Rockler Bench Dog Planes

[Mike Henderson]

Looks like another company has started shipping clones of the Lie-Nielsen planes. Rockler now has "Bench Dog" planes (http://www.rockler.com/bench-dog-tools-40-401-no-4-smoothing-plane) that look an awful lot like the LN planes. I think the line is limited at this time, but I expect if they're successful in selling it they will expand the line.

Mike

370280

[Noah Magnuson]

In all fairness, LN is not the creator of this design. They are just very keen on top-end manufacturing.

Looks like another company has started shipping clones of the Lie-Nielsen planes. Rockler now has "Bench Dog" planes (http://www.rockler.com/bench-dog-tools-40-401-no-4-smoothing-plane) that look an awful lot like the LN planes. I think the line is limited at this time, but I expect if they're successful in selling it they will expand the line.

Mike

370280

[Mike Brady]

The Bench Dog planes have been available for almost a year. Know anybody who bought one? Me neither.

[Mike Henderson]

In all fairness, LN is not the creator of this design. They are just very keen on top-end manufacturing.

My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. There were a number of people who accused Woodcraft of cloning the LN planes so I wanted to see what they would say about Rockler's planes:)

Mike

[to be fair, ANY plane that looks like a Stanley Bailey or Bedrock can be accused of being a clone of the LN planes, because LN copied the Stanley planes.]

[John C Cox]

It appears to be an India made plane (perhaps Anant?). Looks like they are trying to give Wood Craft's Woodriver planes some competition..

[Patrick Chase]

It appears to be an India made plane (perhaps Anant?). Looks like they are trying to give Wood Craft's Woodriver planes some competition..

We've covered this before. IIRC they're Groz' high-end line (which are not actually sold under the Groz label AFAIK), the same ones that Axminster sells.

EDIT: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?248811-Just-a-question-about-Bench-Dog-planes&p=2622482#post2622482

[Jim Koepke]

That plane doesn't look like an LN unless LN took the lever off of the lever cap.

jtk

[steven c newman]

At least it isn't an Anant..
370289Before clean-up)
370288( after clean up)

As these are made in India....

[Derek Cohen]

The advert does not state "Bed Rock", so it is unlikely to be one.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Bill Houghton]

From what I can see of the lateral adjustment lever, it looks more like a coarsely done knockoff of the Sargent bench plane, which was itself a knockoff of the Stanley Bailey plane. Knockoffs aren't a new idea.

[bridger berdel]

I think that if they produce a affordable plane offering solid performance with minimal fitting and advertise it accordingly there is an opening in the market at the user tool level.

Checked. $140. Not terrible.

For $16 They sell a 1/8" thick carbon Steel iron for it. Could be interesting.

[Kevin Perez]

There were a number of people who accused Woodcraft of cloning the LN planes so I wanted to see what they would say about Rockler's planes:)


Wouldn't the Bench Dog be a clone of the Woodriver then? ;)

[Mike Henderson]

Wouldn't the Bench Dog be a clone of the Woodriver then? ;)

LOL, could be. Maybe it's a chain, with each new maker copying the previous maker. So LN copied Stanley, then WoodRiver copied LN, then Bench Dog copied WoodRiver. And so it goes forever.

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

From what I can see of the lateral adjustment lever, it looks more like a coarsely done knockoff of the Sargent bench plane, which was itself a knockoff of the Stanley Bailey plane. Knockoffs aren't a new idea.

You're exactly right - legal knockoffs aren't a new idea.

Additionally, our economic system encourages people and companies to use information that is in the public domain. Any patents Stanley had expired long ago so the information Stanley patented was in the public domain. Lie Nielsen came along and used the Stanley design (which was in the public domain) to make their planes. LN did not seek any protection for anything they did with their planes.

WoodRiver came along and used the Stanley and LN designs (both in the public domain) to make their planes. Now, it seems that Bench Dog is following in LN, Woodriver, and Sargent's footsteps.

Same with marking gauges.

Mike

[Patrick Chase]

You're exactly right - legal knockoffs aren't a new idea.

Almost everything is ultimately a knockoff of something. Design doesn't happen in a vacuum, and good designers pay VERY close attention to both historical and competitive solutions. You can't be competitive if you insist on reinventing the wheel.


Additionally, our economic system encourages people and companies to use information that is in the public domain. Any patents Stanley had expired long ago so the information Stanley patented was in the public domain. Lie Nielsen came along and used the Stanley design (which was in the public domain) to make their planes. LN did not seek any protection for anything they did with their planes.

The technical term for this is "progress". The patent system is expressly set up to encourage people to publish and share their inventions in exchange for a period of exclusivity. The underlying rationale for doing that is to ultimately make those inventions available for others to use and build upon, and that is now designs get improved and progress happens.



WoodRiver came along and used the Stanley and LN designs (both in the public domain) to make their planes. Now, it seems that Bench Dog is following in LN, Woodriver, and Sargent's footsteps.

There is a difference between using a design and using an invention. Either can be patented, though they're different types of patents with different durations. Everybody agrees that the inventions underlying the BedRock and L-N planes were/are long since in the public domain.

The reason WR caught so much flak is because they appeared to re-use the *design* lock, stock, and barrel in their initial versions. L-N hadn't patented the design, which made it legal, but as a practical matter it's often viewed differently (and more negatively) than building on somebody's inventions. Unfortunately I don't have time to go into the gory details, nor would my employer want me to. The fact that Cosman went straight from partnering with LN to ripping off their design also left a bad taste in peoples' mouths. I've never bought anything from him, nor do I plan to FWIW.

