OK whats happening Taunton,
I was ina LV store last weekend, and for the third time in the last few months i noticed a certain lack of Taunton press publications and books.
Guy behind the counter said “the’re not available anymore but the’re lots of other good magazines available” and then i noticed a lack of ads for LV in Tauntons mags
So i asked a guy at LV and he/she said something about a copyright issue
So taunton, whats your side?
Taunton and LV have long been two of the finest purveyors of woodworking products in north america and now there’s a parting of the ways?
A squabble in the playground serves noone least of all your many mutual clients
cc LeeValley
stevemorris
sarnia ont.
Replies
Something did happen, but I'll be darned if I can remember what it was! Seems to me there was an exchange about it in the Letters to the Editor section of the mag, maybe earlier in the year?
It's like being a little kid and watching your parents fight over something trivial.
FWW published a "Methods of Work" tip for a dovetail jig that happened to be nearly identical to Lee Valley's patented Veritas jig. Lee Valley informed the FWW editors of the patent infringement problem. FWW published an apology, but apparently its tone wasn't apologetic enough. And there we stand.
-Steve
If it really was a duplication of a patented idea, even if inadvertent, it wouldn't feel trivial to me if I were the inventor or owner of the patent, and Taunton should have been emphatic in it's apology.
Well not to be mean or anything and I support patents and all but if this is the one I think I recall about the idea of using magnets to hold a fence to the side of a hand plane then I can not see the flap.
First off the idea is so generic that I do not think it was deliberate. Second, they did apologies, I do not know what else they could do. And last but not least I really wonder about the patent in the first place. This is something that someone suggested to me years ago. I miss remember were. I think it was at a local wood show and we were talking about planes and such. And I know that people have been sticking so called fences on planes with tape and screws for years. It is just that magnets have gotten strong enough to do this in the last few years. Don't get me wrong I like patents and I can see LV keeping others from selling one of these (sort of) but to go off the deep end over an article on how to make one?
So while I do like LV and have spent a good amount of money with them (including last week) I do not see this as a huge issue. In fact if this is the reason for the "split" I find it kind of sad.
What is next, giving a patent to someone for the idea of the tapering jig?
IF this is what it is about I think that someone needs to grow up and get over it.
Doug
For anyone interested the patent in question is described here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,708,412.PN.&OS=PN/6,708,412&RS=PN/6,708,412.
There have been a few comments on this thread that clearly show a need for education when it comes to patents. The fact a patent was obtained means the examiners determined the invention was new, was useful and had not been known or used by others. My limited experience with patents taught me that they tend to be very very specific. That's how you can claim to have invented something new even if it is based on an old idea. For example, LV did not claim to have invented "the fence". Their patent application actually mentions Stanley received a patent for a bench plane fence.
The following link provides a pretty good intro to patents: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html
Regards,
Senomozi
I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the squabble was over a dovetailing fence jig for magnetically holding the saw in place, not a plane fence.
Regardless of what it was over, a patent is a patent, and thus legally requires recognition. Some folks believe that standing on the shoulders of others inventive creations is ok, while most do not. I'm in the "do not" camp, mainly because I am the patent holder on a device which is non-woodworker related, and I am constantly dealing with infringement of it.
Doug, if you figured out cold fusion, and developed a way to create vast amounts of pure energy for the world to thrive on, my guess is that you would probably not wanting someone disassembling your "invention" in reverse, copying it, and making bazillions on it.
To whatever degree, that is what patents are about. We are, for the most part, the greediest species on the planet, and are quite familiar with the terms, "me, my, mine, etc......". That's what this is really about.
What's truly funny to me is that both Taunton and Lee Valley don't seem to care how much each loses in the way of future business over this squabble. I guess that's what happens when there are too many steaks in the freezer. They both might change their tune if the freezer started to look a litte barren.
Been there, done that.
Jeff
While I agree that patents should be respected, I think their purpose is to allow "standing on the shoulders of others" because that is how all technological advances take place. A patent makes the technology available to all without the need for reverse engineering, in exchange for a temporary monopoly. Once the patent expires, it's fair game. The scheme intends to balance the legitimate right of the inventor to profit with the benefit to all of having the details known so they can be used and improved upon.What sort of apology is appropriate does seem to depend on which side of that apology you are sitting. It is unfortunate if Lee Valley and Taunton are squabbling, because I'd consider both to be good guys.
ok, Lets go back and look at what I said. I said they both need to get over it and move on. It is not like FWW did it on purpose. It is not like they are building and selling these things. And anything that simple, if I was intent on building my own the article would not be needed. So to ruin a good business relationship over something this minor is nuts. The effect the article will have on them is next to nill. The effect on them from trashing the relationship will be far greater.
