but it was like an "ah ha" moment when I finally had it in my hand. I wish I could have held it and the LN before making my purchase. When the time comes to buy another, I will make an extra effort to actually hold the planes I'm considering.

Bill

[Frank Drew]

There are other good block planes, and should be available for a lot less money on the resale or auction market. I've never had any complaints about my Seventies era Record 09-1/2, and I've done a ton of work with it, both in the shop and out on the job.

[bridger berdel]

I don't understand this controversy. wood river is not even competing wit lie nielsen. it's competing with stanley, buck and anant. and it's doing a credible job of it, too. the fact that a few details of construction follow LN is testament to the quality of LN, and that LN didn't try to patent everything in sight is testament to the whole idea of openness. the more people who buy WR means more people doing woodworking, and that ultimately is good for LN, you and me.

[Rob Lee]

I don't understand this controversy. wood river is not even competing wit lie nielsen. it's competing with stanley, buck and anant. and it's doing a credible job of it, too. the fact that a few details of construction follow LN is testament to the quality of LN, and that LN didn't try to patent everything in sight is testament to the whole idea of openness. the more people who buy WR means more people doing woodworking, and that ultimately is good for LN, you and me.

Hi -

Part of the difficulty in understanding the controversy - is that it's not really about the WR brand, or even Woodcraft. It's about the manufacturer of the planes, who has outright stolen original designs, and continues to violate valid utility patents. Fortunately - most firms in North America recognise this, and avoid the offending products, even if they continue to deal with the thieves....


Cheers -

Rob

[Mike Henderson]

Hi -

Part of the difficulty in understanding the controversy - is that it's not really about the WR brand, or even Woodcraft. It's about the manufacturer of the planes, who has outright stolen original designs, and continues to violate valid utility patents. Fortunately - most firms in North America recognise this, and avoid the offending products, even if they continue to deal with the thieves....


Cheers -

Rob
If they're violating valid patents, has anyone brought a patent infringement law suit?

The only way to determine if a patent is being violated is to bring a court action. Otherwise, it's just someone's opinion that a violation has taken place (and usually, there's someone on the other side with an opinion that a violation has not taken place).

Mike

[bridger berdel]

If they're violating valid patents, has anyone brought a patent infringement law suit?

The only way to determine if a patent is being violated is to bring a court action. Otherwise, it's just someone's opinion that a violation has taken place (and usually, there's someone on the other side with an opinion that a violation has not taken place).

Mike

if there are real legal issues I'd be interested in a citation- I'm not saying that there aren't, just that I'm uninformed.

[Jim C Bradley]

Hi,

"Block planes just aren't that finicky." Maybe so. However, the Veritas and Neilsen sure do adjust tremendously easier, faster and more accurately.

Enjoy,

Jim

[Rob Lee]

Mike -

We (and other manufacturers in our industry) have taken legal action against this firm, or it's agents, in the past and are prepared to do so in the future. I'm not really willing to discuss legal strategy beyond that - at least, not in a public forum.

While I feel bad for Tom - in my opinion, he doesn't have a leg to stand on wrt the WR planes... and most of the discussion about the bench planes is way of the mark anyway.

Knowing that the producer of some of the product is a thief - it's really up to an individual's sense of ethics to determine if they'd like to indirectly support that behaviour by buying the subset of product that is made "legally".

I know we've made our choice.

Cheers -

Rob

[Joel Goodman]

Rob,

My dad used to say "if you lay down with dogs you'll wake up with fleas". Perhaps this applies to doing business with thieves as well.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike -

We (and other manufacturers in our industry) have taken legal action against this firm, or it's agents, in the past and are prepared to do so in the future. I'm not really willing to discuss legal strategy beyond that - at least, not in a public forum.

While I feel bad for Tom - in my opinion, he doesn't have a leg to stand on wrt the WR planes... and most of the discussion about the bench planes is way of the mark anyway.

Knowing that the producer of some of the product is a thief - it's really up to an individual's sense of ethics to determine if they'd like to indirectly support that behaviour by buying the subset of product that is made "legally".

I know we've made our choice.

Cheers -

Rob
I don't know who (person or company) you're talking about but before you call someone a "thief" you should have something to back that up with. In intellectual property there's all kind of defenses to a claim of patent infringement and only a court can settle it. Unless the person or company has been convicted of criminal theft, or has been ruled against in a civil case of patent infringement, I would be reluctant to call them a "thief".

I understand you may be on one side of the disagreement and have opinions that something was "stolen".

Mike

[This whole thing with WR planes just bothers me. I've heard all kinds of allegations of theft and other inappropriate activity but no one seems willing to back up any of those claims. It just seems like a smear campaign. If there's facts to back up some of the stories being told, someone please post them.]

