Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 158

Thread: What's wrong with Woodriver?!

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chase View Post
    When you say "used a LN plane to cast their versions for WC" are you suggesting that Quangsheng physically created a casting directly from an L-N plane?..
    Looking at the FWW article and accompanying measurement data and pictures it is very unlikely that they directly copied the LN tool. They may have used some ideas for sure, but there isn't anything wrong with that, especially if LN didn't have IP filed for it. I would call it plagiarism to make a direct copy and that would be obvious and no doubt LN would take them to court and win if that were the case. As far as the comment about genes - everybody borrows ideas from everyone and there's nothing blatantly wrong with that.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg,Va.
    Posts
    12,402
    It is not unusual for Chinese or Taiwanese to directly use tool or machine parts as patterns.They might at least add some material to thicken up the original parts because of shrinkage. But,they may not in some cases.

    I have a Taiwan copy dead accurate of an American Bridgeport milling machine.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chase View Post
    If they had actually copied the casting (as opposed to copying some design features) that would make my opinion of WC/WR even more negative.
    As with many things there can be a downside when it comes to resell.

    Which has been a better store of value, Lie Nielsen, Lee Valley or Woodriver?

    Many years ago when my hobby was coin collecting gold bullion coins had different premiums. The Chinese Panda and the Canadian Maple Leaf coins had a desirability factor over and above the South African Krugerrand mostly due to political sentiments.

    It appears now there isn't as much differential in the bullion coin prices. The political situation in South Africa has changed. It now appears the Krugerrand is valued the same as other bullion coins in some markets. A small premium difference in others.

    To me it is doubtful Woodriver will ever overcome the antipathy it has generated in many folks.

    In the case of the Krugerrand, it is the exact same 24 karat gold as other bullion coins. In the case of Woodriver, being exactly the same as another maker's plane is a major factor in the animus among the plane buying public.

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

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg,Va.
    Posts
    12,402
    consumers might like better to trust the reputation of a LN plane,rather than buy a copy cheaper,even if the copy is quite close in quality. The cache of an established brand name is important. In fact,when brand name food products started appearing in stores in the 19th. C.,it stopped a lot of fraud. Crooked grocers would put stuff like paint and wool in ice cream they could scoop themselves,to make it go farther. They didn't care what it did to the children who ate it.

    China has done so much to cause people to not trust their products,it does them no good. Even now,I have seen(actually BOUGHT) things like milling machines whose cross feed and longitudinal feed nuts were threaded so shallow that the threaded feed screws would just start jumping the threads soon after they started using them. I got one whose brass nuts were threaded only .015" deep. And,that was to accommodate a screw of 8 threads per inch. And,sure enough,no spare parts were available for the recently built machine. This was a used machine that was nearly new. Might have been why the original owner(whoever he was),sold it. The Chinese did this shallow thread because it was a lot faster to make than a thread of full depth. They often will do anything to cut corners. That includes puttying up large voids in castings and painting over them.
    Last edited by george wilson; 03-16-2016 at 1:56 PM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,363
    Interesting perspectives, thanks everyone for joining in on this discussion.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    2,367
    As a matter of principle, I won't purchase tools whose genesis mirror that of Woodriver. For me, it is that simple. I won't rehash all the arguments re: LN being copies of Stanleys, that has been covered well in previous posts.

    Every time folks buy tools from companies who have the origins in such things, we harm real innovators. Again, it is that simple. The fact that I am quite poor doesn't change the ethical dimension. If a Woodriver tool was the only one available, I would just go without.
    Last edited by paul cottingham; 03-16-2016 at 2:12 PM.
    Paul

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Posts
    7,254
    Blog Entries
    7
    When I bought a lot of LN stuff I did so because of my trust in the brand, and they make a nice product, and have done well by me. I've had my planes for a number of years now and they do fine, I have some nitpicks but overall quite happy with the quality of the products.

    As a consumer I am able to vote with my dollars and do so by supporting small retailers and producers which have devoted themselves to quality. It's quite literally the only thing you can do that will have any impact, as a consumer. Doing so has done well for me as I have very few complaints or frustrations with my tools.
    Bumbling forward into the unknown.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Holcombe View Post
    When I bought a lot of LN stuff I did so because of my trust in the brand, and they make a nice product, and have done well by me. I've had my planes for a number of years now and they do fine, I have some nitpicks but overall quite happy with the quality of the products.

    As a consumer I am able to vote with my dollars and do so by supporting small retailers and producers which have devoted themselves to quality. It's quite literally the only thing you can do that will have any impact, as a consumer. Doing so has done well for me as I have very few complaints or frustrations with my tools.
    I'm in the same boat as you, but I also recognize that my day job gives me the luxury of supporting brands like L-N. I would never look askance at somebody who's financially constrained and has to make a choice between, say, WR or no tool at all.

    I also agree with George's points.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    Looking at the FWW article and accompanying measurement data and pictures it is very unlikely that they directly copied the LN tool. They may have used some ideas for sure, but there isn't anything wrong with that, especially if LN didn't have IP filed for it. I would call it plagiarism to make a direct copy and that would be obvious and no doubt LN would take them to court and win if that were the case. As far as the comment about genes - everybody borrows ideas from everyone and there's nothing blatantly wrong with that.
    I've heard that L-N didn't patent their modifications to the BedRock plane, probably because getting a patent through the system these days is bloody expensive (I have first-hand knowledge from helping friends with start-ups over the years). If that's the case then L-N wouldn't have any legal recourse against even a direct copy, unless Quangsheng also violated copyright by appropriating trademarks etc.