If it is over the dovetail jig that is a different case, as I do not personally recall anyone talking about that before. So that patent seams (to me anyway) to be more justified. But in truth the idea to use a magnet to hold something is not exactly new. It may be the first time it has been sold vs home built, but is it new? I don't know, but lets assume it is. It still is not such a huge deal that the should ruin a business relationship over it.
As for the idea that the patent office looks in depth at each patent before issuing them so that they are not issued on things that have been done before. Well When I pick myself up off the floor from laughing at this idea I will continue.
Ok now that I am back in my chair, let me give just two examples. In the Model Train world we have started to add electronic controls and sound to our models. That being said the patent office issued a patent for electronically controlling electric motor speed with a feedback system so that the motor stays at the same RPM no matter what the load. They issued this patent only a couple years ago. If you read this the guy has a patent on this idea for all uses. Remember you do not get one patent for use in Model Trains and another for use in model airplanes (or anything else) Anyone want to talk about how long we have had this on industrial motors? Or about the fact that at least one (if not as many as 3) companies had this on the market years before the guy applied for the patent? How about the fact that this is ending up being tossed out? According to one companies statements about the case, we are seeing a lot of patents issued and then being overturned in court on prior art issues. Another example in Model Railroading was a company that tried to patent the idea of a sound system being in the model train and controlled by remote. To bad another company had done this over 10 years sooner.
So just because you could con the government into giving you a patent on the circular saw blade does not mean that it is valid. Take a look around their have been a lot of patents issued for things that others have been doing first. And once that is proved the patent is tossed out the window.
Now if you invent something and it is truly new. Good for you and go get a patent on it and sue the pants off anyone that steels your idea. But make sure it is a new idea. And don't pitch a good relationship over something minor.
> What's truly funny to me is that both Taunton and Lee Valley don't seem to care how much each loses in the way of future business over this squabble. I don't want to add to the debate over the morality or process of patents, but most people don't seem to understand how they work or why. Fact is, they are there and that's the climate in which companies conduct business so they have to abide. However, if I saw the public exchange described here and I had to exercise my principles, Lee Valley would NOT be the company losing my business. Purely my opinion. [Everyone else is entitled to theirs, as long as it matches mine. ;) ]Andy
I have a rather generic, even mundane, question. Why do we care whether Lee Valley runs ads in a Taunton publication, or any other magazine? LV has an excellent website, and we all have computers. LV runs ads in other magazines, and I seriously doubt that we restrict ourselves to reading just one magazine so we can read the latest ad copy. I'm all for a good dust-up, but this burger doesn't have any beef!Your mileage may vary...
Never said that I would stop. Said that I don't think this was intended to step on LVs toes. I will be you that no one dreamed the idea was patented. When they learned of it they printed an apology in the mag. What more do you want them to do? It is not like a mag. can look into patent infringements on every idea they put in the thing, you would never get a new idea.
We on this forum do not seam to be able to make up our minds. We as a group say that FWW is not doing anything useful and informative for us, yet when the print an idea on a new way to help do something we jump on them because it turns out someone had the idea. Well once they found that out they apologized. so what were they to do?
And for this LV is drooping out of the relationship? I am sorry while I LOVE LV and respect them for a lot of things (see threads about how good a company they are) I still think this is not a bright idea. You do not toss a relationship out the window over something this minor. I had a friend rear end my car once at a stop sign. I did not quit talking with him over it. It was an accident. These things happen.
Doug
Doug,
I know how to solve this thing.
Bush has got the Israelis and the Palestinians together for some talks. Why not flip a coin and put reps from LV and Taunton on the those two teams. The Israelis and the Palestinians will laugh at them and let them know that there is nothing in the LV-Taunton thing worth fighting about, and tell them to make peace, so business can improve and the fates of their people can improve. Maybe we should get the English and Irish involved instead, because they already solved their problems. But the principle is the same. MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Doug, to be clear, I was not commenting on the issue itself as I never read the details. Just wanted to voice my support for LV before any representative from Taunton says anything about it here. From the sounds of it, I think I'd rather it not resurface for the sake of either of them. Andy
Yeah I guess I can see that. I kind of feel like a kid whos parents are fighting. You sit back and want them to just get along.