[Rob Lee]

Mike -

Someone who takes the property of others without permission is a thief... I don't know a more appropriate word.

Cheers -

Rob

[Mike Henderson]

Mike -

Someone who takes the property of others without permission is a thief... I don't know a more appropriate word.

Cheers -

Rob
Okay, what property did this company or person take? That is what property that was not in the public domain did this person or company take? And if it's protected intellectual property, has a suit been brought?

Please provide some facts about this theft.

Mike

[From what I've heard so far, the WR planes only used public domain information, which is not theft. If they stole some protected property, I'd just like to know what it is. If there really was some theft it should be easy to specify what was stolen. If someone breaks into my house, I have to give a list of the items stolen to the police. If you allege theft, you need to specify what was stolen.]

[Wilbur Pan]

Hi Mike,

My guess is that Rob Lee probably doesn't want to comment too specifically in a public forum on a pending legal matter, but my guess is that he's concerned about the copies of the Veritas spokeshaves (which are patented) that have become available.

And just to address one of your earlier comments:


The rules of business are the law, not someone's idea of what's moral.

There's another aspect to this issue of whether a company is acting "morally" or not, and that's the idea that the customer is always right. To paraphrase something I learned back in high school geometry, a company following the law is a necessary but not sufficient condition for making a sale. I, being the customer, completely have the right to hold a company to some "moral" standard, just because that's how I want the companies that I give money to to behave. This is a completely irrational, capricious decision, but no more so than a customer preferring one brand of dishwashing liquid because he likes the color blue, and that's what was used in the packaging.

So I think that it is completely within a woodworker's prerogative to not buy a WoodRiver plane from Woodcraft simply because he thinks that Woodcraft is encroaching on Lie-Nielsen's territory in a distasteful manner, even if what Woodcraft is doing is completely legal. Or, maybe he likes Lie-Nielsen because they did have the cojones to enter the high quality plane market, and he sees Woodcraft as being a johnny-come-lately. Either way, that's the consumer's decision to make.

[Mike Henderson]

I've asked over and over for someone to tell me what protected intellectual property was used in the WR planes and I've never received a single response. From that lack of response, I've started to believe that there is likely no infringement in those planes.

If so, I then have to ask why there's so many accusations of theft leveled at the WR planes. My guess is that WR used public domain information but some people think there's something wrong with copying a product whose design is in the public domain.

Our legal and economic system encourages the legal copying of products because it increases competition and lowers prices. Of course, the people who were copied are not happy because of that increased competition.

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

Hi Mike,

My guess is that Rob Lee probably doesn't want to comment too specifically in a public forum on a pending legal matter, but my guess is that he's concerned about the copies of the Veritas spokeshaves (which are patented) that have become available.

And just to address one of your earlier comments:



There's another aspect to this issue of whether a company is acting "morally" or not, and that's the idea that the customer is always right. To paraphrase something I learned back in high school geometry, a company following the law is a necessary but not sufficient condition for making a sale. I, being the customer, completely have the right to hold a company to some "moral" standard, just because that's how I want the companies that I give money to to behave. This is a completely irrational, capricious decision, but no more so than a customer preferring one brand of dishwashing liquid because he likes the color blue, and that's what was used in the packaging.

So I think that it is completely within a woodworker's prerogative to not buy a WoodRiver plane from Woodcraft simply because he thinks that Woodcraft is encroaching on Lie-Nielsen's territory in a distasteful manner, even if what Woodcraft is doing is completely legal. Or, maybe he likes Lie-Nielsen because they did have the cojones to enter the high quality plane market, and he sees Woodcraft as being a johnny-come-lately. Either way, that's the consumer's decision to make.
You're absolutely correct, Wilbur, the customer can buy or not buy for any reason at all, or no reason. But to go calling a company or person a thief is a bit beyond a customer not wishing to buy a product.

What I've heard over and over is that WR stole something and I'd like to know what that is. If they used things in the public domain, that's absolutely not stealing. In fact, that's the way we make progress. One company designs something and the next company comes along and uses that design and does something more, perhaps makes the product for less money.

It just bothers me to hear these accusations of theft without any supporting facts. How would you, or anyone else, like to be called a thief but when you asked what you had stolen, no one would say? But they just kept repeating the same accusation.

Mike

[What's more, an intellectual property dispute is fairly complex, and there can be lots of defenses against a claim of infringement. While the owner may feel that their patent has been infringed, the other side usually believes they have not infringed - otherwise they probably would not have designed it that way. It's too expensive to intentionally use protected information when you can design around it fairly easily. Few people in business go looking for a fight, especially one they can't win.
Also, we've only been hearing one side to this debate. It would be interesting to hear what the other side would have to say about this situation.]

[I went searching for a WoodRiver spokeshave but can't find any reference to it in Google or on the Woodcraft site. Do you have a pointer?]

