Toolmakers and their pointless "trade secrets"

[Pat Barry]

Funny --- I figured PM-V11 meant powdered metal, version 11. I liked t h e fact that they went through 10 other versions before settling on this one!

[Jim Koepke]

Goo-gone is actually a very interesting example. It used to consist mainly if not entirely of Xylene, and it worked basically as advertised.

The California SCAQMD decided to clamp down organic solvents, and effectively banned the sale of the original formula in the LA area. The manufacturer didn't want to stock multiple formulations, so they changed it to mostly Acetone (IIRC) and didn't tell anybody. Unfortunately the new version doesn't work very well.

Due to that undisclosed formulation change a lot of consumers (me included) ended up buying a basically useless product. That's clearly a case where more information would have been (much) better.

Maybe my understanding of labeling for such products is mistaken, but doesn't the label have to have warnings or other indicators of what is in them when it is dangerous or flammable chemicals?

My employment was in the printing industry before California passed Prop. 65 (was it?). Many solvents became unusable after it came into law. Some manufactures made multiple products or a different product for California to avoid listing "proprietary" ingredients required by a new labeling law. Some left the California market.

jtk

[Robert McNaull]

Coming from a background where my job is to produce IP which is mostly software/algorithm based, I don't have a problem with the marketing and withholding of information. They describe the usage and that is all that is required. It's like demanding to know what microprocessor is used in your car's engine controller, the manufacturer isn't going to tell you, but if you want to x-Ray it or dissolve th potting compound or tear it apart to find out, it is your liberty to do so. Do these manufacturers stand behind their product is the bottom line.

Larry Frank's comments carry a lot of weight as well, the process is most highly guarded and the composition as well. They spent the $$$ to develop it, why wouldn't they protect their investment.

[Mark AJ Allen]

You built a nice-looking strawman there, but it's completely irrelevant to my point.

I'm not arguing that companies shouldn't have trade secrets as you seem to assume. As I clearly said above, I've created more than my share and recommended that plenty of other peoples' IP be treated as such.

My argument is that in this specific case the "secret" in question is really anything but, since any competitor with access to modern materials analysis can obtain it.

So to be clear: I accept and support trade secrets in general. I think that these specific examples don't truly protect anything, are therefore anti-customer rather than anti-competitor, and should be rejected by the market.

That would be fair IF you could say without a doubt that the 'secret' to PMV 11 was only the material. I think no one here is in a position to say if there is or isn't other parts of the secret that are worth keeping to maintain a competitive edge. We have no way of knowing what Veritas does with the source material to produce a blade with it.

Even in the case that it is only the material, then I think it's clear that protecting the name is necessary to protect the investment that went into 'discovering' it. If they simply disclosed the materials trade name, it would allow any other toolmaker to simply adopt the material themselves without doing the work that Veritas had performed to determine it was a excellent tool steel, allowing them to profit from Veritas' research investment. Why would ANY for-profit company make a big research investment, then disclose their work to competitors for no compensation in order to lose that competitive edge?

[Patrick Chase]

Coming from a background where my job is to produce IP which is mostly software/algorithm based, I don't have a problem with the marketing and withholding of information. They describe the usage and that is all that is required. It's like demanding to know what microprocessor is used in your car's engine controller, the manufacturer isn't going to tell you, but if you want to x-Ray it or dissolve th potting compound or tear it apart to find out, it is your liberty to do so. Do these manufacturers stand behind their product is the bottom line.

In case of cars customers should be demanding a lot more disclosure.

With that out of the way, and as I've already said several times in this thread, I agree with you that vendors are free to withhold whatever information they want. In this case what they're doing is particularly pointless and self-defeating, but that's their right. That's why I labelled this thread a "rant".

[Chris Fournier]

And the neanderthals are once again the crankiest bunch of old hens ever. Go sharpen something and work some wood.

[Jeff Heath]

And the neanderthals are once again the crankiest bunch of old hens ever. Go sharpen something and work some wood.

Not all of us. It's 10:15 pm, and I'm just in from 12 hours in the shop, covered in sawdust....aka man-glitter. You guys are certainly right, though. This thread is a total joke to me. I'm just disappointed that I wasted so much time to read it......

As a guy who has owned his own business for 30 years, and has a great appreciation for what Rob Lee and his company have done for woodworking, and how well that company treats everyone from this forum, and all others, when it comes to top notch customer service, I'm surprised that this "rant" has been allowed to carry on this long. Time to put the pacifiers in and put the ranting babies in their cribs.

If I had developed something proprietary, I wouldn't tell anyone squat about it, either. Nobody with half a business brain would, or does....

[Kees Heiden]

I have read this thread and it certainly has some ups and downs. As a metallurgist, I found parts amusing.

Just knowing the composition of many of the alloys and powdered metallurgy materials is not sufficient to know very much. Many of the materials used in woodworking tools are quite complicated. One way of thinking about them is that they are two phases with very hard particles held in a slightly softer matrix. Knowing the composition will not tell you the size and distribution of the particles or the properties of the matrix. These will be determined by the processing involved. Indeed, these are trade secrets.

In a similar manner, A2 steel can either be good or bad depending on the processing. To get the best from it, you need a very carefully controlled heat treatment and cryogenic treatment.

I am pretty sure that a company like LV goes to lengths to assure that they have a high quality consistent product.

I never made any of these steels. But, there were many grades that we produced that were patented or we had highly guarded processing. We also kept most of the people who supplied us materials or anyone else away from the process and production.

You make it sound like mumbo jumbo again. LV is not making the steel, so they have no influence on the process of making it. They have tested a bunch of freely available knife steels and selected the most promissing one. They have told us that it is a powder metallurgy kind of steel and they harden it to 62 Hrc. All those snipets of information, combined with the actual composition of the steel is enough to make an educated guess about the real tradename of the steel. BTW, there wasn't much to choose from. The composition pointed in the direction of an improved 440C steel. There are really not many candidates with such a low percentage of vanadium. And this one matched exactly.

About the further processing of the steel in the factory, I really doubt that they deviated from the recommendations of the supplier. Those modern toolsteels are too complex for homegrown heat treating schedules.

And despite all the flak, I don't feel like some morally deprived soul. I share some easilly available information and a little detective work with you guys. Just like for example consumer organisations do all the time. I didn't hack their email server or so.

And now I'm going to work again

[Graham Haydon]

On a tangent it's interesting that Steve mentioned "WoodRiver". As far as I know they use a W1 high carbon Steel also known as T10. Am I right in assuming Water treating is harder to use than other methods?

[Kees Heiden]

Yes Graham. Those steels must be quenched really quickly. So that is quite a shock and it is easy to crack or warp the steel. I'm sure the Chinese manage perfectly well though.