Doug
Despite the idea that Taunton and Lee Valley are greta companies, the incedent really showed they there both still run by people. People who make mistakes.
There's really no need to drag this all back up. Perhaps they're doing the best thing keeping away from each other for a bit. In the end it's a loss for both companies, and moreover us as customers.
I have a question about this whole dustup. Did FWW come up with the idea and then put it in their magazine or was this something that a reader had sent to FWW, who thought that it was a clever idea and print in their magazine? I would be willing to bet that this was a reader's submission. If so, will the fine folks at LV be going after the guilty reader in court? I don't think so. Just a stray thought, but one that should be read by all interested.
Steve.
There is no doubt. It is time for Taunton and LV to go to war. We should all take sides and let the bloodshed begin. I just can't figure out which side to join. So maybe I will just sit this one out. Not much new in woodworking. So I guess people like to fight over stuff which is trivial. Jigs are jigs. Don't buy jigs. Make em. I suppose if I invented the biscuit joiner, I'd be upset with the Festool Domino. Have fun.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
I suspect there may be a little more to it than meets the eye. The original infringement, if that's what it was, happened in issue 171, in March 2004. I expect LV noticed it right away -- I did. The apology didn't arrive until issue 181, and it's not quite wholehearted. It's offered under the heading "clarification," and the word "apology" doesn't appear until the last sentence in reference to FWW policy: it's not offered directly to LV. The language used is that of a prolonged excuse rather than an apology: "regrets the inadvertent publication," "we do not knowingly," "we exercise reasonable care," "unintentional oversights are likely to happen." How difficult is it to say "We screwed up, we apologize?" That said, I agree that 3 to 4 years is too long to bear a grudge that affects clients of both companies. Life's too short.
Jim
Jim
Jim, lets play a game. Put on your "Lawyer's Hat" and read each of the following two statements:
Which of those two statements would you, The Lawyer, have recommended Taunton publish?? Keep in mind, they pay you pretty big bucks for your advice.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
> Which of those two statements would you, The Lawyer, have recommended Taunton publish?? Keep in mind, they pay you pretty big bucks for your advice.Geez fg, if you're going to make him role play, can't he at least pick a career with which he won't be embarassed and ashamed? Andy
The mere fact that he'd be "embarrased and ashamed" proves he's not really one! ROFL!!forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
I just had a somewhat similar situation happen to me in the photography world.
A newspaper published a photo that I had sent them years ago, though I was not compensated or informed that it was going to be published. I immediately contacted the photo editor and pointed out their transgression.
His reply? "We'll get back to you on that." And he never did.
Well, that lit me up. Therefore, instead of simply receiving an apology for what was obviously a procedural error on their part - and I would have been happy with that - I decided to pursue it through legal means. I'll spare you the gory details, but they ended up paying quite a piece of money for their actions.
My point is that, as another poster pointed out, a simple, heartfelt apology and asking of forgiveness can go a long way toward staving off animosity and ill will. I'm not one to go out of my way to stir up trouble, and I'm not contentious by nature. But I don't tolerate rudeness and incivility well...
Zolton* Some people say I have a problem because I drink hydraulic brake fluid. But I can stop any time I want.
My point is that, as another poster pointed out, a simple, heartfelt apology and asking of forgiveness can go a long way toward staving off animosity and ill will.
Zolon
I think you hit the nail right on the head.. I know that's not fine woodwork. Its nice to think that there are still people out there that understand that people make mistakes, they get embarrassed about it, kinda squirm a little but.. you gotta stand up and say I'm sorry. Its the right thing to do and most of us don't like to feel like we have been taken advantage of no matter how small the infraction.
FWW has done a pretty darn good job over the last 30 years of keeping the information going out and the feathers unruffled -- for the most part. Any of the FWW readers who have been with the magazine a long time know-- there are lots more companies advertising and that presents lots of challenges. Don't want to step on toes too much.
Some of the tests on tools and finishing materials must be tough to finalize?? FWW has walked a fine line in lots of cases.