[Wilbur Pan]

I think I found it. It wasn't a spokeshave, it was a scraper tool with interchangeable blades.

Compare this Veritas scraper:

http://www.leevalley.com/images/item/woodworking/planes/05p3380s1.jpg

with this knockoff:

http://www.japanwoodworker.com/assets/images/product/JapanWoodworker/98.084.jpg

and this one at Woodcraft:

http://www.woodcraft.com/Images/products/148723.jpg?rand=131834446

I know that in general, Lee Valley has patents and trade dress claims on their Veritas tools. This certainly seems to be an actionable offense.

[Mike Henderson]

Could be. I wonder if that design is patented and whether the WR would be considered to infringe. The only way to know if it infringes (if there's patent protection) is through a court.

Mike

[Wilbur Pan]

What I've heard over and over is that WR stole something and I'd like to know what that is. If they used things in the public domain, that's absolutely not stealing. In fact, that's the way we make progress. One company designs something and the next company comes along and uses that design and does something more, perhaps makes the product for less money.

It just bothers me to hear these accusations of theft without any supporting facts. How would you, or anyone else, like to be called a thief but when you asked what you had stolen, no one would say? But they just kept repeating the same accusation.

I agree that in the strict legal sense, to make, say, a less expensive Bedrock-style plane with a brass colored lever cap and cherry handles would not be considered stealing from Lie-Nielsen. But by the same token, in a non-legal sense that would be considered to be close enough to copying that the consumer might think that the company that produced such a copy was being lazy, and not worthy of his business.

I think that most companies, especially those whose business model revolves around making less expensive copies, don't care if people think that they are thieves or not, as long as they can sell enough units to make a profit. Also, they have no incentive to change such practices unless it is clear that those products won't sell, for whatever reason. And an irrational, wrong belief that making a copy is equivalent to thievery is a perfectly valid reason for them to lose sales. The issue isn't whether the consumers are right or not on the legal points. The issue is that the company should have done better market research so they would have known that there would have been a backlash.

[Mike Henderson]

You're right, Wilbur. But I still object to calling someone a thief when they are not legally a thief. And when someone like Rob Lee calls someone (or some company) a thief, I doubt if many people look at it as an irrational statement. I think many (maybe even most) would take it as fact that the person or company really is a thief, when they did not do anything illegal.

The people who make those planes are business people, same as people here in the USA. Companies here in the US do very similar things. I worked in semiconductors and everyone was trying to make a chip for less money. And often the chip was a plug replacement for somebody else's product, but we'd sell it for less money. And we didn't do that because we were lazy - in fact it took a lot of work to reverse engineer someone else's product and be identical to it. And we never had anyone call us a thief, even the company whose product we copied.

And as you know, Wilbur, there are companies who make copies of prescription drugs and that's all they do - just make exact copies that are sold cheaper than the original drugs. They don't do any research or try to make any "improvements" to the drugs - they just copy exactly. And nobody objects to that. Whatever company makes the WR planes is doing exactly the same thing as those drug companies.

Making things that do the job but can be sold for less money is what our economic system is all about. I expect the WR planes will find a market of people who want a decent plane at a price significantly less than LN or LV. I haven't used a WR but I have looked at them at Woodcraft and they appear to be decent planes.

Mike

[jerry nazard]

Mike,

Just to play the devil's advocate, suppose Stanley came out with a Bedrock plane with cherry handles and a brass-colored lever cap. What would people say? Hum....

Best!

-Jerry

[Mike Henderson]

Mike,
Did you see Rob Lee's post? I do not think there is anything about the "Bedrock" copies that causes an infringement.
Rob did imply there may be another issue that he is not willing to discuss publicly at this time.

Not sure if there were any issues about "trade dress" or not.
Rob also said he didn't think Tom Lie-Nielsen had any ground to stand on.

I am not of legal training, so I have no idea. Personally, I would rather buy old Stanley/Bailey planes and fix them up.

jim
I, of course, saw Rob Lee's post. If Rob is not willing to say what has been "stolen" he should stop calling people or companies a "thief". That's just throwing slime at the person, company and product without any facts to back it up. It may just be an attempt to reduce the sale volume of WR products.

As I've said before, intellectual property disputes are complex and there are generally opposing beliefs about infringement. And only a court can determine if infringement has taken place.

Mike

[Rob Lee]

I've asked over and over for someone to tell me what protected intellectual property was used in the WR planes and I've never received a single response. From that lack of response, I've started to believe that there is likely no infringement in those planes.

(snip)

Mike

Mike -

As far as I know - there is no issue with the Wood River planes, which is why no one is responding to your question. Much of the discussion is (wrongly) being centered around the bedrock reproductions. There is infringing activity occuring involving the company that sells and or manufactures the planes. This is not about Woodcraft, despite their name being continually dragged into the discussion.

