Woodpeckers recently came out with the MortiseMatch, which is “like a router table for your [Festool] Domino.”
The Woodpeckers MortiseMatch is basically a huge base that allows you to bring smaller work to the Festool Domino floating tenon mortise cutter, rather than taking the tool to your workpiece.
The MortiseMatch is priced at $699.99 and is set to launch at the end of September, 2022.
Advertisement
Note: Woodpeckers’ limited time introductory price that cannot be beat has ended, with $699.99 as the final preorder and planned retail price.
Woodworking enthusiasts have accused Woodpeckers of stealing the idea from Carmonius Finsnickeri, which shared details about his innovative jig in a YouTube video 2 years ago.
Woodpeckers has responded to the controversy on YouTube, saying:
We’ve recently received some criticism accusing us of stealing this product idea from a YouTube video. While we certainly saw the video in question while researching MortiseMatch, it was only one of the videos and articles we found. The earliest similar design we found was from 2001, 18 years earlier than the video that is being claimed to be the soul source of our inspiration.
Nothing in our marketing of MortiseMatch claimed this to be a completely unique idea. In fact, the second paragraph of the product release email specifically mentioned that we had reviewed several designs online and found them to be lacking certain features we found critically important, primarily the ability to adjust the height of the cut.
Here are just a few of the links to web pages we found while researching table mounting the Domino, all of which pre-date the Carmonius Finsnickeri video by almost 2 decades.
Advertisement
Shown here is Finsnickeri’s Domino table.
Finsnickeri responded to Woodpecker’s statement, with paragraph breaks added in for easier readability:
I have stayed away from commenting but since you [Woodpeckers] didn’t answer my email I give my side of the story here.
I also made some search when I did my Domino table and found some of the ones you linked to. As opposed to bisquits, where the left to right alignment isn’t super critical, the domino cuts needs to be spot on for a jig like this to make any sense.
So, I invented the workflow with flipping the fence in a fast and very accurate way. This is where it differs from “just another bisquit joiner table” and what makes it a domino jig rather than bisquit jig. It also gives the advantage that the cut doesn’t need to be centered in thickness. This is the brain in the product, not the table itself, and this workflow I was first with.
My Domino table was also the first (what I know) that addressed how to work with different thicknesses, as well as solving work holding in a simple, quick and flexible way. Not that revolutionary though since Microjig released their clamps and everybody use this concept, but I used the (festool) routed in clamp concept since 2011.
Anyway, as I wrote on Festool Owners Group, I’m not as upset as other seems to be although I think it looks a lot like my table. Also I think the timing to “try the domino on narrow parts” some 15 years after it was released could be a factor to the reactions as it lines up pretty well with the release of my videos. As you are aware of Veritas handled this differently and saw me as the originator, but each to his own, that’s not my business.
Biscuit joiner jigs have indeed been around for some time. However, Finsnickeri’s Domino table looks to greatly improve upon the concept in unique ways.
Woodpeckers’ $700 MortiseMatch looks to enhance things further, but is it too close to Finsnickeri’s design?
It is not uncommon for tool brands to pay inventors and community members for original ideas that they convert into profitable products.
Sparkfun, a brand and retailer that specializes in hobbyist-type electronics products, came out with a third hand kit, and they state on the product page that they pay a royalty to the person whose Instructable tutorial inspired its design.
Lee Valley/Veritas worked with Peter Parfitt on their MFT/3 and multifunctional table dogs. As Veritas partnered with Parfitt to make their stainless steel Parf dogs, it is presumed that the inventor receives a portion of the sales.
I would assume that Woodpeckers’ Paolini Pocket Rule results in a royalty to furniture maker Gregory Paolini.
Karas Pen Co. partnered with Dudek Modern Goods on machined pen storage cubes that were adapted from Mike Dudek’s small batch wood cubes.
Tool brands usually work with individual inventors and makers when unique design drive their commercial product ideas.
In the context of Woodpeckers’ MortiseMatch, the two designs are admittedly similar. But is Finsnickeri’s design different enough from the biscuit joiner tables that preceded it?