I like some of the LV stuff and I like FWW. Hope they can pull it back together-- if not they can surely make it on their own and life will go on.
dan
I don't think a lawyer's hat would fit too well somehow -- and I don't own a pin-stripe suit. I was trying to point out that Taunton was using lawyer's weasel words more than a year after the fact when there was no need to. They hadn't broken any laws, they'd made an honest if dumb mistake (surely someone on staff must know LV products when most of their readers do), a timely "sorry" would have cleared the air. Apology delayed gives the other party time to nurse his grievance. A pro forma apology completes the job. If you have a problem with LV they don't hand you over to the company lawyer. They listen to you and put things right in a hurry. Taunton should take note. That said, I still think LV should lighten up. The whole thing looks petty.
Jim
"They hadn't broken any laws."
Ahh. (Sound of putting my Lawyer's Hat on.)
Well, if LV's patent is indeed valid (and just because it was issued does not mean that's true -- that only proves that some patent clerk thought it should be and raises the presumption of validity), Taunton may have indeed violated LV's patent rights and thus "broken the law". If LV could defend its patent as valid, the fact that violating it was unintentional would be no defense for Taunton. LV would be entitled to recover any damages it suffered (and perhaps multiples thereof) provided it could prove damages.
Defending the patent and proving damages would probably cost more than the patent is worth, even if it is valid. So, wiser heads prevailed and no suit was filed. LV has instead chosen to protect its rights by boycotting Taunton -- a perfectly reasonable alternative to extreemly expensive litigation. It hurts Taunton (a bit -- LV has presumably calculated that it hurts Taunton more than it hurts themselves) and it acts as an incentive for Taunton and other publications to be more careful in the future.
I suspect that the whole thing will resolve the next time Taunton publishes a glowing review of a new Veritas plane. LV will want to put some ads in the issue and sell (or at least gloat about) the issue to their customers. The parties are likely simply waiting for a suitable occasion to bury the hatchet, er, dovetail guide, and in the meantime, maintaining a suitable facade of rightous indignation.
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
As for the time to get the apology into the mag, I am not supported by that. First we had to wait for LV to notice it (assuming they did that while the issue was on the stands) that puts it about a month or so down the line. Then LV has to contact Taunton, Taunton had to call it lawyers, get this investigated, decide it messed up, figure out a statement that will not admit guilt, and then get it put in a mag and sent to print. Heck most of the mags I have dealt with take 3 or 4 months to print a letter to the editor. Add in time for the lawyers to look this over and it is not a huge surprise that it took a year. Also this assumes that LV noticed it right at the start. If it took LV a while to realize (they may or may not read the mag cover to cover) this may have used up some of that time also.
I just think it is a sad situation no matter what, or how it happened.
Doug
Does this mean that any readers who construct a home made-version of a patented product are breaking the law as well? Or is it OK to make something so long as you don't sell it or give out the instructions to thousands of subscribers... On that note, there are a lot of excellent ideas in lee valley for the enterprising DIY'er,
although often it's more cost effective to just buy their version anyway as it is nearly
always made to higher standards than a homemade copy can be. Anyway, I agree that taunton could have handled the situation better-
LV deserved an immediate apology, and FWW should have pictured the lee valley
product and given it some credit in order to steer potential DIY'ers into buying
the patented version. After all, when time is money, a few hours spent making something
yourself is often 'more costly' than the $40 you would spend to buy one. Of course that philosophy often runs against the grain of most woodworkers who just
love to make stuff for themselves, regardless of whether someone else can do it better.
As someone who is in the reconciliation business (and it's no easier for me than anyone else!)I have learned that the two most powerful words in the English language are "I'm sorry". They diffuse tense situations, they bring people/parties together, and they foster stronger relationships. We humans however often times bow up, take a "I've done nothing wrong" stance, and we wind up with LV and Taunton mad at each other. Needless and pointless. Ok, back to the woodworking for me. Tom"Notice that at no time do my fingers leave my hand"
"Does this mean that any readers who construct a home made-version of a patented product are breaking the law as well?"
Sure does. In theory at least, the patent holder could sue you for violating his patent, his damages being at least the profit he would have made in selling you the widget you chose to make instead of buy. That, plus statutory damages for patent infringement. Just like you can't copy songs from a CD you don't own for your own use, even if you don't sell them.
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
Oh my. Does reasonableness have any place in The Law? It seems not.Is it any wonder that folks develop disrespect and simply ignore it?Cheers,Peter
Better life through Zoodles and poutine...
"Does reasonableness have any place in The Law? It seems not."
