Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 130

Thread: Marking Gauge - clone of Tite-Mark

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    In our economic system, we have laws that define what people and companies can do and court cases that refine the interpretation of those laws. As such, people and companies have a pretty good idea of what they can legally do in the marketplace.

    Your proposal is that we substitute some "ethical or moral" test to replace those laws. But your test is not well defined so even someone who wished to follow your proposal probably could not. Some questions for your position:

    [edited]

    Our laws provide several mechanisms for people and companies to protect their intellectual property. When no protection exists, it's either because the inventor believed that his/her invention did not rise to the level where protection could be granted (perhaps the inventor was aware of prior art), or where they chose to not protect it (for whatever reason). Is it an ethical or moral imperative that we provide something (individually) that the inventor did not seek? Even if the inventor was unable to prosecute claims of infringement s/he would at least have the moral high ground if they obtained legal protection. And things like copyright, trademark registration or a design patent are not that expensive.

    I understand that you feel strongly about your position. But without defining it adequately it appears to be something that you apply selectively to those people you like (perhaps you've come to know them personally), or only to products that fall within your area of interest.

    Mike
    One of the problems with our system of laws is the cost of a patent and then bringing it to court are prohibitive for many businesses. Then if a vendor is stopped, what is to stop the next from selling the same item under a different name?

    Yes, there are laws where legal resources could be brought to bear against those who wish to benefit from the work of others. Often these cases end up being won by the side with the most money.

    At one time copyright laws did not extend protection as long as they currently do. We have Disney, Mickey Mouse and a whole lot of money to thank for changing our copyright laws.

    Where the law does not reach it becomes up to the individual to make their own choice. I choose to not purchase products from those who make knock off copies in low wage labor markets.

    By the way, there have been innovations with the Tite-Mark:

    http://www.glen-drake.com/Tite-Marks/

    How many of these are available from the maker of the copy?

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Villa Park. CA
    Posts
    13,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    One of the problems with our system of laws is the cost of a patent and then bringing it to court are prohibitive for many businesses. Then if a vendor is stopped, what is to stop the next from selling the same item under a different name?

    Yes, there are laws where legal resources could be brought to bear against those who wish to benefit from the work of others. Often these cases end up being won by the side with the most money.

    jtk
    Patents are not that expensive when compared to other costs that a company experiences. When I was involved with utility patents, our company had a deal with a law firm and they would do our patents for a flat rate of $3,000 each (but we did a lot of patents). Design patents are cheaper and quicker.

    And dealing with a patent dispute can be expensive to the company which did the infringing. If they lose, they will have to pay the judgment and may have an injunction against them. Depending on the situation, they may have to pay the company who owns the patent's legal fees. It's not so simple that they can just do it again under a different name. The idea of patent litigation is to take the profit from the company which infringed.

    But in any case, if you're going to ask people to refrain from buying certain products, you need to define what conditions should invoke that non-purchase. Otherwise, it's just "I know it when I see it" and you want others to accept your interpretation of what's right and what's wrong.

    Mike

    [There are other ways to enforce a patent. For example, small companies sell all or a portion of their patent to a patent troll company, such as Intellectual Ventures. The patent troll company has deep pockets and will bring suit against the infringer. That's how they make money. In many cases, a letter will cause the infringing company to shut down a product or to pay a license fee to continue to manufacture it.
    It's possible in our legal system for small companies to legally protect their intellectual property. If they do nothing, they do not have any protection. You and others seek to provide to those companies an advantage they did not even seek.]
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 01-27-2017 at 1:44 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  3. Quote Originally Posted by Derek Cohen View Post
    Van, it is not only costly to apply for a patent (in how many countries are applications needed to protect your design?), but it is even more expensive to defend it in court. Who is the winner with Sawstop and Bosch at this very moment? Not many small start up operators have the capital to invest in a way that large manufacturers can. That is where we come in - the people protect each other, not the law.

    Mike, many items can be made cheaper, especially when the cost of design and the research is no longer part of the equation. What percentage of the selling price is just raw materials and what percentage is the development cost that needs to be recouped? Competition is great, but it morphs into theft when there is disregard for ownership of the original design. The answer is to find another way, another design, to do the same thing.

