Toolmakers and their pointless "trade secrets"

[Patrick Chase]

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

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

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

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

Two examples suffice to illustrate the problem.

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

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

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

[Mel Fulks]

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

[Mark AJ Allen]

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

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

[Patrick Chase]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Koepke]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jtk

[Stewie Simpson]

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

Stewie;

[Dan Barr]

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

[Patrick Chase]

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

At least in the US that sort of combination is likely unpatentable (or will be found invalid if already patented), though it depends on the specifics. See KSR v Teleflex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_International_Co._v._Teleflex_Inc.) for starters.

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

[Dan Barr]

At least in the US that sort of combination is likely unpatentable (or will be found invalid if already patented), though it depends on the specifics. See KSR v Teleflex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_International_Co._v._Teleflex_Inc.) for starters.

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

Read it, agreed. Good point/example.

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

Dan

[Kees Heiden]

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


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

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



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


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


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


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


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

[Pat Barry]

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

[Derek Cohen]

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

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Nicholas Lawrence]

]

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


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

[Kees Heiden]

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

Regards from Perth

Derek

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

[george wilson]

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

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

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

[Patrick Chase]

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

Those films are Al-Oxide bonded to a polyester base. 3M also make very similar diamond films (sold by LV among others), but WSH resells the Al-Oxide ones. Quality AlOx films like that perform roughly on the same level as a good synthetic waterstone.

PM-V11 is indeed harder to grind than O1. It has very high chromium carbide content, and those carbides provide significant abrasion resistance. PM reduces those carbides' size and makes them easier to abrade away particularly at the lower/coarser grits, but there's no free lunch.

"2X" seems rather high based on my own experience with both alloys though. Maybe for a very fine polishing grit, but not in general.

[Patrick Chase]

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

Things like "durability" and "ease of sharpening" are very applicartion- and situation-dependent.

In my own use I'd say that it's more durable than A2 (in particular it's less "chippy", which is a frequent problem for A2 the way I use it) and somewhere in between O1 and A2 for ease of honing, probably closer to O1 in that regard. I could easily imagine situations under which it would perform as Kees describes, because it has a different "balance" of attributes (abrasion resistance, "fold" resistance, tendency to chip, etc) than either O1 or A2. The degree of benefit that a user will see therefore depends on which attributes are most important for their use/application. To a very rough first order, the more important abrasion is in your application, the better PM-V11 will look.

This brings me full-circle to my original rant: Knowledgeable users understand what attributes they need, not least because they know how their existing tools fail. It's therefore useful to know what alloys/coatings/etc we're dealing with, because then we can draw educated conclusions about how their properties map to our needs and preference. "Black box" trade secrets like PM-V11 prevent us from doing that.

[Frederick Skelly]

But Pat, I think Koepke's point still holds for most (51%) users - we dont need/want to become a metallurgist or engineer to figure out what tool to buy. I read the things said here and elsewhere and choose what works for the task at hand. I "get" that you're an informed user and want more and I respect that. But these companies play it the way they do for reasons they get to decide. And if they lose a couple experts' business playing it that way, it still works for their business model. I mean, I'm sorry man, but ......

Fred

[William Fretwell]

There are lots of new crucible steels. Some people have developed proprietary heat treat methods to gain exceptional results. It is geometry that cuts in a push tool. Many crucible steels have a 'rougher' edge due to carbide size but more durability. Never getting super sharp but keeping that almost sharp edge a long time is common and a source of frustration (eg:S30V).
They are always more difficult to sharpen. As crucible steels go I keep hoping.

[Chuck Nickerson]

Feel free to start a tool-making company and publish all your product and production related decisions.

[Jim Koepke]

But Pat, I think Koepke's point still holds for most (51%) users - we dont need/want to become a metallurgist or engineer to figure out what tool to buy.

Thanks Fred,

I have a little knowledge of metallurgy, very little.