While the fringes of patent and trademark laws may get a bit extreem, they are really based on sound logic. They are designed to encourage folks to expend time and capital to develop new inventions so they can market them and make a profit and earn a profit on their investment. Some inventions have required huge capital and time expenditures. There's no way this kind of risk would be taken unless one stands a chance at recouping thier investment and making a profit.
So, let's say you spend $50,000 and two years inventing a better widget. You plan to sell them for $10 each to get your money back and maybe make a buck or two. You invest another pile into producion facilities and start selling them. Then, some bloke publishes plans on how to make your widget at home for only $7.00. As a result, you sell only a few, and lose your shirt.
Same deal for writing and recording a song. You spend time and money and talent to do it so you can feed your family. Then a bunch of people make copies and flood the market. Your sales go in the tank, although millions are listening to your music.
Offsetting these intellectual property restrictions on copying is the time limit on the exclusive rights. After a time, the rights expire, and anybody and use the idea. The thought is, by that time, the inventor should have had enough time to make a profit from his inventiveness.
Many times, you see something & think "that's so easy! I shoulda thought of that!" Well, you didn't -- someone else did. And just because you can easily copy it, that doesn't make it reasonable or right.
I ain't saying intellectual property laws are perfect -- far from it. But they do A LOT to foster inovation and growth. Seen from the point of view from the one who takes the risk to develop and market a new concept, the laws are quite sensible. They only seem u nreasonable when you disregard the sweat and investment of the inventor as worthless.
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
Once upon a time the USPT paid attention to the basic tests for issuing a patent (obviousness, usefullness, etc.). A few years ago they seemed to have changed their checklists. Now you pay the fees, fill in the forms, and about 99% of the time you get a duly issued patent. As a result, many recent patents are of questionable validity.
There are all kinds of examples, ranging from 'Method for swinging on a swing' to patents for plying with a cat with a laser pointer.
A patent was never intended to be a guarantee to make money: the idea was to offer a period of exclusiveness in the market (i.e. selling the invention) in exchange for disclosure of the big secret.
So a trivial invention is a trivial invention. Chances are a patent shouldn't have been issued, and, in the olden days, nobody woul dhave bothered to file for an 'invention' which if obvious once you see a picture of it.
So we have dualing silliness in the market: trivial patents which should never hve been issued, and then all kinds of litigation between parties who often made the same 'invention' indepentently and incorporated it into their products.
Anyhow, as I said - so long as you don't sell it, never let a patent deter you from copying something for you own use.
As for musicians, outside the top elite (Elton John, Bon, Beatles, etc.) they'll tell you they get paid next to nothing for record sales. Almost all the money is made by the recording company they signed up with. The artists make their money on concerts.
Just a matter of time before the artists disintermediate the record companies. Its alreaded started, actually
Exactly. That's why my original post included "assuming the patent is valid" as a caveat. Many patents today gloss over the "not obvious" requirement. The issuance of a patent number does not necessarily mean that the patent is valid. Lots of patents are overturned if somebody is willing to invest the usually sizable amounts of funds to contest them.
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
I am not so worried about the patent being valid or not. I do NOT think you can expect FWW (or any other mag) to look into every new idea they get to make sure someone else has not patented it. This would take forever, and would eliminate all of the shop tip type stuff that many think is all ready to small of a section. This would surly kill it. As for the time, well by the time you work everything out it takes a while to publish anything. As for the way it was worded. Yes it could have been better, but I don't see how in the world we live in that they could have done it differently. I am sure a lawyer was involved. Is it sad that they were, Sure, but the only way to protect FWW (the job that the editor has to do) is to word it badly. They can not admit to anything, so you get a bad "were sorry" vs a truly felt one.
Both sides are in business, both sides I am sure understand how this happens. If this is why they are not working with each other any more it is a sad sad day.
Doug
"Does this mean that any readers who construct a home made-version of a patented product are breaking the law as well?"
Strictly speaking, yes. 35 USC 271 states (in part):
Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
So simply by making something that is patented, you are infringing the patent. In the real world, however, no one is going to go after you for making something for personal use. In fact, a lot of companies automatically grant a "personal use only" license for things that they hold the patent to. In any case, if you do make a personal copy of a patented invention, it would be a good idea to keep it truly "personal"; i.e., don't loan it to your next-door neighbor, etc.