    Higher prices are not a justification to build the same item cheaper and call it competition. We would all like a cheaper Domino machine. No doubt, the moment that Festool's protection runs out, we will see a proliferation of such machines - some good and some bad ... just as we see good, bad, cheap and expensive battery drills. At that point it is up to the consumer to say who is the winner, and the manufacturer's challenge is to produce the best unit they can at the best price. Until then, patents protect the investment in design - not the freedom for the manufacturer to sell at the price point they wish ... buyers will vote with their feet. We do still have the ability to make a choice in this regard, which is not lost on manufacturers.

    Nothing really changes for me when there is no patent to address the legal issue. Patents are pieces of paper. Original inventions represent people.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

    p.s. I do hope that the moderators permit this discussion, since it is being conducted in a civil manner. It is a valuable and important discussion, which is the reason I continued when I earlier said I did not wish to do so. Recognition of these issues may help protect our small manufacturers and sustain woodworking for all of us.

    I agree that this is a worthwhile and even important thread and should continue, and I encourage participation by others, including you, Derek.

    In my view, your position is fine, but beneath the surface, I would disagree with some of the underpinnings:

    Titemark makes an excellent case study of the topic, since it is not cluttered by too many variables.

    First and foremost, we can take the legal question out of the debate, since there is no patent and the design is in the public domain as a result of public use (which means no one else can get a patent either). The patent subject is a different one, discussed below.

    Second, there is a direct copy offered in the marketplace, which focuses the debate on the actualities of the issue. Speculative hypotheticals are not needed.

    So then, how does one go about assessing the issue? Is it a matter of morality and ethics? I think not. Is it important? I think so.

    In my view, one's position is a value judgement: does one wish to favor an innovator and inventor voluntarily (whether because he's a small business or even a sole individual or because of some other reason) or does one prefer to support the copier (because the copy is cheaper and good enough, or because one wishes to stimulate competition, or because ....). Those choices, on either side, are not about right and wrong or good and evil. They are about personal values.

    At the extreme margins, there are those who oppose patents and other provisions for exclusive property rights in inventions, and indeed, in the very concept of "property." Interestingly, some and perhaps many of those same people also oppose competition as the genesis of capitalism which they fully abhor. While these people are busy protesting the WTO and the world economic order, they rarely do much for either Glen-Drake or for Taylor or for Veritas. Despite their efforts to elevate their value judgements to matters of universal morality and ethical duties, those efforts have generally been rejected by most people, most governments and most of their mothers, who wish they would come home and get a job.

    Attempts to impose your value judgements on me as an ethical obligation leads to contention and ill-will and occasionally to war. There's far too much of that going around these days.

    *****

    Now, about patents: Glen-Drake doesn't have one. It may well be the result of a conscious decision that the patent system is prohibitively expensive for a small business, as suggested.

    The startup of a new business requires capital. The most common reason for the failure of new businesses is inadequate capital. If the new business is founded on deployment of a new and inventive product, protection of that invention should be a core requirement and, no matter how expensive, the capital necessary to obtain adequate protection should be provided before opening one's doors for business. To do otherwise is to put the creativity of the invention at risk of imitation without recourse.

    Spending the money to get a patent is necessary but not sufficient. There are a number of factors that can lead to the failure of a patent application and those should be carefully evaluated before beginning. On the other hand, a decision not to apply is certain: there will be no patent. The invention will be freely available for reverse engineering and copying as soon as it appears in public. When one begins a new business on such a basis, copying surely cannot come as a surprise. Competitors, whether large or small, are certain if the unpatented invention is a good one. If the business is started on the expectation that the invention will not be copied in the absence of a patent, the entrepreneur is unrealistic, unprepared and naive and/or poorly advised. If a business is started without doing the business-like things to make it succeed as planned, there are likely to be (predictable) consequences.
    Fair winds and following seas,
    Jim Waldron

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    2,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    The posting you refer to is in error - if you look up the referenced patent you will see that it was issued to Lee Valley and the subject matter is the Veritas marking gauge. You can see the patent here (well, a summary of it). It is a design patent rather than a utility patent.

    It does not cover the Tite-Mark marking gauge and I've been unable to find any patent - design or utility - that covers the Tite-Mark marking gauge.

    This information has been stated several times, in posts 16, 22, 23, 39 & 40.

    Mike
    Then I stand corrected. As I've stated many times in other posts, I have a head injury, and I sometimes miss things.

