We have received word that the Viking Arm company, has filed a patent infringement action against Stanley Black & Decker.
The Viking Arm has been on the market for several years.
Irwin, a Stanley Black & Decker brand, recently launched a Quick-Lift construction jack.
Advertisement
In a press release issued last month, Viking Arm says:
In light of Stanley Black & Decker Inc and its group companies’ refusal to cease and desist with a lowering mechanism for a hand held jacking tool that they now are offering and placing on the markets across the globe, therein including the UPC Member States, and which Viking Arm AS is of the opinion infringes upon EP’541, Viking Arm AS has commenced infringement action against Stanley Group before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of UPC.
The suit concerns Viking Arms’ Unitary Patent EP 3953541 (details via PDF), which covers a Lowering Mechanism for Hand Held Jacking Tool.
At this time, the Viking Arm is currently on sale at Amazon for $180, and the Irwin Quick-Lift is also available at Amazon for $99.
Thank you to the reader who sent this in!
Discussion
There are countless Viking Arm clones on Amazon and other online market places, with many bearing strong resemblances to the Viking Arm design and construction.
Advertisement
Simply put, there are knockoffs everywhere.
The Irwin Quick-Lift can fulfill similar functions as the Viking Arm, but appears to have a very different mechanism.
Viking Arm’s patent, in the opening Field of Invention section, says:
The invention relates to a hand held jacking mechanism, more specifically to a lowering mechanism for a hand held tool for jacking and levelling of objects using a caulking gun jacking mechanism.
Under the Summary of Invention:
The invention describes a lowering mechanism for a hand held jacking tool comprising a jacking frame a jacking shaft and a caulking gun jacking mechanism
Clamps with reversable jaws have previously been used as spreaders and in some cases lifting jacks.
The FastCap Jack of All Trades, available at Amazon in a 2-pack for $70, has been around for quite some time.
Viking Arm, in their announcement about the infringement suit, says their Viking Arm launched in 2019.
FastCap promoted their updated Jack of All Trades product on YouTube in 2016. The preceding FastCap Jack product was available earlier.
The idea of a trigger clamp-style lifting jack is not unique to the Viking Arm.
Viking Arm’s patent seems centered around the caulk gun-style lowering mechanism.
In my opinion, and keep in mind I am NOT a lawyer or well-versed in patent law nuances, the Irwin product appears to be distinct and dissimilar to the Viking Arm product.
At this time, it looks like a patent infringement action has only been brought before the Unified Patent Court in Europe, with case number ACT_19392/2024.
Stanley Black & Decker undoubtedly conducted a patent review during development of the Irwin Quick-Lift jack.
The patent in question concerns the lowering mechanism, which Irwin seems to approach in a very different way compared to the Viking Arm’s caulk gun-like design.
In my opinion, from what I can see, there’s no infringement. I don’t see any wrongdoing.
Viking Arm has already been facing competition against significantly lower-priced knock-offs, and now there will be competition from Stanley Black & Decker brands. It is understandable that they are seeking to defend their patent. It will be up to the EU patent court to determine whether there’s basis for a complaint or not.
Big Richard
Their yellow version has started popping up at retailers as well – https://www.homedepot.com/p/DEWALT-Toughseries-Construction-Jack-Set-1-Piece-DWHT83550/329913375
MM
Now this is interesting. I was wondering how different the Dewalt version of this jack might be from the Irwin, especially given just how similar the recent “Hybrid Bar Clamps” are. But it seems that things are quite different indeed. The lowering mechanism appears to be totally different from the Irwin. I also really like how they designed the top part of the handle to be the one which moves and that allows you top operate the jack with your foot like they show in the 3rd to last photo.
Big Richard
Agree, I think it is worth the $20 premium just for the “foot” lever, that was why I held off on the Irwins. And it’s still $60-$80 less than the Viking.
Peter
The Viking is as it should be lol is made up north in Norway.
The Irvin is made in PRC according to Amazon.
Do you know where the Dewalt version is made?