You seem to place a tremendous reliance on legal action as the arbiter of ethical behavior - but it's only the option of last resort. A patent lawsuit is not undertaken lightly - our last one (successful) cost us about $700,000 in legal fees, and tooks years to bring to a conclusion.

It's particularly difficult to pursue an individual in Taiwan or China, who is violating Canadian or American patent legislation - all you can really do, is go after their customers (which we have, and will continue to do). The problem here, is that sometimes the domestic infringing activity is unintentional. We will often ask that the product be withdrawn and destroyed first - before involving lawyers.

Rob Lee

[Raney Nelson]

I, of course, saw Rob Lee's post. If Rob is not willing to say what has been "stolen" he should stop calling people or companies a "thief". That's just throwing slime at the person, company and product without any facts to back it up. It may just be an attempt to reduce the sale volume of WR products.

As I've said before, intellectual property disputes are complex and there are generally opposing beliefs about infringement. And only a court can determine if infringement has taken place.

Mike

Well, I suppose what Rob's doing might be considered slanderous, or libelous - but by your logic even in that case, there'd be nothing wrong with that at all until he's brought to court over it successfully.

Personally, I rarely find it hard to decide whether I've been stolen from.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike -

As far as I know - there is no issue with the Wood River planes, which is why no one is responding to your question. Much of the discussion is (wrongly) being centered around the bedrock reproductions. There is infringing activity occuring involving the company that sells and or manufactures the planes. This is not about Woodcraft, despite their name being continually dragged into the discussion.

You seem to place a tremendous reliance on legal action as the arbiter of ethical behavior - but it's only the option of last resort. A patent lawsuit is not undertaken lightly - our last one (successful) cost us about $700,000 in legal fees, and tooks years to bring to a conclusion.

It's particularly difficult to pursue an individual in Taiwan or China, who is violating Canadian or American patent legislation - all you can really do, is go after their customers (which we have, and will continue to do). The problem here, is that sometimes the domestic infringing activity is unintentional. We will often ask that the product be withdrawn and destroyed first - before involving lawyers.

Rob Lee
Thank you for that clarification, Rob. Everything I've seen (if I didn't misinterpret things) was that there were problems with the WR planes. I appreciate your clarification.

Maybe all the bashing of the WR planes (and perhaps also Woodcraft) can be put to bed now.

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

Well, I suppose what Rob's doing might be considered slanderous, or libelous - but by your logic even in that case, there'd be nothing wrong with that at all until he's brought to court over it successfully.

Personally, I rarely find it hard to decide whether I've been stolen from.
What most people would say in an intellectual property case is something like,

"We hold intellectual property in that area and believe the xyz company's product is infringing. We've sent a letter to xyz pointing out our intellectual property and the reasons we believe they infringe. We're waiting to see how they respond."

With intellectual property, there can be a very honest disagreement about whether something infringes. In general, neither side really wants to go to trial because of the cost, and because a jury can be very unpredictible. But sometimes you wind up there.

Mike

[Added comment: Upon receiving such a letter, most companies would determine how valuable the product is and make changes, if they can, to avoid any possibility of infringement. It's often much less expensive to change the product than to fight, even if you don't think you're infringing.]

[Raney Nelson]

With intellectual property, there can be a very honest disagreement about whether something infringes. In general, neither side really wants to go to trial because of the cost, and because a jury can be very unpredictible. But sometimes you wind up there.

Mike

While there certainly can be cases that are very much open to interpretation, there are also examples where infringement is rather clear cut. However, that doesn't in any way mean that the legal case is straightforward. Litigation is often just a poker game with a ridiculously high buy-in, and if you can't afford to call that bluff because the other company's bankroll dwarfs your own - well, so be it. Winding up in court is really only possible if you can afford the ante, and be willing to bet that your bankroll will survive the proceedings. The idea that it's about ethics and truth strikes me as a bit naive.

I make my ethics calls from a very different place than the courtroom - and I think that's what others are doing as well. We can certainly try to share our different perspectives and information, but trying to shut down others' ethics calls because they don't meet up with your own is bound to meet with nothing but disappointment.

[Mike Henderson]

Everyone should have an ethical sense and live by that. But before making a judgment, all of us should make sure we've heard and understand both sides of an issue.

My understanding of what people were saying on this thread (and others) is that the WR planes contained "stolen" intellectual property. What I've asked for is more information on what was stolen so I would have something to use for my own sense of ethics. Rob has just posted that there are no intellectual property issues that he's aware of in the WR planes.

I think we all share a common sense of ethics. And also a sense of fairness.

