US Government is About to Change Table Saws FOREVER!

[SteveMaryland]

Even more off-topic, but some additional informed input. I hold two U.S. utility patents, both essentially worthless, and I wrote them myself, with no lawyer-help and thus cheaply. They were each approved by the Office with no objections.

People, and especially inventors, have very wrong ideas about the virtues of patents. During my engineering career, I tried to help numerous patent-holder inventors. Largely a waste of time, because of their wrong ideas about patents.

A patent itself confers no worth on the invention.

No, a patent does not "prevent" infringement, nor will the Government pay your lawyer-fees if/when you take infringers to court. If General Motors really wants your idea, they will copy it because you can't afford to stop them in court. Or the Chinese will copy it, and try stopping them.

The Office grants no utility patent on technical merit. They grant on "novelty" and "non-obviousness". One kind of "novelty" is "combination". If I combine a wheel, a lever and a gear in some device that the Examiner says is "novel" and "non-obvious", then I get a patent. I did that twice. Nothing in my devices really had anything novel and non-obvious; it was the combination itself that was "novel and non-obvious" because no-one else had done exactly that combination.

Most inventors have "inventor's myopia" and cannot see that their invention is worthless + don't bother. And if they are told that, beneficially, they will shoot the messenger. Ask me how I know. Also, inventors look up to patent holders as if they are gods, so that is why I got my patents. Street cred.

The Patent system no longer serves its intended purpose of fostering socially-useful innovation. Today the Patent system restrains trade more than it promotes anything socially beneficial. System has become the "tool" of big business to keep real innovation off the market.

Besides, all "simple" things have already been patented. The bar to patentability should be raised very much higher.

P.S. If that Sawstop patent does not specify just how it works, it should not have been granted, because part of ANY patent is "disclosure" which means explaining to the world how the invention works. That's the deal with a patent; government grants you a time-limited trade-monopoly in return for "disclosure" of how it works.

[HopefulSSer]

The patent system has inherent problems but that shouldn't be surprising because it's a body of law meant to regulate ownership of ideas that have not yet been thought of. In my opinion the Sawstop patent is overly broad by claiming any method of detecting contact between a saw blade and human flesh is protected by their patent. That includes methods not specified in the patent, and not yet known. There may be no practical method possible that wouldn't be covered by the technique specified in their patent, and that's just the way the ball bounces. Patents are supposed to protect original ideas, but not to to the extent they hamper the development of better ideas.

Exactly. Especially when the patent holder lobbies for the government to require that all manufactures and sellers of a particular class of product license the holder's overly-broad patent. I think a good word for that sort of behaviour is "extortion".

[HopefulSSer]

No, a patent does not "prevent" infringement, nor will the Government pay your lawyer-fees if/when you take infringers to court. If General Motors really wants your idea, they will copy it because you can't afford to stop them in court. Or the Chinese will copy it, and try stopping them.

One writer I read described a patent as giving you the legal right to sue a big corporation when they infringe. Then it's just a matter of who has more lawyers and bigger pockets (hint: it's not you). The writer's advice was to immediately put your idea into the public domain so that NO ONE can patent it and use that patent against you!

[DLB]

...In my opinion the Sawstop patent is overly broad by claiming any method of detecting contact between a saw blade and human flesh is protected by their patent. That includes methods not specified in the patent, and not yet known. There may be no practical method possible that wouldn't be covered by the technique specified in their patent, and that's just the way the ball bounces. Patents are supposed to protect original ideas, but not to to the extent they hamper the development of better ideas.

I agree, and have seen this before. And the sentiment is shared on many of the responses to the proposed rule that I've read (a fraction of the total). On the other hand, the 'anti-AIM lobby' has delayed implementation of the proposed rule for 20+ years and counting. Arguably significantly devaluing SawStop's invention and resulting in some high number of serious injuries. And I think SawStop would argue that their invention/contribution is the application of technologies to detect contact and mitigate damage and that their specific implementation is just detail.

- David

[RFGuy]

You guys are welcome to debate the deficiencies in the US patent system all you want. I am not going to get in the middle of that. I just want to point out that so called "inventors" come up with an idea first and try to patent, and maybe second attempt to create/build a product using it. To be clear, that is NOT me. As an electrical engineer, I was responsible for designing (creation) and building product that were commercial successes. This was my primary responsibility and only secondarily, where it made sense, were we encouraged to patent a novel idea based on what we had created. Sometimes the determination was made by my company to pursue a defensive publication instead of paying for the cost of a patent. Patents are used for many things, including licensing, protecting against product infringement & even blocking competitors from entering a market segment. Try running a successful tech company without patents and see how far you get. One can argue that being first to market is more important than being first to patent, for select industries. However, in the tech industry it would put you at a disadvantage to do so IMHO.