My concern is if a tool fulfills my needs. After that why care if there is the secret of the 'red headed boy's urine' or other special treatment. My concern is if the tool does the job better than the other tools available.

For me the results and comparative cost is enough to decide. My recollection is the spoke shave was offered at a teaser price which was about half the cost it is today. A pretty good investment to try a new blade composition. If it worked for me, it was a good deal. If it didn't work for me, it could likely be sold for a profit. How could one lose on a deal like that?

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Feel free to start a tool-making company and publish all your product and production related decisions.

You built a nice-looking strawman there, but it's completely irrelevant to my point.

I'm not arguing that companies shouldn't have trade secrets as you seem to assume. As I clearly said above, I've created more than my share and recommended that plenty of other peoples' IP be treated as such.

My argument is that in this specific case the "secret" in question is really anything but, since any competitor with access to modern materials analysis can obtain it.

So to be clear: I accept and support trade secrets in general. I think that these specific examples don't truly protect anything, are therefore anti-customer rather than anti-competitor, and should be rejected by the market.

[Jim Koepke]

So to be clear: I accept and support trade secrets in general. I think that these specific examples don't truly protect anything, are therefore anti-customer rather than anti-competitor, and should be rejected by the market.

I am confused, who is to be the arbiter of what can or can not be a company's trade secret? (I like the secret ingredient in the "secret ingredient noodles" from Kung Fu Panda. "The secret ingredient is there is no secret ingredient.")

The two secrets in question must be protecting something. Is anyone else offering rasps with a useful life enhancing coating?

Is anyone else making a blade they claim to be of the same metal as Lee Valley? Maybe the secret is in the name. Anyone can make O1 or A1 blades, only the holder of the trade marked name can make a blade of the material under the name even if it is a common steel known by another name.

At this point the only result of your insistence on knowing what is in or on the metal before purchasing the product is your not having a very useful product. In the case of the spokeshave you also missed out on buying it at a low introductory price.



jtk

[Frank J Hall]

You built a nice-looking strawman there, but it's completely irrelevant to my point.

I'm not arguing that companies shouldn't have trade secrets as you seem to assume. As I clearly said above, I've created more than my share and recommended that plenty of other peoples' IP be treated as such.

My argument is that in this specific case the "secret" in question is really anything but, since any competitor with access to modern materials analysis can obtain it.

So to be clear: I accept and support trade secrets in general. I think that these specific examples don't truly protect anything, are therefore anti-customer rather than anti-competitor, and should be rejected by the market.

So it is only a secret to consumers. I agree with the point that most consumers don't care. I think of people who go to the store to buy Goo-gone or goo-off or whatever the name is. They don't care what it's ingredients are or what the name as long as the know the purpose and it serves the intended purpose.

[Ryan Mooney]

You built a nice-looking strawman there, but it's completely irrelevant to my point.

Not entirely I don't think. Keeping the materials proprietary can offer a first mover advantage, and I would tend to agree with Jim that for the majority of consumers it would seem to offer little advantage and indeed may just afford more confusion to their marketing strategy. It would imho be an interesting exercise if one did go that way, somewhat akin to the hybrid open/closed source products.

I might also argue that the material itself is only 1/2 of the equation and the process used in applying it is at least equally important and that is where the real trade secrets lay (not that that's not getting more commoditized as well but there is still room in here for some differentiation).

[Patrick Chase]

I am confused, who is to be the arbiter of what can or can not be a company's trade secret? (I like the secret ingredient in the "secret ingredient noodles" from Kung Fu Panda. "The secret ingredient is there is no secret ingredient.")

As I've said several times already in this thread, the market is the arbiter. If we allow people to not tell us what we're buying, then they have no incentive to change their behavior and that's the end of it.

Other markets have different norms. I mentioned higher-end cutting tools, and somebody else brought up the knife market. In both of those the expectation is of a higher level of disclosure. I've noticed that the woodworking community is unusually susceptible to "semi-technical mystical mumbo-jumbo", and perhaps that gives the toolmakers some license to be vague.