Mike

[If your ethics will not permit you to purchase a product which has been legally copied from another product, you should not take generic drugs, or purchase any of the thousands of products which are copies of some other product. Take any product area - automobiles, toothpaste, soap, breakfast cereal. There are many brands of raisin bran and they're essentially identical except for the name on the box. Automobiles - as soon as one company makes a successful car, all the other manufacturers start making cars with the same features and look. Toothpaste - as soon as one company finds a successful "hook" (whitens your teeth/fights tarter) every other company has a toothpaste that whitens your teeth/fights tarter.]

[Raney Nelson]

I can agree with that - and I've seen the same tendency to lump WC, WR, Japan Woodworker, and the MFR in question all into one little box, when the issues are a lot more interesting than that.

Also - I understand your point about legal copies, but the truth is that there are a lot of grey areas in there as well. For instance, a company making a generic pharmaceutical does not cause me even a little concern because the original designer is MORE than capable of defending itself -- and their initial pricing on the drug took into account exactly how long it would take before generics would hit.

But a large company who, for instance, copies an innovation from a small startup, then systematically makes a series of minor alterations to forestall litigation - all the while slowly driving the startup out of business -- that may be legal, but I would avoid supporting that company. What looks like inconsistencies to one person may just be subtlety to another.

[Joel Goodman]

I know this subject has been beaten to death but... WR planes or not, China has a lousy record of protection of intellectual property. If Rob Lee says "thief" I'd be inclined to think he knows a few things that he may not be at liberty to discuss on this forum. For example he may have reached an out of court settlement with a company and signed an agreement not to discuss the settlement. I somehow think he's in a position to know a lot more about this company then we are.

[Mike Henderson]

But a large company who, for instance, copies an innovation from a small startup, then systematically makes a series of minor alterations to forestall litigation - all the while slowly driving the startup out of business -- that may be legal, but I would avoid supporting that company. What looks like inconsistencies to one person may just be subtlety to another.
I share your feelings about that situation and could never ethically support a company who did such things, either.

Mike

[Derek Cohen]

I, of course, saw Rob Lee's post. If Rob is not willing to say what has been "stolen" he should stop calling people or companies a "thief". That's just throwing slime at the person, company and product without any facts to back it up. It may just be an attempt to reduce the sale volume of WR products.

As I've said before, intellectual property disputes are complex and there are generally opposing beliefs about infringement. And only a court can determine if infringement has taken place.

Mike, here are a couple of examples of stolen intellectual property. I would say that this is pretty open-and-shut ...

http://www.japanwoodworker.com/assets/images/product/JapanWoodworker/98.084.jpg

http://www.leevalley.com/images/item/woodworking/planes/05p3380s1.jpg

and

http://www.japanwoodworker.com/assets/images/product/JapanWoodworker/98.001.0.jpg

http://www.lie-nielsen.com/images/boggs_lg.jpg

This is a world-wide offering. The planes are being sold in several countries … South Africa, Canada, USA … even offered in Australia. In the UK, Tilgear also have been selling a direct knock-off of the Veritas Edge Trimming plane. All the planes are apparently coming out of a single factory located in China.

With regard the comments you make about legality and taking legal action, I must admit that they strike me as oversimplistic. What is legal is not necessarily moral. And there are no winners in war.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mike Henderson]

Derek - as I pointed out earlier, my concern has been that people have been painting the WR planes as containing "stolen" intellectual property. Rob Lee has said they do not.

If people have other issues, such as other products, or other countries, those need to be pointed out specifically, without branding the WR planes as illegal.

The issue I was concerned about, whether there was any intellectual property infringement with the WR planes, seems to have been settled.

Mike

[Derek Cohen]

my concern has been that people have been painting the WR planes as containing "stolen" intellectual property. Rob Lee has said they do not.

Mike, I am not convinced of this bearing in mind the article/research that was published by FWW magazine.

http://www.finewoodworking.com//item/14189/who-begot-who-comparing-planes-from-lie-nielsen-wood-river-and-stanley

The thing is, however, that anyone who deals with the factory that manufactures all these planes is viewed as being complicit. I think that it is impossible to purchase selectively there - either one supports the factory or one does not.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Richard Niemiec]

I, of course, saw Rob Lee's post. If Rob is not willing to say what has been "stolen" he should stop calling people or companies a "thief". That's just throwing slime at the person, company and product without any facts to back it up. It may just be an attempt to reduce the sale volume of WR products.

As I've said before, intellectual property disputes are complex and there are generally opposing beliefs about infringement. And only a court can determine if infringement has taken place.