    I must admit, I find it curious, the amount of almost hostility there is for people who just want to support someone who makes a good product, and came up with it "first" and would rather not support a company who is perceived as copying his work.
    Paul

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,151
    There will always be a place for well made tools like the Tite-mark. I like well made and usable tools. I don't own a Tite -Mark because I don't feel that I need it in the course of the work that I do. I have used one at a friends place and found it to be very good. If you need a tool that fits the work you are doing then the price is not an issue. I think it's a matter of need and not ethics or price. If I was going to use a particular tool to do a job and use it often then I would buy the best I could afford. If I was going to put it in the tool box and use it once a year maybe a lees expensive example that didn't work as easily would be a better choice. Easy for me to decide may be harder for others.
    Jim

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    It's not so simple that they can just do it again under a different name. The idea of patent litigation is to take the profit from the company which infringed.
    Yes, the litigation might stop one person. Then a different person comes along and sells the same item made by the same off shore maker. Where would it end?

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Villa Park. CA
    Posts
    13,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    Yes, the litigation might stop one person. Then a different person comes along and sells the same item made by the same off shore maker. Where would it end?

    jtk
    That's not how it works. If a company is successful in defending their patent, it puts other companies on notice. No reasonable company is going to enter a market where the patent has held up to a court challenge. Would you? For the new company to be profitable, they have to be able to sell their product, not get a financial judgment (and probably an injunction) against them and not be stuck with a bunch of inventory that they can't sell when they lose the court case. That would be a recipe for certain failure. They'd go do something else rather than try to copy a patented product.

    If the company enlisted the help of a patent troll, the troll company would welcome someone stupid enough to try that.

    Mike
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 01-27-2017 at 2:23 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  8. #68
    In response to several member comments, I intend to allow this thread to continue as long as it stays on the civil course it has maintained so far. SMC allows and even encourages spirited discussion. My only warning would be the standard one, read your work before you post it and if you have any doubts play it safe. Personally I am finding this thread to be fantastic. Keep it up folks.
    Dave Anderson

    Chester, NH

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    That's not how it works. If a company is successful in defending their patent, it puts other companies on notice. No reasonable company is going to enter a market where the patent has held up to a court challenge. Would you? For the new company to be profitable, they have to be able to sell their product, not get a financial judgment (and probably an injunction) against them and not be stuck with a bunch of inventory that they can't sell when they lose the court case. That would be a recipe for certain failure. They'd go do something else rather than try to copy a patented product.

    If the company enlisted the help of a patent troll, the troll company would welcome someone stupid enough to try that.

    Mike
    Would a trial/judgement as you mentioned stop them in the U.S. or would it stop them world wide? It may stop a U.S. citizen from selling the products, but they still might be able to have an overseas base to sell world wide.

    Again, if the copying company is better financed than the originator, this could lead to the demise of the plaintiff.

    Sometimes the only court where these arguments are heard and carry any weight is in the court of opinion.

    My shopping dollars will be spent with those who appeal to my sense of what is best for my neighbors, locality, state and country. It behooves me to not let my shopping dollars go to those who may actually damage my neighbors, locality, state and country. Though in many cases it is difficult to live in a modern civilization as we do without lending some support to those whose businesses may not be the glowing examples we would like them to be.

    We each must determine for ourselves how we measure, deal or become comfortable with the dissonance in our own life's philosophies.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom - Devon
    Posts
    503
    Good discussion so far, thanks for starting it Mike.

    When dovetailing I nearly always use one gauge for through dovetails and two for half laps. I really find favour with cutting gauges for this type of work http://www.toolnut.co.uk/products/me...ing_Gauge.html . I'm not sure who has a patent on them but they work very well indeed!

    Not sure who came up with the all metal cutting gauge that seems popular these days, I'm guessing it's a late Victorian idea? The Glen Drake version looks well made and clearly people like it. I'd class it as a Gentleman's tool. Those attracted to that type of thing would always buy from the boutique maker so I doubt many sales have been lost. The people going for the cheaper version would not of been likely to buy a gauge for $90.00, let alone four of them for some part time woodworking at home.

    I would think the single biggest issue for small tool makers is the small market sector of people with enough money to spend. I'd venture that the "globalised" world we inhabit has made these issues seem more acute. Now it's not a case of someone within the same county, state or nation taking the design forward. Jobs are moved around globally, I could go into that nest of vipers but suffice to say it's been at best a mixed blessing.

