Thread: Luban planes

I'll pose another question or two for the throngs here:
* woodcraft could've easily copied a bedrock plane, why didn't they do that?
- if the answer to that question is people like the way LN planes look more
- or if the answer is that a plane that says bedrock and looks like a bedrock brings $125 used in a #5 size (that's about what they were worth at the time) but a LN #5 brings $325

Then you instantly have demonstrated why trade dress exists in the US in the first place. Copying someone's likeness to add perceived value to your product or dilute someone else's (remember, you could do things in reverse, copy the looks and make a junk item or lower quality item to pull down the value of a brand. The law has to apply to everything, whether it's jelly or spokeshaves, so you can't do the armchair idealist thing of "well, that wouldn't happen with planes". The statute is relatively short - it doesn't have subsections for chair jockey preferences.

Or, did woodcraft copy the plane because LN may have been amenable to a sub line to meet woodcraft's quantity requirements. There were at least two parts to the issue back then - WC wanted a guarantee of a certain amount of stock and LN was already stretched on production. At the same time, LN wanted to dictate how the planes were demonstrated and WC's franchisees often wanted them behind glass to keep them from walking away. If you make what's basically up to that point, the most neatly made stanley type plane and it works well, and you have ideals about how you want it demonstrated, then maybe having it behind glass doesn't work. And maybe for a franchise buyer who is into woodcraft for big coin (it's very hard to walk into any of those franchises, which are in high rent retail spaces, and find anything worth buying if you're not a beginner - those stores are beginners traps) isn't going to love the idea of having a plane walk away when they can sell it to some person who just wants it taken out of the case. Especially when the case at the local store here generally had a handsaw and a block plane in it and not much else - add bench planes to the case and they were sold instantly.

Or did the stereotypical (but accurate) Chinese thing occur - someone sent a plane to china, and they didn't think very hard and just copied it. I have clients who had registered items that they sold through retailers ripped off by chinese copiers at a trade show, and they were facilitated by the grames and dhs...whatver your handle is -es of the world who happily took their registered goods over to "we'll make anything, bring it here and we'll give you a quote" booths staffed by pretty young ladies with nothing else at their table. In the case of one of my clients, it took about 1 year for the retailers of the goods that were copied to start selling the copies instead of his stuff. They were so blatant that in the row of things that he sold out of retailer racks, literally the same items from a chinese copy firm were placed in the same spot for the same price. The retailer knew that he, with a staff of 20 people, couldn't afford to fight them, so they just ripped him off (amazon appears to do versions of this now demanding supplier information from people selling on their site, and then sometimes going to the supplier and pushing out the original seller with a relabeled "amazon basics" item). If there was any question about whether or not they were just copying the items, one of the bits was a religious plaque and the one from his demo stand at a trade show had a nick on the top of it. Every single copy of the same thing that showed up in stores had the nick copied into the top. They literally copied the damage into every one.

That's what you're dealing with. Happy stories about paint better than MB germany avoid the issue in this case- that's still MB in china. For apple, it's still apple. If someone copied the likeness of MB or apple and put a different logo on the goods, then what would happen? Dschsbbb would tell us that you can just copy the good, and everyone is just worried that you could, but he could see that he emblem on the fake mercedes had four bars instead of three, and it says "Xi-Cedes" on the logo, so nobody is harmed. Only people who are afraid of losing sales.

Besides, it's not like Mercedes invented all of the common car configurations, and it's not like apple invented the smart phone, so who cares if their likeness is ripped off?

I'll pose another question or two for the throngs here:
* woodcraft could've easily copied a bedrock plane, why didn't they do that?

Because they wanted a LN on the cheap.

Do I win a prize?

Regards from Perth

Derek

DW, I need to bookmark this page and come back in the morning.... Your ability to write massive slabs of text is most impressive

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Because they wanted a LN on the cheap.

Do I win a prize?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Indeed - it's at least part of the right answer. Make it look like the one that costs the most.

I forgot to mention one other item above - if you just make a generic looking plane well, there's tons of those out there already (anant, etc) that aren't worth much.