Mike

Mike, with all due respect, it would be insanity for Rob to lay out his IP infringement case in this forum simply to satisfy all of us. I also assume that as a rational and circumspect businessman, Rob has "lawyered up" appropriately on this issue, and has been made aware of the laws of libel and slander, and IMHO if he says thievery of Veritas IP has taken place, I believe him, as that is not a statement to be undertaken lightly. I also don't think he is referring to any of the bench planes, but rather copies of Veritas product or design/processes patented by Veritas that the infringer incorporated into other products. The latter would be thievery in the common law sense and infringement in the IP law sense, in the absence of a license from the party holding the patent. And generally, juries decide issues of fact in infringement cases, unless a plaintiff is makes a tactical decision to waive a jury. Let's give Rob a break here, and if he's wrong I'm quite certain he is willing to live with the consequences.

[Mike Henderson]

Derek - every large company is involved in a number or legal disputes at any one time. If we refused to purchase from any company who was involved in a legal dispute we'd never be able to buy anything.

The thing that's important to me is whether the product I'm thinking of purchasing is "tainted". In this case, that means does it contain "stolen" intellectual property. Rob Lee says "No" and he probably has the greatest insight into the situation.

Mike

[If you believe the company is "corrupt" - steals intellectual property as a part of their business - and we should shun them because of that, make your case. Tell us about the things they've stolen and give details about the intellectual property. Otherwise, it's all just stories.]

[Mike Henderson]

Mike, with all due respect, it would be insanity for Rob to lay out his IP infringement case in this forum simply to satisfy all of us. I also assume that as a rational and circumspect businessman, Rob has "lawyered up" appropriately on this issue, and has been made aware of the laws of libel and slander, and IMHO if he says thievery of Veritas IP has taken place, I believe him, as that is not a statement to be undertaken lightly. I also don't think he is referring to any of the bench planes, but rather copies of Veritas product or design/processes patented by Veritas that the infringer incorporated into other products. The latter would be thievery in the common law sense and infringement in the IP law sense, in the absence of a license from the party holding the patent. And generally, juries decide issues of fact in infringement cases, unless a plaintiff is makes a tactical decision to waive a jury. Let's give Rob a break here, and if he's wrong I'm quite certain he is willing to live with the consequences.
Richard - Rob has said that the WR planes do not infringe any intellectual property, to the best of his knowledge. I'm not interested in any other legal disputes he might be involved in and am not asking him to disclose anything.

Mike

[Joel Goodman]

My impression is that the Borg products are produced by the same factory as the WR and, if so, that is a good reason to call the owners of that factory "thieves". The fact that Japan Woodworker has removed the Borg line from their website is telling. Perhaps I will start a line of planes called "Lie Nelson" to test the legal limits. I think I know a factory I can get to manufacture them.

[george wilson]

This same discussion just keeps coming up.

[David Keller NC]

"And as you know, Wilbur, there are companies who make copies of prescription drugs and that's all they do - just make exact copies that are sold cheaper than the original drugs. They don't do any research or try to make any "improvements" to the drugs - they just copy exactly. And nobody objects to that. Whatever company makes the WR planes is doing exactly the same thing as those drug companies."

Mike - a correction may be useful here for those reading the thread that may get the wrong impression. "Generic" drugs are not exact copies of the original. The "active ingredient" is chemically indentical, and the dosage amount is the same, but they are absolutely not exact copies on several fronts. In most oral dosage forms, the so-called "inactive" ingredients have a very large pharmacological effect with respect to bio-availability, and half-life in the bloodstream and other tissues. These "bulking ingredients" cannot be copied - they are generally trade secrets, though in some cases they may be separately patented from the active ingredient. Moreover, generic companies are generally not allowed to copy the form, color, friability, and other aspects of an oral dosage tablet.

This is generally why someone that's been switched to a generic "equivalent" has the right to ask for the name-brand when they have their prescription filled.

This is definitely not the same as the sitatution in the grocery store, where a name-brand cereal may be manufactured in exactly the same factory, with the same ingredients, and to the same specifications that the store-brand "generic" version is. Most often, this identity splitting is done with the full knowledge and approval of the name-brand producer, and for an agreed upon percentage of the revenue from the "competing" generic brand.

And with regards to the WR planes, there has been quite a few posts noting that it appears that WR bench planes infringe on the trade dress of Lie-Nielsen. To my knowledge, no one has inferred that there were any applicable design patents on LN's products that were copied.

[Mike Henderson]

Thanks for the info on generic drugs. I was not aware of that.

Regarding "trade dress", that's a tough argument to make since they're clearly marked "WoodRiver". I'll wait until I hear that LN has filed suit claiming that. I bet I'll have to wait a long time.

Mike

[Wilbur Pan]

Dave beat me to the issues with generic drugs, so I'll just say that he is completely right about this, and provide a real world example of how this affects patient care. For many drugs, the bioavailability and pharmacokinetic differences between the brand name and generic drugs are not that big of a deal. For some drugs, however, it is a major issue. For my brain tumor patients, I've seen more cases than I care to where a kid was switched form a brand name anti-seizure medication to a generic, and the resulting shift in drug levels due to the different absorption of the medicine resulted in breakthrough seizures. Switching back to the brand name brought the drug levels back to where they needed to be, with a resulting cessation of the seizures.

