US Government is About to Change Table Saws FOREVER!

[JPG]

Hmmmm Patent says 1foot/sec - Proposed ruling says 1 meter/sec.

[RFGuy]

It is surprising how some think SawStop should freely give most of their patents to the public domain. I'd really like to understand their justification for this. Should Shopsmith have pushed their patents into the public domain in the past? I mean if their 5-in-1 tool is superior to all others, why not let other manufacturers make the best possible tool as well by having access to Shopsmith's patents? This is essentially one of the arguments being made on this thread over and over again. Last I checked, we live in a capitalistic and democratic society, not a communist one. Suggesting that SawStop should give all of this away for free is an anti-business mindset. I believe SawStop should be fairly compensated should the CPSC ruling go into effect. They would have to agree to licensing along the lines of FRAND in order for other manufacturers to continue to compete and for them to be successful. Suggesting that SawStop give all of this away for free, instead of licensing it, is analogous to one of you owning a rental property and deciding that your renter shouldn't have to pay rent and you will just gift them the property because it is "helpful" to them. How many of you would choose to do that???

[JPG]

My 'attitude' is the result of my 'understanding' of Gass's 'strategy'. Yes it is a personal perspective.

I totally agree re your patent understanding.

[edma194]

It is surprising how some think SawStop should freely give most of their patents to the public domain. I'd really like to understand their justification for this.

Who thinks that? At issue here is SawStop lobbying to make their patented technology required usage in all table saws while not establishing a price for licensing that technology. CPSC should understand that and not even consider taking action without knowing what cost this will impose on the public.

[JPG]

Cost is not the CPSC's main concern, Safety is. However I do think consumer cost needs to be taken into consideration.

[RFGuy]

My 'attitude' is the result of my 'understanding' of Gass's 'strategy'. Yes it is a personal perspective.

I totally agree re your patent understanding.

I wasn't referring to your posts above, though my post did follow yours.

Cost is not the CPSC's main concern, Safety is. However I do think consumer cost needs to be taken into consideration.

I agree.

[DLB]

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.

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.

Let me clarify that I wasn't giving my opinion as to the expiration date of the patent, I was quoting PTI specifically, though other respondents said much the same thing with regard to the same patent. Perhaps they are all wrong and Google is right. It would be no less important if the patent is already expired. The impediment cited by PTI, B&D, Bosch, (and others IIRC) is not impeding them from a solution. Whether the obstacle was removed by SawStop or never existed in the first place suggests they they are free to develop an alternative AIM technology as long as it does not infringe on other patents. It would appear that SawStop has negated this particular point of opposition.

- David

[JPG]

WHAT has Sawstop done to negate anything with the 'dedication' announcement?

[DLB]

WHAT has Sawstop done to negate anything with the 'dedication' announcement?

Evidently depends on one's interpretation of the announcement. Bosch's objection, from their response, echoes PTI's (of which they are a member):

"Specifically, PTI’s analysis demonstrates that the current CPSC performance requirement of 3.5mm maximum cut depth at the approach velocity of 1 m/s can only be achieved by an AIM system with operating parameters that are specified by SawStop Patent No. 9,724,840, which is valid until April 8, 2033. As PTI maintains, if patent infringement cannot be avoided, the CPSC would in effect be imposing a design standard, rather than a performance standard."

Which I interpret as suggesting that ANY design that meets the CPSC proposed rule infringes upon SawStop patent 480. In Bosch's/PTI's view. And it is evidently not within CPSC's authority to impose a design standard. Thus, it is important to some that the rule avoid patent infringement.

I suppose if we think patent 480 was expired, SawStop did nothing and this objection, raised by multiple respondents, is void because patent infringement is not possible. If we think the patent was in force as stated in the objections, then SawStop said:

"Opponents of the proposed rulemaking have identified this patent as their key obstacle to offering safer saws,” said Matt Howard, CEO, SawStop. “We invest heavily in safety innovation, and our patents have real value. Even so, we will not allow this patent to be an obstacle to a safer future. To that end, SawStop is prepared to dedicate this ‘840 patent to the public upon the effective date of a rule requiring active injury mitigation technology on all table saws. "

Which I interpret as saying that SawStop is going to allow their competitors to use that 840 IP without fee. Thus negating the design standard objection and the worries of whether or not SawStop would license the IP. The design standard objection was significant because IIUC CPSC cannot impose a design standard.

- David

[BuckeyeDennis]

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

How does one “extend” a patent? My understanding is that it is not possible. You may be able to patent improvements to the original invention, but whatever your original patent claimed is in the public domain after it expires. That’s the quid pro quo for disclosing in reasonable detail how to replicate the invention, and thus being awarded a 20-year legal monopoly on the invention.