I'm the guy who infamously sold his Walter Guide because he thought 
John was "this close" to republishing it, so I don't have it to refer 
to the Leonard Bailey Saga.  But I have a memory of thinking that 
Stanley did pretty well by Leonard.  So I'm left wondering where in the 
events listed below did Stanley treat him badly?  They did buy his 
patents to start with.  Didn't that give LB a bunch of cash for him to 
go off and get into other businesses?  LB terminated the contract, not 
Stanley.  I remember thinking, like Gary, that Leonard wasn't much of 
an industrialist and he was fortunate that Stanley took the Victor line 
off his hands.  Especially as it seemed like a line of tools that he 
started just to irritate Stanley.

	And Leonard did lose the court cases, which I assume twelve of his 
peers decided.  It is often stated that the company with the most 
resources wins these cases, but my experience is that it is an 
exception.  The company with the best argument and proof usually wins.

	And as one does not see many Victor planes, I assume they were never 
much of a competitor to Stanley and the discontinuance of the Victor 
line may have helped them control the market somewhat, but it wasn't 
much.  And controlling market share is something every well run company 
does.  Anyway, I'm not seeing any evil here.

Regards,
Steve

On Jan 16, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Gary Roberts wrote:

> I pinged Clarence Blanchard on this and received his take on the 
> question. His opinion is that the business climate of that day was not 
> what it is today. What we term as unfair may have been simply standard 
> business practice... if you could get away with it you did it. If you 
> had the muscle to push your case, you won.
>
> My take on it is that Bailey was a better inventor than he was a 
> business man.
>
> Clarence also said that this is a good question for a lawyer... any 
> corporate attorneys out there who want to do a study of the Bailey - 
> SR&L Co. relationship?
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:17 AM, Gary Roberts wrote:
>
> Folks
>
> This question came to me from down under...
>
> "In 1875, Leonard Bailey terminated his contract with Stanley Rule & 
> Level Co. , after a dispute over Justus Trauts patent on the No.110 
> block plane, and his share of royalties from its sales through 
> Stanley.
>
> Shortly after, Bailey developed his "Victor" plane line to compete 
> against  Stanley.
>
> In 1878, Stanley fought with Bailey over patent infringements rights, 
> resulting in Bailey losing the case, and being forced to sell his 
> "Victor" planes business to the Bailey Wringing Machine Co., of  
> Woonsocket,  Road Island.
>
> In 1880, Stanley took over as the sole agent for Baileys "Victor" line 
> of planes.
>
> In 1884, after a series of patent infringement  suits, and charges of 
> industrial espionage, Stanley bought the entire "Victor" facility, and 
> then discontinued the production of "Victor" planes.
>
> My question : Was Leonard Bailey unfairly treated by Stanley after 
> terminating his contract with them in 1875, or was Stanley's actions 
> in buying out "Victor" planes, merely away of them maintaining market 
> control of the hand plane market."
>
> ......................
>
> My understanding of the situation was that Stanley R&L had the muscle 
> to back up their claim and Bailey simply ran out of funds to fight the 
> patent infringement claims. That plus a possible marketing decision on 
> S R&L to discontinue the Victor line and to concentrate on their own 
> designs which held brand loyalty. Opinions anyone?
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------