Lee Valley has a Veritas shooting board, but the style is so familiar that no one can be credited with the idea.
Earlier this year, we were spammed with many comments from someone claiming Klein Tools stole their idea and that they are owed royalties for Klein’s glow in the dark pliers and screwdrivers.
Equipping a tool with glow in the dark handles is not an original idea.
But, is Finsnickeri’s Domino table original enough of an idea where maybe Woodpeckers should have worked with them on the MortiseMatch Domino table?
Woodpeckers’ ideas are ripped off all the time, with knockoffs and counterfeits easily found on Amazon and elsewhere, and so they should be sensitive to how this looks.
Woodpeckers are good people, or at least this was still true a few years ago when I last talked with anyone there, and I am inclined to believe they are still good people, and that this is just an unfortunate situation.
Here’s what it comes down to: Did Finsnickeri’s Domino table inspire Woodpeckers’ new MortiseMatch Domino table in a measurable way?
That Woodpeckers doesn’t credit them at all implies that their answer is no. But woodworkers – and Finsnickeri – are of the opinion that a major design element was copied.
There’s no legal obligation for companies to credit anyone for unpatented or unprotected ideas. But is this ethical?
As referenced in Finsnickeri public response to Woodpeckers, Lee Valley/Veritas is ALSO building a Festool Domino table. Here’s what Rob Lee from Lee Valley said about the matter:
We have a modified version in pre-production right now – and ARE paying Ola [Carmonius Finsnickeri] royalties.
We don’t yet know what the Veritas version will look like, but Lee Valley will be crediting and paying royalties to Finsnickeri for his contribution to their Domino table design.
Should Woodpeckers have done the same? Woodpeckers apparently thinks no while the woodworking community seems to be heavily leaning towards yes.
Here are the videos for anyone that wants to learn more:
MM
Is what Woodpeckers is doing legal? Sure sounds like it.
Are they being giant dicks? Also: Sure sounds like it. And that’s especially ironic given how often 3rd parties knock off Woodpecker’s products.
Kudos to Lee Valley for crediting and paying royalties to Finsnickeri even though they had no legal obligation to.
Stuart
The problem is, the question of similarity is going to be subjective, and we also don’t know how things progressed at Woodpeckers.
If Woodpeckers implemented improvements that Finsnickeri developed, and they could be considered “critically important,” that could set the context for everything.
Pablo
People knock the patent system. If he wanted to market it or sell his idea, he need to submit for patent protection, or at the very least hold it as a trade secret shared only with manufacturers bound by a non-disclosure agreement. He seems to acknowledge this. I see no issues here.
Koko The Talking Ape
Yes, but IP law decides that kind of gray area, of what is “too similar,” all the time. It is partly subjective, but there are ways to quantify it somewhat: does it look IDENTICAL (like that Harbor Freight pliers-wrench), does it copy any unique distinctive features (it seems to) and how many, are any differences incidental or non-functional and how many, etc. Also, there is precedent: previously a router jig was found to infringe on a patent, and it had a rough level of similarity to that patent that this new jig does to the original.
(The issue becomes even more subtle in copyright law, especially pertaining to music, even when there isn’t outright sampling.)
But first they have to allow that legal protection to exist, and it seems like here like they didn’t.
Koko The Talking Ape
But a dick move, to be sure. Not going to buy any Woodpeckers, ever.
Aaron
You are confusing different areas of IP law. I am a patent attorney (who sometimes wishes he would have have been a full time woodworker). Deisgn Patent law relies heavily on obviousness. But no design patent here, so no issue. How something looks relates to a design patent. Again, no design patent here. Copyright and trademarks are irrelevant here. Also, remember that Finsnickeri freely disclosed (and sold) his product. Doing so presumes others will try to improve it. That’s a fundamental policy concern of the patent system. Woodpeckers did that. I see nothing wrong with Woodpeckers here. They acknowledged others previous designs, but said they improved upon them. That’s exactly what they should do: improve.