    As there is no law here it is about the heart. In this subjective case, if I wanted a metal gauge I'd buy perhaps a tite-mark or a veritas. Luckily I don't as I see no benefit or innovation in their design over more traditional western designs. If I needed one quick I'd put a wood screw into a piece of wood and sharpen the head, it's amazing how easy they are to adjust and how well they work.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Villa Park. CA
    Posts
    13,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    Would a trial/judgement as you mentioned stop them in the U.S. or would it stop them world wide? It may stop a U.S. citizen from selling the products, but they still might be able to have an overseas base to sell world wide.

    jtk
    If you don't have a patent in a particular country, there's no protection for that country. Most US companies only get foreign patents in certain countries because the market in the other countries is deemed not big enough to make it worthwhile. And since those markets are small, it would be difficult for a company to have sufficient sales to justify making the product.

    For most products you need to be able to sell into the United States and Europe to have a market big enough to make it worthwhile. As China grows, it may be added to that list for certain products.

    You're perfectly free to spend your dollars however you want and on whatever you want, based on your ethics and moral code. When you advocate that others do the same, you need to define how they should make their decision - the questions I posed earlier - or if your position is just "I know it when I see it."

    Mike

    [And as I mentioned, a small company with a good patent can enlist the aid of a patent troll company. Troll companies are extremely well financed and have lawyers on staff to pursue patent claims. A small company really can defend their patent although they will have to assign some (or all) of the benefits to the troll company. But even if they sell the patent to the troll company, they have extracted value from the patent. A patent is just a company asset and will be used in the way that maximizes the gain for the owner.]
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 01-27-2017 at 6:00 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,209
    From my point of view, I might avoid a product if the toolmaker complained about it. I have seen a post on the Drake site about hammers that were not made by them, but were sold as having been made by them. If I were in the market for a hammer (I am not), and could identify who he is talking about (I could not), I would probably take that into account. Probably not enough to buy a $90 hammer, but probably enough to avoid the people copying their design. I have not seen any comparable post or statement about these gauges. Nor did I see anything about the Woodriver/Lie Nielsen thing we had a thread about a while ago.

    I am having a problem understanding the problem with this particular gauge. It is obviously not an identical copy. Nobody is pretending it was made by Drake or is the same quality as his are. If it is the idea that is the issue, I don't know what the difference is between this evil one and the apparently good and virtuous Lee Valley one I have. Both are wheel gauges. Both are micro adjustable. Both retract the wheel into the face. From what I read, both are inferior to the Drake one. Both cost half as much. What is it that makes the one good and the other immoral?

    I have never heard anyone complain about Lie Nielsen literally copying the Stanley catalog. But somehow people were outraged when the Woodriver stuff started coming out.

    We live in a reasonably civilized society. If I want to know who owns a certain piece of (real) property, I go to the courthouse and look up the record. If I want to know who owns intellectual property I go to the database the government maintains to keep track of that. If that isn't good enough, what am I supposed to do before I can "ethically" buy a tool?

    If the toolmaker doesn't think it is worth the time or effort or for whatever reason doesn't want to register their intellectual property, that is their right. But, I don't know why anyone would think I have a moral obligation to care, when the toolmaker does not care enough to either register the design, or even put out a statement about it.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg,Va.
    Posts
    12,402
    I made myself a Gretsch Chet Atkins model guitar for my own use,not for sale. It has no label inside,and no serial # stamped on the back of the peghead. It does have the Gretsch name on the face of the peghead,because the ex vice president was selling parts that he bought apparently thousands of after the final fire that put Gretsch out of business. It has an ebony fingerboard and originals had only rosewood. There are also some very different things inside from the originals. Easily seen through the "F" holes. Any collector should be able to spot that this guitar deviates from originals.

    At the time,Gretsch was out of business,and I did not want to spend ten grand on an original. Nor was I in a position to ! They were never worth that kind of money anyway. They were all plywood construction,which is good for an electric guitar body,but no where the work of making carved arch tops and backs. Their value as collectibles is based on the Chet Atkins association. I happen to like the tone of those Gretsch Filtertron pickups. Gretsch guitars had more variation in their quality than any other brand I can think of. Their bodies were made in a few different locations. F holes,bindings,and some other details can vary wildly in workmanship.

