Lee Valley now has the new Veritas skew rabbet plane posted on their website. Looks like a great design to me and I know I could immediately put a pair to use… Would like to see other opinions. (Actually, would like to try one out!)
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
syke, with these, their new plow plane and my Record #778 -I am DONE. Now I can sell my herd of very tired and fussy woodies. Thanks for the heads up. Btw did ya notice ? The marking knife is back. Paddy
Yea, and the #$%@&* blades won't work in their Mk II sharpening jig. But the Lie Nielsen blades will. What's up with that?
Chris
Chris
Which (LV- ?) blades are you referring to?
Regards from Perth
Derek
OK, I could be way off base. I thought it was your review of this plane that pointed out that the LV blade was too short for the LV jig but the LN blade worked fine.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Chris
Correct Chris - however I also noted alternate setting for the LV Honing Guide that will work with the Veitas side rabbet plane.
Note Side rabbet rather than "skew rabbet", hence my checking with you. :)
Regards from Perth
Derek
How unfortunate for those that sought out and paid a mint for the Stanley 289. Some examples on e-bay went for over $500 each very recently. Should be interesting to see how far the price drops on the originals in the next few months.
One interesting thing about the plane is the "patent pending" label. I know nothing about the Canadian patent laws, but I really have to wonder what's "new and unique" enough to patent...
dkellernc
as to what is patentable, probably the use of the tighteners for the arms - that is probably the most unique thing about them. Or the circular nicker, from the description it seems that it can be moved out of action without removing from the plane body - not sure how that would work if my understanding is correct.
Patents are funny things, dont have to be anything new, just a new combination really.
Mike
Mike, if ya look at the price line on the LV site they usually have a view and a tech or user info to click on. It will show ya that not only can you use the eccentric shaft to rotate the nicker up or down, it also moves in and out via the screw behind the front rod once you release it's lock screw. These guys don't copy the old Stanley iron, they improve the functionality of the tool so that it cuts better, is easier to adjust and comes to hand (fits) better than the original. Paddy
Good point, though I'd have to say I wish the patent office would issue a lot fewer patents, not more. Re-combining existing (and unpatented) technology shouldn't result in a new patent, IMO.
There's worse, of course, than patents issued to tooling. The concept of patenting "business methods" is completely bankrupt, and has resulted in a lot of idiotic lawsuits.
Hear, hear. Our whole patent and copyright system is pretty bad here in the US of A. Copyright i worse than patent, BTW. Just absurd in some areas.
Joe,
Last year I read a (borrowed) book by a scientific person that examined the business of innovation in science and technology. (Unfortuntely I can't remember the author or the title). One of his main conclusions was that technology generally predates or leads scientific discoveries and not vice-versa, as is often assumed.
Another conclusion he reached was that it is commercial striving that is the main engine of technology (and scientific) innovation. The commercial considerations are not just profit-seeking but also that wider set of motives including rivalry and the desire for success, power or status.
His conclusion relevant to this discussion concerns the effects of patents and rigid enforcement of intellectual property rights. His evidence suggests that such practices inhibit innovation, a conclusion very much against the usual argument put forward by those holding a patent - that preventing others from exploiting or developng "their" invention gives the patent-holders a chance to make money from their monopoly and therefore keeps them motivated to invent some more.
On the contrary, it seems. Such artificial restraints on the wider developments of a patented invention, using a world full of innovative humans, actually ossifies technology and slows the whole process of invention like a drag-anchor. Those who hold a copyright or patent try not only to stop others innovating on their invention but actively seek to prevent rivals to their technology emerging, so that they may continue their monopoly.
Perhaps US copyright and patent laws are part of the reason why it's taken the American WW machinery market so long to begin moving beyond the 1920s tablesaw design that seems to have cornered your market in TS for so many decades? In fact, from an outsider's point of view, a large section of technology provision in the US seems moribund and stuck with what-is. Yet the US also (and paradoxically) has another manufacturing sector that provides cutting-edge new technologies and the associated science.............?
Then there are the anomalies of Lee Valey and Lie Nielsen. The latter copies now unpatented technology and makes the most of the design by uing high standards of manufacture. The former also innovates around the same technologies but seems unduly possesive and sensitive about copyrighting their minor if effective tinkerings with the design. Personally I'd like LV-quality tools from China at 1/3 the cost so have little sympathy for those hoots and hollers LV makes concerning their copyright (recalling the FWW magnet-guided saw readers-tip debacle).