Koko The Talking Ape
I was a lawyer, but my last IP class was 35 years ago, so I appreciate the correction.
I know copyrights and trademarks don’t apply, but I was just using them to show how “subjectivity” doesn’t make an IP violation impossible to decide.
Well, I’d agree they did nothing wrong LEGALLY. 🙂
Aaron
Oops, meant utility patent for obviousness. Anyway, I think the person who messed up here was Finsnickeri by not protecting his idea. But the quote from him indicates he doesn’t mind. And I wouldn’t say “subjective,” rather “judgment calls” based on many factors.
Koko The Talking Ape
@Aaron,
Yes indeed, Finsnickeri could’ve protected his idea. But as others point out, that takes money and a (shudder) lawyer. I personally think people shouldn’t have to affirmatively take action to protect what we all feel and understand is theirs by right. Copyright works that way, why not other types of IP?
But yes, he might not actually mind. And even if he didn’t, he might’ve effectively given the idea away to the world, by sharing it, which SEEMS like it could block or impede any later claim he might make. (I don’t know, I’m not a patent attorney!)
And I agree, “subjective” is not quite the right word, but Stuart isn’t an attorney either! 🙂
Aaron
I will say, one should always give credit where it’s due, or not plagarize, etc. Regardless of the law. And I, too, shudder at many lawyers.
J. Newell
Useful discussion, thanks. I think Stuart pitched it well: it may be legal, but is it ethical? Is it honest and respectful (which I think are lesser included elements of “ethical”)?
I am somewhat struck by the low-key response by Finsnickeri compared to the (to me) somewhat unattractive and slightly (my opinion) misleading in-your-face reply from Woodpeckers.
Christopher
Given the info in this article, I think many readers will prefer to wait for the Veritas version (it’ll probably be less expensive anyway *and* give/pay credit where it’s due).
Stacey Jones
It’s unethical in my book. Shame on Woodpeckers!
GAK
Ideas are a dime a dozen. The value is 99% in execution.
Finsnickeri seems to have evolved a design that has been around for a long time, updating it for contemporary tools and techniques. He makes a YouTube video (with only 30k views) showing off his skills, but does not pursue commercialization in any way. He basically executed a proof-of-concept.
Woodpeckers did what they do and engineered the heck out of the concept – using their house design language, engineering details, and manufacturing techniques. As someone involved in such activities on a production scale; that side of the effort is WAY harder than the initial/proof of concept phase. Woodpeckers also is doing the marketing/retailing… which honestly makes manufacturing look like child’s play and is a very very tough nut to crack.
I don’t know… seems to me Woodpeckers did nothing wrong, but I also come from the machining world. 90% of our job is developing jigs, and fixtures, and workflows custom to each component. Nobody I know in our community gets their undies in a bunch when we copy each other, even though we’re all in this for the cash (unlike hobby woodworking guys). I think the wood molseters need to chill out a bit.
Dave R.
I agree. It seems like with content creators who make a living off people watching them create stuff like this are more keen to give credit to original, then throw their flair on it. Basically cause the mob can turn on them if they don’t. But I think jigs are jigs, it doesn’t sound like the original creator is very up in arms, but internet people sure are. That’s fine. They’ll forget when the next product is launched.
Stuart
I was researching a specialty woodworking accessory last year, and one of the brands I was looking into was bashed in online forums for having a habit of stealing ideas.
I highly doubt that Woodpeckers would deliberately adapt a woodworker’s idea without credit; this just seems to be an unfortunate situation.
But then again, Lee Valley thought the maker’s contribution towards their modified design was significant enough to credit and pay them.
GAK
Did Lee Valley start paying the initial creator before or after the internet tempest in a tea cup started?
Stuart
Woodpeckers announced the MortiseMatch on April 12th.
Rob Lee said they have a version in pre-production and are paying royalties to C.F., and that was also on April 12th, at 10:42am.