The other potential deal is to make one look exactly like a real bedrock aside from the logo. That's a very real option, and not difficult. Stanley isn't making them now, but they're still in business, and I'd bet

What appears to be clear is that the copyers in this case weren't bold enough to create their own design and try to have the likeness be unique and stand on its own merits.

The follow-up has been predictable here in the states. The chain woodworking retailers get stuff cheap and mark it up far, and then ban the origin of the goods from importing anything remotely close in any other brand. AT the outset, the WR planes were $99 for a #4. They weren't that great - beta test by market.

Now, they're $200 and the ductile iron 4 made in the states is $300. trying to grab share and get accolades at a low price (when the accolades are generally based on the cheapness being considered) and then doubling the price is sort of a time honored thing in marketing. Point back to the favorable feedback without the context.

I see from this thread earlier that the WR planes are marked up stiffly and sold at a nonsense price in australia - that's too bad. If the LN's are marked high, then sometimes they can be bought for the US retail or a little less used on US ebay and you suck up the $60 or so shipping if it's less than the markup to au.

When I sold my last two planes last year, they sold way above the retail (unexpectedly) on a straight auction. I'd have taken half of new for them if that's where the auction landed - so the used strategy isn't great when people are looking for the tools used just because they're not available new and paying a premium.

At this point, none of it affects my pocket, and it never really did. LN eliminating the ability to sell below retail in the US actually had an effect because I was buying so many of their tools at one point, and I could no longer get them locally through a gray market seller (who was just buying them wholesale from Japan Woodworker and selling them then for a very small markup - they were about 10-15% off of LN list and no shipping).

Back to the original point - it's likely the copying was just to copy something worth more. In the world of watches, which is copied more - tag heuer, who has trouble selling their own watches new for retail price, or a rolex daytona, where rolex has trouble holding on to daytonas and keeping people from flipping them for a huge margin later. I'm not a rolex wearer, but I do have a "nice" watch. I see the rolex issue from the sideline - Rolex will not at this point sell a daytona to a new customer willing to pay flat retail - they hold them back for people who have either bought gobs of other watches, or who are willing to buy the daytona and 5 other watches that are less in demand (unloading the problem of selling the other watches on the person who wants to buy the daytona). So what's probably the most copied watch? It's not the tag heuer.

Why wouldn't WC just switch tracks and make their planes look exactly like a Bedrock? Two reasons - you can get a bedrock for less than the cost of a new WR (they are a better plane for a user than a WR, but maybe not a beginner), and the second is that if stanley's parent opens a lawsuit, Woodcraft would far rather be battling pocketbooks with LN instead.

Originally Posted by woodPixel

DW, I need to bookmark this page and come back in the morning.... Your ability to write massive slabs of text is most impressive

It's the morning here! I didn't even go onto a riff about Graeme's comment of MB paint. As if any current offering from MB made anywhere will outlast paint before it's "to pass inspection" repair bill is 4 times the book value of the car.

Quantity is assured with a mind dump. Quality, or at least orderliness - maybe not so much.

I have to also remember the trap of internet forums - if you have exposure to something (I have exposure to trade dress due to instrument purchases, or being thwarted - and then reading heavily about them thinking "they can't keep people from cutting a truss rod cover in the shape of a bell" or "they can't make the case that the peghead shape of a guitar is more important than the brand printed on the peghead" to.

....oh, a little further reading shows that the court has actually decided those things and they are accepted standard now as application of the law.

What was interesting was figuring that there was no trade dress law in australia (Gibson does not do much to protect their designs outside of the US other than here and there in Europe - the simple reason being, why spend legal money overseas when the market isn't your market, anyway? In japan, nothing is done to protect the peghead scroll to the point that gibson actually put the peghead scroll on one of their subbrands and sold it in japan - but never in the US, as they'd literally have been diluting their own brand here). And then seeing this:

A nutty case of trade dress - HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

Which is like a subslice further - the issue of trade dress when a brand is actually sold and then the seller comes back and attempts to say they sold the business, but not the branding.

like columbo says, one more thing. Why do I remember so much about trade dress? Because it made me mad at the time since I had a banjo order screwed up. Gibson hadn't protected bell shaped truss rod covers or hearts and flowers for years, and they were threatening good small makers that were like 1-4 person companies (and some a little bigger). Gibson never did anything for us in the bluegrass crowd (my opinion) in the last 50 years, but just pop up now and again trying to make money with their internal counsel.

