Bosch and Sawstop

[Ed in Tampa]

If you want to read about the fight between Bosch and Sawstop read this article
http://www.woodworkersjournal.com/recen ... itigation/

As you read it remember the ligation is being brought to the courts by the same people that went to congress with the sole goal of "helping humanity" trying get congress to mandate that their technology be by law required on every saw sold in the US to protect woodworkers. Such a great bunch of guys!

Since that didn't work we see them less concern about woodworkers welfare and more about their profits by trying to limit all other methods of keeping woodworkers safe.

Fact it is this is, was, and always will be all about the almighty dollar, sad part is people don't care about any character flaws that are seen in this, they excuse it as just a guy trying to make a buck. Somewhere most are blinded to the major character flaws and violations of moral justice in all of this.

[charlese]

I don't see this as any disregard for woodworkers' safety. It seems to me to be a simple quarrel over which patent came first and was there any copying of specific technology.

[BuckeyeDennis]

So Ed, are you suggesting that the US patent system should be abolished?

I would argue that action would make it virtually impossible to raise the investment monies required to develop and commercialize most new technologies. And thus they would never be developed.

If you had invested a million dollars in SawStop, would you want them to just roll over and cede market share to Bosch?

The rule of thumb is that it takes about a million bucks to successfully prosecute a patent-infringement case. The patent holder pays that cost, not the government. Which tells me that SawStop truly believes that they are being infringed.

Large companies will sometimes intentionally infringe small-company patents, expecting that the small company won't have the resources to fight the infringement. And they are often correct about this.

[reible]

From what was replied the original patent may have been issued on too broad a theme. Like I'm going to patent the car. If granted no one else can make a car because it has 4 wheels one on each corner. Oh yes it has a door or more, a windshield, a motor, a transmission, an exhaust system. So go ahead and try and make a car without this technology, just too wide a patent was given.

Right now if you want to make a saw that senses and then prevents the person from getting hurt it is covered by the patent. It is not the technology or the design it is the very fact that you are sensing and preventing injury.... Sweet heart deal for saw stop if it holds up.

Ed

[BuckeyeDennis]

From what was replied the original patent may have been issued on too broad a theme. Like I'm going to patent the car. If granted no one else can make a car because it has 4 wheels one on each corner. Oh yes it has a door or more, a windshield, a motor, a transmission, an exhaust system. So go ahead and try and make a car without this technology, just too wide a patent was given.

Right now if you want to make a saw that senses and then prevents the person from getting hurt it is covered by the patent. It is not the technology or the design it is the very fact that you are sensing and preventing injury.... Sweet heart deal for saw stop if it holds up.

Ed

That could well be. This will undoubtedly be reviewed by the court, which has the power to modify the scope of patents. I once designed a product that would have infringed a patent as originally granted, but did not infringe the patent as modified by a court during an infringment suit involving a different company. Very much the scenario that you just outlined.

[algale]

If you want to read about the fight between Bosch and Sawstop read this article
http://www.woodworkersjournal.com/recen ... itigation/

As you read it remember the ligation is being brought to the courts by the same people that went to congress with the sole goal of "helping humanity" trying get congress to mandate that their technology be by law required on every saw sold in the US to protect woodworkers. Such a great bunch of guys!

Since that didn't work we see them less concern about woodworkers welfare and more about their profits by trying to limit all other methods of keeping woodworkers safe.

Fact it is this is, was, and always will be all about the almighty dollar, sad part is people don't care about any character flaws that are seen in this, they excuse it as just a guy trying to make a buck. Somewhere most are blinded to the major character flaws and violations of moral justice in all of this.

Clever argument. But the bolded language assumes the answer to the central question: whether Bosch's technology is truly an "other method."

If it is an "other method" SawStop is indeed trying to stop at least one "other method" of improving safety from getting to the public. But if it isn't truly an "other method" (i.e. it is covered by a legitimate patent held by SawStop) this is just a patent infringement suit in which Bosch owes damages for stealing someone else's invention (and Bosch will will have to pay SawStop a royalty if they want to keep on using that technology.)

As for the supposed immorality of SawStop, I don't think stealing another's invention is moral. And one could just as easily argue that Bosch's (and PTI's) refusal to license the SawStop's technology years ago and pay a royalty was an immoral pursuit of the almighty dollar at the expense of their customer's (i.e. wood workers') safety. One can be sure that many Bosch/PTI customers have been injured by Bosch's/PTI's table saw products while years went by as Bosch/PTI worked to get around SawStop's patent instead of licensing the technology immediately.

This debate will likely not end. But one thing is clear: Whether you want it or not, these technologies are coming to new table saws. It's only a question of who (SawStoo or Bosch/PTI) will get to keep the money related to the technology.

P.S. SawStop didn't go to Congress, it went to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

[dusty]

One comment and one comment only. I have already vented on this subject (in previous posts) far too much.

I do not believe that either of these parties is terribly worried about my safety in the shop. What they are concerned with is their bank accounts; how much money do they stand to make or lose.

Technologically I believe both systems are probably worth while. They are not rip offs. I would say..."Let them go to market. Customer satisfaction will declare the winners and the losers". If the systems do not do what they are advertised to do, then and only then do the courts need to get involved.

[algale]

One comment and one comment only. I have already vented on this subject (in previous posts) far too much.

I do not believe that either of these parties is terribly worried about my safety in the shop. What they are concerned with is their bank accounts; how much money do they stand to make or lose.

Technologically I believe both systems are probably worth while. They are not rip offs. I would say..."Let them go to market. Customer satisfaction will declare the winners and the losers". If the systems do not do what they are advertised to do, then and only then do the courts need to get involved.

This would mean the end of patents. Probably not a good idea.

[wa2crk]

Anyone research Robert Kearns? He invented the intermittent windshield wiper systems and offered to license that system to Ford and Chrysler. They both refused. Within a year Ford offered the system on all of the new Mustangs. Kearns sued. Ford said there was no infringement because Kearns did not use any new parts in his system. Kearns I believe admitted as such but he did use existing components in a way that no one had ever used them before. He won $10M from Ford and another $18M from Chrysler.
There was also a young kid who invented a socket wrench system when you pressed a button the socket would drop off the handle. He offered to license it to Sears and Craftsman but Sears told him they were not worth anything but would buy the system for $5000. I think that is the correct amount. At the very next Indy 500 every single pit had the drop off socket system in the pits. He also won a big judgement against Sears.
It is called corporate greed and it comes many different forms. I just call it fraud.
Bill V

[Ed in Tampa]

So Ed, are you suggesting that the US patent system should be abolished?

I would argue that action would make it virtually impossible to raise the investment monies required to develop and commercialize most new technologies. And thus they would never be developed.

If you had invested a million dollars in SawStop, would you want them to just roll over and cede market share to Bosch?

The rule of thumb is that it takes about a million bucks to successfully prosecute a patent-infringement case. The patent holder pays that cost, not the government. Which tells me that SawStop truly believes that they are being infringed.

Large companies will sometimes intentionally infringe small-company patents, expecting that the small company won't have the resources to fight the infringement. And they are often correct about this.

No I am not suggesting the patent system be abolished.
I simply remember Sawstop's passionate plea that they only cared about the welfare of the user of table saws. And yes they did try to get congress involved when they approached the Consumer Product Safety Commision. I would not doubt they tried to get the president to help influence the outcome of some their actions.

I remember the proproganda put out that Sawstop's action wasn't about money but rather their concern for woodworkers. I also remember the scorn heaped on some woodworking magazines when they called that a bunch of crap. Now it looks like the magazines should be vindicated.