Vards Uzvards
You win some, you lose some. Both DeWalt and Stanley versions offer 22 cm (8-3/4″) of lifting capacity vs. IRWIN’s 25+ cm (10″).
Chris
Coincidence that this link is now dead?
Stuart
No. It was publicized prematurely.
BigTimeTommy
Well, now I’ll never consider purchasing a Viking arm/Massca product.
Stuart
I can’t blame them for wanting to defend their patent.
I have seen a lot of legal drama over the years, and this complaint seems relatively low key.
BigTimeTommy
A reputable competitor beat them with a similar product at a MUCH better price and they fight back with patent trolling? Nah I don’t want to give them my money if I can avoid it.
John
Without business protections, no one and I mean one would be able to create something original and make any money from it. I’d rather have small companies protected than large multi-national companies who always take advantage of everything and everyone.
Bob
‘Patent trolling’ typically refers to companies that buy patents and never actually invent, produce, or sell any products. Their entire business model is litigation.
Viking is protecting a product they actually sell. There’s no point in having patents on your products if you don’t defend them.
Peter
I see no problem them doing that.
I would do the same if someone steals my idea and wants to make money off of it.
Phranq
And I will never consider purchasing the SBD versions of this product.
SamR
I cannot understand your thinking.
Legal protection of intellectual property is significant for individuals and businesses.
I assume most people would like to spend their money in favor of protected IPs.
MM
I remember reading over the patents when you posted an article about the Irwin version of this product a little while back. I couldn’t see how the patents applied either, like you wrote the patents refer to the lowering mechanism and that seems to work very differently between the Viking Arm and the Irwin. Though, the Dewalt which Big Richard linked to appears to be a different mechanism that might be closer in function to the Viking Arm?
I’m happy to see more competition in this area, and also happy to see middle-of-the-road options which are more trustworthy than the junk being hawked on Amazon but aren’t as sky-high expensive as Viking Arm.
Jared
This was a topic of debate in the comments when the Irwin version was announced. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.
One maneuver may be to simply make a plausible patent infringement claim, even one that might not succeed, with a view to coming to a settlement. It’s expensive to litigate.
For Viking Arm, this might be the last straw for their profitability – e.g. there are countless copycats, their only significant selling feature is that they’re the brand-name version. But with Irwin and Dewalt lifting arms on the market…
Stuart
Viking Arm has been working to further enhance their product with various accessories, and their quality is undoubtedly better than the knock-offs you can find online.
Marco Lima
Way better. I purchased one of the “nicer” knockoffs and on the second time using it, it broke. They (knockoffs) use plastic to retain the ratchet lever. It sheared right off. Viking’s unit is stout.
JR Ramos
That…maneuver…is common in civil law, various ways, but is stupid and even more expensive in patent law litigation. Clearly they’ve already communicated behind the scenes before filing with the court. They have to defend their property rights but if they’re sure that there is actionable infringement then they’ll follow through to whatever end there is unless the issue is such that a licensing agreement would be proper and feasible in SBD’s eyes.
Ironically I was just looking at the current Amazon offerings for the knockoffs to see if any had improved…doesn’t really look like it but I see a version or two now that have a lowering feature. Chasing Asian IP infringement is a real chore and a circus but it’s possible to get results…wonder if they’ve pursued that avenue yet or not, assuming there’s reason.
Related…I’m anxiously awaiting the final ruling on the Viking/Norseman vortex drill bit patent challenge (they were sued by the inventor of those stepped twist bits – Astro, Mac, etc – and then countered with a patent challenge and it looks as they they may win that). Final hearing was toward the end of April so it may be a couple months.
TomD
It’s not a trademark, they don’t actually HAVE to defend (see submarine patents). So they obviously think SBD flew too close to the SU, at least where it’s worth a fight.
If the courts agree they’re ahead. If not, they’re out the costs (and their product line might be done) so maybe it’s worth it.
JR Ramos
It occurred to me later that there may be some different things in that court system, too. I think much of the globe adopted framework based on the US patent law system but there are notable differences here and there.