-Steve
Just to let everyone know, we've hashed this thing out in a previous thread, which was eventually closed by the moderators. The first post is 18452.1 if you are interested (sorry, but my complete lack of html skills prevent me from including the link). I'm staying out of it this time. :-)
"sorry, but my complete lack of html skills prevent me from including the link" Would you like to learn how? It's super-simple, but not intuitive.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
This thread is silly. Tese are businesses, and the idea that this is just clashing egos is really not for certain... among other things, if there is a patent infringement, and LV does NOT forcefully and vigorously defend it, they are going a LONG way to relinquishing all of their future rights. I.E. if they say 'thanks for the apology - no hard feelings' then the next company that comes along and manufactures an identical product has a precedent for their defense that says 'LV let it go before - why should we be penalized? And furthermore, we didn't steal it from LV we copied it from FWW.' and LV's design and engineering work becomes valueless.Perhaps we should just let the parties that are actually involved in this settle it without all the unnecessary armchair litigation?
Does this mean that any readers who construct a home made-version of a patented product are breaking the law as well?
Yes, but it unlikely you'd be punished. I believe in the thread LV said they didn't really care if a user made one on their own. What they objected to is a tip showing everybody how to make one on their own...
First, if Tauton did do something wrong, I would think its a civil case not a crime. A crime is a wrong against the state. A civil action would be a Tort case. And if I were Tauton when the error occured, I would be dang sure a lawyer would draft the response as not to put them in a postion of defending a statement or percevied admission of any wrong doing in a court. It the words of my business law professor, don't put anything down in print, you don't want to see on an overhead in a court of law. If you are the business you don't know what this company is looking for? Do they truely want just an apology, or do they want you to trip up to get you in court and nail you. Business is business and you have to be carefull. Wy do you think contracts are done and not a hand shake. My two cents are they made an honest mistake, and remedied it properly. Yea LV was issued a patent, but have the successfully defended it in a court! I don't know the answer to that, but then I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV. But I will say this, when dealing with potential legal mindfields a good one is worth his money! Right or wrong thats the way it is!Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Lordy
Here's the thing with patent rights. You infringe a patent when you manufacture a product (or, stupidly these days, deliver a service) which makes use of a claimed invention of a valid patent.
You can write about it all you want, talk about it, take pictures of it, or do pretty much anything you care to so long as you don't manufacture it. Patents are inventions whose secrets are exposed for public veiwing. It doesn't mean their use is in the public domain, but anybody can go to the USPTO website and check out any issued patent in sordid detail.
Much as I love Lee Valley, there is nothing 'illegal' about writing an article about a information in the public domain. It was probably discourteous to a customer to show readers how they could knock off a Lee Valley product, but, if I recall, it was one of those 'tip' sections, and some people basically earn money by submitting tips they stole from other sources (like magazines).
I doubt anybody from Taunton knew it was a Lee Valley produict, because if they did they wouldn't have paid for the sham tip. If LV complained, you would expect it woudl have taken some time to issue a retraction because of press deadlines, legal advice and so on.
But, think about it - somebody could have got the same 'tip' from the Lee Valley catalog or website or the US Patent Office.
By the way, damages for patent infringment are calculated relative to the revenue a manufacturer derived from an infringing product. No revenue, no damages. No damages, no court case. So never let the fact a tool is patented deter you from copying the design at home.
Just don't sell it.