[HopefulSSer]

If we needed a confirmation of Sawstop's veracity (or lack thereof) in their concerns for woodworkers safety, here it is:
https://www.sawstop.com/news/sawstop-to ... able-saws/

How generous of them: Sawstop has magnanimously "dedicated" (whatever that means) their expired patent 9,724,840 to the public in the interest of safety.

[DLB]

If we needed a confirmation of Sawstop's veracity (or lack thereof) in their concerns for woodworkers safety, here it is:
https://www.sawstop.com/news/sawstop-to ... able-saws/

How generous of them: Sawstop has magnanimously "dedicated" (whatever that means) their expired patent 9,724,840 to the public in the interest of safety.

This is a big deal. Patent 9.724,840 is the key patent cited by multiple respondents to the proposed CPSC rule that reportedly prevents them from developing their own solution. So it suggests that SawStop is removing this impediment and not seeking a monopoly. Sample comment from the Power Tool Institute (PTI):

"As another example, U.S. Patent 9,724,840, ostensibly covers any table saw with a “contact” detection system and a reaction system that “causes the blade to stop cutting the person with 10 milliseconds after being triggered if the person moves into contact with the teeth [of the blade] at a rate of 1 foot per second or less.” In August 2017, this patent was extended and does not expire until 2033. The patent would be essential for meeting the test requirements of the SNPR."

PTI represents nine member companies, five of which manufacture table saws under numerous brands. Some of those companies also responded individually.

- David

[RFGuy]

David,

Thanks. I appreciate it.

All,

Yeah, this has been my point, i.e. there are at least 2 sides to every story. If you don't believe me, go read about the ones I pointed out earlier. There were fierce patent wars between Tesla & Edison, Armstrong & DeForest and many others. Also several documentaries out there about them as well. These were monster battles over patents in the past and this little SawStop vs. other tablesaw manufacturers is but a measly kerfuffle by comparison. I am not saying that Steve Gass and SawStop are saints, but many here accuse them of being sinners. I do believe that this press release by SawStop shows their willingness to work with other table saw manufacturers to raise the entire industry up and ultimately protect the consumer. IHMO this is a step in the right direction and we should ALL want this. IF you don't want this, then there are plenty of existing tablesaws out there for you to snatch up before this rule goes into place. Besides, we don't know the final outcome of this potential ruling and it may still include the ability to selectively disable this new tablesaw feature like SawStop offers, e.g. when sawing green (wet) timber. Of course, this rule may never get passed and all of this discussion would have been for naught.

[edma194]

That statement from SawStop is as meaningless as it can get. Patents are already public and not enforceable after they expire. I now dedicate this post to the public.

[HopefulSSer]

If we needed a confirmation of Sawstop's veracity (or lack thereof) in their concerns for woodworkers safety, here it is:
https://www.sawstop.com/news/sawstop-to ... able-saws/

How generous of them: Sawstop has magnanimously "dedicated" (whatever that means) their expired patent 9,724,840 to the public in the interest of safety.

This is a big deal. Patent 9.724,840 is the key patent cited by multiple respondents to the proposed CPSC rule that reportedly prevents them from developing their own solution. So it suggests that SawStop is removing this impediment and not seeking a monopoly. Sample comment from the Power Tool Institute (PTI):

"As another example, U.S. Patent 9,724,840, ostensibly covers any table saw with a “contact” detection system and a reaction system that “causes the blade to stop cutting the person with 10 milliseconds after being triggered if the person moves into contact with the teeth [of the blade] at a rate of 1 foot per second or less.” In August 2017, this patent was extended and does not expire until 2033. The patent would be essential for meeting the test requirements of the SNPR."

PTI represents nine member companies, five of which manufacture table saws under numerous brands. Some of those companies also responded individually.

- David

No, it's no deal at all. First off, "dedicating" it means nothing. Secondly, the patent in question is already expired so it has no force.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US972 ... 9724%2c840

Screenshot 2024-02-29 at 10.38.35 AM.png (150.28 KiB) Viewed 372 times

They're just trying to do a little reputation management at no cost to themselves. If they wanted to actually do something helpful & meaningful, they'd either license some of their IP royalty-free, or even better put some of the overly-broad stuff into the public domain.