US Government is About to Change Table Saws FOREVER!

[JPG]

Why does this all seem familiar?

I have been the bad boy in the past.

However I am concerned that some long time members have not been active recently.(those which have been here longer than I) I doubt they have joined Bill Mayo.

[dusty]

Why does this all seem familiar?

I have been the bad boy in the past.

However I am concerned that some long time members have not been active recently.(those which have been here longer than I) I doubt they have joined Bill Mayo.

Go spend some time on the woodworking FB forums and you will find a few.

[JPG]

Why does this all seem familiar?

I have been the bad boy in the past.

However I am concerned that some long time members have not been active recently.(those which have been here longer than I) I doubt they have joined Bill Mayo.

Go spend some time on the woodworking FB forums and you will find a few.

Which FB SS forum?

[edma194]

Everybody can have their say. People will disagree, then work out the disagreement, or keep disagreeing. And then we can all move on from there, or not, everyone still has their choice. Even in the very worst possible scenario we will not tear a wormhole in the fabric of spacetime and fall through to the quantum realm. There is no need to panic.

[JPG]

I perceive that those who have chosen to not contribute further are upset re patent right opinions expressed here.

I totally agree with the original purpose of the patent system that allows recovery of innovation costs by the 'inventor'.

However the patent(s) pertinent here took another path and included not only the 'invention' itself, but also included the entire universe of alternative methods.

I find that highly objectionable and the reason we are at the current situation

I consider approval of those universal patents to be objectionable and they should never have been approved.

[HopefulSSer]

...
I totally agree with the original purpose of the patent system that allows recovery of innovation costs by the 'inventor'.

However the patent(s) pertinent here took another path and included not only the 'invention' itself, but also included the entire universe of alternative methods.

I find that highly objectionable and the reason we are at the current situation

I consider approval of those universal patents to be objectionable and they should never have been approved.

I agree. Earlier there was a mischaracterisation that people here hate patents. Speaking only for myself of course, what I hate is patent abuse, which is what it appears SawStop is doing

[DLB]

From the Bosch comments to the proposed rule:
"After Tooltechnic Systems AG & Co KG (TTS) acquired SawStop, Bosch Power Tools and TTS reached an amicable solution on Aug. 8, 2018, that allows Bosch Power Tools to sell REAXX™ jobsite table saws in the United States. "
Details of the agreement were not provided. Source: (https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2011-0074-1540) I didn't know this before, but think it is well known that Bosch does not sell REAXX™ jobsite table saws in the United States.

Bosch also estimates that it would take up to six years to update the design to bring that one saw back to the market. Bosch is a major player in many fields, and can conceivably borrow the engineering expertise needed from other divisions. Consider how that contrasts with other companies that have no baseline design, no experience, no expertise in the field, and limited engineering sources to draw upon. The proposed rule has an effective date 36 months after publication of the final rule.

- David

[BigSky]

Not to worry. Take up pottery.

[RFGuy]