How long before the Chinese emulate the Japanese revolution in quality control and rapid exploitation of high tecchnology inventions (a la camera industry). No doubt they too will suddenly find themselves with a liking for rigid copyright law, in direct opposition to their current practice in, say, software sales where copying of western-patented algorithyms is uninhibited and wholesale.
Lataxe
Lataxe:It is indeed a complex topic. I have heard the arguments you mentioned, and as a layman with a bit more economics than most folks but still not expertise on what we are talking about, some of what he says makes sense to me. On the other hand, it is certainly true that major innovations usually require a long time and a lot of money to be worked out, and people generally will not make that investment if someone else sitting across the road with no investment in the development process can just run off with the idea and undercut prices. Good examples are the light bulb and Edison's other inventions, that took years of lab work at Menloe Park and many errors and setbacks -- all funded by risk capital that would not have been made available if just anybody could make off with the technology as soon as it was fully functional.I am professionally aware on a confidential basis of some medical ideas for the treatment of diabetic conditions that were never brought to market because the cost of launching them commercially would be a pure loss simply because the methods used "natural" ingredients that are by definition, not patentable. A process patent was possible, but looked like it would be hard to defend.Similarly, I have personally worked with another technology that I can't mention here that has languished in the lab -- fully proven and tested -- because it cannot be protected and the cost of launching the product would probably not be recoverable.In the 19th century, the lack of international copyright treaties, especially between the US and the UK really stunted the American publishing industry. Writing a book takes a long time, and then requires risk capital to print and market it. With pirate publishers on both sides of the pond running cheap knockoffs of anything that showed commercial appeal, it was hard for authors to survive.All that said, today's US patent and copyright regime clearly has gone too far the other way. This is especially true of copyrights. The length of copyright protection is now so great that many older works cannot be reprinted or excerpted at all. Why? Because the publisher is out of business and no one knows who owns the copyrights. In many cases, even the owner doesn't know he or she has it. Successor corps to the publisher or the heirs of the author or publisher are not at all easy to track down, yet, one cannot take a chance.It is quite possible that today's patent and copyright regime will stifle business. However, the real problem with innovation is certain elements of the plaintiff's bar, and a long string of silly product liability court decisions.Cheers!Joe
Joe,
For a while now there has been an argument abroad proposing commercial competition be based on actual provision of goods and services rather than on the artificial monopolies provided by copyright. If company A can make it better than company B, so be it.
For example, the articles manufactured and sold by Mr Lie Nielsen are successful not because he has a patent but because he provides the best-made examples of those articles at a price acceptable to the consumers. He competes with Clifton, Lee Valley, Emerich and others of similar quality on the basis of bang-for buck, not via some contrived legal exclusion of competitors from the market place. We are better off, as consumers, because of this.
In software, there are plenty of providers not only without copyright protection but actively eschewing it. They still make money (not on the Gates scale perhaps) but probably have more credibility and "status of high regard" than does Bill, with his zillions. Their products evolve much more efficiently and at less cost than the bloatware of the copyright-obsessed, money-dominated competition.
One feels that there are cases when copyright could be justified to some degree and for some period of time. Yet in many more cases such protectionism merely inhibits what could be. A monopoly is historicaly recognised as a bad thing for business at large, no matter how contrived.
Perhaps those inhibited examples of useful technologies that you mention might have seen the light of day if the inventors and manufacturers had simply relied on their product's inherent worth and paid more attention to the status of being thought of as "good" rather than merely "rich"?
Lastly, the copyright meme, invented as a protectionist measure by greedy businessmen, has now acquired the status of a natural right! It is quite sickening to see multi-millionaire rock stars and similar bleating about how they should be given a few more millions by poor folk who care to listen to their humdrum tunes. Personally I look forward to the day when we consumers recognise this spell they have cast and realise they should be paying us to listen to their tedious moans, clangs, thumps and twangs!