    A few years after I made my guitar,the Japanese made ones came on the market.I have 3 of them. They are actually made better than the originals,except they all have narrower necks than the old ones,and I have large hands.

    The one I made is the guitar I always go back to,after playing others in my collection of about 20 guitars,mostly old Gretsches. But,NOT the badly made ones!

    Gretsch wants about $10,000.00 for a "hand made" Chet Atkins model,made in USA(from Japanese parts!) The normal,imported ones run about $1500 to $2000.00. In my opinion,they were always over priced,riding upon Chet Atkin's endorsement.

    Anyhow,I don't feel bad about making myself one guitar. Especially since it can be seen to be different from originals in places I've mentioned.

    About the marking gauges,that extra "lump" on one of them,the circular lump that was said to get in the way of holding it,is not well executed. It is too vague in shape,and does not terminate on either side in a crisp fashion. Best leave off things that aren't done well. They take more trouble,and are not good features if not properly designed.

    As an interesting side note,have you guys heard about the guy who searched copyrights,and found out that "Coke" was never copyrighted? I could be wrong,but I think he made Coca Cola pay him handsomely to buy the rights to their own product back from him. There are people who go around searching for well known products that never got copyrighted. Then,they make the manufacturers pay them to get their name back!
    Last edited by george wilson; 01-27-2017 at 9:42 PM.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    When you advocate that others do the same, you need to define how they should make their decision - the questions I posed earlier - or if your position is just "I know it when I see it."
    I may not know it when I see it. Folks will make their own decisions themselves based on what they know and how they feel.

    I have never heard anyone complain about Lie Nielsen literally copying the Stanley catalog. But somehow people were outraged when the Woodriver stuff started coming out.
    My understanding of this was Lie Nielsen was given an okay by Stanley (or what ever corporate name they happen to be under) before they went into production. On the Woodriver situation the early word was the first castings were direct clones from Lie Nielsen planes.

    If there is something incorrect in the above, please correct my error.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Villa Park. CA
    Posts
    13,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    My understanding of this was Lie Nielsen was given an okay by Stanley (or what ever corporate name they happen to be under) before they went into production. On the Woodriver situation the early word was the first castings were direct clones from Lie Nielsen planes.

    If there is something incorrect in the above, please correct my error.

    jtk
    It is highly unlikely that Lie Nielsen would seek "permission" from Stanley before starting his business. First, the patents on the Stanley planes had expired long ago, in the early 20th century. Second, why would Lie Nielsen put his future business at the whim of another company? Let's say that there's a housing lot next to your house. Would you expect that the owner would come to you and ask permission to build a house? You have no rights over that lot and the owner is certainly not going to put his/her future home at your whim. If you have objections to the house, your objections must be based on the laws in effect at the time the permit is issued. If the house meets all the legal requirements, the owner certainly does not need your "permission". Same with intellectual property that is in the public domain.

    I have read interviews of Thomas Lie Nielsen where he talked about the creation of his company. Never once did he mention getting "permission" from Stanley. He said that he believed there was a market for a high precision version of the Stanley planes and set out to create and sell that. Turns out he was right.

    That sounds like an urban legend that was started by people attempting to justify Lie Nielsen's copying of the Stanley planes. There was nothing wrong with Lie Nielsen copying the Stanley planes.

    And I think that canard about the first Woodriver planes being castings direct from LN planes has already been put to rest as false here on this forum.

    Summary: There was nothing wrong with LN copying the Stanley planes and there was nothing wrong with WR copying the Stanley planes or the LN planes.

    Mike

    [I hold a number of US patents but they were all assigned to my employer. Most of them have probably expired by now, but when they were in force, if someone wanted to use the intellectual property in one of those patents, they went to my employer and negotiated a license. They had no legal, moral or ethical obligation to contact me and get my permission, even though the invention was my own. The agreement with my company is that I got a job (that I loved), HW and SW tools and continuing education that allowed me to be able to develop the intellectual property. I also received a small honorarium and the recognition from my peers as having helped advance the state of the art in my field.
    But I had no ethical claim on anyone who used the intellectual property.
    When intellectual property passes into the public domain someone who wants to use it does not have to contact, or get permission from, the inventor or the previous owner. By definition, it's available to all.]
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 01-28-2017 at 11:34 AM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •