Use of Stots TemplateMaster Woodworking Tool Limited to One Shop (licensing going crazy)

Ed Foster's Gripe Log ^ | 10/22/2003 | Ed Foster

[antiRepublicrat]

A small woodworking tool manufacturer, Stots Corporation, includes a license agreement on its TemplateMaster jig tool. The tool is licensed, not sold, and customers cannot sell it or lend it to others. Nor can they sell or lend the jigs they make with it.

We’re all familiar with license agreements on software tools that limit what you can with the product. But what about a license agreement on a real tool limiting what you can with the product and the things you make with it?

“Shrinkwrap licenses are showing up everywhere,” a reader recently wrote. “I just bought a jig for making dovetailing jigs -- this is woodworker talk if it's unfamiliar to you. The master jig contained a license that says I've licensed the master jig, not bought it. The license says I can't lend or sell the master, and furthermore I can't lend or sell the jigs I make with the master.”

The reader was referring to Stots Corporation of Harrods Creek, KY, and the user agreement for its TemplateMaster product. Sure enough, the Stots license says TemplateMaster may be used “in only one shop by the original purchaser only” and that “you may not allow individuals that did not purchase the original Product (to) use the Product or any templates produced using the Product…”

A FAQ document on the Stots website explains that the license is necessary because “the purpose of the TemplateMaster is to clone itself. Therefore we are verifying your honesty that only you will use the tool and you will not be passing it around to others to use for free. It is exactly the same as the ‘shrink wrap’ agreement that comes with almost all computer software. Please help us fight ‘tool piracy’.”

Challenged as I am to even hammer a nail, I certainly can’t judge the uniqueness of the TemplateMaster product compared to other woodworking tools. The reader doubts it’s particularly novel, in that the template or jig one creates with it will be virtually identical to “Keller” jigs that have been around for many years. “The key difference is that the instructions that came with the Keller jig said, in not so few words ‘here, use this jig to make a dovetail joint’,” the reader said. “The Stots jig, which is geometrically equivalent, comes with instructions that say ‘use a duplicating router bit to copy this jig to make a jig that looks almost exactly the same as me -- and exactly the same as the Keller jig -- then use that jig to make a dovetail joint.”

But even assuming the Stots tool is a wonderful innovation, does that give its inventor the right to restrict how you use the tool? The patent law doctrine of exhaustion would seen to overrule such restrictions, but that doctrine took a hit in one recent case. And then what about the idea of restricting how customers use the tools they make with the TemplateMaster? Don’t let the software companies hear about that one, or next thing you know there will be usage restrictions on who we can share our data with.

[antiRepublicrat]

I understand their motivation, but this is not a good thing. When software licenses started getting crazy, people asked what would life be like if the idea of licensing crept into the real world. The answers generally did not paint a pretty picture. Licensing will undermine the doctrine of First Sale, which lets you do what you wish (within the law) with what you bought, and to lend and resell it. Licensing will also endanger many consumer protection laws which kick in at the moment you buy something, not license it.

[GingisK]

You need to subscribe to some decent woodworking magazines. Plans for dovetailing jigs are published often. Most jigs can be made. Check out Amazon for books that provide such details. Furthermore, harbor freight has an awesome dovetailing jig that is an exact replica of one "AMT" made before they bit the dust.

The is simply no reason to purchase “licensed” tools.

[per loin]

I suspect that book publishers are looking closely at the idea of licensing rather than selling their products.

[RightWhale]

This is the kind of restriction that limits a company's business. Apple versus PC clone is a big example. Autodesk and Microsoft are so big that they can do this with success for a while, but Xerox, IBM, and Polaroid tried it and still try it and have run out of market without seeming to know why or what to do about it. Dangermond has taken the open approach for the most part and is doing well and will probably do well forever.

[SGCOS]

What does Norm Abrams think about this?

[spudsmaki]

This was the norm for books up until the 1850s when the First Sale doctrine threw out this horsepucky.

[Arthalion]

I don't think this is legal anyway. Software companies can get away with this because intellectual propertly laws grant certain copyright priveledges to information distribution. Hard inventions, however, fall under patent law, not copyright...there's no IP involved here.

