What Mortise Gauge Do you Prefer

[Malcolm McLeod]

Bottom line, buying things on price alone is a losing strategy. It my be good for the individual at that moment but in the long run bad for the group. Walmart is a perfect example, individuals may save money buying inferior goods but in the long run Walmart ends up hollowing out their town and taking jobs away from the country. Its pretty much lose lose, you get shoddy goods and lose your job to save a nickel.

I guess for me the real question is: Can I look in the mirror each morning and like what I see.

ken

It seems very binary - I can hollow out my town, or hollow out my wallet. Tough choice.

Or perhaps there's another non-binary alternative? Maybe the town's Dollar 5 & Dime Store, or the nearby town's tailor, or the next-state-over tool builder will figure out how to compete in an ever changing marketplace..???

[Chris Parks]

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."

I have been ripped off despite patents in place and this is a fair summation of the situation. Patents in this world market place are for the big players who have the resources to defend them, beyond that they are a pointless exercise and only increase lawyers' retirement funds. In days past there was respect for someone's IP but not today.

[Chris Parks]

It seems very binary - I can hollow out my town, or hollow out my wallet. Tough choice.

Or perhaps there's another non-binary alternative? Maybe the town's Dollar 5 & Dime Store, or the nearby town's tailor, or the next-state-over tool builder will figure out how to compete in an ever changing marketplace..???

I used to sell Clearvue in Oz and I recall being asked when I was having a sale, I never had one, sold plenty at a fair price and regard sales as self defeating. Those who asked always bought one when this was explained to them.

[Mike Allen1010]

Bottom line, buying things on price alone is a losing strategy. It my be good for the individual at that moment but in the long run bad for the group.

I guess for me the real question is: Can I look in the mirror each morning and like what I see.

ken

+1

Ken Hatch - woodworker, philosopher and I suspect ...................... also man with an uncanny ability to find the best hole-in-the-all Mexican food establishment in any town, south of the Mason-Dixon, within 30" of entering city limits.

Now that I think about it, ....... where can I volunteer for the Ken Hatch "office of his choice" campaign?


Best, Mike

[Derek Cohen]

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."

Ron, as I mentioned in an earlier post, this very issue came up a few months ago over a Tite-Mark clone. There were those who argued from a legalistic-perspective, and those who supported a moral-ethic-perspective. It became clear that there was a strong separation of the groups, and neither gave way much. If there was a lesson to take away from this, it is that the forum likely is a representative sample of the larger world of tool buyers - those who believe in supporting original makers, and those who see the world as dog eat dog. Personally, I would not buy a clone, and I speak out in situations such as this. However, I recognise that there are counter arguments and that others have a right to their view, as much as I disagree with them.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Pat Barry]

Veritas makes a gage similar to the Tite-Mark and the Taylor tools. I'd probably buy the Veritas based on happiness with past purchases. Is this wrong?

[Derek Cohen]

Veritas makes a gage similar to the Tite-Mark and the Taylor tools. I'd probably buy the Veritas based on happiness with past purchases. Is this wrong?

Hi Pat

Lee Valley (Veritas) would never build a copy of the TM gauge (I know for a fact), out of respect for Kevin Drake. Their own wheel gauge is different in design. The wheel gauge concept, per se, has been around for a long time, but (as far as I am aware), but the adjustment mechanism of the TM is the design of Kevin Drake, and that LV would rather come up with their own version.

You have to decide for yourself what is right or wrong, as my grandmother used to say to me.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Simon MacGowen]

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.]

Bridge City understands the risk of rip-offs and hence has chosen to partner with a Chinese manufacturer to produce its tools for the non-US market. I would lose no sleep if I bought something that was a LEGAL copy of another product that was never protected by any patent or trademark. Why should I? To extend the argument of morality, should I buy American (British, Canadian, Chinese, etc.) only?

Simon

[Mike Henderson]

Ron, as I mentioned in an earlier post, this very issue came up a few months ago over a Tite-Mark clone. There were those who argued from a legalistic-perspective, and those who supported a moral-ethic-perspective. It became clear that there was a strong separation of the groups, and neither gave way much. If there was a lesson to take away from this, it is that the forum likely is a representative sample of the larger world of tool buyers - those who believe in supporting original makers, and those who see the world as dog eat dog. Personally, I would not buy a clone, and I speak out in situations such as this. However, I recognise that there are counter arguments and that others have a right to their view, as much as I disagree with them.