But I digress. :-)
Lataxe
Lataxe:How libertarian. Actually, I can't fault much of what you have to say, although I do think there is a role for patent and copyright, but that role has been abused. The rock star thing is a big case in your point, of course. The recording industry moved heaven and earth to get their way, and the result is not good for most of us.One wonders, though, what Lie-Nielsen would have done for a living if someone else had not had the patents to make the originals of the tools that he now betters. He has the advantages of, say, a generic drug manufacturer. Someone else has done all the research and development, and now he can focus entirely on quality -- and he can have that focus in a very non-competitive market, what with buyers of hand tools being a pretty small slice of the world. So in this case, I don't think the example supports your point.I suppose, though, that you and I differ not on principle, but in degree. The situation is not good, and the public is not being well served.Joe
"Personally I'd like LV-quality tools from China at 1/3 the cost so have little sympathy for those hoots and hollers LV makes concerning their copyright (recalling the FWW magnet-guided saw readers-tip debacle)."
Lataxe - I'm not familiar with the "readers tip debacle". What's the summary of the controversy?
Veritas has a bunch of magnetic saw guides for dovetails, and 90 degree cuts. Essentially, a block rare earth magents in them to hold the saw against them. They work well enough and of course they are patented.
FWW ran a tip that sugegsted adding rare earth magnets to home made saw guides. The Lee Valley Lawyers of course sent a letter to Taunton, Taunton made a retraction that wasn't flattering to Lee Valley, the forum exploded with chatter as they tend to do, Rob Lee Was posting, the editor was posting... In the end the thread was closed, Lee Valley pulled their advertising from FWW magazine and stopped selling Taunton books. It's only recently that they started again.
I think some things are being missed about patents. I agree with the post (that seems to be being ignored) about the patent being of use. In that it protects an investment. If you spend a million dollars on designing a new wood working tool with a plan to sell 1000 of them then you will need to get 100 per tool to pay back the design cost (not counting tooling etc) Now I come along and I can buy one of yours and have tools made to make the same thing. Then I can sell mine cheaper then you and you can buy about 50 or 100 per and you will go out of business if you keep doing this. So with out patents no one will ever design anything that someone else can copy. Also on other reason for the patent is an alternate idea. You design a new battery. It is 4" sq, weighs 1/2lbs cost $15 and can power a car for 100miles at 75mph. Down side is if you try to open one up it blows up in your face. You soon have all the cars in the US running on them. Then you die, and your robotic factory is the only one that can make them. But no one else can build them or make a better version and the knowledge of how to make them goes with you. Sounds far fetched but the patent allows others to see how you do things and at some point to do it also or use it as a base to start from for there improved version.
The patent is not the problem, the problem is giving patents for things that should never have gotten them. The patent office seams to work on the idea of give them the patent and let the lawyers fight over if they should have it or not. This is the problem.
Doug
The patent is not the problem, the problem is giving patents for things that should never have gotten them. The patent office seams to work on the idea of give them the patent and let the lawyers fight over if they should have it or not. This is the problem.
I guess the question is: At what point does something deserve a patent or not? Does it have to be something truly new, or can it be an improvment on an existing invention (as the law allows)? If it can be an improvment, how big of an improvment does it need to be?
Veritas is big on improving older tools. Their planes are a good example, they could easily have copied old stanley planes like LN. However they chose to invest in developing new ideas in their planes. I believe the effort should be rewarded. It should also be noted that in many cases they are not patenting the item, rather the improvment. In a world where Chinese knockoffs are plenty I can not blame them for patenting thier ideas.
D,
The magnet-guided saw incident concerned the publication by FWW of a reader's tip that showed how to construct a small magnet-containing harness to place upon the edge of a board, so that a Japanese-style saw could be guided in cutting the correct angles for tails and pins of dovetail joints.
Lee Valley make a gubbins that does this very thing, which they have patented. The gubbins can be purchased with or without one of their saws.
The next issue of FWW contained a disclaimer and a warning, passed on at the behest of Lee Valley, that the reader's tip violated their patent and that anyone caught making the gubbins (rather than buying one from Lee Valley) would be pursued with the full vigour of the law!
Rumour has it that harsh words were exchanged between LV and FWW concerning this issue, to the point that LV withdrew it's advertising for a significant period - but that is just a rumour which neither LV or FWW has confirmed, as far as I know.
