Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 130

Thread: Marking Gauge - clone of Tite-Mark

  1. #46
    The gauges I saw (this was a few years ago) had a definite hump in the center, were made in China and sold through an American chain of suppliers to woodworkers. I checked by placing the long edge of a machinist's rule on the surface, aiming it at the light and looked for gaps. Your methodology is a bit unusual. Any tool sold should be usable, and if these are functional it's a good thing. I still think it's not ethical to copy the work of someone else. I've been the victim of people cashing in on my efforts and I don't want to be a part of that. As I said before, these are ethical decisions we all make every time we buy anything. You may not have the reservations that I do, and that's OK.

    Bob Lang
    '

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Villa Park. CA
    Posts
    13,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Lang View Post
    The gauges I saw (this was a few years ago) had a definite hump in the center, were made in China and sold through an American chain of suppliers to woodworkers. I checked by placing the long edge of a machinist's rule on the surface, aiming it at the light and looked for gaps. Your methodology is a bit unusual. Any tool sold should be usable, and if these are functional it's a good thing. I still think it's not ethical to copy the work of someone else. I've been the victim of people cashing in on my efforts and I don't want to be a part of that. As I said before, these are ethical decisions we all make every time we buy anything. You may not have the reservations that I do, and that's OK.

    Bob Lang
    '
    When you go into business, you implicitly agree to live within our economic system. And our economic system encourages competition.

    I'd be more inclined to agree with you if the Tite-Mark cost 50% more than the Taylor Toolworks product. I'd pay $45 for a Tite-Mark instead of purchasing the Taylor product.

    Apparently, Taylor can make money selling the tool for $30 - while the Tite-Mark cost three times that amount ($90). Either there's a very big markup on the Tite-Mark or Kevin Drake has an expensive manufacturing facility or a lot of overhead.

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

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Lang View Post
    It isn't a legal issue but a moral one. I know Kevin Drake and consider him to be friend. After graduating from the College of the Redwoods Fine Woodworking program he stayed put and started Glen-Drake. His operation is very small and he has developed a number of excellent products. Almost everything he has developed has been knocked off, and the copy cats include large and well known retailers. In classes I've taught, knock-off gauges didn't even have flat registration faces. In fairness I don't know if these were the ones being discussed in this thread or not. In my experience the gauges and brass hammers look like the real thing but are functionally worthless. My point is that there are consequences to others based on our personal purchase decisions. I don't worry much about legality but I try to put my money where my values are and support small independent and creative businesses.

    Bob Lang
    I chose not to respond to this issue earlier in this thread because my views on copying have been broadcast for as long as the first WoodRiver Planes came on the scene.

    The short term view says the world is dog eat dog. It is defended by looking at the legal loopholes so that one may say they remained within the letter of the law.

    But this is not how I want my world to develop, and my choice is to foster growth around me, not kill it off. We need to protect all our innovators and their enthusiasm to invent and develop. Kevin Drake is one of the innovators we should be supporting, not killing off. I am not sure which is worse for Kevin - the loss of a sale to an inferior copy, or the valuation of his ideas to the few dollars that represent the cost difference between his original and the knock off.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Villa Park. CA
    Posts
    13,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Cohen View Post
    I chose not to respond to this issue earlier in this thread because my views on copying have been broadcast for as long as the first WoodRiver Planes came on the scene.

    The short term view says the world is dog eat dog. It is defended by looking at the legal loopholes so that one may say they remained within the letter of the law.

    But this is not how I want my world to develop, and my choice is to foster growth around me, not kill it off. We need to protect all our innovators and their enthusiasm to invent and develop. Kevin Drake is one of the innovators we should be supporting, not killing off. I am not sure which is worse for Kevin - the loss of a sale to an inferior copy, or the valuation of his ideas to the few dollars that represent the cost difference between his original and the knock off.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek
    Our economic system has produced the highest level of innovation. Once a business can "rest on it's laurels" it starts to go downhill. Innovators have to continue to innovate. Innovation can come in the form of new products or in ways to lower the cost of an existing product.

    It is "dog eat dog" - it's cut throat - it puts tremendous pressure on existing businesses and on new businesses. And it works. The alternative is very limited to no progress.

    You can view Taylor as copying a product. Or you can view Taylor as innovating the manufacturing and marketing process to be able to offer an equivalent product at a lower price. Essentially that's what Amazon did. They took an existing product (initially books) and sold them in a different way (on line) for a lower price. And then innovated on delivery (overnight and two day for one annual charge).

    I know you don't like it but that's our economic system and it has produced a lot of good for all of us.

    Mike

    [AT&T was a regulated company - you essentially couldn't get communications service except through them. And they had Bell Labs to do research that would advance telecommunications. And we all paid higher prices for telephone service to pay for all that.
    Eventually, AT&T was broken up and the telecommunications market was opened to competition. And that's when innovation exploded.
    We used to pay quite a lot of money to make a long distance call - people would wait until after certain hours to make long distance calls. Now, long distance is essentially free. And the old AT&T is dead.
    So, yes, I support dog-eat-dog competition. It produces advantages for all of us.]

    [Another example is Compaq computer who invented the portable computer. Should people have felt obligated to buy all their portable computers from Compaq because Compaq produced the first one? Of course not.]

    [Xerox essentially died after their patents expired because the new players sold better products and had a better range of products. Xerox could have done all that while they were protected. "Protecting our innovators" as you describe it doesn't work. It only holds back innovation.]

    [You're making an assumption that the Taylor gauge is an inferior product but apparently you have not looked at one yet. And the "few dollars that represent the cost difference between his original and the {Taylor}" is not a few dollars. It's three times the price - from $30 to $90. Kevin should have done what Taylor did - before Taylor entered the market. For example, he could have offered a lower level product, perhaps at $45, while keeping the existing product as the "premium" product.]
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 01-27-2017 at 6:06 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,467
    Mike, at the end of the day these are personal decisions that are based upon one's moral compass. We all have opinions in this regard.

    I could but would rather not debate this area since I have no desire to see the thread end. One issue is that there is a choice which tool to purchase, and from whom. The other issue is what makes a good tool. I am happier to continue discussing the latter.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Innovators have to continue to innovate. Innovation can come in the form of new products or in ways to lower the cost of an existing product.
    Why would someone be compelled to innovate if someone else is going to take their idea to some low wage location and undermine your sales? That isn't a business model my dollars will be spent supporting. Many of us have met Glenn Drake at tool events. Has anyone seen the makers who copy his design(s) bring support of any kind to the woodworking community?

    This reminds me of an old demotivational poster composed of an breath taking image with these words below, "Corporations who go to the end of the world for their employees will find they work for one tenth of what Americans will."

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

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Villa Park. CA
    Posts
    13,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    Why would someone be compelled to innovate if someone else is going to take their idea to some low wage location and undermine your sales? That isn't a business model my dollars will be spent supporting. Many of us have met Glenn Drake at tool events. Has anyone seen the makers who copy his design(s) bring support of any kind to the woodworking community?

    This reminds me of an old demotivational poster composed of an breath taking image with these words below, "Corporations who go to the end of the world for their employees will find they work for one tenth of what Americans will."

    jtk
    Ask Intel. AMD used to build a clone to the Intel processors. It was a spur to Intel to build even better ones. And we all have computers which work faster and cost less because of it. And the AMD chips are made in Asia. Andy Grove (of Intel) used to say "Only the paranoid survive" meaning you have to worry about your competition and beat them to the market.

    Competition doesn't stop innovation - it enhances it. If I can build a unique product I can be successful selling it. But I can't stop. I have to keep improving it and find ways to make and sell it cheaper. If your competitor can sell it cheaper, or add additional features, so can you. You just have to do it before he does.

    Mike

    [And for those who advocate an ethical reason for buying the higher priced item - How long does that obligation last? One year, ten years, forever? How soon before you can ethically purchase the lower cost item? How long before you would have purchased a portable computer from another company than Compaq after competitive products were available?
    And how much of a difference in price will you tolerate? 50%, 100%, 200%, 500%? Where will the price difference override your ethical concerns?]
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 01-26-2017 at 10:23 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    LA & SC neither one is Cali
    Posts
    9,447
    No patent = legal. Moral and ethical considerations aside but those like politics and religion are generally best avoided on public forums, IMO.

    I have no idea why a patent was not pursued or possibly rejected but that is what it is.

    One case study to consider re: innovation is the Fein Multimaster. While the general machine was under patent it stayed very much the same and commanded a high price. Since the patent expired we have seen a cornucopia of new similar tools. Over a short period of time Fein has also brought out a ton of new innovations as well as better/stronger/faster machines. The marketplace is packed with innovation from $20 to $600. The patent process worked as it should in this instance. Fein had the time to recoup its R&D, develop market share and prepare for the patents expiration. If you don't patent an idea you don't have the legal protection.
    Of all the laws Brandolini's may be the most universally true.

    Deep thought for the day:

    Your bandsaw weighs more when you leave the spring compressed instead of relieving the tension.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,467
    I have no idea why a patent was not pursued or possibly rejected but that is what it is.
    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.

  10. #55
    Excellent post Derek.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    And for those who advocate an ethical reason for buying the higher priced item - How long does that obligation last? One year, ten years, forever? How soon before you can ethically purchase the lower cost item? How long before you would have purchased a portable computer from another company than Compaq after competitive products were available?
    Was Compaq the maker of the first portable computer or the first portable using DOS?

    I believe the Osborn portable computer was released before the Compaq. The Osborn and the Kaypro ran CP/M.

    DOS was an operating system that could be licensed by computer makers. It wasn't so much copying Compaq's portable design as it was building a system compatible with DOS.

    Osborn failed because they couldn't supply a DOS machine as quickly as the market demanded. A premature announcement of a superior DOS machine being in the works tanked their sales which led to the demise of the company an the phrase, "Osborn effect."

    Sometimes having someone who will support their clientele is worth the extra cost. Does the maker of the lower cost marking gauge offer any accessories or replacement parts? What happens if companies like Glenn Drake's fail due to makers using low cost labor to copy their original designs? What if he decides to quit making the TiteMark and replacement parts? That makes it a bit inconvenient for everyone.

    Mike,
    I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

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

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    DuBois, PA
    Posts
    1,897
    I'm neutral in my opinion towards which product to buy, but subjective portions of the purchase need to be brought forth. When I bought my GlennDrake, what was the portion of the cost attributed to speaking (then buying from him) about how to use, sharpen, retract the cutter, etc.? For the LV, how much of the portion of the cost is attributed to a buyer's unconditional ability to return a product for refund, if not fully satisfied? Try that with the knock-offs!

    Conversely, having a patent gives the holder a period of time of market protection to continuously improve the product, in order to protect markets, when protection expires. If the holder chooses to not improve and refile, he does so at his own peril.

    Finally, just because appearances indicate an identical product does not mean the product is the same. For example, on a UK woodworking forum last year, there was a "spirited" discussion of LV's PM-V11 material. Yes, those talking about it had maybe identified components, but that didn't mean ability to duplicate. As any holder of a patent knows (Mke-I belive you hold at least one, as I do in company name) you put enough into the application to gain approval but not every nuance of how to do or make it. A product can look the same, but be vastly different.

    In the end, the markets decide success or failure. To many users, the extra cost of the TiteMark is definitely worth it (I hope high enough to keep the company viable). LV's PM-V11 is worth the cost, which is barely higher than the cost of lesser competing metals. My opinion is LV's product will see rapidly expanding use as the years pass. Another case to consider are handplanes: LV innovates and patents, LN copies and refines. WoodRiver copies and refines. I own products of the first two names, but my personal opinion on long term survival of each company, identical to what exists today, differs from my purchases. LV will be there, because each product innovates and improves with each iteration, but the other two will fight it out in future years for a limited market share, unless each decides to improve their offering to aid the consumer's choice (and ultimately their ability to survive). Given two identical products, with identical opration and results, same long term wearability, and identical customer service, but one half the cost of the other, which company/supplier will survive the coming years?
    If the thunder don't get you, the lightning will.

  13. #58
    I suggest reading Glen Drake's blog. He's where he wants to be, expresses it well, and being in a similar place in another industry I will be quoting him often - thanks Kevin.
    Last edited by John Gornall; 01-27-2017 at 11:12 AM.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Graham, NC
    Posts
    68
    I may be wrong on this point (and I am a dual arm Veritas man myself), but was not Mr. Drake inspired in his design by an illustration from "Making & Modifying Woodworking Tools" by Jim Kingshott for a micro-adjustable marking gauge? https://blog.lostartpress.com/2008/0...the-tite-mark/

    I am going out on a limb somewhat as I don't have a copy of the book to see the original form. But, it sounds like Mr. Drake took a tool design that was already in the public domain, improved the design and offered it for sale. His intellectual property then (if he has any) relates to the specific way his gauge works. Unless someone straight up copies his mechanism, there is nothing here either unethical or illegal.
    Last edited by Jason Dean; 01-27-2017 at 10:51 AM. Reason: formatting

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Villa Park. CA
    Posts
    13,051
    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.
    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:

    1. Who should be the beneficiaries of your position? Should it apply to all companies, or only small companies, or what? If small companies, how small and measured in what way?

    2. If a company meets this first criteria, how long of a grace period do they get, measured from the time the product first enters the market? One year, five years? And is the grace period the same for all products? Some products become obsolete quickly while others have significantly longer lives? Obviously, this grace period cannot extend forever. Even patents have lifetimes.

    3. How much price difference does this grace support? If the original product cost twice as much as the new product should you buy the original product or the new product? If so, how about if it costs five times as much?

    4. Or is this one of those situations that cannot be defined but is like pornography, where you may not be able to give a good definition but "you know it when you see it?"

    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

    [The laws and rules of our economic system developed over hundreds of years - some go back to English common law. The rules on intellectual property have likewise been developed and refined over many years and continue to be refined in an attempt to provide clarity, consistency and fairness.
    It's not a perfect system but, as a country, we've shown the willingness to modify the laws to make the system clearer and fairer. If you can suggest changes to the laws that would achieve that purpose, I hope you'll suggest them, here and in other forums. It's good to have a robust discussion about the system and to understand the differing viewpoints and the difficulties involved in various modifications.]
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 01-27-2017 at 12:41 PM.
    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
  •