Regards from Perth

Derek

One problem with the "moral-ethic-perspective" on this forum is that people seem to only have that perspective for certain tool makers. If you really believe in that perspective you should have the same attitude towards all products that copy another manufacturer's product. But that would mean you would would have a very small set of products that you could purchase.

Essentially all products copy other products. It's the way our economic system works. What about a product that is patented and the patent runs out? Should another company be able to use that intellectual property at that time? Or does the "moral-ethical-perspective" require that another manufacturer not use that intellectual property because the first company developed it? If you agree that another company should be able to use it, you are agreeing that unprotected intellectual property is public domain - and that public domain intellectual property is available to all.

To live the "moral-ethical-perspective" you would have to research every product you were considering purchasing to discover whether the product copied any intellectual property that was developed by someone else, and whether that person consented to the use of that intellectual property.

Of course, that's what our legal system is for. If a company is infringing someone else's protected intellectual property, the owner of the intellectual property has the responsibility and legal ability to address that issue, not the consumer. The "responsibility" of the consumer is to choose the best product for his or her needs, and best includes price.

I am left to wonder if the people who advocate your "moral-ethical-perspective" are those who are manufacturers or who are closely associated with manufacturers.

The focus of our economic system is to provide value to the consumer, not to provide a monopoly to a manufacturer. And that, I submit, is the proper focus and the one that will provide the highest long term value to the nation.

Mike

[Monopolies are properly discouraged in our economic system because they do not have an incentive to provide the best value to the consumer. A patent is a legal monopoly and is granted for a specific reason and for only a limited time.]

[Regarding copying, I always think of Sir Isaac Newton's comment in 1676: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulder of giants." Building a product that uses the public domain intellectual property of a predecessor is essentially the same as Sir Newton development of the calculus. I submit that Taylor tools has enhanced the public domain intellectual property of the Tite-Mark by showing that it can be profitably sold for 1/3 the price of the Tite-Mark. This enhancement is valuable to the consumer, which is the focus of our economic system. What value is it to the consumer to pay significantly more for a generally equivalent product? It's only a value to the manufacturer.]

[Derek Cohen]

One problem with the "moral-ethic-perspective" on this forum is that people seem to only have that perspective for certain tool makers. If you really believe in that perspective you should have the same attitude towards all products that copy another manufacturer's product. But that would mean you would would have a very small set of products that you could purchase.

Essentially all products copy other products. It's the way our economic system works. What about a product that is patented and the patent runs out? Should another company be able to use that intellectual property at that time? Or does the "moral-ethical-perspective" require that another manufacturer not use that intellectual property because the first company developed it? If you agree that another company should be able to use it, you are agreeing that unprotected intellectual property is public domain - and that public domain intellectual property is available to all.

To live the "moral-ethical-perspective" you would have to research every product you were considering purchasing to discover whether the product copied any intellectual property that was developed by someone else, and whether that person consented to the use of that intellectual property.

Of course, that's what our legal system is for. If a company is infringing someone else's protected intellectual property, the owner of the intellectual property has the responsibility and legal ability to address that issue, not the consumer. The "responsibility" of the consumer is to choose the best product for his or her needs, and best includes price.

I am left to wonder if the people who advocate your "moral-ethical-perspective" are those who are manufacturers or who are closely associated with manufacturers.

The focus of our economic system is to provide value to the consumer, not to provide a monopoly to a manufacturer. And that, I submit, is the proper focus and the one that will provide the highest long term value to the nation.

Mike

[Monopolies are properly discouraged in our economic system because they do not have an incentive to provide the best value to the consumer. A patent is a legal monopoly and is granted for a specific reason and for only a limited time.]

[Regarding copying, I always think of Sir Isaac Newton's comment in 1676: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulder of giants." Building a product that uses the public domain intellectual property of a predecessor is essentially the same as Sir Newton development of the calculus. I submit that Taylor tools has enhanced the public domain intellectual property of the Tite-Mark by showing that it can be profitably sold for 1/3 the price of the Tite-Mark. This enhancement is valuable to the consumer, which is the focus of our economic system. What value is it to the consumer to pay significantly more for a generally equivalent product? It's only a value to the manufacturer.]

Mike, you and I are not going to agree on this one. And I am not about to try and convert you to my way of thinking.

I will comment about your statement, "If you really believe in that perspective you should have the same attitude towards all products that copy another manufacturer's product. But that would mean you would would have a very small set of products that you could purchase. "

There is nothing in what I have written about that should suggest that copying, per se, is verboten. Only copying without permission is verboten. There is also no argument against taking an idea of another and improving it. Many of the tools we use have the footprint of others. I'd say that the Taylor gauge is more than a footprint.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[John Schtrumpf]

I have no problem with the "moral-ethic-perspective" being presented. As long as those who make the immoral choice are not attacked.