The complicating factor was that for a long time, they did nothing to protect (at least outwardly) the design elements in mastertone banjos beyond the name on the peghead (but that's counterfeiting if someone copies that). At the time, you could get a gibson banjo (which were only lukewarm in terms of regard) for about $3500. that was about 30-40% off of list, which was typical as instruments are often marked up 100% (or cost to dealer is 50% of suggested retail).

The same time those threat letters went out taking a whole bunch of banjos off of the market, gibson implemented something like a 10% MAP and some of the dealers stated publicly that if they sold below MAP (not just advertised, but sold) that they would lose their ability to sell instruments. So now, both sending a chill down others for something seemingly not protected previously, and then jacking up prices..

....and then a year or two later, they closed their bluegrass division.

It makes no sense that someone can pick and choose when to protect their stuff (one of the elements of protecting your likeness is actually actively doing it and not just picking and choosing to do it here and there).

...........

and then an IP attorney popped in to the discussions on the forum that was filled with avid players, as well as some of the folks in the industry who were working elsewhere and had worked at gibson (those folks didn't say much). Nobody from Gibson said *anything* (I doubt they were ever allowed to register on forums - have you ever seen an LN employee on a forum? I haven't. I doubt they're allowed and nothing would be gained on forums for a professional, anyway).

The IP attorney in the US laid out all of the trade dress and responses to my same comments "everyone knows a bishline banjo with hearts and flowers isn't a gibson - it says it on the PEGHEAD". And he let us all know where we were off base, and *everyone* notified by Gibson complied. Nto due to that attorney, but they had complied previously, which made it fairly clear that like most of the idealists here, none of us had a clue what we were talking about.

And just because we are the peers who would be knowledgable and be able to identify banjos, the actual court experience when this statute is tested shows that the court will choose a reasonable standard, and it's not just enthusiasts. It's looser.

If woodworking tools were bigger money, I doubt LN would've had much trouble with WC in at least changing the color scheme and metal choices that were distinctive but not functional to LN. There's nothing functional about a bronze lever cap, but it's distinctive. Does it do better than a cast lever cap? No what about the design of the cutting pattern inside the frog being kind of uglyish square instead of rounded.

Nope, not functional. The design of the frog is. The details on the cuts, no. Distinctive to LN. Guess what changed in the WR planes - stuff that looked like LN.

In the end, is it right that LN can stop selling planes to most WC stores and tell them they can't make planes that resemble LN planes more than others. Yes - think about it. Not because there's something so special about using bronze, but because the intent to make something that looks the same is to do exactly what trade dress disallows - to make customers think there's something about the copy that's similar to the original in terms of likeness. The point is that the maker of the original good has invested time, effort and money in creating the reaction that you have when you see an LN plane. It's not just accessible for the next person who wants to carry a plane to a casting company trade stand, and it's certainly not accessible to someone who may want to spite someone who just cut them off and take their market share.

Ok, for the folks who aren't upset with me for having a precise answer and beating it over and over into the dirt...

...you deserve a short story on the guy who made the "inspirationals" (that's what he called them). His business made all kinds of stuff, from plastic shelving, to packaging, to these little religious plaques that people could buy at the dollar store or other religious stores (they weren't all a dollar)

He let me know that they sold these things to the dollar store for 45 cents. He had employed a few people who were legitimate mechanical geniuses and generally all of their production equipment was made in house.

So, what do you get at wholesale for 45 cents. You actually get a glossy printed picture with a small inspirational message on *stained wood* about the size of your hand, with a cutout to hang on a nail.

In current dollars, this figure is more like 65 cents.

Think about that. 65 cents for something like that, made in the US. I never saw the machines in action.

So, the nail in the coffin for this business more or less was when one of the large dollar stores started stocking his inspirationals and cut back orders, and he trolled their aisles only to find one with the damage copied into every one on the rack - one of the samples he had at a trade show.

He said to me (he was an older guy) "I knew the writing was on the wall when I saw that in the racks of a dollar store" (this person was not poor, by the way, and had managed to provide benefit plans, health care and decent pay to what was at the time 10 people, down from 25 as copies of other things they had knocked bits of their business out one by one".

And here's the humorous part (and he found a little humor in it by then). The buyer at one of the large dollar store chains had a sit down with him and lied to him (that he was about) and said they were discontinuing carrying of his inspirationals because "the fine tastes of (dollar store name) customers are no longer met by your company's products".

I was younger at the time, and said "I hope you blasted that lady for lying" and he said he, in fact, did not. He just got up and left.

his response was something like "you can't actually fight them". I get it now in my 40s - trade dress or outright counterfeiting is mostly civil and it's up to the person with interest to do the fighting .

Originally Posted by yoboseyo

I just bought a new Luban 5 1/2, so I thought I'd give my first impressions.

First thing I noticed was that the chip breaker is badly out of flat! I hope I can get a replacement.
Attachment 499544Attachment 499545

Otherwise, the sole is reasonably flat, the sides are square. I haven't tested it yet but I expect it will perform admirably. The blade came with a slight camber. I will have to regrind.

The fit and finish is so-so. I don't have a WR, LV or LN to compare it to, but from the above pictures of the WR, it looks like everything's just finished a bit better. The knob and tote aren't aren't perfectly smooth and round, for example.

I took the frog assembly apart. The surfaces are flat and had sharp but not ruffled edges. The frog doesn't sit on a channel and had side to side play, and I had to hold it square before tightening the screws. Also, the frog adjustment doesn't move the frog up by itself - I had to push it up. Don't know if it's normal or not.

My experiences do not compare to your own and I own a considerable number of these Chinese badged planes (i.e Luban, WR, etc.). Actually, I own almost everything, as well as, multiple complete sets of spare parts for each model. I bought mine many years ago, so maybe standards have since declined. What I've seen with so many products that are normally of a high standard coming out of China (and not just with woodworking tools), is factory rejects often get exported into foreign markets, through unofficial retailers instead, with no mention they're factory rejects - yours is looking like it's such a thing. Can I ask where you bought your Luban from?

All that said, depending on where you bought it, if a refund or an exchange is not possible, that plane looks like something that can be completely restored, without significant fuss. Consider it this way; if that's the reject, OMG if that is the worst result and how good can they be! In any event, problems like what you've ended up with, will happen through use eventually anyway. Just remember though, you've essentially got, for a fraction of the price, a real Bedrock plane, but brand new, that actually looks like a real plane without the gimmicks and the performance is as good as you can get. Who gives a damn if it came out of China, when the manufacturer knows what they were doing and they sure do. Enjoy! .... and if you have to restore it, enjoy that even more!

Originally Posted by D.W.

Graeme .... Trade dress is civil law. You don't have a clue what you're talking about in terms of this vs. that law in the US.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

David, I am extremely disappointed that you were not able to maintain a civil debate without resorting to personal abuse.

Good bye, David, good bye.

Trade dress law is essentially, rules intended to protect a companies' brand from being impersonated by a competitor. D.W. (i.e. David) has repetatively tried to discredit others and has constantly claimed he knows what "trade dress" is. Those who disagree with him, are labelled conveniently/unfairly as not having a clue (i.e. a discrediting tactic). The reality is, if you read D.W.'s comments and look at the links/evidence he quotes, they're either:

* deceptive or ignorant (by trying desperately to use legitimate/legal/admirable copying by WR, as evidence of TD breaching)
* slander (WR is not guilty of TD copying with these Bedrock planes - no court has ruled against them)
* not relevant (such as the Kraft/Bega case - because it's not the branding logo that's copied)
* flawed and even providing evidence to the contrary (links showing pictured Luban planes, clearly show "Luban' stamped prominently)
* moot (the thread topic was never about TD, & definitely not imaginary infractions that never occurred 13 years ago, or since)

D.W. behaved hypocritically: it appears he did not understand and argued false points that are not TD related. He provided no legitimate proof of trade dress infractions, because they likely never happened. Woodriver are fully allowed to copy a plane and copying a plane is not a TD related issue. Woodriver are fully allowed to copy a Bedrock design, whether that's LN's copy, or Stanley's and this too is not TD related. Woodriver are fully allowed to use the same materials as LN, or anyone else in regard to the first two points, because noone has exclusive rights over standard materials used in making planes. Whether it's similiar wooden totes, or bronze lever caps, etc., this too is not a trade dress issue - allowing any one company sole exclusive rights to bronze is anti-competative and completely impractical. There is enough difference between the various models anyway, especially the actual branding logos, to identify each brand's Bedrock copy. You can't mistake any of them for a competitor's, unless you're blindfolded.

I don't know if G.W. is just being deliberately dishonest when slandering WR about TD infractions, or whether he just doesn't actually get it. All his arguments clearly show he doesn't understand trade dress, or even realize TD concerns so long ago are not relevant here. My instinct however, is no one could be that silly. I wonder if this slander is motivated by a hidden agenda i.e. he's a disgruntled former employee of WR, or has/had a financial tie with LN or Veritas. Maybe he's a racist, who can't stand that a Chinese manufacturer has made a more traditional American plane than it's locals can, that is also considerably cheaper and better performing. His raising of a false issue so long ago, in this thread, where the various Bedrock copies were all easily identifiable, which is completely irrelevant to the thread topic, suggests D.W. hijacked this discussion, because he has a hidden agenda.

Try to have a clue what you're talking about before you respond. Trade dress requires three things in the US (quoted from Lewis Bris Bois in the US)

It would be just super dandy if you would bother to learn about what you're asserting before you do it.

1. The trade dress at issue is “distinctive in the marketplace” and thus identifies its source
2. The trade dress is “primarily nonfunctional”; and finally, that
3. The rival product is “confusingly similar.”

Do you see the word label there? Gibson and fender have won/lost trade dress suits over two things - the peghead design is determined to meet the three conditions above, *even if the brand of another maker is printed plainly in large letters on it*. The rest of the guitar is not (gibson actually won the lawsuit for guitars with a single cutaway, but lost later on appeal - not sure if there were other issues in the appeal. What sunk them was that they had advertised that the single cutaway improved guitar tone - which is advertising that it's got a functional purpose).

They lost control of that.

Your assertion that WR can copy everything about an LN plane (including non-functional items that are seen only on LN planes) violates all three above.

You got mad, maybe because I am the only person actually showing what trade dress is from the literal US Code and regulations, and then legal summary articles online, including a case in the US that really doesn't make that much sense to me (that you can literally put your name on a peghead and a rival can still say it will be confused for their guitars - why? because that's what courts decided meets the three items above.).

You also failed to explain why after the LN/WR relationship went south, WR's "V3" planes had LN-like elements removed, certainly at an extra cost to Woodcraft.

Which brings us to the point here - someone suggested that the castings couldn't be made by the same company. They were probably the same castings early on when the first plane was copied from an LN plane.

I have no idea what motivates you guys sometimes. It's not wanting to get the right answer. I get the sense that Graeme has copied or worked for or advised someone who copies stuff in the past. That's a bias. I have no bias, and the supposition that I might be being deliberately dishonest to smear Woodcraft is stupid. I have no stake in either company and had a friendly back and forth messaging relationship with an executive at Woodcraft at the time this was going on.

I think this thread has probably exhausted itself. The OP asked a simple question, viz., "Are Wood River & Luban the same thing?". I'm not sure he got a clear answer on that, partly because the thread erupted into arguments over morality & legal fine points. The argument over legal issues is confused by folks from two entirely different systems going at it without seeming to realise they are not talking about the same thing (U.S. law & Australian law can be quite different on some issues), which hasn't contributed to clarity.

We should also bear in mind that the Australian market is a minnow compared with the US - there is no guarantee that what lands in the US branded "X" & what lands in Oz branded "X" are exactly the same thing, plus manufacturers can change their products according to whim or market demands anyway, so we need to be sure we compare apples with apples before making pronouncements.

