Osorio Verdict Upheld On Appeal; CPSC Votes On Table Saw Rule-Making

algale · Post by **algale** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:38 pm

JPG40504 wrote:You apparently have more accurate knowledge of this case than I, therefore I do need to 'speculate' regarding some 'details'. Albeit some is almost all speculation.

I don't get this at all.

JPG40504 wrote:If you are aware of documented testimony by Gass similar to that posted by wood magazine of Osario's testimony, I would appreciate being pointed towards that.

The testimony is on line through PACER, but you will need to set up an account and pay to read/download the transcripts. http://www.pacer.gov/
I've read 100% of Gass' testimony (trial day 2 and 3 if you are interested) because I wanted to find out what Gass actually said not speculate.

It is an interesting piece of testimony. Ryobi actually sent him an executed agreement. They had agreed to an initial royalty of 3% of the price of the saw ($6 on a $200 saw). IIRC, it increased to 8% if and when SawStop technology was adopted to 75% of the table saws sold by all makers. Gass spotted a minor problem in the coverage of the royalty to overseas sales. Ryobi said they would correct the oversight and send a revised, signed agreement for Gass to execute. Months went by and despite repeated promises by Ryobi, nothing happened.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:33 pm

algale wrote:I don't get this at all.

The testimony is on line through PACER, but you will need to set up an account and pay to read/download the transcripts. http://www.pacer.gov/
I've read 100% of Gass' testimony (trial day 2 and 3 if you are interested) because I wanted to find out what Gass actually said not speculate.

It is an interesting piece of testimony. Ryobi actually sent him an executed agreement. They had agreed to an initial royalty of 3% of the price of the saw ($6 on a $200 saw). IIRC, it increased to 8% if and when SawStop technology was adopted to 75% of the table saws sold by all makers. Gass spotted a minor problem in the coverage of the royalty to overseas sales. Ryobi said they would correct the oversight and send a revised, signed agreement for Gass to execute. Months went by and despite repeated promises by Ryobi, nothing happened.

Being so well informed maybe you can explain to me why Gass is a reviewing party to this settlement between Osario and Ryobi. It sounds to me like he (Gass) is something more than just an informed witness who gave unbiased testimony.

It sounds like legal advise and/or oversight.

Is that 3% of all $200 table saws or all Ryobi $200 table saws?

If anyone is interested in more reading on this case, there is quite a bit available online. The case number is 10-1824. I simply Googled 10-1824 Osario vs Ryobi.

algale · Post by **algale** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:41 pm

dusty wrote:Being so well informed maybe you can explain to me why Gass is a reviewing party to this settlement between Osario and Ryobi. It sounds to me like he (Gass) is something more than just an informed witness who gave unbiased testimony.

What settlement agreement? Haven't seen any stories that there is one. Please identify source.

dusty wrote:Is that 3% of all $200 table saws or all Ryobi $200.

it was 3% of the price of all ryobi saws they put SawStop in. $200 was an example.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:50 pm

algale wrote:What settlement agreement? Haven't seen any stories that there is one. Please identify source.

it was 3% of the price of all ryobi saws they put SawStop in. $200 was an example.

So if Ryobi refrains from incorporating Sawstop or quits manufacturing under the Ryobi name, there is no royalty. Is that right.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:02 pm

algale wrote:What settlement agreement? Haven't seen any stories that there is one. Please identify source.

it was 3% of the price of all ryobi saws they put SawStop in. $200 was an example.

I read this somewhere online today and now cannot relocate it. I will keep looking.

algale · Post by **algale** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:21 pm

dusty wrote:So if Ryobi refrains from incorporating Sawstop or quits manufacturing under the Ryobi name, there is no royalty. Is that right.

The royalty agreement was not discussed in that detail in Gass's testimony at trial because it was never executed by both parties. I would be speculating to answer this.

Ed in Tampa · Post by **Ed in Tampa** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:52 pm

All I know is if it ever comes to where I must buy a saw with Gass technology is the day I quite woodworking.

There are two things I pray never happens,

Obama being reelected

and

Gass getting even one penny of my woodworking money.

fjimp · Post by **fjimp** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:50 pm

Ed in Tampa wrote:All I know is if it ever comes to where I must buy a saw with Gass technology is the day I quite woodworking.

There are two things I pray never happens,

Obama being reelected

and

Gass getting even one penny of my woodworking money.

Ed I tend to agree with you on both counts. Fjimp

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:24 pm

fjimp wrote:Ed I tend to agree with you on both counts. Fjimp

Let us 'hope' Ed's prayers are answered!:)

riot_nrrd · Post by **riot_nrrd** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:41 pm

All -

I have posted a thread called "CPSC - how to comment." I would encourage you to look at this thread and send your comments to the CPSC. These are the people who will make the rules, and they have issued what they call an "ANOPR." When agencies like this issue a regulation, it can go through a few steps. If they think something is not controversial, they issue a Rulemaking. If they think it might be contoversial, they issue a NOPR (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in which they ask for public comment, and then the Rulemaking. If it is REALLY controversial, or even questionable if it should move forward, they issue an ANOPR (Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) and get public comments, there, followed by a NOPR and public comments, and then possibly a Rulemaking. So at this point, this is not a done deal.

In other words, the CPSC has recognized that the citizenry may not like this new regulation, so they are being extra careful to ask for public input before they move to NOPR and a final Rulemaking.

If you feel that this is an important issue, the USE YOUR VOICE and weigh in on the debate. This is YOUR government, and YOU have the right to tell them what you think they should do.

I will be putting together a set of comments that I will submit. I will post them here before I submit them. I encourage you to do the same, and if you would like to use what I submit to draft your own comments, please feel free to do so.