Originally Posted by
Onebyone
The original inventors of the Slidelock are an American couple from whom I purchased the patent.
I"m not saying you don't own the patent. Or that the ones sold in the US are not original. I'm saying I ordered one from Australia in late 90's or early 2000's, don't remember. Looks just like the ones sold later here. I have the US and Australia versions. I'm glad they are being made again no matter who is making them.
I understand what you are saying and you are unequivocally wrong. The Rule Steady, the product to which you are referring and is made in Australia, is a completely different product and it is dangerous for you to claim it is the same as the Slidelock; if someone where to try to use a Slidelock on top of another ruler, as the Rule Steady is used, they would very likely seriously injure themselves.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with the Rule Steady, but it is a completely different product and has no direct relationship to the Slidelock. Sure, they are both tools used for cutting fabric, but that is where the similarities end. They are made from different materials, the design is very different, and they are very different form-factors (sizes).
The Slidelock is spring-loaded, the Rule Steady has no springs. The Slidelock uses aerospace spacers to control the force of the handle, the Rule Steady does not. A rotary cutter is used along the edge of the Slidelock, but you should never use the edge of the Rule Steady as a guide for a rotary cutter. The Slidelock is used directly on fabric, the Rule Steady must be used on another ruler.
My original post was simply meant to correct a clearly erroneous statement which could be harmful to others if they were to attempt to use a Slidelock in the manner in which a Rule Steady is used.