I would like to address this point, though:


Making things that do the job but can be sold for less money is what our economic system is all about.

I would agree, if when you say "do the job" you include intangible, qualitative aspects of a product such as its appearance and aesthetic appeal, and even such things as whether I think that the company selling the product is sleazy or not. If we were really all focused on products that just "do the job" from a functional standpoint, all of our bookcases would be made with cinderblocks and 2x material.

[fred west1]

I, of course, saw Rob Lee's post. If Rob is not willing to say what has been "stolen" he should stop calling people or companies a "thief". That's just throwing slime at the person, company and product without any facts to back it up. It may just be an attempt to reduce the sale volume of WR products.

As I've said before, intellectual property disputes are complex and there are generally opposing beliefs about infringement. And only a court can determine if infringement has taken place.

Mike

Mike,

There is an issue with the Wood River planes and as far as I know that issue has to do with Trade Dress. I am not an expert on any of this but it really blows my mind that Woodcraft has just not changed the look of their planes enough to stop this entire conversation on the plane end anyway.

On July 7, Jeff Forbes, President of Woodcraft, called me to discuss the issues that I had been posting about between the WoodRiver planes and the Lie-Nielsen planes. As is known and readily admitted I am a huge proponent of Lie-Nielsen as well as almost all of the other "boutique" high end tool makers. However, I am NOT affiliated with Lie-Nielsen nor any other firm. To me this makes the call from Jeff even more strange. As Jeff told me Woodcraft has over 1,000 employees and 90 stores. I have a basement and a garage and love building furniture but the FACT remains that I am a peon in the woodworking community. So here we are with this call which initially I will readily admit impressed me. For Jeff to take the time to call me seemed to be some darn good customer service.

Instead it turned out to be a attempt to pacify me and his statements were riddled with inconsistencies to say the least. I asked him directly why they went to this manufacturer which is notorious for the practice of duplicating other manufacturer's products. Jeff replied that he knew nothing about this and in fact did not know the manufacturer as it was brought to him by an agent. In addition he told me repeatedly that they were just trying to make some mid range planes like the old Stanley Bailey line.

So, let's start with those statements. First it begs credulity that the President of a company of this size would know nothing about this manufacturer especially when they are using them to bring out a whole brand new line and not just of planes. It is not as if Woodcraft is the size of a Fortune 500 where MAYBE the President would not know a new manufacturer bring out a new line. Regardless of that let's read from the Woodcraft catalog which states: "Working closely with our manufacturer, Woodcraft produced a collection of hand planes that are meant to be used. Modeled after the Bedrock's, Stanley Tool's very best line, WoodRiver planes feature the same heavy castings and fully machined frogs." Now I may misread that, but working closely with their manufacturer to PRODUCE a collection of hand planes sounds nothing like an agent came to me and said, hey looky here I have a line of planes you might be interested in.

I then mentioned the potential loss of American jobs caused by Woodcraft bringing in this line of planes and potentially causing LN to lose sales and then be forced to lay off workers. Extremely likely scenario in this economic climate and yes other factors could/would be in play but why add another? Jeff was quite dismissive of this and said that he had been in business a long time and that this was just not going to happen.

I then asked him if he had been in touch with Tom Lie-Nielsen and he said he had not but expected to be doing so fairly quickly. During that portion of the conversation I asked why he had not answered my email. He said that I must have the wrong one. I read it off and he said that it was correct and in that case must have been caught by spam filter. I said okay I will send you another as a test and gave him my email address over the phone which he read back to me. I sent that email 42 days ago and have had no response again.

This was a 20 minute conversation so a lot of ground was covered and while it was not taped and becomes a he said/he said situation what I did do was speak with two members of another forum almost immediately afterward. Whether they wish to confirm our conversations or not is completely their call. Anyway, I next asked Jeff why they had brought out the WoodRiver planes to begin with? He told me that they had a lot of woodworkers looking for a mid priced line of planes. I mentioned that they already carried the Groz and Anant lines but that was skipped over as irrelevant. Now, you will notice that Jeff's response speak's to answering the needs of many woodworkers. This again is a far cry from an agent happening upon Jeff/Woodcraft.

We then got in a discussion about Tom Begnal's comparison and his response was that in no manner would Woodcraft want to appear to be undercutting one of their best lines. However Jeff did mention that he thought that perhaps LN should not be so upset as Woodcraft had put out approx. two million dollars in advertising at no cost to LN. This is an extremely specious comment as Woodcraft is the distributor and as such the onus is ALWAYS upon them to do the marketing. There are times where there may be an agreement with the manufacturer to share in this cost but that is normally only with a start up company and Jeff made no mention that this was the case.