    IMO our system is absolutely backwards in the sense that we grant crappy patents to people who have deep enough pockets to file amendment after amendment, while discouraging good patents from people like L-N

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    twomiles from the "peak of Ohio
    Posts
    12,120
    I stick with vintage planes. They are the originals, after all.

    Tried a WR #4 V3 for one year, then sold it. Seemed to be good only at making super thin shavings.......was hard to adjust, too heavy for a #4 sized plane. More I used it, the worse it seemed to get. Finally tried to sharpen it, and never found the settings again. Had better results with a Millers Falls No.9.

    In fact, the first version I recieved as a gift......had an issue with the depth adjuster...wheel was about ready to fall off, before I could make a nice thin shaving. It had the older chipbreaker. Told WR about it, with photos, they sent a replacement PLANE and a box to return the defective plane. On their dime.

    I'll stick with the oldies. Irons and all, mind you. Just the way this shop runs.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chase View Post
    I've heard that L-N didn't patent their modifications to the BedRock plane, probably because getting a patent through the system these days is bloody expensive (I have first-hand knowledge from helping friends with start-ups over the years). If that's the case then L-N wouldn't have any legal recourse against even a direct copy, unless Quangsheng also violated copyright by appropriating trademarks etc.

    IMO our system is absolutely backwards in the sense that we grant crappy patents to people who have deep enough pockets to file amendment after amendment, while discouraging good patents from people like L-N
    Getting a patent is not that expensive. When I worked for a large company, we had a contract with a large law firm and they handled our patents for a flat fee of $3,000 per patent (this was in the 1990's). Of course, we filed a lot of patents so I suppose it was worth it to the law firm, but let's say it would have cost LN $10,000 to get a patent. That's not a lot of money to protect your intellectual property.

    But I don't know what LN could have patented. They copied the Bedrock planes. Maybe there's something special they did that would merit a patent but I don't see anything from my look at the planes.

    I might mention that LV has a patent on the two screws that hold the blade in position so that when you take the blade out and then replace it, it goes back into the same place. So fairly small things can be important (and valuable) and can be patented.

    The material (idea) that can be patented has to be novel. It cannot be something that would be obvious to "one skilled in the art." So making the body out of brass instead of cast iron would not be patentable. Using ductile cast iron instead of ordinary cast iron would not be patentable. Using A2 steel for the iron instead of plain carbon steel would not be patentable, etc.

    Mike
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 03-16-2016 at 3:28 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, MI
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    Getting a patent is not that expensive. When I worked for a large company, we had a contract with a large law firm and they handled our patents for a flat fee of $3,000 per patent (this was in the 1990's). Of course, we filed a lot of patents so I suppose it was worth it to the law firm, but let's say it would have cost LN $10,000 to get a patent. That's not a lot of money to protect your intellectual property.

    But I don't know what LN could have patented. They copied the Bedrock planes. Maybe there's something special they did that would merit a patent but I don't see anything from my look at the planes.

    I might mention that LV has a patent on the two screws that hold the blade in position so that when you take the blade out and then replace it, it goes back into the same place. So fairly small things can be important (and valuable) and can be patented.

    Mike
    I'm probably wrong here, but my understanding is that it isn't the cost of getting the patent that is prohibitive, but the cost of enforcing the patent / protecting one's own IP. And don't the Chinese have a history of ignoring intellectual property laws anyway?
    Your endgrain is like your bellybutton. Yes, I know you have it. No, I don't want to see it.

  13. #43
    I'll add that the United States intellectual property laws encourage people to copy. A patent is spoken of as "teaching" and should contain sufficient information that someone else can exploit the idea contained in the patent. The patent gives the owner the right to control the patented material for a certain length of time, but after that time, our system basically encourages others to use the idea.

    Another concept is "trade secrets" but in our present "first to file" patent system, a company who attempts to keep something a secret can find that someone else has patented the concept. Then, they might have to seek a license to do what they had been doing.

    [Disclaimer: I am not a patent attorney - just someone who has gone through the patent process a number of times (I hold a number of patents).]

    Mike
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Zach Dillinger View Post
    I'm probably wrong here, but my understanding is that it isn't the cost of getting the patent that is prohibitive, but the cost of enforcing the patent / protecting one's own IP. And don't the Chinese have a history of ignoring intellectual property laws anyway?
    You're absolutely correct - enforcing the patent is up to the patent owner. But that's hardly an excuse to not get a patent. A patent can have value in many ways. For example, there are patent trolls who will purchase your patent and they will enforce it. They raise money from investors to do so, and provide a return to the investors based on their success in collecting for the patents. Intellectual Ventures (a company) is one of those patent troll companies.

    Chinese companies may ignore patents but if they attempt to sell into the US, they can be brought to court just like any other company, and if the patent owner wins, their goods will be seized at the port of entry. A US patent has no meaning in foreign countries. You have to get a patent in every country that you want to enforce your rights in.

    So if a Chinese company builds a device containing US patented material (no Chinese patent) they can sell it in China legally. Conversly, Chinese patents do not protect in the US.

    Mike
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 03-16-2016 at 3:18 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chase View Post
    ... I would never look askance at somebody who's financially constrained and has to make a choice between, say, WR or no tool at all.
    A WR or no tool at all? Are there many tools made by WR which are not available on the used market or from other makers at reasonable cost?

    The WR #4 is priced at $145. I have 3 Stanley #4s that cost me less than half of that. One is a cobbled together Frankenplane which is a great user.

    I do not see the WR or no tool at all as being realistic vindication.

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

Posting Permissions

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