Jet copying Oneway (or Saving Richard Allen)

[Dave Hammelef]

Hey did you guys see the post over at woodcentral about jet copying Oneways design. In that thread is a response by oneway. Personally after what they did to Jacques C. I do not feel sorry for them. There is also a discussion on woodcentral about this topic.
Dave

[Simon St.Laurent]

Perhaps there's no need to feel sorry for Oneway, but Jet drops pretty far in my opinion, as does its parent WMH generally. Patents or no patents, I prefer companies that at least add some value (and not just a lower price) when they make a copy.

[Dave Hammelef]

But Jet started by copying Delta's contractor saw, and last year they copied Dewalts hybred saw. I bet there are other designs they have copied also, Dont know but my geuss would be there bandsaw and tablesaws are copies of others also.

Dave

[George Troy Hurlburt]

I guess it all comes down to the money. I have a patent on a vinyl siding trim, within a year another mfg. came out with a very similar trim. To top that off they had to go to a vinyl custom house to have it made. I must admit I have brought clones, some have been ok others were a waste of money. For resell purposes: in my opinion you are better off buying the best of a product and in machinery that is made in UK, US, AU, CA, NZ, France, Germany, Swiss Japan, and etc. not Taiwan or China. GTH

[Simon St.Laurent]

Dave - yeah, Jet's been making copies for years. With very few exceptions (some of their new dust collectors come to mind), that's all they do.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd much rather spend my money on businesses which advance the state of the art than on cheaper copies. WMH does its more innovative businesses (notably Performax) no good by hitching them to an organization that just copies without improvement. They might think it's a good thing, but for me it's a negative overall, across all of their brands.

[Dave Hammelef]

Some would argue that making the same thing for less money is an improvement?

[Simon St.Laurent]

It's an improvement for some people, but to me it just screams rip-off, a rush for the bottom. Lower prices, great. Only lower prices, and money flowing away from people who can come up with their own ideas, forget it.

I don't think the patent system is particularly helpful or not in the regard, especially for minor improvements. The problem seems to lie in what people consider acceptable standards for doing business.

[Kirk (KC) Constable]

Hmmm....Simon's point makes perfect sense...but it can also be applied quite broadly, which I think puts me on the other side of the fence.

What was the first big oil company to sell gasoline? At some point along the way, somebody copied some refinery methods and started their own company. It's all gasoline to me, so I go where it's cheap.

Back in the old days, if you needed a telephone, you bought one from THE phone company. Now you can buy any number of perfectly serviceable phones at WalMart for a whole lot less money.

A screwdriver is a screwdriver...and used to be if you wanted one guaranteed forever you went to Sears. Now you can get liftetime guarantees on screwdrivers from HomeDepot, WalMart, etc. etc.

Where do we draw the line on competition? Do we count 'policy' infringement like the lifetime guarantee?

KC

[Dave Hammelef]

Oneway did not invent the stuff they even admit to copying the competion. made some chagnes and sold it as theres.

[Simon St.Laurent]

Originally posted by Dave Hammelef
Oneway did not invent the stuff they even admit to copying the competion. made some chagnes and sold it as theres.

I'm spending the morning writing open source software, which I'll be posting in the hope that someone else picks it up and improves it. The part I care about is making changes, and not just to price. My gripe with Jet is that no one seems to be able to explain if Jet improved anything at all except price.

On gasoline, sure. Commodities are like that, and things that used to be unique turn into commodities eventually if they're successful enough. Are lathe parts commodities? Maybe. On the lifetime guarantees, companies sure are trying to patent business practices lately, so I'd expect to see some of that. Can't say I regard business practices in anywhere near the same way I regard physical tools, though I'm sure someone out there thinks their ideas about business are so great and new to be worthy of the claim.

[Rod Peterson]

<br>
KC said:

<i><font color="blue">A screwdriver is a screwdriver...</font></i>

Treat yourself to a Klein, particularly a phillips head. You'll never make that statement again. I've been slowly changing out all the Sears' I've accumulated over the years.

In Canadia you can get them with Robertson tips; I have to get my inlaws to smuggle them to me when they come down for the winter.

Depending on the area, they're available at Home Depot; maybe even Sears.