At the time I read the disclaimer/warning I felt an uncharacteristic annoyance with LV. "How petty", I thought, particularly as the gubbins would be likely to be made, (using the reader's tip design) employing the magnets, slippy tape and so forth which LV also sells. I mean, did they seriously think they were going to lose any business at all, let alone a significant amount, from the publication of this tip? (Sales of magnets, slippy tape and saws might, in fact, have increased).
The usual arguments were apparently trotted out by LV - this reader's tip, if unchallenged, opens a Pandoras box and every WW manufacturer in the world will be copying "LV's" designs in two minutes flat. Ha!
This incident soured my view of LV, to the point where I began to question just how many of their small (and admittedly effective) tinkerings with plane or other hallowed tool designs were truly innovative to the point that a patent was appropriate.
In all events, as a customer I resent LV trying to stop competition for my custom; and I resent even more their heavy-handed police actions agin innocent tipsters. Not to the point where I would cut off my nose to spite my face, of course - their tools are still very good and good value so I buys them. But what about that Chinese copy of equal quality and 1/3 the cost? If the far eastern men decide to copy one, LV will whistle in the wind concerning their patent, as do many a software vendor just now. :-)
*****
Despite the foregoing I confess I would still be reluctant to buy a buckshee article that did break a patent. I fork out the silly money for Microsoft and Adobe software, for example, despite the availability of naughty copies for 100th of the cost from the far east.
But there are thousands or even millions of people who do not care about the copyright or patent of Big Rich Corporation and are only too happy to undermine them. The unfortunate effect is that people get used to the idea that breaking the law is OK if you think it's an ####, which it so often is today in so many areas of over-legislation.
No doubt LV can justifiably claim that they are not a "Big Rich Corporation" but in fact a customer-centric manufacturer and retailer. I think this is so, which makes it all the more surprising that they have let the patents issue go to their heads and destroy their normal good sense and excellent business practices, in that area at least.
Lataxe
"The next issue of FWW contained a disclaimer and a warning, passed on at the behest of Lee Valley, that the reader's tip violated their patent and that anyone caught making the gubbins (rather than buying one from Lee Valley) would be pursued with the full vigour of the law!"
Hmm - I'll have to go read my back issues, this looks like an interesting, if entirely baseless, claim. The laws on patents are pretty clear (though not on copyrights) - as an individual you can copy anything you want, so long as it's for your own use and not for sale. Communicating the information is protected free speech (at least in the US), so Lee Valley doesn't have any claims that would stand up in court. That said, it wouldn't surprise me that Taunton printed a retraction simply to avoid the legal costs of a fight. Unfortunately, a good deal of the "law" in the US gets made up based not on the actual law, but a "take the path of least resistance" effort to reduce court costs.
I have to admit to having owned a few Veritas branded tchotchkes over the years but they invariably found their way into the bin. The ad copy in the catalog always turned out a lot sexier than the thing in use. In rare moments of lucidity, for me at least, I'd run across one of the little plastic buggers cowering in a drawer and ask myself "what the *uck was I thinking when I bought this?" Bang, Stanford from three-point range. Bottoms!
I'm happy to report that I did not fall for the set of training wheels for my dovetail saw though.
Edited 8/27/2008 3:30 pm ET by BossCrunk
Your hyperbole is always entertaining. In case you are at all serious, I can attest to the quality of several Lee Valley products, including:
- their block plane
- their router planes (large and small)
- their drawknife guides
- their marking wheel
- their scraping plane
- their honing guides
The only two I'd give back if I could were some purchases from many years ago: their contraption to make chisel into a plane and their magnetic jointing fence - neither ever worked very well for me.
The Veritas branded trinkets are what I'm talking about....
As an aside... a drawknife guide? You're joking I hope. I always kind of considered a drawknife with a guide to be a spokeshave. But that's just me.
I need a drawknife to be a drawknife...
As far as the other more *normal* tools you mentioned - I guess I owned the Stanley or Record version of most of those on your list before they were ever a glint in the eye of Mr. Lee. Should I keep buying these tools over and over again every time some manufacturer outdoes another? Jeez, somebody's gonna be disappointed.