For me, hand tool woodworking is a hobby, and my purchases are made with discretionary income. Along with the fact that many woodworking hand tools are either no longer mass produced or are barely fit for purpose if they are. I give thought to what manufacturers and retailers I buy from. Because I realize my purchase, in it's small way, may influence what is available. Adding a "moral-ethic-perspective" to that thought process, fits right in with other considerations.

[Andy Nichols]

I'm with John S. above, state your cerebral machinations without attacking....

Have problems with these tool buying ethics given no trademark or patents:

"if it' better it's ok"

"if it looks a little different it's ok"

What many inventors find when they apply for a patent is that during the search, it's been done before, and looking different or fantastic engineering does not count.

Also that these ethics only applies to certain items.

An IGaging copy of a Starrett is just one example...I'm not buying the much cheaper IGaging copy, will save my money for the real thing, and that decision has nothing to do with ethics..

The Starrett is worth that much more to me, that's all.


Andy

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Mike is not approaching this from an "immoral" perspective. Words like "moral" or "ethical" are out of place in this discussion. He is concerned about kids who can't afford to spend hundreds of dollars and need a marking gauge. There is nothing immoral about that, any more than there is something immoral about worrying that a $15 minimum wage might effectively prohibit some low skill workers from making a living, or people who worry that pharmaceutical patents might prevent people who need medicine from getting it. When I was growing up we saw the same debate over whether a Walmart would be allowed to build in town. You see a similar thing going on in discussions about global warming. Some people are more concerned about the bleaching coral. Some people are more concerned about the coal miners. Both sides of those debates are trying to approach it from a moral perspective, just as both sides of this debate are.

It makes no more sense to call Mike "immoral" than it would for me to call folks who oppose him "racists" or "imperialists" (after all, a superficial review of these threads would suggest folks only really get upset about copying when the Chinese are involved somehow; all American copying seems to be chalked up to good old Yankee ingenuity). In this context I think all of those words are just an easy way to avoid the substance of the other arguments.

I don't buy the distinction between the Lee Valley gauge and this one, any more than I buy the distinctions people have tried to make between the Lie Nielsen copies and the Woodriver copies. Interesting that the fellow who will straight up copy any Stanley part you send him never comes up in these discussions. From a certain point of view I would think an "ethical" argument could be made that he is taking food out of the mouths of our beloved tool dealers. Nobody seems to care. Would it be different if his address was Beijing instead of Arizona? Is it wrong to take your car to the local shade tree mechanic for a repair instead of taking it back to the dealer for repair by the people who "own" the design?

I suspect Derek's willingness to see differences in the design of the Lee Valley gauge he likes may subconciously have something to do with his friendship with Rob Lee (who has earned plenty of my tool dollars in recent years). Nothing wrong with that. Ron Hock a small tool maker, (who sold me two marking knives I like very much, thank you) has his own biases in an argument of this type, as does Chris Schwarz, who I think was linked in the last thread. Another member who was prominent in the last thread is a personal friend of one of the tool makers involved. Nothing wrong with any of their perspectives, and all are understandable, just as it is understandable for West Virginians to vote en masse against the democrats in the last couple of elections. But to smear people as immoral or unethical because they deal with "not my friends" is wrong. Nobody appointed anybody Pope of the hand tool world, and the preachiness of these threads is distasteful to me.

It is a big world, with lots of people, and if freedom means anything it means the right to be different, and think through things at your own pace, and come to your own conclusions in your own time. I think it is ridiculous that we have a member asking anxiously if it is "okay" for him to buy a gauge from a well established and respected tool dealer out of fear of what the mob might think of him. I don't agree with everything Mike says, and I don't agree with a lot of what the people who don't agree with him say. But I accept that both arguments are being made by good people in good faith, trying to deal with a difficult issue.

[Derek Cohen]

I suspect Derek's willingness to see differences in the design of the Lee Valley gauge he likes may subconciously have something to do with his friendship with Rob Lee

Mate, you are way off base here ..

Spot the differences ...



I don't have a micro adjust Veritas, so ..



Do any of the Veritas examples appear to have the same adjustment as the TM?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

I suspect Derek's willingness to see differences in the design of the Lee Valley gauge he likes may subconciously have something to do with his friendship with Rob Lee

Mate, you are way off base here ..

Spot the differences ...



I don't have a micro adjust Veritas, so ..



Regards from Perth

Derek