Thread: Woodriver Planes

There was a review on Popular Woodworking IIRC - general opinion was that they were a close copy of the Lie-Nielson, itself an improved copy of a Stanley Bedrock.

In the photos the worst/weakest part seemed to be the adjusting lever, which was a bit of bent iron strip in the Woodriver where the Lie-Nielson was a forging - this may have been changed, you never know how early in the production cycle review gear is.

There is also a huge amount of controversy surrounding these planes since the factory that produces them in China has also produced a number of planes that, to put it bluntly, reveal the theft of LN and LV design. In the case of the WoodRiver planes it is apparent that they are based more on the LN than the Stanley Bedrock, and attempt to capitalize on LN goodwill.

Here is a little factual info to back the speculations: http://finewoodworking.taunton.com/i...er-and-stanley

The question is, do you consider it acceptable for a factory to take the design of another company and produce copies without permission? Would you condone this behaviour by purchasing the planes?

That said, reports indicate that they are good performers.

Regards from Perth

Derek

It's interesting how emotions aren't aroused when the Chinese copy woodworking machinery manufacturer's products, but when it comes to hand planes, there seems to be no end of criticism of them.

Lie-Nielsen and others have copied Stanley, and I'm sure, other plane manufacturers tools too and neither Tom Lie-Neilsen or any other current plane maker appear to have taken Woodcraft to task over the latest 'copies'. Maybe they realise there is no case to answer.

Even if the Woodriver planes were out-and-out forgeries, the onus is on the copied plane makers to take legal action against them. Boycotting Woodcraft would be both futile and puerile. I don't see any moral reason not to purchase Woodriver planes. I might have more sympathy for LN if their products were 100% unique. At any rate, the main areas of LN's planes that are emulated by Woodriver are purely aesthetic and that's just fashion – look at clothing, shoes and cars across different manufacturers.

If the Woodriver planes are as good as is reported, then anyone in the market for reasonably priced, good quality planes would be daft not to give them a look. Leave the moral and legal issues, of anyone who believes their IP has been misrepresented, to the courts.

What does get me wound up is when the Chinese produced unfit-for-purpose tools and machinery are sold alongside the originals/better quality Chinese/Taiwanese gear as if it's one and the same.

Yes I think "theft" is a strong and emotive term. Apart from a few minor differences, the design of both planes are clearly "stolen" from the Stanley bedrock. I think if you did an analysis of whose IP was tied up in all three planes, it would be Stanley. Lie Nielsen have simply 'improved' on it (possibly to avoid similar charges being made against them).

Have any patents been broken?

Would be interesting to hear ficfac's review of the Wood River plane.
I'm sure there will be no discernible difference between it and the others, except one major point...PRICE..
Having not owned any hand planes for quite a number of years, I'm about to embark on a trip down the darkside, albeit just whetting my feet.
The compelling #1 argument for purchasing a particular plane is the dollar value...IMO, especially when there is well over $100+ difference.
Cheers

Glenn

Oh no what have I started.

Sorry Derek but I agree with the general consensus that they're all copied from the Stanley Bedrock design.

I just hope that it performs well!

Keep piling on the opinions folks.

These are issues that have been debated long and hard for many, many months on forums around the world....

The issue that has been raised is the moral and ethic factors that go into both the selling and the buying of the recent arrival of Chinese-made tools, such as those labled "Wood River". The question that was raised was whether the purchase of such planes serves to act as a vote of confidence to the retailers involved (to continue their practice), and what the impact would be on the companies (such as LN and LV) whose designs are stolen (since they are not being compensated in this regard). There is a flow-on effect that can seriously affect the lifespan of a small company, etc, etc.

My understanding is that there is one well-known factory (which is based in China - but this in the future be anywhere in the world) that is manufacturing all the planes/tools being sold via a few outlets in the USA and UK. I suspect that someone (representing the factory) got the idea to buy up a few LN and LV tools and copy them (without licence), make a few minor alterations, and sell them to retailers. Copying without permission is theft.

These tools have been offered to at least one Australian retailer, who refused to participate. I wonder who else has the conscience to respond as ethically?

The question is whether the Manufacturer is more complicit than the Retailer. And then one must ask whether the knowledgable Buyer is any less so as well.
For those here to say that all they care about is the lower price and that all's fair in love and competition, well they are either lacking insight or rationalising away their potential guilt.