Edited 8/27/2008 3:28 pm ET by BossCrunk
When I type "Veritas" into the LV search engine, I get like 233 items. I'm not sure where trinkets start and stop among them, but I get your gist.
As for the guides, I find them useful when making large regular chamfers:
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=58664&cat=1,41131,41140
Their chamfer guide for the block plane is quite good too. Makes them easily, accurately, and quickly repeatable:
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=46296&cat=1,41182
Regular chamfer? Aw hell, what's the fun in that? Might as well chuck up a bit in the router if regular is what you're after.
Mine are as good as my eye and hand are that day. Imperfect perfection. Maybe aided by a pencil or a marking gauge mark.
Quick? Aw hell, where's the fun in quick? Quick is something I do when I'm taking a wee-wee not decorating a woodworking project with chamfers.
Edited 8/27/2008 3:36 pm ET by BossCrunk
I like imperfect perfection a good deal myself. But really, I like the choice of regular or irregular as I see fit even more, and without the whirring little tailed beasts spewing their wood dust everywhere, thank you very much.
As for quick, I would think efficiency would be high on your list of woodworking virtues, no? If you like slow, perhaps you can try some 4 squaring with a block plane - or better yet, a chisel. ;-)
Edited 8/27/2008 4:06 pm ET by Samson
Cool.
I'm usually not looking for repeatable results from anything that I do. I am but I'm not. It would take longer to explain than I have time for. Eight chamfers that all looked virtually identical would sicken me. I don't like that look at all.
Edited 8/27/2008 4:29 pm ET by BossCrunk
aren't you characters rambling on over on the other thread (Jointer/planer question - Lie Nielson)? This one is supposed to be about the LV skew rabbet plane.
Sorry, couldn't help myself (hehhehehe)
Samson,
I will just take the opportunity here to have a toady-gloat and say that those by-eye chamfers seem rather more pleasing than the regulated variety, when gazed at on the finished table leg or whatever. Those more uniform slants may be most easily got with a 3HP router and a very large chamfer bit, of course. I have one going spare..........? :-)
Lataxe, freehand drawknifer.
Oy gevalt. 95 times out of a hundred, I'm using my drawkife freehand. Am I booted out of the imperfect perfection club because I find these guides useful occassionally?
Samson - who is presently building a shave horse (which he plans to use with a drawknife freehand most often, though sometimes with a spokeshave (uh oh, spokeshaves have soles, is that cheating too!))
Samson,
Imperfections in my profiles are perfectly rendered, naturally. Even so, there is no chance of me getting into the imperfect club, which has only one paid-up member, initials AC.
Also, I confess to using more regular profiles, courtesy of Mr Dewalt and Sn CMT, when it comes to beads and ogees. None o' them wooden plane collections for me, as I would spend all day sharpening them to that high standard the Boss dislikes so much (and getting it wrong).
Of course, were Lee Valley to add such profilers to their plane-collection one might be tempted, despite (or even because of) the general condemnation of LV innovations by members of what young Philip refers to as the Knots taliban. If LV can keep the cost down by sacking all their patent lawyers, I will be even more inclined to consider a purchase.
***
When you builds your hoss take advice and make sure you have made a comfortable sitting region. It's all too easy to get carried away with the design of the working end so that, come time to sit and make shavings, you soon discover what "saddle sore" means! Even we riders of the leather-seated bicycle can suffer seat-edge blight and crushed glutemus minimii from the unforgiving plank-seat of a shaving hoss.
Lataxe, a tender-erse.
Speaking of planes and profiles, you might like my latest plane acquisition (product of Leon Robbins - Crown Plane - Bath, Maine):
View Image
It's resting on a pine panel I made to try it out. No worries of the result looking like a shaper did the job. <chuckle>
____________________
As fer the seat. The horse is largely intended to carry me into the realm of chairmaking. As such, it's saddle will be an early chance for me to practice my scorp and travisher work. We'll see.
Edited 8/27/2008 8:04 pm ET by Samson
Now that's more like it...
Put a skirt on that plane and I'll marry it! That is just drop dead gorgeous!
T.Z.
I thought that Leon had sold Crown Plane some years ago and someone else was carrying on the company in a different state.His planes are just beautiful and they work too !!! Lucky you.
I got this beauty second hand. No doubt it was made years ago. I do indeed feel lucky to have it.