There is some duty to protect…less stringent than marks, yes, but not absent. Harder to lose your rights but still possible, depending.
Peter
If fast cap is $70 for 2 that is a deal or are they not good?
Thank you.
fred
Fastcap may have modified their version – but what we bought to try out 20 years ago was a wee bit wobbly. I know that my ex-compatriots bought some Viking Arms – but don’t know how the guys like them.
For pure stability, strength and capacity probably nothing beats the Jung toe jacks that we used in the metal fabrication business. But they would have been overkill (in capacity, weight and price) for anything we might have used them for in the remodeling business.
TonyT
Yes, Jung toe jacks are in a totally different class…
https://toolwell.com/compact-toe-jacks/
MM
I haven’t used the Fastcaps but looking at the picture I don’t think they are anywhere near as stable as the others. The Fastcap is very narrow while the other tools are much wider. I’d be worried about the Fastcaps tilting sideways under a load. Also the Fastcap holds the load quite far in front of the lifting bar. That is not very stable either. Imagine trying to carry a heavy object: is it easier to carry the load against your chest or to hold it out at arm’s length? Also note how small the lifting hook is on the Fastcap, it doesn’t go very far under the thing you want to lift up. It is small enough that it could easily damage some things while also easily slipping out from underneath.
In my opinion the Fastcaps might be legally relevant to the discussion but I don’t think I’d be very happy with them.
Peter
Thank you for the write up MM.
Normally I like FastCap but I will pass on this one.
Thanks again!
Stuart
Exactly.
The FastCap design has been around for a while. It could be good, but I see them more as multi-functional clamps with an added feature, rather than strictly as lifting jacks.
fred
Here’s a listing for the Stanley version being marketed in the UK:
https://www.axminstertools.com/us/stanley-fatmaxr-tradelifttm-111714
scott taylor
As someone who worked in this area for years, most fortune 50 companies do not do a patent search before launching a product. If you search, decide it does not infringe and then get sued, you are on the hook for treble damages since you are now a willful infringer. Patent suits like this happen all the time in many different industries. My guess is viking is looking for Stanley to take a license to the patent.
Also the only thing that mattes in a patent case is the claim, listed below:
Claims
1. Lowering mechanism (12) for a hand held jacking tool (20) comprising a jacking frame (11) a jacking shaft (3) and a caulking gun jacking mechanism com- prising at least one jacking plate (1) biased towards an open state and at least one holding plate (2), above the jacking plate (1), being biased towards a gripping state, wherein the lowering mechanism (12) comprises:
a lowering plate (4) on top of the holding plate(s) (2) being parallel to the holding plate(s) (2) when not activated,
a spring (9) biasing the lowering plate (4) to- wards the holding plate,
a thumb operable pushing lever (5),
a release lever (10), which is an extension of the holding plate, characterized by
a hinge attachment (6) connecting the pushing lever (5) to the lowering plate (4) at a rear end towards an operating handle (7),
a pivot structure (8) connected to the pushing lever (5) or holding plate(s) (2) a distance back- ward from the hinge attachment (6),
wherein the lowering plate (4) is lifted up and grips the jacking shaft (3) when the pushing lever (5) is pushed downwards and pivots around the pivot structure (8) and in turn, pushes the holding plate(s) (2) downwards loosening it from the jacking shaft (3) and moving the frame down along the jacking shaft a distance until the hold- ing plate(s) (2) reaches an angle that stops it against the jacking shaft while the lowering plate still grips the jacking shaft.
All of the elements mentioned in the claim above have to be present in the Stanley for it to have infringement. We the cost associated with filing suit, especially in Europe, Im sure that viking has filed a claims chart with the court showing how the SBD is doing each of the above elements, otherwise it would get kicked out via declaratory Judgement (DJ) action very quickly.
Nathan
Few things. One they mention the use of a caulk gun mechanism. Ok so their device used mechanics that many years ago became free market. It’s a caulk gun in reverse with a plate
So right there it’s unfounded.