Legally, there's nothing stopping me from purchasing a Jeep from the local dealership, delivering it to a local machine shop, and having an exact copy made. It's even legal for me to sell it, so long as I make it clear to the buyer that it's a clone and not a real Jeep. If we're talking about an invention covered by a currently active patent, like electronics hardware, the rules about selling the clone change (can't do it) but there's still nothing stopping me from building a few copies for my own personal use.

I can sympathize with their predicament, but the license isn't legally enforceable. If they want to prevent people from copying it, they need to integrate some kind of electronics into it and place some encrypted software on board, which would cause it to fall under the DMCA...otherwise they're out of luck.

[been_lurking]

What does Norm Abrams think about this?

I'm sure Norm doesn't care. When you are "really" good, like Norm, you can just freehand. He don't need no stinking jig!

:)

[GingisK]

In fact, here is one plan after a short search.

http://www.woodsmith.com/main/pdf/141dovetail.pdf

[Fierce Allegiance]

Norm is good, but he ain't 1/100th of an inch good like a good jig will allow a competent user to be. Ever try a free hand dovetail joint? all you will get is expensive kindling.

[Fierce Allegiance]

I doubt their licensing agreement will hold up in court. besides, there are quite a few excellent jigs available without the BS.

[AngryJawa]

Nope, Norm has several dovetail jigs. He rarely cuts them the old-fashioned way.

The Stotts template is basically a tool used to make a tool. In that it is unique. But according to many of the reviews I've seen, it's a time consuming PITA. You can buy a dedicated dovetailing jig for not much more money and save a good chunk of time.

Oh, yeah - the licensing idea is idiotic.

[struwwelpeter]

I think that if it were possible to come up with a microchip that "turned off" a product when not used by the original purchaser, companies would go for it.

Imagine if you started building a table or chair - which the tool's parent company also marketed - on your lath or table saw and a warning came up, stating "this is an unlicensed use" and shut your tool down.

[AngryJawa]

Ever try a free hand dovetail joint? all you will get is expensive kindling.

I'll cut them by hand when I only need a few pins and tails. It's good practice and setting up the jig can be finicky sometimes.

That said - putty is my friend!

[Fierce Allegiance]

Like i tell my neighbor, who tries real hard but just doesn't have it -

"Joint compound - one size fits all"

[Edsquire]

If we're talking about an invention covered by a currently active patent, like electronics hardware, the rules about selling the clone change (can't do it) but there's still nothing stopping me from building a few copies for my own personal use.

Not true.

35 U.S.C. § 271 (emphasis added):
(a) [W]hosoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention [in the U.S., or imports it], infringes the patent.

[Arthalion]

Not true.
35 U.S.C. § 271 (emphasis added): (a) [W]hosoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention [in the U.S., or imports it], infringes the patent.

Maybe so, but courts have somewhat consistently (though not exclusively) supported the concept of "experimental use" by falling back on the legal theory for the granting of patents...that they should allow inventors to profit from their inventions without having competitors steal their markets. Courts have held that "experimental users", people who duplicate a patented object for their own use and enjoyment without the intention to sell or profit from the resulting duplication, are not infringing on the patent holders ability to market and profit from his invention, and are therefore exempt from patent law. If I made one or two in my garage for my own use, it's legal. If I made 50 and gave them to my friends, it wouldn't be. If I made one or two copies of this companies woodworking equipment for my business, with the intent to profit from its use, it WOULDN'T be legal. If I were a hobbiest and built my own copy of this tool so that I could build myself a better gunrack for my family room, it WOULD be legal.

One of the problems with patent law is that it isn't as clear as it looks. The law itself is simple, but the tremendous amount of case-law that exists on top of that law to "define" its meaning can make actual legal practice both confusing and contradictory.

[Mr. Lucky]

If the licensing language is included in the sales literature provided the purchaser prior to the purchase, it's probably valid. If the purchaser is first informed of the licensing language after the purchase, it's not part of the deal.

[antiRepublicrat]

If the licensing language is included in the sales literature provided the purchaser prior to the purchase, it's probably valid. If the purchaser is first informed of the licensing language after the purchase, it's not part of the deal.

That's what you'd think, but I haven't seen any shrink-wrap software licenses overturned on this principle.