Thread: Is it fair?

I have been in this exact situation before and I did not hand over the "jig" I made. As stated earlier, it's IP and remains the property of the manufacturer.

Cheers Peter

What is a jig and what is a tool?

If one were a concreter, would the formwork be handed over as part of the job? Is an artist to hand over the easel?

If, as woodworkers, that one happened to make a handplane during the job and used that on the job, would that be a jig? Are the tools themselves not jigs in a manner? (not using the machinists definition, just to be obtuse!)

Who is to say a jig was even used?..... What jig

As for pricing the job, yes, I always work out what the delivered item was to cost. The client NEVER saw or had access to my methods. They are not paying me to teach them woodwork, they wanted kids chairs, tables and bookends.

If I made jigs to simplify my own processes or save time, that is up to me.

The jigs, of which there were many, allowed me to produce the work how they wanted it. If the client wanted to go to a competitor then that was OK (it happened) but there was no way in hell those jigs, or photos of them, or of my processes were ever revealed. Every client always returned.


Edit - to answer OPs direct question, no, I retain(ed) them. When I moved I had(have) boxes of the damned things and will 99% be unused. I really should toss them!

You tell them how much you want to charge. They can either accept it or reject it. End of the story. Who cares if you make it in 1 day or in a month.

In my view, the jig is just another tool to reduce the cost. Without the jig, or table saw, or....whatever, the item would cost more to produce, and therefore attract a higher price.
Or be uneconomic to produce at all. So no, unless delivery of the jig was specifically included in what was ordered, it remains yours.

When I was a student in the 1960's I moonlighted during some holidays as an accounts clerk in a largish lawyers office.

One of the partners, in consultation with a major client discussed a possible "tax planning scheme" - but it will involve "some legal research." The client agreed and, supervised by a partner two junior solicitors did a couple of weeks research. In modern $$$'s the client was billed:
200 hours @ $350 = $70,000
The client gladly paid the research fee of $70,000 on top of other legal fees and reduced his tax bill by $200,000 that year, and in subsequent years.

The partners then went through the client list looking for others who might be able to benefit from the scheme; they identified about 30 and about 20 eventually participated. All 20 were billed the $70,000 research fee. All paid gladly; none complained.

Even I got a small bonus from that deal! But the partners did very well. This was quite legal and quite ethical. Intellectual property belongs to its creator.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

This was quite legal and quite ethical.

You reckon that’s ethical? By lawyers’ standards maybe.

"Legal research" probably means stealing someone elses intellectual property. Just because something is legal, or on face value would appear to be so, doesn't mean it is ethical. To continue to charge for work that has already been fully paid for would strike me as a bit on the nose.

Originally Posted by jack620

You reckon that’s ethical? By lawyers’ standards maybe.

Originally Posted by rustynail

"Legal research" probably means stealing someone elses intellectual property. ...

Sloppy writing by me.

One can argue endlessly about the difference between tax minimisation and tax evasion. Personally, I think that it is largely a "legal fiction" and the type of artificial scheme was unethical and it should have been illegal. But tax law is "black letter" law - very dependent on the various interpretations of the legislation.

But they created the "scheme" and then did the legal research to verify that it complied with the black letter law as written, not necessarily the spirit of the law. In doing this they created an intellectual property, the "scheme", and then they sold limited licenses to use the intellectual property rights in the scheme for one tax return. This licensing was legal and ethical. The scheme was legal and, in my opinion, unethical. But others would argue that if the government did not want someone to use the scheme then they would have written the tax law differently.

PS: I will not name the "scheme' as I don't want to get sued. It operated for at least ten years, was never challenged in court, but has now long been superceded.

Originally Posted by BobL

Hang on, the explicit statement by the OP was "especially if I'm never going to use these jigs again" - that seems to have been missed out by all the follow up posts.

If I'm never going to use the jigs I would definitely offer them to the client (of course they probably won't want them) but I won't be losing any money on future sales AND more importantly they won't be cluttering up my shed. Don't forget, SPACE = $$$ too.

It really depends on the client - most are completely not interested in how something is made -" tell me what it costs". In that case I would always add something for the cost of jigs etc depending on the likelihood of me reusing them.