Then without taking off the covers of the Irwin and DeWalt you don’t know exactly how it works.
No mention of weight capacity but I get the impression the and products are equals
Where is the lawsuit against Amazon and their collection of knockoffs. Where is the lawsuit against all trigger clamp expanders?
Outside of all that. That DeWalt widget has my attention
s
“Where is the lawsuit against Amazon and their collection of knockoffs. Where is the lawsuit against all trigger clamp expanders?”
there’s a lot more complexity to that one. the patent system is set up for brands. that’s why they’re suing stanley black and decker.
the first problem is amazon is a marketplace. viking could sue amazon, but amazon has very little control over the listed products. their agreement to be a marketplace is with the seller, not the product any given seller is offering. amazon will issue a “sorry” letter, pull the products specifically listed in the complaint, and keep selling the rest. those that were pulled will get re-branded under a new random name, and re-marketed under a new seller on amazon.
meaning this process could go on indefinitely. all the while costing viking money in legal fees to search, document, categorize, and file the complaint, every few months.
stanley black and decker has a legacy, as an established brand. they’re not going anywhere, so they make themselves an easier target to hit with a complaint.
CA
Oof MADONE! These are the handiest tools nobady had until they not they need them…….again and again. I love Swiss made tools as long as they warantee their pradact. But I would accept Chinese made if they warrantee too! The beef on the bottom is the cat’s meow IMHO.
Rob G Mann
Patent attorney here…(but I do chemical inventions, not mechanical so this product is not in my specific area of expertise)
I have not yet gone thru patent in any detail, so I write only to emphasize that the only thing relevant to whether a product “infringes” a patent is an element by element comparison to the “claims.” These are the numbered paragraphs at the end of the written description. The broadest claim is usually (but not always) claim 1.
It is never proper to compare the accused product to the patented product to determine infringement…you only compare the accused product to the claim language. So, it is legally meaningless to say that SBD’s product is different from Viking’s product. The only meaningful comparison is to determine whether the SBD’s product has every feature required by the claim language
In this case, the language before the bold “characterized by” describes that which was known before. The language after that phrase then describes what makes this invention “new” and is what is “claimed” by the inventor. To “infringe” an accused product will need to have all the features that are recited both before and after that phrase, but it is the language afterwards that sets this apart from previous products.
So, if the accused product has each and every feature in the claim, then it infringes…even if it is implemented in a way that might be “different” than what you see in the pictures. The pictures just describe one way of implementing the invention and are useful in interpreting the claims but it is only the words themselves that define what “infringes.”
I’ll spend some time looking into this more, but for now, I have to go write some patent applications on some chemicals. 🙂
Stuart
Thank you for these insights!!
Nathan
So then by feature compassion it would seem the Irwin might infringe where the DeWalt wouldn’t since it’s mechanism is flipped so as to include using it with your foot
The viking doesn’t
Also bigger grief is patenting a device hinging on the use of a public domain mechanism. Seems to me it’s more fair to say trademark.
Bobcat
Viking your patent is up there’s nothing you can do once Feins patent was up on its oscillating tool every company under the sun made one
DC
So it’s Viking Vs. Irwin + DeWalt a.k.a. SBD. Throw Harbor Freight into the mix and now we have a drama.
DC
Oh BTW, when I click on the Irwin Amazon link above, it takes me to the Irwin Quick Lift site and as you scroll down, you see all the chinese versions from $30 to 80. I just bought the Irwins.
CMF
I am middle of the road on this kind of stuff.
Patents are important. Without them, like others have stated, the incentive of putting work and time into brining an idea to market, would be lost.
On the other hand, being a “pig” and overpricing a product in a ludicrous way, is not right either.
We are in the heartland of capitalism. If you price something too high, your competitor will undercut you. It is the nature of the game. The Viking is too expensive. Maybe it is overbuilt, maybe they think they found a goldmine, maybe a thousand other possibilities.
Because it is a spring clamp, with a different shape foot, and uses a caulking gun type lowering mechanism, what Viking sells it for is ridiculous. They could have priced it at half what they sell it for and still made plenty of money. They could have also come out with a “lite” version costing substantially less.