So back to Tom Begnal. Jeff told me that as they did not want to rock the boat with LN they were going to make many changes in the WoodRiver line. He said that the first thing they were going to do was place a knuckle cap on the WoodRiver block plane to distinguish it from the LN block planes. Secondly he said they were going to make changes in all of the other WoodRiver planes using Tom Begnal's comparison as a jumping off point. Regardless of the other stuff above I was delighted by this as all along the major issue has been just how similar the WoodRiver planes are to the LN planes. I told Jeff that I would post this immediately to let people know that all of this was being resolved.

Jeff's comment to me was a very strong NO. Do not do that until I tell you the time is right. As this is the crux of the entire issue Jeff's refusal to have this posted struck me as extremely odd. Why would Woodcraft not want this known? He could have said it may not happen for a couple of weeks or even a few months but regardless the fact that the effort was there would have meant everything.

It is now 42 days after we spoke and not a word back as was promised. I have yet to meet a woodworker that I in one manner or another fine admirable and honorable. Yes, this is a vast generalization but in my experience woodworkers are truly salt of the earth people regardless of whether it is a hobby or a profession. However, this does not make us stupid and in fact some of the smartest people it has been my pleasure to meet are here on this board and others and I would put them up against anyone.

This being said I do not appreciate being taken for some kind of insipid idiot. What was told to me was not even clever and in fact was filled with so many contradictions that you could drive a pickup through them.

Fred

[Mike Henderson]

Thanks for posting, Fred. I suppose we'll have to wait and see if LN attempts to bring a "trade dress" action against Woodcraft (or the manufacturer of the planes). Of if changes are made to the WoodRiver planes.

Mike

[Mike Brady]

Since we are speculating about hypothetical situations here, let's say that just for fun, the premium plane maker in question said to Woodcraft and Japan Woodworker "Good luck with WR and Borg planes, fellas, we are dropping our wholesale distribution and going to direct-to-customer sales, exclusively. Have a nice day." Do you think for a minute that those retailers want to lose the franchise to sell the most sought after name in hand tools? No way. The only reason WR and other counterfeits work is because of the presence of the real thing on the next shelf. Those retailers can't replace the loss of a brand that brings customers to their store.

The growth of sales events conducted in major urban locales and woodworking conferences by the manufacturers is a precursor of things to come. LV is already there with their planes....direct sales only.

[fred west1]

Thanks for posting, Fred. I suppose we'll have to wait and see if LN attempts to bring a "trade dress" action against Woodcraft (or the manufacturer of the planes). Of if changes are made to the WoodRiver planes.

Mike

Mike,

I have to say that I really do not understand why Jeff would waste 20 minutes of his life to call me about this issue if he did not intend to follow up. But the fact is that he has followed up on absolutely nothing including just emailing me back. I guess what I am saying is that for instances here on SMC there has been some truly good and even enlightening discussions. On the other hand I feel as if Jeff called me and assumed I was some kind of idiot whom would just believe everything he said because he is the President of Woodcraft. Instead, I must say that by the time that conversation was over I had a very bad taste in my mouth and it has only gotten worse. I would rather exchange ideas with you and the others on this board as well as other boards where we are absolutely opposed because I know that regardless of the disagreement the discourse will be real and civil. That type of discourse is a far cry from the simple and blatant manipulation that was attempted.

Fred

[Mike Henderson]

I really can't offer you any comments about that situation, Fred. My concern was that people seemed to be implying that the WoodRiver planes infringed some intellectual property but no one would say what that property was. As far as I'm concerned, Rob's statement that the planes do not infringe, as far as he knows, is sufficient to satisfy my concerns.

Mike

[Jeff Wright]

You're right, but I've been surprised by the reaction to the WR planes. Take pharmacuticals for example. A company goes through enormous expenses to develop and test a drug. They get patent protection but eventually that expires and generic makers began shipping the product. That drug is an *exact* copy of the original drug, down to the molecular level, but it cost a *lot* less. But people don't seem to object to that copying. There's no actual difference between that and the WR/LN planes. If there's no patent protection (or some other legal protection), the WR plane is exactly the same as a generic drug. I suppose you could call it a generic LN.:)

If you're going to object to the WR plane, you should also object to generic drugs.
Mike

At the risk of being picky, my dear wife (retired from Merck after 1,000 years with them) tells me that there often can be differences between the original and the generic with regard to quality control in the manufacturing of the generic version. But then, she COULD be a bit biased! ;)

[Mike Henderson]

You may have missed the comments by David Keller and Wilbur Pan saying a somewhat similar thing.

Mike