Mopar4wd
I think the world is built off improving off other peoples ideas so I don’t have a huge issue with this. That said if some one has a good idea it is nice to recognize them. I work in manufacturing and while I agree making things at volume and selling them aren’t easy i will say actual good ideas that work in real life are not that easy to come by either.
MM
As someone who owned a machine shop for many years I know exactly what you mean about 90% of the job being designing jigs and fixtures to make parts efficiently. And yes, we machinists constantly share and borrow ideas from others. But I think the big difference is that machinists aren’t in the business of copying someone else’s jig and then selling them at retail to make a profit. I might use someone else’s fixture idea in my shop, but I’m not selling that idea to the public with my name on it.
To relate this to the product at hand:
A machinist might see Finsnicker’s jig, make something similar themselves, then use that jig to make widgets.
In this case Woodpeckers saw Finsnickeri’s jig, copied it, and are selling THAT.
Robert
Overall, this is one of the more intelligent and interesting discussions. GAK I agree on the engineering, but not on the marketing. I doubt the marketing was as costly to Woodpeckers as the engineering. WP has a marketing system running smoothly. Some argue that’s their edge. This jig’s advertising campaign just plugs into their formula, introductory pricing will never be matched, etc. if my skills grew to where I would use dominos, I would first consider Lee Valley’s, even though I’ve given more of my money to WP than LV. The inventor may not be aggrieved, but I’d like to reward him so he is resourced to keep making aids to the wood working community.
Koko The Talking Ape
I hear what you’re saying, and I agree that execution is more important than the idea of a product.
But theft is theft, even if it’s for 1% of product. And it’s an essential 1%, without which there’s no product.
No offense, but I think copying jigs in a machining shop is different. You aren’t trying to sell your jigs. If you were, and somebody (a larger somebody, with more marketing and development capacity) started selling a copy of your jigs, then you might be pissed, I’d guess.
On the other hand, the original inventor Finsnickeri did share the design on a YouTube video (which I haven’t seen.) If he displayed or explained the design in enough detail, he could be said to be giving away his design.
Even so, I think Finsnickeri deserves at least some credit. Lee Valley is doing the classy thing. I’m going to buy some stuff from them just out of respect.
Aaron
Exactly. Commercialization is a different ballgame from conceptualization
Matt
Marketing doesn’t improve the product for anyone but the salesman.
Mass producing someone else’s work isn’t hard, and frankly, i see anti Chinese sentiment all day about this exact action.
It didn’t matter if this guy was first, what’s clear is that woodpeckers wasn’t. Ethically you don’t need to know who owns amb idea if you know you don’t. Legally, it’s a shitshow. Patents only protect patent attorneys’ pockets.
GAK
As a product designer/machinist, I disagree.
Marketing is the difference between success and failure these days, and the “Build it and they will come” game is long gone. I have two businesses, and one of them is that we build really nice camera accessories. We have a great website conversion rate (2.2%), stellar reviews, and a customer base who really loves our gear… But sales suck unless there is an active YouTube video or Instagram post from a medium to big time photography account talking about us. Once we slide off the algorithm? Sales flatline. Getting to that place (like Woodpeckers) where you have the critical mass to generate your own buzz and where people proactively seek you out is very very difficult.
My other business is that we do CNC mill process development for large scale manufacturing. When you need to make 100k+ parts on a machine, you come to us, we develop the process on our machines, and we implement it on your factory floor all bulletproof and reliable. Almost every project we work on winds up on here… And we are totally replaceable! Any idiot can run a mill!
I’ll try to quantify this in more absolute terms- Go to a venture capitalist with an idea for a widget that you know for sure will get 1 Million sales and you know exactly how to make it. They won’t give you the time of day. Go to the same VC with a widget that has 100,000 pre-orders, and you don’t know how to make it? They’ll throw money at you.
None of the engineering, or great ideas, or good design matter if you don’t make sales, and you can’t make sales if none of that exists. Conversely, lots of junk products with quality problems and poor design sell just fine.
Dave R.
Love some good woodworking internet drama.