The two secrets in question must be protecting something. Is anyone else offering rasps with a useful life enhancing coating?

I already addressed this in previous posts. They are clearly not protecting the composition, since that's analytically detectable in both cases, period.

Whether or not somebody else is using such a coating is irrelevant, because there are plenty of reasons other than not knowing its composition why they might not do so. For example Liogier might have a unique *process* (which would likely be undetectable via analysis) that others haven't mastered. If so then that would be a perfect example of something that they absolutely should hold as a trade secret.



Is anyone else making a blade they claim to be of the same metal as Lee Valley? Maybe the secret is in the name.

I already addressed this in post #4 (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?250232-Toolmakers-and-their-pointless-quot-trade-secrets-quot&p=2638644#post2638644). "PM-V11" is a trade mark. Nobody else can use that name in the market without LV's permission. Note that this is true regardless of whether they keep the composition/identity secret.



Anyone can make O1 or A1 blades, only the holder of the trade marked name can make a blade of the material under the name even if it is a common steel known by another name.

Yes, that's rudimentary trademark. It's also irrelevant to this thread, because trademarks don't have to be associated with trade secrets. You can have a secret that isn't a trade mark, and vice versa. I have no concerns about trademarks here.



At this point the only result of your insistence on knowing what is in or on the metal before purchasing the product is your not having a very useful product. In the case of the spokeshave you also missed out on buying it at a low introductory price.

Without knowing what it is it's rather hard to determine whether it's "very useful". That's sort of the root of the problem.

In any case you're right that an individual can only accomplish so much. Collectively consumers (a.k.a. the market) can drive change, though.

What spokeshave and "introductory price" are you referring to?

[Patrick Chase]

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

Yep, since it's out of the bag I'll say that I also found that to be the best match for the analytical results. For that matter I think you may have been the person who first steered me in that direction, though that was before I'd gone to the trouble of measuring the composition. I don't know the % Carbon, but IMO that isn't necessary to ID a high-alloy steel like this one.

Carpenter's patent (https://www.google.com/patents/US5370750) for that alloy expired the same year that PM-V11 hit the market, so it's conceivable that Carpenter isn't actually processing it in this instance. I doubt that, though, because powdered metallurgy is a nontrivial undertaking with lots of IP on the process side.

I also agree completely with your points about how knowing the composition can save us a lot of trouble. The fact that the carbide structure is quite tight means that it isn't as painful to grind/work as, say, conventionally processed D2 or 440C (which have broadly similar compositions but coarse structure), but even so knowing the composition can save a knowledgeable customer a LOT of wasted time and money. That was really my entire point to begin with.

Interestingly your post also illustrates why subjective testimonials are no substitute for real data. Kees and I both agree on the composition, identity, and attributes of PM-V11. Our subjective opinions of it are however very different: I love it and find it not very hard to work, while he appears to not find it to be worth the sharpening/grinding hassle. I suspect that's because we use different sharpening systems (I mostly grind on CBN and sharpen/hone on diamond, so I find it to work easily), have different technique, and work different woods. Having the "ground truth" of PM-V11's ID helps me to put Kees' opinion in proper context.

EDIT: Updated to reflect actual patent status of CTS-XHP.

[Jim Koepke]

What spokeshave and "introductory price" are you referring to?

I'm sorry, I thought it was mentioned in this or the thread that is running concurrent to this thread on the same subject. It was mentioned in another thread regarding planes and PM-V11.

This is the spokeshave referred to in my post:

http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=71042&cat=1,50230&ap=1

My recollection at the time is of Rob Lee saying it was being offered at a ridiculously low price to introduce the world to the new PM-V11 blade material. My memory seems to recall it was at a time of "free shipping" and something had to be added to bring it up to the minimum. That could be just my fuzzy memory.