Both the L-N and TiteMark examples point to a real problem with our current patent system IMO - it's too expensive, such that only large players can actually benefit from its protection. As noted above L-N didn't file a design patent AFAIK, which left them open to Cosman/WR's shenanigans. Similarly TiteMark didn't file for either invention or design patents, which left both their adjustment mechanism (possibly an invention) and their design open to reuse. In both instances cost was the stated reason, and having navigated the system both for large employers and with a friend's startup I agree.

[Tom Trees]

I don't see any problem with the Wood river planes or whatever brand the same Bedrock design planes go under...
Be it Lie-Nielsen,Quangsheng or Dictum tools.
Stanley planes are a proven design that's worked, and has been copied by hoards of manufacturers since then.
The only difference between say, the Wood river's and the Stanley is...a thicker iron, different cap iron and the use of ductile iron.

If anyone was to be annoyed about anything, it's that the so called "improved" Lie-Nielsen cap iron was somewhat copied, the LN is, or was not as good.
In the past.... I've heard the Lie-Nielsen cap iron's could not get close enough to the edge for full cap iron influence.
This issue might be resolved since, but I suspect this might be the real reason of any animosity.

I read a recent thread where Mr Charlesworth done some work on the cap iron of the Quangsheng's to get the full cap iron effect...
I do hope this issue can be remedied with the old Lie-Nielsen cap irons if they have not done so since.


Agreed that patenting should be more feasible for the common man,
and I hope Glen Drake gets some dough for his design, if it is an original one !
I have a Titemark knockoff and I love it, can't get them anymore as far as I know ??????????

I won't buy one of those Veritas ones until there's two locking screws like on the Titemark.
Never used, nor saw the need for the the micro adjust.
I think I'd still be waiting if I wanted another maker to supply one with two lock screws.
I can't afford the Titemark, so it looks like I may have to make one instead
Tom

[Frederick Skelly]

Hi Tom,

"I don't see any problem with the Wood river planes or whatever brand the same Bedrock design planes go under..."
Neither do I. The WR have come a long way and I like the two that I own (#1 & #3).


"I won't buy one of those Veritas ones until there's two locking screws like on the Titemark."
I have 2 of the Veritas marking gauges. They are nice tools and work well for the things I build. YMMV.:D

Fred

[Patrick Chase]

I don't see any problem with the Wood river planes or whatever brand the same Bedrock design planes go under...
Be it Lie-Nielsen,Quangsheng or Dictum tools.
Stanley planes are a proven design that's worked, and has been copied by hoards of manufacturers since then.
The only difference between say, the Wood river's and the Stanley is...a thicker iron, different cap iron and the use of ductile iron.

Let's be careful to distinguish between the "design" and the "pattern" when talking about planes. The "pattern" is a collection of high-level characteristics that serve as a sort of rough plane taxonomy. For example we refer to a bevel-down plane with a Bailey adjuster, ramped frog interface, rear-tightened frog-hold-down pins, and rear-accessed frog adjustment screw as "Bed Rock Pattern". The LN and WR planes are indeed both "Bed Rock pattern" planes.

The "design" encompasses details that the pattern does not, such as specific dimensions, rib geometries, radii, etc. While these seem obvious to me as a former mechanical engineer and product designer, most people don't notice them at all. WR's initial versions copied a bunch of design elements from LN, hence the controversy. Some but not all are documented here: http://www.finewoodworking.com/2009/05/21/who-begot-who-comparing-planes-from-lie-nielsen-wood-river-and-stanley.

Very roughly speaking the "pattern" consists of things that would be covered by invention patents, while the "design" consists of things that would be covered by design patents. The concern with WR was always about the design, never the pattern.

The LN-style chipbreakers work perfectly well with a bit of reshaping. IMO that bit has always been overblown.

[Pat Barry]

Let's be careful to distinguish between the "design" and the "pattern" when talking about planes. The "pattern" is the collection of high-level characteristics that make up the plane. For example we refer to a bevel-down plane with a Bailey adjuster, ramped frog interface, rear-tightened frog-hold-down pins, and rear-accessed frog adjustment screw as "Bed Rock Pattern". The LN and WR planes are indeed both "Bed Rock pattern" planes, but that doesn't mean that they copied Stanley's design. In point of fact they did not.

The "design" encompasses details that the pattern does not, such as specific dimensions, rib geometries, radii, etc. While these seem obvious to me as a former mechanical engineer and product designer, most people don't notice them at all. WR's initial versions copied a bunch of design elements from LN, hence the controversy. Some but not all are documented here: http://www.finewoodworking.com/2009/05/21/who-begot-who-comparing-planes-from-lie-nielsen-wood-river-and-stanley

Very roughly speaking the "pattern" consists of things that would be covered by invention patents, while the "design" consists of things that would be covered by design patents. The concern with WR was always about the design, never the pattern.

The LN-style chipbreakers work perfectly well with a bit of reshaping. IMO that bit has always been overblown.
I've never heard of invention patents. Patents are for inventions aren't they? I've heard of Utility patents that typically cover functionality. Perhaps thats what you are referring to?

[Patrick Chase]

I've never heard of invention patents. Patents are for inventions aren't they? I've heard of Utility patents that typically cover functionality. Perhaps thats what you are referring to?

"utility patent" and "invention patent" are synonymous in common usage, though you're right that "utility patent" is the formal and more correct description. Design patents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent) do not cover inventions, so the statement that "patents are for inventions" isn't right.

[Pat Barry]

"utility patent" and "invention patent" are synonymous in common usage, though you're right that "utility patent" is the formal and more correct description. Design patents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent) do not cover inventions, so the statement that "patents are for inventions" isn't right.
I asked google and it didn't seem to know much about invention patents. Maybe a term being used by some, but not common usage.