Birdog357
He showed the world how to do it and didn’t get a patent on it. He chose poorly…
Lyndo
Based solely on what context was provided; the original creator doesn’t appear to be upset. Random individuals that may not even be actually upset rather looking for reasons to be angry are. He had every opportunity to patent this product; yet he chose not to. So a for profit (nothing wrong with that) corporation decided to do that and some people are apparently losing their mind over this.
Reminds me of the limited edition Leatherman Mr. Crunch and when Leatherman came out with their version of a leather holster that has similarities to another brand despite the design existing for decades. “How dare Leatherman charge this much” “It’s not fair that people are selling this for xyz prices”. No one forced anyone to buy that product anymore than anyone is forcing them to buy the WoodPecker product.
Stuart
The Leatherman tool holster did result in many accusations as well, from the public and a 3rd party accessory maker, but it seemed to me to be a common and familiar design. I understand that the 3rd party maker is unhappy at the new competition, but there are so many generic examples of the same or similar tool holster, and with unclear origins and inspirations.
Jared
I wonder how much of this is messaging and marketing. There’s no legal obligation to pay a royalty, but clearly Veritas felt some obligation – or did they just jump at an opportunity to release a similar product and benefit from the goodwill of a different approach?
A recent subject in a popular tool forum highlighted how Harbor Freight was selling a clone of Knipex’s pliers wrench. I was surprised to read how much negativity there was about it – the patent expired and there are multiple companies making pliers wrenches. It made me wonder if the idea of patent protection is so culturally ingrained that even when something that isn’t an infringement, but merely smells like it, also attracts moral outrage. There’s a lot of overlap between law and morality after all – and its kind of a chicken or egg scenario.
On the other hand, maybe I’m just too focused on the legal question and missing the point. I certainly think crediting someone for an idea you “borrowed” is good.
Then there’s a third possibility, maybe Woodpeckers is worried about whether crediting someone, even without an obligation to contract with that fellow, would increase the odds of such a claim being taken seriously.
Stuart
Harbor Freight’s Icon Pliers Wrench is a very different story.
https://toolguyd.com/harbor-freight-icon-pliers-wrench-knipex-imitation/
HF’s Icon pliers are an obvious imitation. But competitive iterations and developments are very different than when you’re talking about companies and individual makers.
Artists’ work are sometimes adapted into commercial designs, fashion, and other mediums, and there’s usually huge outcry.
But when Burger King comes out with a rib sandwich to rival the McRib, that’s perfectly fine.
jst
At first glance I have a problem with the HF pliers wrench and it is not because it’s a copy of the concept. These pliers are practically a mirror image to the point that the only thing separating them from being a counterfeit is the fact that they printed the name ICON on it instead of KNIPEX.
Compare that to Irwins or Craftsman pliers wrenches that I’ve seen on store shelves and I don’t have a problem with any of them. They are clearly the same tool but from different brands/manufacturers. That’s fair market competition.
The HF Icons are clearly trying to benefit off the market position of Knipex by making their version a doppelganger. There is no other reason to make it look just short of identical. You don’t end up with a matching design like that by accident or chance. It was intentional and the underlying purpose is to mislead consumers.
fred
But trying to mislead might be part of some retailers DNA.
HF is sort of known for picking brand names that suggest USA origins.
Otherwise, why brand a tool Pittsburgh Pro or Chicago Electric – when it might be more accurately branded as having originated in Shenzhen.
At least, with names like Icon and Hercules HF is getting a bit more neutral.
Jim Felt
Maybe Harbor “Freight” simply represents the lowest order of the classic Sears Roebuck “good”, “better” and “best” retail marketing philosophy.
Whether they’ve ever publicly admitted it is probably irrelevant.
And even the name HF was in itself once a dead giveaway that they were once the prime bottom tier seller because that was marketing code for cheaper/lesser quality goods. Whereas “Made in America” was once code for the post WWll era as the best. No longer universally true or relevant but it certainly was when they initiated their retail brand name.
I personally buy US made dollies and mid quality packing blankets HF and that’s really it.
fred
When they regularly had coupons. I used to buy boxes of chip brushes and nitrile gloves from them. Both were of “good enough” quality – at a very good price.
