Shopsmith Forums

Ed in Tampa wrote:
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.

I'd like to see one quote, ad, article, anything where SawStop said it wasn't interested in making money.

algale wrote:

Ed in Tampa wrote:
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.

I'd like to see one quote, ad, article, anything where SawStop said it wasn't interested in making money.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. They didn't say they didn't want to make money. They implied the motivation for going to the CSPC was not about money but a genuine concern for woodworker safety. Go back to when the technology was taken to the CSPC and read the magazines articles. Then read how cynical people said the wood magazines were for doubting their motivatives.

Ed in Tampa wrote:

algale wrote:

Ed in Tampa wrote:
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.

I'd like to see one quote, ad, article, anything where SawStop said it wasn't interested in making money.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. They didn't say they didn't want to make money. They implied the motivation for going to the CSPC was not about money but a genuine concern for woodworker safety. Go back to when the technology was taken to the CSPC and read the magazines articles. Then read how cynical people said the wood magazines were for doubting their motivatives.

I've read almost all of it. And I don't remember and having researched cannot find an example of a statement by Gass et al that implies this was strictly an altruistic endeavor.

Ed in Tampa wrote:

BuckeyeDennis wrote: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.

And I agree that it is inappropriate to try to use the government to push technology on consumers. The market (in which I include appropriately risk-adjusted insurance costs) is much more competent at judging costs vs. benefits. As a matter of fact, I suspect that SawStop's market-manipulation attempts actually backfired, and cost them a significant number of sales to woodworkers like you and me. I read a blog by Christopher Schwarz in which he said the technology finally won him over, although he still disagreed with the company's tactics.

Just looked it up: https://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/0 ... table-saw/

BuckeyeDennis wrote:

Ed in Tampa wrote:

BuckeyeDennis wrote: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.

And I agree that it is inappropriate to try to use the government to push technology on consumers. The market (in which I include appropriately risk-adjusted insurance costs) is much more competent at judging costs vs. benefits. As a matter of fact, I suspect that SawStop's market-manipulation attempts actually backfired, and cost them a significant number of sales to woodworkers like you and me. I read a blog by Christopher Schwarz in which he said the technology finally won him over, although he still disagreed with the company's tactics.

Just looked it up: https://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/0 ... table-saw/

Most excellent article! Personally I could never buy a Sawstop (moral conviction) although I would love to have similar accident protection. I will also admit that I try not to use my Shopsmith in tablesaw mode and since doing that my need/desire for a table saw is almost gone.

I first looked at the Bosch over a year ago when they had a demo days near by. The saw was not immediately available but was available for preorder with no confirmed date for delivery. Four months I actually got to try one. Cutting wood and everything Frankly it is not (in my view) up to the standards I have seen from Bosch. The fence was wimpy and the miter gauge something best dumped and replaced by aftermarket. Yes the system for safety (and the young man demoing the safety part blew through three catriges six firings) were impressive. Precision seemed lacking. Still something I might have considered.
Now, the "However" portion. The Bosch team said there are no plans to take this platform past the portable job site stage at least that they had heard. Maybe that's because of the ongoing litigation (and I think SawStop had not yet won a portion of their suit). To me that means that Bosch doesn't have confidence they will prevail or they spent so much money on R&D that they need the construction market to buy enough units to start recouping.
I really like that the Bosch system neither destroys the blade nor the capture device. Significant savings in parts to get up and going again. But the idea that the components of the saw itself are chintzy and no real plans to introduce a hybrid let alone cabinet grade (aka more powerful motor) make me think that the SawStop is my more viable choice. Their quality is very good.

Back to the evil versus altruistic discussion ... I am not any fan of how SawStop has handled the legal direction of this. However, if I was to plunk down my money. I'd have to get the SawStop. Onerous as has been this battle (not this discussion - the Bosch v SawStop one ), until or unless some other companies enter the fracas, I'm guessing that Bosch Reaxx will eventually get the axe.

Be well,
Ben

Rockler was handing out flyers for the sawstop days, actually they stuck the flyer in my bag while I was looking the other way. The saw that most compares to the Bosch is the sawstop jobsite saw. (They sell it for $1299)

Ed

benush26 wrote:I first looked at the Bosch over a year ago when they had a demo days near by. The saw was not immediately available but was available for preorder with no confirmed date for delivery. Four months I actually got to try one. Cutting wood and everything Frankly it is not (in my view) up to the standards I have seen from Bosch. The fence was wimpy and the miter gauge something best dumped and replaced by aftermarket. Yes the system for safety (and the young man demoing the safety part blew through three catriges six firings) were impressive. Precision seemed lacking. Still something I might have considered.
Now, the "However" portion. The Bosch team said there are no plans to take this platform past the portable job site stage at least that they had heard. Maybe that's because of the ongoing litigation (and I think SawStop had not yet won a portion of their suit). To me that means that Bosch doesn't have confidence they will prevail or they spent so much money on R&D that they need the construction market to buy enough units to start recouping.
I really like that the Bosch system neither destroys the blade nor the capture device. Significant savings in parts to get up and going again. But the idea that the components of the saw itself are chintzy and no real plans to introduce a hybrid let alone cabinet grade (aka more powerful motor) make me think that the SawStop is my more viable choice. Their quality is very good.

Back to the evil versus altruistic discussion ... I am not any fan of how SawStop has handled the legal direction of this. However, if I was to plunk down my money. I'd have to get the SawStop. Onerous as has been this battle (not this discussion - the Bosch v SawStop one ), until or unless some other companies enter the fracas, I'm guessing that Bosch Reaxx will eventually get the axe.

Be well,
Ben

I think this is a must read if you have any interest in this.........

http://www.powertoolinstitute.com/pti-p ... -facts.asp

Ed

reible wrote:I think this is a must read if you have any interest in this.........

http://www.powertoolinstitute.com/pti-p ... -facts.asp

Ed

Very interesting read. Verifies a lot of what has been said about forcing Sawstop technology on us. Also tells the story of a bottom feeder bottom feeding! Disgusting!

Again I wonder how all this effects the overall tablesaw market and the demand for a better way to cut wood.

Ed in Tampa wrote:

reible wrote:I think this is a must read if you have any interest in this.........

http://www.powertoolinstitute.com/pti-p ... -facts.asp

Ed

Very interesting read. Verifies a lot of what has been said about forcing Sawstop technology on us. Also tells the story of a bottom feeder bottom feeding! Disgusting!

Again I wonder how all this effects the overall tablesaw market and the demand for a better way to cut wood.

Is there a better way?