FWW and Lee Valley Patent

SNIP

WHAT?! You didn't take the time to read the letter that Robin made available to the group and yet you jump into the fray with both feet?

Here's the link from Robin: "Just for your information - our "harsh" letter can be seen here:

Mea culpa, and all that. I would like to see the letter but it is no longer available on the site, at least I couldn't find it. In situations like this, usually, the original letter is not shown, which is why I never looked for it in the first place.

It's a downloadable file in Word format. Here's the content (some of the special font characters may have been lost due to translation from Word to my newsreader).

You obviously have never seen what legal jumping on with both feet is if you think this was overkill from a laywer.

I think I never read the letter because I did not expect it to be there. But I have since seen it and it was absolutely reasonable and in keeping with what I would expect from the class act I think is Lee Valley. I went off just on FWW's letter which seemed to be written because the editors's feet were put to the fire. I'm glad to be wrong and happy to apologize. (and I hope I'm not overdoing it. :-))

I am sure that some of us would appreciate a little groveling.

No worries - here.... :)

I can't pretentend to understand why they printed what they did, more than a year after the fact, and without even showing us...let alone how wildly inaccurate it is.

Something's badly wrong there....

Cheers -

Rob

Rob,

Did the offending tip occur in their last Tools and Shops edition? Maybe they were trying to print the retraction in the same special edition as the original article?

Hi Mark -

Nope - the issue was a regular one... #171.

Of course - any retraction loses it's relevance if it's left long enough... and this one was a dead issue, as far as FWW readers would be concerned...

As I said - I don't understand what they're trying to do, or why. I suppose when they're done their turkey, I'll find out.

Cheers -

Rob

I'm guessing it finally trickled into the cognizance of some corporate lawyer wanna' be type after wending its way for lo! these many months and finally resurfaced replete w/ cya...

: I think I never read the letter because I did not expect it to be there. : But I have since seen it and it was absolutely reasonable and in keeping : with what I would expect from the class act I think is Lee Valley. I : went off just on FWW's letter which seemed to be written because the : editors's feet were put to the fire. I'm glad to be wrong and happy to : apologize. (and I hope I'm not overdoing it. :-))

Here's what's weird: the letter from Lee Valley was written in early July, 2004. Why is FWW publishing its comment now?

-- Andy Barss

...

I had seen this before but it didn't even register as a recollection of what was actually printed. I happened by chance to pick up the issue last night to thumb thru again (while watching Peyton and his buddies demolish the latest fodder :) ) and thought to look at the FWW response.

Must say it seemed like very standard and benign lawyer-speak for a CYA statement. It seemed intended to be a very generic response to a specific instance outlining a defense against future possible litigation should that possibility arise that they are now documented as being against appropriation of anybody's patent rights. That it took a year to get into print for a slick-paper magazine doesn't surprise me a bit. As it has essentially no specific response to the particular incident other than as the preface for why the disclaimer at all, I can also see why it was never brought to LV's attention before publication. In a non-litigious society it would probably have been handled as a simple personal letter but I suspect FWW Corporate treated it properly in today's climate (even though all here and at FWW know enough of LV to "know" it wouldn't be an issue in this particular case, there's no room any more for such an approach in general, unfortunately.)