What of the future of small manufacturers, such as LN? I publish designs of tools on my website and offer them free of charge, welcoming all to make them for themselves. Now if some factory decided to manufacture and sell these designs without permission, well I would be most put out. How would you feel? How does LN feel? Why should any small manufacturer - HNT Gordon, Harold & Saxon, Colen Clenton, Blue Spruce ... the list is long - take the risk to innovate when all it takes is for some factory to churn out copies at half the price? And then what says the public - "Oh Goody .. I can get it cheaper!".

This activity has been going on for years in the power tool area - there are just so many generic designs around. Re-badged and in a different colour. So I find it fascinating that companies are now fighting in court over the rights to colour.... Jet apparently owns white, Powermatic have gold ...

Make up your own mind about the nature of copying and theft of design. In addition to the FWW link I provided earlier (which demonstrated that Woodriver planes are copies of LN and not Stanley), here are example of the Woodriver planes sold by Woodcraft, followed by the LN original.









The Japan Woodworker is selling this ..



And this is the Veritas Chairmaker's Scraper ...



and this Bogg's copy ..



of the LN ..



As I stated earlier, this is a world-wide offering. The planes are being sold in several countries … South Africa, Canada … In the UK, Tilgear are selling something that is nearly identical to the Woodriver planes - except that they have retained the brass-coloured lever caps, thereby increasing the similarity with LN. Tilgear also have been selling a direct knock-off of the LV Edge Trimming plane. In the USA these planes have been sold from other large companies - in effect it appears that the factory (it seems too orchestrated to come from more than one) in China is offering direct copies of these and other planes, and they are being picked up for retailing.

I pointed out that this was theft. Yes, LN was producing Stanley-originated designs, but (1) these were in the public domain, (2) were no longer of interest to Stanley, and (3) had undergone a number of improvements (either by way of modification or better materials). At the very least the LN planes has a "look", and this is part of their Goodwill. To copy this would be OK if permission was granted, but it remained theft if permission was not granted.

I also pointed out that one must separate what is legal from what is ethical/moral. What may be legal is not necessarily what is ethical.

What do you think?

Regards from Perth

Derek

I think you are still making the assumption that what has gone on is somehow classed as theft. I don't think it is anywhere near as clear cut as that. There are plenty of precedents for design copying in other industries, and this is no exception. For example in the electric guitar world. Does every company that produces a Stratocaster-shaped guitar seek the permission of Fender? I very much doubt it.

I don't see that these guys have deliberately attempted to fool anyone into thinking these are LN or any brand other than the one stamped on the frog. Goodwill pertains to a brand or business name, not to the appearance of a product. At least that is the definition in accounting terms that I learnt at Uni.

When I look at these planes, yes there are many similarities between LN and the Chinese copy, of course there are, because they have clearly been based on that design. Just like all the other tools and machines out there that we love to buy because they are cheaper than the original. My tablesaw is a Chinese copy of a Unisaw for example. Do you think Mao Shan sought the permission of Delta to make it? No of course not.

I think it is a fact of life that when a product is successful in the market place, others will seek to imitate it. I'm glad they do because it creates a competitive market place in which the consumer can benefit. It's up to LN to differentiate their brand.

I don't think there is anything legally wrong here (theft, stolen). They are not forgeries. They are clearly labelled.

Ethically wrong? Well as I said, plenty of precedents for it. If people have an idea they believe belongs to them, they patent it. If it isn't covered by a patent, it is open slather. And that's the way it should be.

What about some of the new Stanley planes? Don't they owe more to Lee Valley than to their own roots? Is that ethically or morally wrong?

Derek, I still don't see that Woodriver have copied anything of any great import from any of LV's tools. The Borg scraper is undoubtedly an out-and-out rip-off, but is the Veritas scraper an original concept?

Silent is on the money. I haven't heard any talk of LN or LV patents, let alone ones that have been breeched. LN and LV may be the sweethearts (pun intended) of the new toolophiles (now there's a word!) who can't abide to see pretty good versions of their tools that they paid too much for being sold for much less to less deserving woodies.

If any illegalities have occurred, I'm sure we'd all have heard about it in the legal press by now.

