FWW/ Lee Valley patent

I agree with Dean

John in Kerrville TX

>on the marital accord issue and its threat form the LV catalogs ;0)

Re: FWW/ Lee Valley patent

In the know

>"While it was an error to promote a previously (and well known) patent) I don't think LV is heavy handed with individuals."

You are wrong here. You see the "kissy kissy" side of Rob Lee on the forum here because you are a customer. But when it comes to Patents and degregation of the LV name Rob Lee is VERY heavy handed. I know of a case a few years ago where someone posted a tip for building a panel clamping jig and Legal notice was issued to both the woodworker who made the tip and the magazine which almost folded. I wouldn't doubt in this instance that FWW wasn't issued a legal statement from LV's lawyers.

Re: FWW/ Lee Valley patent

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>I'll just note that the poster in this message didn't leave any contact info, gave absolutely no detail of any significance in the post, and uses the false but snarky �in the know� for their name. For all we know could be a vengeful competitor.

Since the original poster was not willing to even tell us his name or the context of his beef with LV, I suspect we ought to put just as much weight in the accusations - which is to say - not much at all.

What I can say, is that my experience with the company doesn't lend much credence to the completely unsupported, vague and sinister accusations made above.

(snark)

PS: Degregation: Did you perhaps mean degradation, or denigration, desegregation or aggregation, degression or something else entirely. I had the most difficult time finding your word in the dictionary.

Even assuming your tale is true, are we supposed to believe that simply receiving a legal notice would cause a magazine to fold?

Ah yes, you�re right, most magazines DO have a fold in the middle.

I can see why if they didn�t fold, what a problem that might be. It would be a real bear to read and would be killer for the postman to deliver. However I really don't see why a legal notice from LV would be required to help the magazine see the benefit in "folding."

(/snark)

Cheers,

Greg

What's your point?

Ellis Walentine

>Your definition of "heavy handed" may be nonetheless perfectly within the rights and prudent interests of Lee Valley, and they should not be taken to task for protecting their intellectual property. If you choose to post without identifying yourself or explaining your claim to some kind of insider knowledge of these proceedings, kindly don't expect your opinions to be widely accepted.

Thanks,

Ellis Walentine, Host

Re: You missed the point?

In The Know

>You missed the point as usual. I am only replying to the quote the other poster made about heavy handed. My name is not important. If I said my name was Jerry from California would that make a difference? You can choose to beleive what ever you want. It's not my job to change you mind....maybe just open your eyes a little.

The original response was to the "heavy handed" of LV. I'm not even saying that LV is wrong....they should be heavy handed in this situation. What I'm saying is don't think for a second that LV is not heavy handed in these situations because Rob Lee comes on this forum and makes everyone feel good which is what the original poster was saying. When it comes to business dealing he does what it takes to keep his business on top and I respect him for that.....but he's not the lovey dovey you think he is. Call some of his competitors and ask them....heck...start with LN his #1 competitor. And Ellis...you should be the first to realize this. Are you telling me you've never received a phone call from him asking you to remove a post?

Greg....as usual you have no idea what you are talking about...babling on about nothing. Making remarks about my handle and the details of the legal notice and critiqing (is that right? Go look it up in the dictionary) my spelling and grammer, with your little snark remarks. I don't care if you don't beleive me? BTW I think the magazine struggled because it couldn't afford the legal represention but that's not the POINT. As for being a competitor....why would I care if he sends legal notices to those that break his patent....he should!!!! That was not what I was responding to.

But if you don't believe me then re-read his post. Read between the lines. Did he deny it? Do you think FWW wrote that note because Rob called and was friendly with them? SNAP out of it!!!!

Re: You missed the point?

Dan Donaldson

>It sounds to me more like you missed the point. The original poster was stating that he did not think LV was "heavy handed" with individuals, and I think that is correct, based on what I know and also Rob's answer. The case you cite is totally different from someone making something in their own shop for their own use (an individual). In the case you cite (going only on your description, which is all we have, care to cite a valid source that can be fact checked;-)), there was a publication telling others to go out and make something, as well as how to do it. I don't know, but I would guess that there was no credit given to the LV patent. This is not the same thing at all. In that case, I would fully expect any business to send a legal cease and desist in order to protect their intellectual property. There is nothing "heavy handed" about that at all. It is just business.

I'm in the know too...you're wrong

Frank D. in Montreal

>We probably know each other since I frequent the forum (in fact both forums, both Canadian) where that was posted. I know (not personally but as many of us "know" each other here) the person who made the post and remember it very well. Both he and Rob explained the situation, and none mentioned any legal proceedings because there were none. Rob did ask to have the post pulled because if he didn't protect the copyright it would in effect become void. As was mentioned in this thread the actual copying for personal use was not the problem, but the public incitement to infringe. The post was pulled immediately and that was that. If I'm mistaken then show your cards.

And don't think I'm sucking up to anyone here, I just don't think you are telling it like it was.

Frank

Re: You missed the point?

Brent Smith

>The only point here is that you are shooting your mouth off and giving us no proof of what you are saying. You won't even put a name behind the mouth. You put me in mind of a 10 year old girl who after spreading gossip says "but don't tell anyone I told you".

Your opinion is your own, but, if you want to brodcast it at least have the courage to put a name behind it.

Brent

Re: I'm in the know too...you're wrong

In The Know

>I did not get my info from any Canadian wood forum. I don't even know if it's the same case. I really don't care.

Re: You missed the point?

In The Know

>I put my name in my last post. Did it help you?

Re: FWW/ Lee Valley patent

Dan CLermont in Burnaby

>I have heard about this case regarding LV and a magazine which almost folded or would have folded if it would have gone further.

It could be that "In the Know" told me this or someone else "In the Know" heard it from "In the Know"

Not trying to start anything, just stated I heard about this through a friend

Dan Clermont

Reading between the Lines

Dan CLermont in Burnaby

>I believe what "In the Know" is saying if you read between the lines on Mr Lee's response was that their was an issue between LV and FWW or Taunton which has made Mr Lee not advertise in the magazine.

FWW is one of my favourites along with Pop Woodworking and I can't imagine someone not wanting to advertise in FWW unless they had some differences

Cheers,

Dan Clermont (who is reading between the lines and bored on the Graveyard shift at work (which makes me owly))

Re: I'm in the know too...you're wrong

paul womack

>I don't even know if it's the same case. I really don't care.

Heh. You're in an argument and you don't care about relevant facts.

A novel way to argue a case, but not totally surprising.

BugBear

Re: Reading between the Lines

Paul Kierstead

>Clearly there is an issue there but not knowing *any* of the facts, it would be rather difficult to pass judgement on either party with any fairness. It is a reflection of the smaller manner of the business that such a thing can happen; it is more personal then the mega-nationals who are suing your a55 off on one hand and making deals with you on the other. I like personal.

Re: FWW/ Lee Valley patent

Todd Stock

>Having finally received the 'Shops' issue, I'd have to say that FWW did exactly what their lawyers likely recommended:

- Acknowledge that building the jig as published would constitute a patent violation

- State that any actions on the magazine's part supporting this infringement or violation were unintentional and terminated upon notification by the patent holder or agents

- State that it is not within the scope of the magazine's duties and responsibilities to either the public at large or specific patent applicants or holders to conduct thousands of patent searches with associated time, effort, and dollars spent.

- State that in the future, if advised by an applicant or holder as to the potential for a violation, FWW/Taunton will take appropriate action to promptly address the issue

While not being a raving fan of LV planes, gadgets, and some of the other 'improved' traditional tools, I'm even less of a fan of the current incarnation of FWW. That aside, my attorneys would likely allow even less 'feel good' language in the notice than did Taunton's.

Imagine for an instant that FWW had published the following:

"Yo...we shoulda known that the tip was just a half-assed rip-off of one of our advertiser's really, really cool gadgets for the hand-tool impaired. We're really sorry and most def won't let it happen again."

Anyone see the host of problems here? Thought so.

Re: I'm in the know too...Frank got it right

Garrett in Victoria

>I'm also quite familiar with the clamp case, and Frank's description of events is correct.

The matter was handled firmly but gently by all concerned. No hassling, no threats, and a clear and consice statement by Rob Lee as to what was done and why. Everyone understood, and no one complained.