I think what we can all agree on is that tools don't make a good woodworker, but oth, a beginner starting out with inferior tools & no one to help him/her is likely to become frustrated & discorouged pretty quickly. So it's understandable that a newbie wants to be reassured that what they buy is fit for purpose. If you buy brands generally recognised as being good, you have a fair chance of getting a usable tool. The law of diminishing returns applies here as much as anywhere, and paying a lot more may buy only a little better.

I've kept out of this thread for various reasons, but mainly 'cos I didn't know the answer to the original qustion, however, can I suggest the last word?

"R.I.P." .....

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

I think this thread has probably exhausted itself. The OP asked a simple question, viz., "Are Wood River & Luban the same thing?". I'm not sure he got a clear answer on that, partly because the thread erupted into arguments over morality & legal fine points. The argument over legal issues is confused by folks from two entirely different systems going at it without seeming to realise they are not talking about the same thing (U.S. law & Australian law can be quite different on some issues), which hasn't contributed to clarity.

We should also bear in mind that the Australian market is a minnow compared with the US - there is no guarantee that what lands in the US branded "X" & what lands in Oz branded "X" are exactly the same thing, plus manufacturers can change their products according to whim or market demands anyway, so we need to be sure we compare apples with apples before making pronouncements.

I think what we can all agree on is that tools don't make a good woodworker, but oth, a beginner starting out with inferior tools & no one to help him/her is likely to become frustrated & discorouged pretty quickly. So it's understandable that a newbie wants to be reassured that what they buy is fit for purpose. If you buy brands generally recognised as being good, you have a fair chance of getting a usable tool. The law of diminishing returns applies here as much as anywhere, and paying a lot more may buy only a little better.

I've kept out of this thread for various reasons, but mainly 'cos I didn't know the answer to the original qustion, however, can I suggest the last word?

"R.I.P." .....

Cheers,

Well said Ian.
Time to close the thread.
Tom

Amen! Until now I thought I was an atheist.

Originally Posted by yoboseyo

Just after some info on Luban planes

This video made it clear that Luban planes and Wood River planes aren't the same, even though they came from the same factory. In fact, I heard they may not even come from factory anymore. The Wood River was made specifically for Woodcraft and has had several iterations.

Anyway, the thing of note is that the lateral adjustment lever on the Luban does not have a bearing. However, looking at the models available today, they seem to have it now. This would suggest that the Luban line themselves have iterations. However, there's no information on Luban versions. I've seen versions with the lever cap both with and without "Luban" on it, and also ones where the lever cap is bronze. So I don't really know what I'm getting. However, if the design is undergoing revision, that's a positive sign that it's improving and not necessarily an inferior line to the factory's top end product, and perhaps a viable plane at a more affordable price point.

Anyone have any info?

I have mentioned in this thread earlier that Woodriver, is a Juuma, is a Quangsheng and is also a Luban. The differences are aesthetics and moot, e.g. such as the plane's label. Rob Cosman's video, comparing Luban to Woodriver was ludicrous. It was also deceitful, because the planes are made in the same factory - I have both (and many) and it's just a label difference. As to the quality, they are widely praised, because they are as good as you can get - I've been saying this for awhile now, but don't take my word for it. Today, I stumbled onto this gem of a quote from Paul Sellers about the Chinese plane:

"The Juuma is fully a Bedrock pattern-plane made from stress-relieved gray cast iron. The frog is made of brass. The 3 mm thick high carbon steel cutting iron is hardened to 61 – 63 HRC and is supported by a robust and neatly made cap iron (chip breaker USA). Replete with a beautifully finished overall profile, this plane matches the very best of the very best. With regard to engineering standards, I doubt that you’ll find better. This plane has phenomenally tight, perfectly corresponding threads that result in minimal whiplash and uptake. The hardwood handles made from highly polished Bubinga needed no reworking to fit my fairly large hands. A truly well crafted plane to match the demands of the most discerning artisan."

That is one hell of a review from a man who has made furniture for the White House!
A plane by any other name...