Derek and I both related our experience with the shaves. Mine needed a little fettling but is now a great performer and gets out to the bench anytime spokeshaves are needed.

Now that the price has increased I wish I had bought a dozen.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

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

Indeed. Modern powdered metals are amazing in that regard IMO. Your comparison to D2 is apt by the way: Carpenter themselves say that CTS-XHP "can be considered... a corrosion-resistant D2 tool steel".

[Patrick Chase]

Carpenter's patent (https://www.google.com/patents/US5370750) for that alloy expired the same year that PM-V11 hit the market, so it's conceivable that Carpenter isn't actually processing it in this instance. I doubt that, though, because powdered metallurgy is a nontrivial undertaking with lots of IP on the process side.

It just occurred to me that if PM-V11 is being manufactured out-of-patent by somebody other than Carpenter, then Carpenter's trademarks would prevent LV from branding it as CTS-XHP or 440XH. They could still reveal the composition if they so chose, though.

[Pat Barry]

Funny --- I figured PM-V11 meant powdered metal, version 11. I liked t h e fact that they went through 10 other versions before settling on this one!

[Jim Koepke]

Goo-gone is actually a very interesting example. It used to consist mainly if not entirely of Xylene, and it worked basically as advertised.

The California SCAQMD decided to clamp down organic solvents, and effectively banned the sale of the original formula in the LA area. The manufacturer didn't want to stock multiple formulations, so they changed it to mostly Acetone (IIRC) and didn't tell anybody. Unfortunately the new version doesn't work very well.

Due to that undisclosed formulation change a lot of consumers (me included) ended up buying a basically useless product. That's clearly a case where more information would have been (much) better.

Maybe my understanding of labeling for such products is mistaken, but doesn't the label have to have warnings or other indicators of what is in them when it is dangerous or flammable chemicals?

My employment was in the printing industry before California passed Prop. 65 (was it?). Many solvents became unusable after it came into law. Some manufactures made multiple products or a different product for California to avoid listing "proprietary" ingredients required by a new labeling law. Some left the California market.

jtk

[Robert McNaull]

Coming from a background where my job is to produce IP which is mostly software/algorithm based, I don't have a problem with the marketing and withholding of information. They describe the usage and that is all that is required. It's like demanding to know what microprocessor is used in your car's engine controller, the manufacturer isn't going to tell you, but if you want to x-Ray it or dissolve th potting compound or tear it apart to find out, it is your liberty to do so. Do these manufacturers stand behind their product is the bottom line.

Larry Frank's comments carry a lot of weight as well, the process is most highly guarded and the composition as well. They spent the $$$ to develop it, why wouldn't they protect their investment.

[Mark AJ Allen]

You built a nice-looking strawman there, but it's completely irrelevant to my point.

I'm not arguing that companies shouldn't have trade secrets as you seem to assume. As I clearly said above, I've created more than my share and recommended that plenty of other peoples' IP be treated as such.

My argument is that in this specific case the "secret" in question is really anything but, since any competitor with access to modern materials analysis can obtain it.

So to be clear: I accept and support trade secrets in general. I think that these specific examples don't truly protect anything, are therefore anti-customer rather than anti-competitor, and should be rejected by the market.

That would be fair IF you could say without a doubt that the 'secret' to PMV 11 was only the material. I think no one here is in a position to say if there is or isn't other parts of the secret that are worth keeping to maintain a competitive edge. We have no way of knowing what Veritas does with the source material to produce a blade with it.

Even in the case that it is only the material, then I think it's clear that protecting the name is necessary to protect the investment that went into 'discovering' it. If they simply disclosed the materials trade name, it would allow any other toolmaker to simply adopt the material themselves without doing the work that Veritas had performed to determine it was a excellent tool steel, allowing them to profit from Veritas' research investment. Why would ANY for-profit company make a big research investment, then disclose their work to competitors for no compensation in order to lose that competitive edge?

