WT113 – Chuck Norris Ruins The Poll

“that little burning streak” re: drum sanding.
had never heard of that, until I experienced it.
a couple of times semi-recently
both times with Bubinga
assume it has to do with oils in the material, though first time I thought maybe it was that sanding strip was too loose.

re: future of print versions
I would not assume too much on the future of print versions. A lot depends on what the advertisers want to pay for and how they perceive the market. Newsweek will become all digital at the end of this year. Sort of surprised me, but…the latest shake up there reduced the writing/presentation more to pop culture and sound bites (bytes), so they may as well change over….but not with me as a subscriber (due to content, not necessarily the online decision).

I like digital for looking up past info. For instance I’ll use (as a online subscriber) FWW’s the online search for older article I want to read again even though I have the print version. Besides saving time sorting through stacks, it allows me to make a printout to take in the shop…or for bedtime reading.

Woodworking has such a tactile element that I feel the print version plays to that satisfaction. Of course, being from a generation (or two) older than these podcasters, my expectations are different. Once I am gone, I give the ww magazines permission to drop printed versions.

Thanks guys, good show(s)

Hi
Marc and Shannon were talking about doing a joint project and the leagal thing is in the way … why dont you just make your own design end of discussion. if you change a angel on something in the product you are clear of any legal stuff. off course thats not the best way of doing this. an idea would be to have a competiton for new desingners to make a new and inproved version of the chair.
Henrik

Guys,

Good discussion on intellectual property, but like so much of thhe discussion on this topic on woodworking sites, there’s alot of misinformation. Despite the assertion that there’s alot of “gray area”, and people need to constantly worry about being sued, that’s not the case: hundreds of billions on dollars of goods are sold in this country every year, and the markeplace and legal system has largely worked out what is and is not legal and ethical:

–#1 big misconception: YOU CAN’T COPYRIGHT A FURNITURE DESIGN. Anyone telling you this is trying to deceive you. A patricular decorative picture or pattern on a piece of furniture imay have copyright, but the design itself (or the design of any “useful article”), nope.

— Plans acquire copyright as soon as they are created. Someone selling plans can prohibit you from making copies of that plans, and most do. But you can do whatever you want with the one plan copy you buy. Want to make a million pieces of furniture and sell them? Have at it Or you could build one piece, burn the original plan, and hand off the piece to someone whose never seen the original plan and ask them to draw up a new set of plans. These new plans would be entirely yours, and you could then sell copies of it, if you wish. This is the so-called “cleanroom” technique that is often used in the Technology industry to get around software copyright. It works because copright only protects how an idea is affixed to paper (i.e., the plan), but not the idea itself (the furniture design).

–In general the system is biased toward providing consumers with as much choices as possible. Producers are expected to compete vigorously with each other. The quaint world of woodworking doesn’t get a special exemption from this. In most cases, it’s perfectly permissable to market copies of some other producer’s product. Examples I often cite are when Chrysler came out with the idea of the minivan, it was soon copied by GM, Toyota, Ford, etc. Was Chrysler able to say, “wait minute, that’s our idea and you guys are ‘stealing’ it”? Nope. Same thing with those Razor scooters a few years ago: copies started appearing as soon as they hit the market. Competition is a good thing.

–Producers have a conscience choice to make when releasing a new product to market. They can decide to put the design into the public domain, and just start selling examples of the design. Or, they can decide to protect it first, which would prevent competitors from making copies. This is done by patenting the idea first; for furniture designs this usually means a Design Patent. Design Patents are cheaper and quicker to obtain than Utility Patents.

Some producers such as Stickley do obtain Design Patents on their work before selling them, as is their right. They can prevent other from making copies. But it’s a pet peeve of mine to hear those producers who make the decision to take the quick and lazy route to bring something to market right away and get revenue as quickly as possible, and then somewhat disengenuously complain that competitors are taking advantage of a situation that they themselves created.

–It seems to me that alot of this complaining about copying is self-serving. Woodworkers have no problem making up some “ethics” rules in attempt to pull some guilt trip on competitors (on designs they themselves put into th public domain by their actions) when they are on the producing end of the market. But when they’re consumers? When was the last time you heard one of them villify Thomas Nie-Nielson for marketing blantant copies of Stanley tool designs? Never; in that case they’re perfectly happy to refer to “expired patents” and some such legal crtieria. Even when Stanley started selling those designs again, no woodworker complained about L-N’s “knockoffs”. Because in this instance, it’s something that benefits the woodworker.