My point is if I have widget, an original great idea, and sell it for a price that anybody can copy and sell it for 10% of what I sell it for, no matter how much better mine is, where the COO is, or any other argument I can make for my product, 80-90% will buy the cheaper model.
On the other hand, if Viking sold one for about 15-20% more than the cheap imports sell for, probably (my guess) would be that most people would say they would pay a couple of $$$ more and get the real McCoy. Maybe this is where a “lite” version could have been a great move for Viking. A cheaper model to ward off the copycats, and still have a heavy duty for those that need or care for a top of the line model.
I think the Irwin is quite overpriced also but being so much lower than Viking, they can get away with a high price.
In almost all situations, if you do not leave enough room for a no name to undercut you and take away a huge chunk of your business, they won’t waste their time. There are so many other products to copy and make money.
*** Also, let’s throw Gass into here. His problem was wanting to license his finger saving saw, but asking too much for it. Crazy because from what I recall, every major MFR wanted this for their saws, but Gass was a pig. Supposedly, they offered all kinds of money and other incentives, but he still wanted more. The thing is that he persisted and decided to make the saw himself (something he stated at the outset was not his intention and out of his expertise). He worked hard and being a patent lawyer, applied for more patents than previously seen and was successful. For this he deserves credit and I admire the work and ideas he used. But at the end of the day he is still a “pig”.
I said a lot that would seem I am against patents, but like I stated at the outset, they are very important.
I am against abuse of patents, or anyone thinking they have all the power to abuse everyone else.
s
what’s missing from your formula is the cost to bring the item to market.
new product development is usually quite expensive, and the patent process alone can also be expensive.
but there’s also what typically is called ‘feature creep’. the viking is well respected because it’s well made.
but ‘well made’ tends to mean that the production facility maintains tight tolerances, or uses higher end materials other than cheap pot metal or plastic. tight tolerances are expensive to maintain for any production run. simply dropping the acceptable tolerance slightly can easily save many thousands on a production run, but can have a drastic effect on the end product.
the knockoff’s undercut viking in a couple noted ways. first, they used lesser quality materials. but they also use sloppier tolerances. and they didn’t need to pay to file for a patent. just those three main factors can allow them to easily undercut vikings product.
in stanley’s case, they created the same product, but without the patent fees, which could feasibly account for the price point they launched at.
MM
Yes, cost is the missing factor. But it’s not just the up-front R&D, patents, etc. It’s ongoing production costs. Even if the knockoffs didn’t cut any corners on material or QC, it is much, much, more expensive to build things in Norway than in China. Wages, taxes, environmental concerns, and everything else costs more in Norway. A great deal more. Even if Viking Arm had zero startup costs the idea of being able to sell a European made product for “15-20% more than the cheap imports” is a particularly vivid pipe dream.
CMF
Maybe 15-20% is a bit low.
CMF
MM and s, what you say is true. But you need to find a happy medium where cheap PRC imports won’t take away all of your sales. They will always exist, but if you price yourself right, there will be less of them.
How many sales have they lost because they are ridiculously high priced. I think they missed out by not making an “entry” level model. Economical in price for the masses, with their current model as the premium for the few that need the heavy duty model (or even economy, medium and premium). I can buy a 98″ Bessey K Body (expensive top of the line clamp) clamp for less than half of what the Viking costs, not the same function, but both top of the line. I am sure you can find many top of the line clamps that can be used as spreader/lifters for so much less than half the Viking, without tolerance and cheap material issues.
I have never held one in my hand, and all reviews I read talk favorably of the product. Some state it is overbuilt. Maybe it is, or not, but for most, something less expensive would have garnered them many more sales, which would lead to name recognition, possibly a deal with larger retail outlets, rather than the small vendors that only sell high priced, premium items.
“s” R&D = time and money…I totally agree and that is what a patent is for; to protect your time and money. But nothing can protect you from pricing yourself out of the market, even if you created it that market.