[Patrick Chase]

Coming from a background where my job is to produce IP which is mostly software/algorithm based, I don't have a problem with the marketing and withholding of information. They describe the usage and that is all that is required. It's like demanding to know what microprocessor is used in your car's engine controller, the manufacturer isn't going to tell you, but if you want to x-Ray it or dissolve th potting compound or tear it apart to find out, it is your liberty to do so. Do these manufacturers stand behind their product is the bottom line.

In case of cars customers should be demanding a lot more disclosure (https://www.wired.com/2016/08/jeep-hackers-return-high-speed-steering-acceleration-hacks/).

With that out of the way, and as I've already said several times in this thread, I agree with you that vendors are free to withhold whatever information they want. In this case what they're doing is particularly pointless and self-defeating, but that's their right. That's why I labelled this thread a "rant".

[Chris Fournier]

And the neanderthals are once again the crankiest bunch of old hens ever. Go sharpen something and work some wood.

[Jeff Heath]

And the neanderthals are once again the crankiest bunch of old hens ever. Go sharpen something and work some wood.

Not all of us. It's 10:15 pm, and I'm just in from 12 hours in the shop, covered in sawdust....aka man-glitter. You guys are certainly right, though. This thread is a total joke to me. I'm just disappointed that I wasted so much time to read it......

As a guy who has owned his own business for 30 years, and has a great appreciation for what Rob Lee and his company have done for woodworking, and how well that company treats everyone from this forum, and all others, when it comes to top notch customer service, I'm surprised that this "rant" has been allowed to carry on this long. Time to put the pacifiers in and put the ranting babies in their cribs.

If I had developed something proprietary, I wouldn't tell anyone squat about it, either. Nobody with half a business brain would, or does....

[Kees Heiden]

I have read this thread and it certainly has some ups and downs. As a metallurgist, I found parts amusing.

Just knowing the composition of many of the alloys and powdered metallurgy materials is not sufficient to know very much. Many of the materials used in woodworking tools are quite complicated. One way of thinking about them is that they are two phases with very hard particles held in a slightly softer matrix. Knowing the composition will not tell you the size and distribution of the particles or the properties of the matrix. These will be determined by the processing involved. Indeed, these are trade secrets.

In a similar manner, A2 steel can either be good or bad depending on the processing. To get the best from it, you need a very carefully controlled heat treatment and cryogenic treatment.

I am pretty sure that a company like LV goes to lengths to assure that they have a high quality consistent product.

I never made any of these steels. But, there were many grades that we produced that were patented or we had highly guarded processing. We also kept most of the people who supplied us materials or anyone else away from the process and production.

You make it sound like mumbo jumbo again. LV is not making the steel, so they have no influence on the process of making it. They have tested a bunch of freely available knife steels and selected the most promissing one. They have told us that it is a powder metallurgy kind of steel and they harden it to 62 Hrc. All those snipets of information, combined with the actual composition of the steel is enough to make an educated guess about the real tradename of the steel. BTW, there wasn't much to choose from. The composition pointed in the direction of an improved 440C steel. There are really not many candidates with such a low percentage of vanadium. And this one matched exactly.

About the further processing of the steel in the factory, I really doubt that they deviated from the recommendations of the supplier. Those modern toolsteels are too complex for homegrown heat treating schedules.

And despite all the flak, I don't feel like some morally deprived soul. I share some easilly available information and a little detective work with you guys. Just like for example consumer organisations do all the time. I didn't hack their email server or so.

And now I'm going to work again ;)

[Graham Haydon]

On a tangent it's interesting that Steve mentioned "WoodRiver". As far as I know they use a W1 high carbon Steel also known as T10. Am I right in assuming Water treating is harder to use than other methods?

[Kees Heiden]

Yes Graham. Those steels must be quenched really quickly. So that is quite a shock and it is easy to crack or warp the steel. I'm sure the Chinese manage perfectly well though.