It is a fact of life that when something is popular and attractive, then others will emulate it. Had LV or LN's patents been breeched, then we would be talking a different verse.

Silent, WW and all ..

Keep in mind that I offer the above for discussion and that this means that I accept that others will have different opinions from my own (all very civil ) ..

Earlier I stated that what is legal is not necessary moral. But I am also of the opinion that there are legal boundaries that have been crossed. The thing is that we/I may never know the details. What I can point to are statements madein the public domain, such as the following by Rob Lee on WoodNet..

Hi -

Not really a reply to anyone here - but a couple of comments to highlight some of the nature of what's being discussed here.

The firm that makes/trades these planes is infamous in the industry. The principal is often referred to as "Mr Copy"... as that's what they do - copy other people's designs - patented or not. And they have a wide range of essentially stolen designs in production, not to mention outright copright violations, including theft of images and diagrams.

When referring to product made in China - you should understand that the majority of product copies have been initiated by western retailers and distributors - the Asian firms are quite willing the make what's been asked of them...

There's nothing wrong with buying product made in China - the Chinese can make good products and do good design. They represent a 1/4 of the planet's population after all. It's the activity on the margins of various industries that's offensive - and the fact that it often initiated by domestic firms makes it even more so.

We (at LV) will not deal at all with firms that engage in intellectual property piracy - not matter how much profit can be made by doing so. Nor will we rationalise buying non-offending products from such firms on the basis that we're not buying the directly copied product - as this is still supporting the activity. I suppose it's a matter of each firms individual corporate ethics, and sense of social responsibilty or public policy.

Other people are free to make their own choices, though we all have to live with the consequences...

Cheers -

Rob Lee

and ...

it's not the reproduction work that rankles (like the bedrocks) - it's the direct copies of new designs that are at issue here.

The firm that is copying these items, also infringes the patents of many other firms... they have directly copied dozens of our products alone. I mean exact copies - including using our photographs, diagrams, and copy on their website, in their catalogue, and on their packaging.

Rob

Just a bit more to chew over.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I would expect Rob to feel that way and I would too. I think he is right to be angry about the direct ripoffs he talks about in the last paragraph.

I asked my wife about this, as she is in the golf industry, which is rife with copies of Ping, Calloway et al. Generally speaking, informed golfers wouldn't touch the copies with a barge pole. But there is a market for them with people who don't have a lot of money, or as hire clubs etc. Note they are not fakes - they are copies under different branding.

The upshot is that golf sticks are a billion dollar industry and if there was anything illegal about what goes on, you can be sure that companies like Ping would not tolerate it. Unfortunately for them, there's not a lot they can do about it.

But she agrees with me

I wholeheartedly agree with Derek and Rob Lee regarding "intellectual property piracy", but I reiterate, what intellectual property of Rob Lee's is represented in the No.5 Wood River plane at the core of this discussion other than the similarities of the front knob and tote bosses?

Reading the table of differences in the Who begot who article in FWW that Derek linked to, the Wood River plane actually shares more in common with the original bedrock than the Lie-Nielsen! It's not like the Chinese have sprayed a couple of heavy coats of primer/filler over a LN plane (to compensate for shrinkage - BTDT) and cast a direct copy of it. The castings may be similar, but they are distinct and individual products.

It's virtually impossible to design a car these days without stepping on someone's toes. The big car makers are continually at each other's throats over similarities in their shapes and styles. Jeep sued Hummer over their use of a similar-looking grill. There is currently a car with a virtually identical twin grill nose to that which BMWs have been identified with since...

Most designers have a mindset of what a product should look like which is usually based on other products they've worked on or iconic products that they've grown up with or idolised, with the result that significant elements are often unconsciously brought to the new design.

If you can show me one patent infringement on that Wood River plane, I will gladly hop on your bandwagon Derek, but all I see is a company capitalising on the current trend of designer hand tools.

The Woodriver block plane looks good but I wouldn't buy one.
Being a toolmaker myself I can see from Rob Lee's perspective. If someone - whether it be a faceless asian corporation or just some smart alec - started making awls and marking knives that looked remarkable like mine I'd be a tad peeved.

The other small toolmaking companies get my full support

Surely those who are buying cheap copies would be those who do not have the ability to buy the expensive "original" version?