You have described the legal atmosphere about this kind of situation about as accurately as it can be generally described and have cut through a lot of misinformation prior to your post.The reality is that anyone can make just about anything for his or her private use without fear of accusation of (or successful prosecution of) Patent infringement.If one stupidly wants to be so blatant and provocative about it to draw the attention of a manufacturer, then things could get uncomfortable, but actual patent violation is so unlikely as to be a legal absurdity.For instance, I could meticulously examine and measure every last component part of a Felder sliding table cabinet saw. Such saws include several patented/proprietary mechanical and electronic systems. If I had the machine shop facilities, I could re-create the saw down to the last stainless steel machine screw, lock washer and nut. I could probably even paint the case the same green pattern as the Felder machine. I could use the machine for my own purposes for the rest of my life without worrying about the consequences.(Let's ignore the fact that such an effort would cost many, many times the retail price of the saw.)If I were so foolish as to publicize my activities, especially if I actually painted the Felder logo on the saw, or the model number, Felder would probably take very serious legal action and get an enforceable action to at least make me remove the identifying information and to operate the saw only in a quiet, private way. It is also conceivable they could make me stop using the saw completely. But if I continued to do so, I would be violating that court order, not a patent. For those who have postulated that LV's gripe is that Taunton, by publishing a detailed description of a magnetically-held saw blade, made it easier for potential customers to copy their product, I don't buy that at all.Lee Valley's catalog itself is the most useful source of information for duplicating Lee Valley products. There aren't many hand-tool products, templates or jigs in the catalog whose design can't be completely deduced from the pictures that so beautifully adorn the pages. LV ad copy clearly describes the designs, the materials used, detailed specifics and the thinking behind the execution. They even describe other, rejected designs. Nothing sells to a technically-oriented customer like such information.The typical reader of the catalog is a person who:a) can appreciate the design and its execution, has the ability to recreate it, but fully appreciates that the available retail product has been refined to a point that would take him or her many iterations to accomplish and is actually priced below (often, far below) that which it would cost to replicate, and therefore makes the purchaseb) can appreciate the design, does not have the ability to replicate it, realizes all the above and makes the purchase.The pictorial illustration of the design, therefore, and the clear way it is portrayed IS the selling factor.There is a third type of person who reads the catalog. Someone who finds the prices too high and determines to replicate a product. Some succeed. Most don't come close to making something as refined as is available. Some such individuals (and all of us probably fall into this category from time to time) simply enjoy the challenge, even if the result costs more and doesn't work as well. When we are in this mode of thinking, we are not a potential LV customer. And it doesn't matter what compelled us to "Do it Ourselves," the LV catalog or a Taunton description of an item, at that point we're not a potential customer.I don't think the Taunton article tipped this balance in any way.We'll probably never know what the actual spat between LV and Taunton is really about. From what IS currently visible about the rift, Taunton COULD have handled it better. But who knows what actually was said between the principles? These things tend to include behind-the-scenes details that don't get revealed until years later, if at all. There's a p*ss*ng contest going on and it probably has to do with feathers ruffled about something completely apart from the issues we think we "know."Rich
Edited 12/1/2007 1:45 pm ET by Rich14
Absolutely - Taunton seems to have not shortage of advertisers and Lee Valley has no shortage of magazines to advertise in.
Hopefully they'll kiss and make up.
I worry for them though: a great company probably getting killed by the strength of the loonie (C $)
Mike,
I have had the honor of working with four different attorneys on a routine basis who were honorable people, had morals, ethics, and common sense. One was a deputy AG when I worked for the state of Nevada. Another was with my human services work when I lived in New Orleans. That was Mike.
One day I went to Mike (hey, same first name as yours!) with a predicament regarding a client. I told Mike I knew what I needed to do, but it was going to create a conflict with a law or regulation. Mike's words were music to my ears, "Alan, you do the right thing, I'll clean up the legal mess." Mike understood the difference between legal issues and human behavior.
Here in Pennsylvania, I work with two attorneys from different law firms who are great also. The three of us know that whenever a situation arises, we are going to discuss several different viewpoints. One will be the safest position to take from a legal perspective. But another one will be a simple, what did you learn in kindergarten approach (such as saying I'm sorry -- and meaning it), and then deal with whatever legal repurcussion occurs. Thankfully, nothing serious has arisen in my 12 years here.
After the first of the year when I am out your way, I'll schedule a lunch with you.
Alan - planesaw
"They hadn't broken any laws."
Ahh. (Sound of putting my Lawyer's Hat on.) .....
Jeees Mike
How do you find time to work wood with that much analysis? I am impressed. You should do a little abritration work on the side. You might get a free years worth of FWW and a couple of tools from LV with that kind of thought and consideration??
dan
Not much analysis needed. Just stating what I see over and over again. This is stuff I deal with on a regular basis at "my other job".
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
I'm finding it hard to imagine a scenario where either firm wouldn't be able to survive without the other. If Lee Valley doesn't care for the ethics of Taunton there are plenty of other venues in which they can advertise the company's products. And God knows Fine Woodworking is not short of ads.
The WoodCentral Hand Tools forum had a long string on this topic two years ago including several comments from Rob Lee. It also includes a link to the letter LV sent to FW about this. http://woodcentral.com.ldh0138.uslec.net/cgi-bin/archives_handtools.pl?read=77478&v1=e2vrt43&v2=Woodworking+supplies&v4=orbital+sander&v5=lk3ty5r
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled