Block plane prices

[fred west1]

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

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

Mike

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

Mike,

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

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

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

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

Thank you again as it was very interesting.

Fred

[Mike Henderson]

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

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

Mike

[george wilson]

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

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

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

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

[jerry nazard]

Good post, George (as usual)!
-Jerry

[george wilson]

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

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

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

[John Keeton]

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

[Bill Schmitz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

[Mike Henderson]

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

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

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

Mike

[Bill Schmitz]

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

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

Thanks for the good advice,
Bill

[fred west1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

Bill,

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

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

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

Fred

[Bill Schmitz]

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

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

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

Bill

[Richard Niemiec]

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

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

[Vinny Miseo]

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

I picked up a Stanley #18 block on CL for $7 about 3 years ago. * not mine, but the same thing

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

[Rob Lee]

Bill -

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

Cheers -

Rob

[george wilson]

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

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