And not to create an endless argument, but like Stuart mentioned in his article, many clamps have the ability to be used as a spreader or lifter. Also, many that have seen or used one, that the lowering mechanism is essentially the same as a caulking gun. So not a ton of innovation involved here, but regardless, they need to find a way to get more sales and give the buyer less reason to buy the cheap ones.
MM, everything costs more in Norway, true. All of the Scandinavian countries lean a bit, to a lot towards socialist policies, and conservative in nature. I am sure they are a proud people (My wife’s grandmother is Norwegian), but in business, it is survival of the fittest. Maybe they needed to consider MFR’ing in China or even cheaper European countries.
I admire Viking for the product they made. I would root for them to succeed. But they have to find a way to diminish the vultures making money off of their back.
My initial post, I threw them into the pot with companies that gouge, that are pigs and take advantage, because they can. I probably should not mix them in this pot.
Robert Adkins
Taxes are very high in Norway, so I suppose Viking has to charge double what the product is worth here just to make a fair profit.
JoeM
Okay, I didn’t know SBD Didn’t own Viking Arm… Nor had I heard of Massca before. I saw the Irwin come out, and genuinely thought Viking Arm was part of the same family.
…I also didn’t know there were so many clones… This has been a remarkably informative article, and Day for that matter… Thank You, Stuart.
King duck
Vicki g could have dominated the industry here but they decided to charge 4x what the product should have sold for. So not many bought them because of the price and they got eaten alive by cheap Chinese tools. Good luck taking on the deep pockets of black and decker in court
Stuart
Unless you know their cost of development or production, or the company’s profit margins, what’s the basis for saying they “decided to charge 4X what it should sell for?”
BigTimeTommy
This is true but falling on deaf ears. The people frequenting the comments section on this blog don’t seem to care about value at all. Almost makes me think very few people here actually make their living working with tools.
MM
I think the value of this tool is a complex subject.
On the one hand, If I were a professional cabinet installer then I’d gladly buy a set of Viking Arms at full price. Heck, even if they cost a thousand dollars for a set–which I’m sure we all agree is totally absurd–it still wouldn’t take very long before they paid for themselves. If you’re actually using these tools often enough to say you’re “making a living” with them, then the asking price is a drop in the bucket compared to the labor they are saving.
On the other hand, if you look at the tools for what they are mechanically, then yeah they seem very expensive: they’re basically a fancy bar clamp, and you can get nice fancy bar clamps for $50. Also, if they are something you wouldn’t use very often there’s no way to justify the spend.
I’m firmly in the 2nd category. These are not tools I would use very often so there’s no way I can justify Viking Arm’s prices. I don’t trust the cheapo knockoffs so those are not an option for me either. However, I will be keeping my eyes peeled for sales on the SBDs. Like I wrote earlier I’m happy to see more competition here.
BigTimeTommy
When I made furniture and did installations for a living my boss was way too cheap to buy something like this. And there was no way I’d spend (at that time) more than a day’s pay for a tool while working for someone else. In my mind it’s an extremely useful tool which is why I like seeing more competition and better prices.
Stuart
Value is a highly dependent, subjective, and dynamic variable.
Person 1: Takes 3 minutes to drill a hole in masonry with a hammer drill, has to repeat it 40 times a day.
Person 2: Uses a rotary hammer to drill holes in masonry in a fraction of the time, drills maybe 40 holes a week.
Person 1 doesn’t see the value despite having greater need. Person 2 doesn’t have as much need, but sees higher value.
Person 3: Buys a premium rotary hammer to drill maybe 4 holes a year.
Person 4: Preoccupied about Person 3’s spending habits.
BigTimeTommy
The sarcastic comment about “caring about other’s spending habits” lol. Be better, stu, you know how capitalism works. Other people’s spending habits do have an effect on you me and everyone else who purchases products.
Stuart
When we had our first kid, I bought a bottle warmer.
My wife went back to work, and I stayed home. A bottle warmer was something that could potentially make my things easier on me multiple times throughout the day.
