I better not come on here and mention the Harbor Freight no. 33 I bought on impulse / curiosity a few years ago....
Contributor
I better not come on here and mention the Harbor Freight no. 33 I bought on impulse / curiosity a few years ago....
Contributor
Hi FredOriginally Posted by Frederick Skelly
You are quite correct. One might interpret what I wrote in a literal manner, but that was not my intent. I would never prescribe what one should or should not purchase. Indeed, I would argue that the Mk III version of the WR plane is a different kettle of fish to the Mk I (which caused all the kerfuffle). These planes are now a design of their own, and from reports are very good (reflecting the input of Rob Cosman, brought in after the Mk II was designed - poorly - to distance the plane and criticisms from the clouds surrounding the Mk I). Personally, I would not purchase one from Wood Craft, who initiated the whole situation. My comments about rationalisations were about those who sought to justify their purchases of the WR planes from Wood Craft. It is a while back now, but I do recall that LN took Wood Craft to court over the Mk I design.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Member
So, they started out on the wrong foot. Copying an existing design (which wasn't an original design to start with), and making a poor job of it. Remember the Japanese when they started their industrialisation? Copying and poor quality. Now they are highly respectable. Quang Sheng moved on too. You can buy their planes with a clean conscience.
Member
I bought one of those also, and made it perform like a LN (took about $80 of time from one of my machinists). And to show I'm not a cheapskate, I recently traded my 2012 328 for a 2016 528.
If the thunder don't get you, the lightning will.
Member
Since Stanley themselves copied planes,and just about everyone else copied Stanley (who had a legal battle with Bailey over their copying his designs.) These old designs are WAYYYYYYYY past patent expiration,I don't see the validity of indignation about Wood River,really. I'd limit my examination of their planes to ARE THEY GOOD? I don't own one personally,as I have way too many planes, but have examined them in the local Woodcraft store in Richmond. There is nothing sacred about LN planes as far as I am concerned. Even if they did use a bronze lever cap. Frankly,I don't think that feature would be patentable. Nor would thicker bodies(been done) or thicker blades(been done,too).
Now,I do have several LN planes,as I think they are nice. But,they are ALL beefed up copies of Stanleys. Are they not???????
Is anyone indignant about the proliferation of crank type pencil sharpeners? Steel belted radial tires? Overhead valves in car engines? Overhead cams in car engines? Internal combustion engines? THE V-8 engine?(Ford had that patent for years. I recall Chevy coming out with theirs in 1955.) Zippo style cigarette lighters? The list could go on forever of expired patents being taken up by others. I'm not wording this very well,but I hope you all get the point.
I fail to see HOW LN could take WC to court for copying THEIR designs,which were copies of Stanleys. I guess they did,though,with tricky enough lawyers. Delta took Chinese makers to court for making ROUND TOP 14" bandsaws. I can't see HOW,since those old round top bandsaws had been around for MANY,MANY years. But,they did,and apparently won. I bought the LAST ROUND TOP Asian bandsaw from Bridgewood back in the 80's,to make it into a metal cutting saw.
Last edited by george wilson; 04-07-2016 at 9:37 AM.
Contributor
I tried to stay out of the conversation. This really is pointless but here's my $0.02 anyway:
The purpose behind patent law is to encourage development of new products by providing a limited period of time where the inventor can exclusively profit from their work. After that period, these things become public domain so that anyone might produce a copy, incorporate the idea into another product or improve upon the original in some way. To be patentable, at least in the US, the work needs to be novel (new and meaningful) and not obvious.
Patent law is not a tool designed enrich certain individuals, it is to benefit society as a whole.
Rather than planes copied with little meaningful improvement in 100 years, think about medicine. The development costs are extremely high. No one will take on the risk and expense to develop new drugs unless they can see a path to future profits that outweigh the risks. Patents allow the drug companies to profit and therefore encourage development. However, that alone is insufficient. If the patent never expires, costs remain high due to lack of competition. In addition, the drug companies are not further encouraged to develop improvements. They can profit on the old and prevent anyone else from deriving new drugs from thiers. Progress therefore, is impaired and everyone loses.
Perhaps the secret to success of LN (and they are successful) is not the design of their tools. They do not, in fact, cut wood any differently. Is it instead that they focus on high quality and excellent customer service?
I would suggest Veritas more likely produces designs that may be patentable but even so, their main key to success in not due to preventing copies but in their reputation for quality and customer service.
It is not only permissible to make copies of existing work, it provides a tangible benefit to society by lowering costs and spurring work on new products both derivative and novel.
Last edited by Daniel Rode; 04-07-2016 at 10:57 AM.
-- Dan Rode
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle
Contributor
I would be very interested to learn more about this alleged suit. When and where was it filed? What did LN allege in the filing? Any information about why the suit did not proceed? Did LN drop it, was there a settlement. etc. etc.?
Court cases are public so if it happened there will be a record of it.
Mike
[Even a newspaper report of the suit would be good.]
Last edited by Mike Henderson; 04-07-2016 at 5:52 PM.
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.
Member
I tried to disengage, but feel compelled to remark: VERY well stated. I'd tried to say the same thing a couple times above, but I think you did an excellent job here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote