Originally Posted by
Ron Hock
All that may be true for Apple and Google. But I'm talking about a small tool-maker -- a full-time one-man shop that has introduced a wide variety of excellent tools, each one developed with a new look at how things can and should work. Do you think the company that ripped off Glen-Drake's gauge will be developing their own innovative, high-quality tools to help you do better work? Of course not. They're vultures seeking the quick buck by stealing designs, avoiding the expense and risk of R&D and marketing.
Protecting designs is impractical unless you're Google or Apple. I doubt the cost of defending the patent infringement would be covered by the profits on every Tite-Mark ever sold. It saddens me that we have to keep having this conversation.
Ethical consumerism, not just looking only for the lowest price, can encourage innovation and the development of new products. Why go to the expense of developing a new tool just to be ripped off? I know this has been discussed ad nauseam. But I know woodworkers who won't market their work for fear someone will go into production on the design they took months or years to perfect.
I read an inspiring signature line somewhere that I think applies here: "Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
The points you make are valid. If someone just wants to support Kevin Drake and pay the extra money, I'm all for it. But the point I'm always trying to make is that people like Taylor Tools are not doing anything wrong. They are doing what our economic system encourages people to do. The advantage for the consumer is that s/he gets a tool for 1/3 the cost of the Tite-Mark (about $30 instead of $90).
Now, does this put pressure on Kevin Drake? Yes, absolutely! That's what our economic system encourages. Kevin Drake can respond by selling the tool for a lesser price, or making a version that does not have the fit and finish of the existing Tite-Mark and sells for less money, or contracting with a Chinese manufacturer to make a version that can compete with the Taylor tools in quality and price. There's probably other ways he could respond that I can't think of.
Kevin Drake can also come up with various innovative features for the product that justify the extra costs. You can't hold still and expect to rest on your laurels.
Kevin Drake had many years where he did not have any direct competition (meaning a marking gauge that could be operated one hand) so he's extracted value from his invention. But since he did nothing to protect his intellectual property, he had to know that one day someone would take that public domain intellectual property and compete against him.
It's the hard fact of competing in the marketplace.
So how should a rational buyer respond? If they feel that they will get more benefit in the long run by paying three times more for a marking gauge they should purchase the Tite-Mark. But most rational buyers have a more short term view. As John Maynard Keynes said, "In the long run, we are all dead." Offering such support in the hope of getting something back in the form of future innovative tools is probably going to be disappointing.
And people who won't market a product that they developed because "someone will steal the design" are illogical. No person is so smart that they can develop something that no one else can think of. They will likely see their innovative product in the market being sold by someone else. If their idea really is unique they have the tools to protect their idea and prevent others from copying (patents). There are patent companies who will purchase the patent and enforce it, and the inventor can get a portion of the awards. But more importantly it will keep others out of the market with an exact copy of their product.
Trying to appeal to consumers to pay three times the price for a fairly expensive product is not likely to succeed on a large scale. Most people need two marking gauges for dovetails so they'll be facing either a $60 purchase or a $180 purchase. Trying to get them to pay $120 extra for "ethical consumerism" is a tough sell. But if you can do it, go for it!
Mike
[The focus of our economic system is to provide value to the consumer, not to protect manufacturers.]
Last edited by Mike Henderson; 04-19-2017 at 4:33 PM.
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.