I tried to use it the first time, and realized it wasn’t all that convenient.
I returned it. Here’s what I did instead:
Cold formula or milk would go in a bottle, and the bottle would go in a small glass food container filled with a warm water bath.
By the time I changed the baby and washed my hands, the bottle was about ready. If not quite warm enough, a quirk swirl and 2 minutes later, and it’d be ready to go.
Minimal fuss. Baby was happy, I was happy.
I’ve seen some other parents laud things like “baby wipes warmers” as must-have essentials. Did they try changing a diaper without a warm wipe? No, they bought the expensive gear on Day 1.
I don’t know others’ circumstances. If a parent wants a bottle warmer and wipes heater, it’s their money. I won’t recommend such products, but I’ll try not to judge.
Tools aren’t much different.
One electrician I know thinks that right angle drills like the Hole Hawg are impractical and needless. For others, there’s no substitute.
We can talk about price and value, but there are constructive ways to do it.
I’m not here to tell people what to buy or not buy, with few exceptions. Everyone has to make their own decisions for their own reasons, even if they’re buying the tool equivalents to baby bottle and wipe warmers.
Lyle
I saw the Viking Arm product in person at a trade show a few years ago. It was a super high quality product and it felt worth every penny. The problem is that I felt like I would have needed/wanted a pair of them and $400 was a bit too steep a price to pay for something I didn’t need. It will be interesting to see what the quality of the Dewalt product is. I do think being able to operate it with your foot is a major feature, but would like to try it since stepping on this thing the wrong way could destabilize it and maybe it wouldn’t be as useful as I think.
Yadda
Could be a case of Viking seeing the writing on the wall with all the clones. Suing a bigger company provides everyone an opportunity to get to know each other better. It wouldn’t surprise me to see Viking sell out to Irwin in the next two years.
MM
I think “s” made a great point above: it’s a very difficult game to try to play whack-a-mole with all the various Chinese knockoffs. Even if Massca did figure out whom to sue and went through the nightmare of an Asian IP lawsuit and managed to win, the same product would just pop up under a different name the next day. A big multinational company like SBD can’t get away with that.
BigTimeTommy
Could be a cash grab. Big company might just cough up some cash in a settlement. Chasing Chinese ripoff factories isn’t profitable.
Nathan
Indeed I got to thinking maybe they even hope sbd will just buy them outright
I still say the DeWalt version brings something new to it and they should be able to leverage a patent on the caulk gun mechanism. But meh
Installing a door you would want the foot control.
Robert Adkins
The Chinese do this all the time, and they’re pretty much immune from lawsuits.
Rios A Luis
My Opinion on this viking arm is overpriced, They have numerous knock offs selling all over the internet, the whole thing is nothing but a quick release type bar clamp, with different attachments at the end, the quick release clamp has been available for some time, and by the way I am not sure if Irwin invented them but tIrwing was one of the first clamps of this style that i saw.
I can’t make a topper for a chevy sell it as a kit and sue chevy if they decide to do the same topper as an option.
I just don’t see how they can win a lawsuit, but wouldn’t be surprised if they did.
Peter
I bought a viking and man that thing is build like a tank.
I do not have it in front of me but there is no or almost no plastic used.
Very impressive build quality.
But I will see if I can take a look at the competition before I get a second one.
Øivind Resch
I am the inventor of Viking Arm and I appreciate all the comments. I can tell you that we are still waiting to turn a profit that passes our costs. The price was set as low as possible, and it is a result of development cost, patent costs and costs of the high quality parts we use for building it. Our margins are in line with the industry standard. I see many of the comments come from people who never had one and I would advise them to see the comments from actual owners of the Viking Arm in social media. They love it and defend the investment. We wanted to make a high quality tool that the craftsman trusted and we have successfully done so.
In regards to the patent it is not just a caulking gun release, it provides controlled lowering, an essential function for such a product.
It is not OK for large companies to steamroll over smaller player. As Vikings we are ready to take them on.
Best wishes to you all from Norway