[Dave Hammelef]

Originally posted by Rod Peterson
<br>
KC said:

<i><font color="blue">A screwdriver is a screwdriver...</font></i>

Treat yourself to a Klein, particularly a phillips head. You'll never make that statement again. I've been slowly changing out all the Sears' I've accumulated over the years.

In Canadia you can get them with Robertson tips; I have to get my inlaws to smuggle them to me when they come down for the winter.

Depending on the area, they're available at Home Depot; maybe even Sears.

What are Robertson tips? and why do you like the klein so much? what kind of price range are you talking.

Dave (who has never met a screwdriver he really likes)

[Garrett Lambert]

Robertson was an eccentic Canadian who invented square drive screws in the 1930's. His design is somewhat different than the "square-head" screws rapidly becoming available in the USA, in that the socket is tapered like the Morse taper on a lathe. The taper provides a much better grip, and once the screw is on the driver, it becomes a one-handed operation, even with the screw hanging straight down. They come in 6 sizes and are still undoubtedly the superior design.

Unfortunately, Robertson was a better inventor than promoter, and when a US company wanted to buy a majority share in his company for the American market, he resisted, believeing he could capture the American market himself from his production base in Ontario. He might have done, too, except for WW2.

When the USA geared up production for the war effort, it wanted screws that were easier to use than the slot heads, but in quantities that Robertson couldn't come close to delivering. When he continued to resist manufacturing in the USA, the Phillips head screw was invented, and Roberston faded away except in the Canadian market where it continues to be the screw of choice. Now, of course, the patents have run out, and the US is quickly adopting it.

More than you probably ever wanted to know

Cheers, Garrett

[Tony Laros]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Garrett
[B]Robertson was an eccentic Canadian who invented square drive screws in the 1930's. His design is somewhat different than the "square-head" screws rapidly becoming available in the USA, in that the socket is tapered like the Morse taper on a lathe. The taper provides a much better grip, and once the screw is on the driver, it becomes a one-handed operation, even with the screw hanging straight down. They come in 6 sizes and are still undoubtedly the superior design.


Get the right screw tips if you're screwing down a deck, or sub-floor.

The Robertson tips will eventualy spin out and wear in a US square drive screw, and a square drive tip will not work well in a Robertson screw head. DAMHIKT.

[Kevin Post]

I've got to admit that I'm one of those people who think making something for less money is innovation. It brings products that are beyond my means down to a price that I can afford to pay. I am a hobbyist, plain and simple. The price vs. performance issue is something we all contemplate when purchasing tools. There's a point where tools are made so cheaply that they are a waste of money. There's also a point where some tools are so expensive that they also become a waste of money.

The gap between low-end and high-end is being filled with recent product offerings by Jet. If Jet can find a way to build a serviceable tool for _X_% less than a competitor, then they are innovating. I would also add that said competitor probably was not trying hard enough to keep the cost to the consumer low. Oneway's business practices (their pricing, story's of how they treat dealers, etc.) are probably hurting them more than Jet cloning a chuck. If Oneway was inclined, they could find ways to offer their products at a lower price. Instead, they'll be spending money to laser engrave the Oneway logo onto their chucks. In my mind, this makes it sort of like a woodworker's version of a Rolex watch. I can't afford to buy one of those either but I'd buy a knock-off if it kept time.

I recall a story similar to the Jet-Oneway-Nova drama being played out between several computer companies. It involved Microsoft, Apple and Xerox... Xerox, like Nova, hatched ideas for the computer graphical user interface and the mouse at their Palo Alto Research Center (Xerox PARC). Apple exploited those ideas and produced the Apple Lisa, then the Macintosh and the Mac OS.

Back in the day, a Mac cost much more than a comparable Intel machine but was worth it because of the Mac operating system. After a time, however, Apple had dificulty competing because they would not license their OS or allow it to be run on non-Apple hardware. They were forcing consumers to pay a premium that, in my opinion, was not justified. Other companies could have manufactured hardware to run the Mac OS for much less than Apple was charging. Apple did not see it that way and I think they made a huge mistake.

Microsoft took many of the best things from the Mac OS and put them into the Windows operating system. Windows ran on cheaper hardware so the overall cost to the consumer was lower. This is one reason it became a more popular solution. Apple sued Microsoft for stealing their ideas and lost...

Such are the ways of business. Ultimately, the winners and losers are determined in the marketplace rather than in the courts. No matter who is 'right', a court ruling just delays the inevitable.