John
All this fuss was a month ago. It would have been more relevant then while discussions were abound.
MM summed it up nicely. Not illegal but uncool to an extreme.
In the grand scheme of things, Woodpeckers’ tools are overpriced for what they are and what they accomplish. I have quite a few of their rulers, triangles, etc. Don’t use them anywhere near as much as I though I would. They exist under a psychological conundrum of making woodworkers feel inadequate in turn buying high priced “tools” which spend more time as trophies than workshop tools. A good ruler gives you accuracy; a good jig gives you precision through repetition. Buying high priced jigs is laziness. Walk into most true professional shops and you will see excellent stationary tools but when it comes to jigs, they most all get made to purpose and kept for the next time which provides more cost savings than a Woodpeckers tool would.
fred
When I started woodworking as a hobby in the 1960’s I spent probably as much time building jigs and shop furniture as I did working on actual projects. When I reached my seventies, I realized that I had been blessed by having probably more money than I have time left in my life. So. for me now there are often tradeoff decisions to be made: do I split my time on making jigs and furniture – or do buy overpriced jigs and spend more time on the furniture making. I have to admit that some of the tools and jigs that I have bought (or made) over some 50+ years of woodworking have proven to be dust-collectors (of varying cost) rather than valuable sawdust-makers. But I have no regrets about my Festool Domino machine purchase – even though it has made me put most of my tenoning and doweling jigs into deep storage. How really useful this $700+ (with tax and shipping) doo-dad will be has yet to be seen. In pure dollars and cents terms, I suspect that it may not justify its cost – but maybe it will save me some time – compared to fabricating my own.
fred
Hmm!
I pre-ordered one on 4/22 ($649 plus tax and $21 for shipping). It is supposed to ship at the end of September.
I’m not 100% sure I would have if I had known about this – and/or if I had known that LV-Veritas was working on their version.
As you say – it seems out of character for Woodpeckers to rip-off and clone an idea – especially considering how they get copied by knockoffs sold on Alibaba, Amazon and Bangood
Nathan
I guess I’ve never been as impressed with woodpeckers in general to thing it’s bad of them to knock off someone elses idea – pretty much everything they make does this now. I’d argue that’s true of a number of things in the woodworking area.
Legally it would be hard to patent this product – and slightly less hard to trademark it. why – it’s a jig that holds a handheld tool and allows placement of parts next to it – in general terms it’s actually too generic to be patented. Yes it’s a specific tool , actually no it’s not. Similar enough it would work with a biscuit machine or those double/tripple dowel machines. or even a drill. It’s fairly hard to patent things today.
Anyway outside of that only improvement I see like most wookpecker things is golly it’s alot of milled AL. I like the orginal better and I suspect I’ll like the veritas better. I will most likely not buy either however – I don’t even own a domino.
TLDR – It’s good some people cared enough to call them out on borrowing someone elses idea who might have made a domino jig first. But I don’t think they were in the wrong exactly. shadly perhaps.
Koko The Talking Ape
You’d be surprised what can be patented. Some are unbelievably broad. For instance, there have been patents for a “graphical computer interface” (like Windows, or anything Windows-like, or apparently using any graphics at all). The patent examiners are overburdened and apparently don’t often understand what exactly they are protection.
There has been broad agreement, for decades, that the patent administration system (not patent law, though that has issues too) is broken and needs serious help.
John Paulson
There is nothing unduly novel about these domino jigs. I had never seen them before this moment. This past week I looked at the plastic festool narrow rail jig and made my own version for little money to fit my recently bought festool domino machine. It looks just like a smaller junior version of this CF jig, but that is because a couple of years ago I made a vertical mortising jig for my router that again shares some features to cut loose tenon mortises. I adapted that design from something I saw by a lady woodworker on YouTube. IF …. you publish a novel design online or in print then you monetise it by virtue of publishing fees etc., not by licensing. These days everyone thinks that a small bit of ingenuity should be their road to fortune, but I do note that CF is not complaining. Everyone else should spend $700 or get back to the workshop and make one of their own and stop whingeing.
Ola
Just saw my youtubevisitors increase and thought there must be something new on the domino jig discussion front…
My comments to various comments here. Getting a patent for different parts of the world for a one man woodworking business like mine is just out of reach cost wise so I never had a thought of that. I also never had any idea of making money out of this jig. Maybe some day dreams to end up where I did with Veritas but to be honest I didn’t have that in mind either until someone at Festool owners group wrote something about Parfit in my thread.. I’m an inventor and when I have something good to show I can’t wait to show it. Maybe stupid but that’s me:)
I’m not “economically upset” at woodpeckers and don’t think owe me anything, more than some credit for the idea and workflow.
I think in the long run companies will benefit from having a whole world of inventors willing to present new ideas. A small royalty is a very minor cost to pay for big companies . Next time I have a good idea I might not be so tempted to show it, at least not public. If I show it to a company, the chance is much higher it will be Veritas than Woodpeckers.
/Ola from Carmonius Finsnickeri
eddie sky
Raise your hands on how many own Festool Domino?
Now, raise your hands how many own Woodpecker products?
Now, raise your hands how many own non-Woodpecker products but something similar and cheaper?
I bet more raised their hands for cheaper and least hands up for Festool Domino.
Case here is, Woodpeckers are niche. Perhaps with enough IP, they will sell off to someone like Festool or TTI. When you own a small company that grows, you eventually want to move on. Here, I see WP probably saw a market, and improved on it. Unless patents are in question, its just creative license. And you post something public, like YouTube, you know “its already going to be stolen, copied, etc.”
Many tools have been around since humans. And they’ve become unchanged or refined.
Personally, I think more Chinese-knockoffs are out there against WoodPeckers and others, and some so damn close that WP would be spending its profits defending against IP claims it can’t stop (nor PRC would even bother with).
EJ
I do own a Festool Domino that I bought on CL. I have the straight edge and large square from Woodpecker. I haven’t bought any red banggood knockoffs yet but the only thing that kept me from it was wanting to support the good guys.
Dominik
Having been a proud owner of quite a few Woodpecker products, I am extremely disappointed with Woodpeckers. No manufacturer of woodworking accessories is copied as often as Woodpeckers. Find it unethical to make such copies and buy them as well. After reading that Woodpeckers does not pay Carmonius Finsnickeri anything and even denies that Finsnickeri gave the decisive impulse for your product, I will not buy Woodpeckers products in the future. Woodpecker shame on you.
John
Woodpecker can say what they want and about the legality of how they are handling it
My opinion is they are doing hom dirty it’s the same design and they should do the right thing
The wood working community for the most part is loyal to a company doing the right thing and when a company abuses it they lose sales
GOYER
Hi !
What a drama for nothing, seeing in action WP jig vs Ola Jig I saw enough differences to say that WP improve an original concept that Ola also improved before but in a different way and no offense Ola but much more strong and precise for sure.
I never bought WP products till now as it’s much more overpriced in EU that in USA (yes that’s possible), I have some Veritas and Incra which are more popular here but it’s obvious for me that WP are good guys and good professionals and the people which are the most agressive to them are too much banggood customers and should look themselves in a mirror. I have no doubt that we will see a copy on banggood or aliexpress soon.
Aaron
Here’s veritas entering the market: https://www.leevalley.com/en-us/shop/tools/power-tool-accessories/114883-veritas-domino-joinery-table
Dean
Veritas version is now out! And much cheaper than the Woodpeckers version.
https://www.leevalley.com/en-us/shop/tools/power-tool-accessories/114883-veritas-domino-joinery-table?item=05J1701
Fine Woodworking already did an introduction here (half way down the page) https://www.finewoodworking.com/2022/07/18/woodworking-news-july-18-2022
Ill be buying one of these and canceling my Woodpeckers order
J. Newell
Dean, thank you for the heads-up. I really like the looks of the Veritas/LV product.