Its not just a physical thing. Unless I'm are making repetitive product I inevitably end up taking time to learn something when making a one off product so do I charge for that or should I be wearing the cost?
Do I charge the client for the time it took me to learn that something new?
Will I every use that knowledge again? and/or should I charge for it?

Now for something more controversial, do you ever charge for mistakes?

In 35 years 4 countries and a lot of shops plus my own I have never heard let alone seen anyone offer to give the jigs to a client. It just simply isn't done.

Mistakes and unknowns, on the job learning are usually factored into a quote. Come to an idea of the time it will take and if you're confident, add 15%. If not so confident you've factored in all issues and such, add 20 or 25%.

If you're charging by the hour then mistakes shouldn't be the burden of the client (unless the mistake is the fault of the client), but unknowns and some on the job education is.

Originally Posted by Potts

My thinking is the jigs remain the property of the manufacturer, not the client. The client has employed the manufacturer to create an end product, all items created (jigs etc) used in the manufacture of that product remain the manufacturers unless explicitly agreed upon between the two parties. 99% of the time the client wouldn’t know whether you made jigs or purchased specific products or tools to complete their job.
Costing a job is something that should take into account depreciation, new purchases, materials, time, etc etc.
Many tradespeople add a % to every job to cover new tools, equipment and repairs.

Precisely. The client contractually engages the manufacturer for say a finished table. I have yet to hear of or see a contract and or the plans for a table include or imply that the jigs are part of the finished project that'll be handed over when complete.

Originally Posted by jack620

You reckon that’s ethical? By lawyers’ standards maybe.

Relatively speaking, even in the trades it is. In the trades we might get an extra $500, not $70k. If I make something for one client based upon what I think it will cost to make it and they agree. But during production I realise I can refine and or improve the efficiency of manufacturing I am not going to reduce the agreed price for the client. I also won't reduce the established price for subsequent clients. At least not until competition requires a price reduction. The price agreed upon was fair and honest based upon what it was believed it would take to make the product. Why should I penalize myself for being innovative - literally no industry or company does that.

Originally Posted by woodPixel

What is a jig and what is a tool?

If one were a concreter, would the formwork be handed over as part of the job? Is an artist to hand over the easel?

If, as woodworkers, that one happened to make a handplane during the job and used that on the job, would that be a jig? Are the tools themselves not jigs in a manner? (not using the machinists definition, just to be obtuse!)

Who is to say a jig was even used?..... What jig

As for pricing the job, yes, I always work out what the delivered item was to cost. The client NEVER saw or had access to my methods. They are not paying me to teach them woodwork, they wanted kids chairs, tables and bookends.

If I made jigs to simplify my own processes or save time, that is up to me.

The jigs, of which there were many, allowed me to produce the work how they wanted it. If the client wanted to go to a competitor then that was OK (it happened) but there was no way in hell those jigs, or photos of them, or of my processes were ever revealed. Every client always returned.


Edit - to answer OPs direct question, no, I retain(ed) them. When I moved I had(have) boxes of the damned things and will 99% be unused. I really should toss them!

Don’t toss them!!
I know a guy who would gladly take them, and possibly put them back into use. PM me if you like.

When someone comes to me with an obscure profile and wants me to replicate it, if I don’t have the spindle moulder cutters to do it I tell them, and if I have to grind cutters then I charge for that. But I don’t give them the cutters after I’ve run the job, they go on the racks on the wall, and if they need more of that same profile, then they don’t pay a setup fee or grinding time for the second run.

Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor

IBut during production I realise I can refine and or improve the efficiency of manufacturing I am not going to reduce the agreed price for the client.

Nobody has suggested doing that, so I'm not sure why you mentioned it.

Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor

I also won't reduce the established price for subsequent clients. At least not until competition requires a price reduction. The price agreed upon was fair and honest based upon what it was believed it would take to make the product.

Yes, but you subsequently discovered you could it cheaper (improved efficiency), so your argument sort of falls apart. Is selling for the same price to a new customer still "fair and honest" when you know you can make the item for less? I'm not saying it isn't, but it's a pretty grey area.