Cheers, Garrett

The nasty truth.... *LINK*

Rob Lee

>Rather than sit here and watch the endless speculation about what is essentially private business, In this case only - I'll post the the "nasty" type of letter we send send out initially to deal with patent infringement.

As for "In the know" - I don't respond to anonymous posts, and will only say that no one here has a clue what he's writing about... and I've even checked with IP staff that have since left the company. If he wants to supply any details - and do so openly - I'll address them.

The way patents and copyrights work, is that there's a duty to defend any infringement - or risk losing the patent. In our case - patents represent a significant investment in R&D, and more importantly - jobs. Employing 900+ people is a responsibility not taken lightly here.

People who suggest that legal action is first line of defence are most likely to be people that have never done so before. Once the lawyers are involved, both parties have lost. Only the lawyers win in a legal battle.

Frankly - life's too short to deal with people when there's no goodwill involved. Everyone makes mistakes - it's how you recover that's important.

You step on someone's toe - you say sorry.... that's all there is to it.

Cheers -

Rob

("In the snow" .... today, anyway)


FWW Letter....

That's it?

Denis Ch�nard, Orl�ans, Ont.

>And it took how long for FWW to write an apology? What got them so tied up in knots? The whole thing should have been resolved quickly and easily...

Geez.....

DC

Re: The nasty truth....

Brent Smith

>Boy, I guess FWW is lucky that such a heavy handed letter didn't bankrupt them.........LOL

Brent

I hold several patents

Doug Littlejohn

>and to my knowledge, an individual can make anything for themselves only, that they want. They may in no way make it for others or to profit in any way, shape or form.

But to make someting for ones own use???, nothing that I know off forbids this. Besides, this wouldn't even be pratcial as most folks who build for themselves are often not aware of what has been "invented before them". It's only when they go to market that they have the burden to insure they are not vilating anyones patent.

My .02, FWIW.

Sherwood

Okay, Okay...

Ted Owen, Pittsburgh

>this thread degenerated into personal attack this afternoon, and accordingly I have deleted the offending portions.

To those who posted quite reasonable messages in those portions, I offer my apology. I know you'll understand that when I delete a message, responses that have thus lost their context must go, too.

Please remember to use email addresses.

If anyone has further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me email. No further public postings to this section of the thread are appropriate.

Best, Ted

Moderator

TROLL ALERT!!!

Bob Hackett

>"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".

MB-That`s Mainely Bob as in Bob Hackett,the person who can be reached at the required E-mail address above just like ALMOST everyone else here.

Re: The nasty truth....

Dean Lapinel

>I wrote a big 'ol response for you then realized I could say it simply.

You guys are great.

I'm going to order something tomorrow...just because.

Thanks for all the time you offer, patience with the world of difficult people and all the neat tools you guys produce.

I wish you didn't have to post the letter that was written to FWW. I am certain that the majority of good folks here new and trusted it was diplomatic and appropriate as it turned out to be.

Dean

Re: Honor

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Rob wrote: "Frankly - life's too short to deal with people when there's no goodwill involved. Everyone makes mistakes - it's how you recover that's important.

You step on someone's toe - you say sorry.... that's all there is to it."

There's an old fashioned concept called Honor. Honor is dealing with each other honestly, fairly, forthrightly, and with good will. Honor is meeting one's obligations and correcting one's mistakes, cheerfully and in good faith. Honor is taking care of those who rely on you, irrespective of whether they are big or small. Honor is striving for excellence in what you do, and in your relationships with others. Honor is not compatible with half measures, or legalistic weaseling. Honor builds lasting trust.

My observation over the years is that the Lee family takes Honor very, very seriously. They are determined to act in a honorable manner, both publicly and privately, and they REQUIRE it from those other businesses they deal with. They do not expect anything they are not willing to supply in abundance themselves. I deeply respect this position, and admire it, and try to exemplify it in my own dealings.

As I see it, if you understand this, you understand LV-- that it is something more than simply a business,it is a manifestation of the disciplined and reasoned approach to life subscribed to by its founder and present leaders. If you don't, you won't. It's no more complicated than that.

Re: The nasty truth....

Dean Lapinel

>I wish there was an edit feature in this forum.

Please substitute "new" in my post with "Knew"

I realy no how too spel rite from good skoolin