PATENTS:
I disagree with some of the comments shared here, but I recognize and appreciate those differences. We all have our own biases, preconceived notions and sometimes lack of enough information to all arrive at the same place. I will preface that I am no expert on patents, the patent system, its history or the legal system. I did earn having my name on several patents and so I have drafted sections of patents, worked with patent attorneys and also have had friends defend their patents in court so I know a little of their trials and tribulations. My understanding is the US patent system has the express intent of giving the power to a patent holder for them to block any and all competitors from using their technology in a competing product. Yes, of course, a patent holder can choose to license said technology, but ONLY if they want to. Like any system, the US patent system has gray areas, abuses, loopholes, etc., etc. I am not here to debate these because I don't have the required knowledge to do so, but I am fine if anyone here wants to continue discussing and debating it. No, I don't presume you have more or less knowledge than I do on patents if you continue discussing it...I am neutral, consider me Switzerland. I choose not to continue to debate patents here because I don't have all of the information. I can only speak of modern times, but a patent does NOT give a holder/company a monopoly. The link below is good reading, but I will say from personal experience that with enough thought, time and resources, just about any patent can be circumvented. However, one must possess the fortitude to build a product that bypasses or negates a patent or a group of patents. Depending on your willingness and money supply to defend against potential lawsuits this is where fear often sets in with some companies. Now, sometimes a patent holder can construct a patent or a set of patents to effectively block a particular technology from most/all competitors. I would say this is the exception, rather than the norm. Keeping it in woodworking to be relevant to the audience here, SawStop and Festool Domino come to mind. Are there a multitude of other saws on the market? Yes. Do they have the same safety technology? No, but they do have safety technology on them, albeit SawStop's is arguably more effective. Of course there are other competitors (higher $$$) who have their own hand detection systems that are equal to, or better than SawStop. So, you can see that SawStop has NO monopoly. I won't discuss the Festool Domino because that will upset at least one person here, but I hope you can see comparisons with it related to patents. Licensing makes sense for some technologies, but in my opinion it has challenges with tool manufacturing. IF you are making a high quality product in an expensive location, let's assume US manufacturing and associated costs. You come up with a new technology add-on, but someone wants to license it from you and their manufacturing tooling is in a country with lower quality manufacturing and accordingly lower costs. The average consumer is going to purchase that cheaper product and erode significantly the margins of the one who holds the patent. It is only an advantage to license a patent when those royalties will NOT result in you eroding your own product's market. In my mind, this is a simple business strategy as it is about preservation, something Shopsmith owners should understand well as the company has endured for many decades and guess what they used patents for a significant part of time of that to keep competitors at bay. It has been some time since I read about the SawStop story, so my memory is undoubtedly rusty here, but what I remember is in the early days the guy behind SawStop tried to work with some of the other table saw manufacturers to create an open, industry standard on this new technology where they could contribute and/or license it. My recollection is they were less than receptive and he went about it on his own. IF my recollection is correct about this, can you blame him/them for not wanting to license it now? IF the CPSC were to move ahead with this, I would hope that they would compel SawStop into FRAND, but I recognize this is not in SawStop's best interest unless they receive some other compensation outside of FRAND. Imagine someone coming to Shopsmith in the early days and saying they had to license all of their patents to someone else at FRAND rates. Would you all think it is a good idea for Shopsmith if they had to do this? Companies with a niche technology like SawStop or Festool often get vilified on this forum, but you need to remember that Shopsmith used patents to block many competitors in the past. This is just business. Had they not done so, there would be no forum on their website to have this discussion on right now.

https://ipwatchdog.com/2017/02/25/debun ... /id=78756/

STRONG OBJECTIONS:
Let's clear something up...Often there are differing views expressed here that contradict my own. As long as we focus on content and NOT personal attacks...As long as views are expressed in a thoughtful and respectful way then I applaud anyone for sharing their opposing views to mine. When an ADMIN on this site continues to question my very existence on this forum (see below), it does make me consider why I even want to be here at all. We are not talking about some random forum member, but an ADMIN of this forum. Let that sink in...pottery, instead of woodworking, is sounding better and better to me now. Below is an example of a strong objection to me, and personal attack, so that everyone understands.

I really do not understand why you ever log on here. You are so negative.

[JPG]

Whew!

I cannot argue against anything you stated above, however, there is more IMO to this controversy.

Gass's activities external to the patent itself is where I become critical of his intentions. My perception is he is miffed by rejection by the power tool industry when he attempted to force them to use his 'technology' and is being vindictive and going to extreme measures to cause them to now decade(s) later use the CPSC(?) as a get even tactic. Oh the argument can be made that his initial and current intentions were altruistic but I find that a shallow premise. If not 'get even', an attempt to protect his 'business' that was created after rejection by the power tool industry.

My assumption is that the power tool industry (their organization name escapes me) found his blade destroying scheme impractical at the time. Personally I do so as well.

My opinion is that much has been perceived that this will eliminate injury by inadvertent contact with a circular saw blade rotating at greater than 3000 rpm. All the hoopla demonstrates it performing with gradual contact by tentatively advancing with an object (numbed finger, hot dog, fried chicken). IMO that demonstrates the potential to prevent some injuries(and definitely to minimize subsequent injury) but what about more speedy advances? I dare say no one advances a work piece so gingerly as done in the demonstrations. I think if one does so as slowly as the demos they would perceive initial contact by using their personal nerve system. Granted their response may not be as fast as Sawstop's, but it would result in far less damage to the saw blade(and a hobbyist's budget).

Finally, there is the detail of whether it is the guvmnt's purview to protect one from their own ignorance/stupidity.