I like that plane, too, Samson, and have saved the photo to try to make one like it some day.I make that same raised panel profile with handtools but it takes a bunch of different tools to do it.You do the crossgrain sides first when you're using the panel raising plane?
Ed, the plane is fairly new to me, so I'm no expert on panel raisers. I'd wanted one for a long time though. The conventional wisdom is indeed to do the ends first so that if there is tear out, the planing with the grain gets rid of it. So far, excessive cross grain tear out doesn't seem to be a problem though, so I'm not sure that religious devotion to the "cross grain first" approach is necessary (at least not in all cases).
In a perfect worls, I'd love to have its mate - mirror image - so that I could do both long grain sides with the grain.
Thanks, by the way.
Samson,
Regarding the plane, I'm surprised to see that Leon Robbins chose such a figured wood for the body. Historically, super-straight grain stock has been the material of choice. Do you know his reasoning? (It's not veneer, is it?)Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
It's a lamination. The middle is straight grained hard maple and the 1/4" or so "walls" on each side are figured.
Personal use is protected by US patent law. As noted in the links, the odds of them bothering to enforce the patent are low, but still an
infringement."US law is more strict. It forbids anyone from making, using or selling the invention, even when the use is strictly personal."http://htmlhelp.com/design/legal/patents-infringing.htmlhttp://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/rights/
Edited 8/27/2008 2:58 pm ET by deanj
Interesting thing about the two websites you linked to is - they're incorrect, at least to the extent that they suggest that an individual cannot make anything and use it for their own, non-commercial purposes. Case law regarding this question over the past 50 years or so has muddied the waters a bit, but using a published idea (in the form of a patent) for your own purposes as long as it is not for financial gain has always been an integral part of the theory of US patent law - in fact, that was the whole point of the patent law in the first place. You publish (patent) a description of your invention sufficiently detailed to reproduce it in exchange for having protection against direct copiers for 20 years (originally 17 years).
Copyrights used to be this way as well - you could make a copy of anything (printed) so long as it was not distributed for financial gain. The infernal Digital Millenium Copyright Act changed that - it's now (confusingly enough) illegal to make a copy of a digital product for your own use, though you can make a copy of an analog something (like a music recording) for your own use.
Lataxe,I suspect the old axiom "If we didn't have lawyers, we wouldn't need them" came into play. At the moment my firm (I'm the CEO) employs 3 different law firms for contracts, patents and trademarks, etc. and another firm to deal with a billing dispute with our original copyright/patent law firm. I could also pass on several rather crude lawyer jokes that I've heard (from Lawyers) but I wouldn't want to detract from the very high level of decorum that characterizes this site. :<))Regards,Ron
My thought is that the patent protection in the US is about the right length of time - 20 years, as opposed to the 17 years originally codified in the constitution. Copyrights are another story - they currently expire 75 years after the death of the author, and there is no compulsory licensing provisions. That means that there are situations where the copyright holder absolutely refuses to permit re-publication of the information, it is not in the public domain, and is not available to scholars or laymen. There are a number of examples of this problem in books of interest to period furniture reproducers. One particular example is The Furniture of Coastal North Carolina by John Bivens. It's a huge tome of scholarly work and photographs of early furniture produced in the Albermarle and Pamlico basins of colonial North Carolina, and after the available copies ran out, the price for a copy has reached astronomical levels (well over $1000, when available). It would be fairly easy for the rights holders (MESDA, in this case) to create a pdf of the book and sell CDs, but they unfortunately refuse to do so, nor allow anyone else.
The problem with the patent system, as I see it, is that the US Patent Office does not critically examine whether the work is truly novel, and tends to issue patents for everything, with the result that it's an almost impossible task to wade through the morass of conflicting patents in some areas. Medical science is an extreme example - a great deal of the human genome, and any protiens produced from it and drugs to interact with those proteins, is patented.
No argument.The copyright regime is far worse than the patent regime, and is genuinely stifling scholarship. This was driven by mice and music -- I will say no more.Aside from the patent issues you have pointed out, the whole concept of process patenting should be revisited.Joe
I think that these are what I've been looking for to trim my tenons as was discussed in my Rabbet Plane thread. Sign me up.
Chris @ www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled