Shopsmith Forums

Really??? Bosch infringed his patent!!!! In other words they tried to steal his intellectual property!! And he is at fault for "squashing" them?

I don't know!!

Did Bosch really attempt to steal "his intellectual property"? Was the Bosch approach to stopping the blade really that closely related to the Gass approach?

I don't know!! But I think not and I believe that Gass really wants the future table saw market to be HIS Sawstop approach. What really pains me though is that it appears as though there are government agencies with the same objective.

This subject will never be a issue for me because I will never want tp purchase another table saw but it still irritates me.

algale wrote:Really??? Bosch infringed his patent!!!! In other words they tried to steal his intellectual property!! And he is at fault for "squashing" them?

I have not read his patent. Bosch's mechanical mechanism is very different from the Saw Stop. How can that be a patent infringement? Other than in the eyes of the lawyers and the court. The sensing mechanism, I doubt there are many ways to do that. It is a matter of physics and electronics which is set. That should not be patent-able.

Please tell me what intellectual property Bosch used and how they infringed on his patent.

Google it. You can read the decision.

algale wrote:Google it. You can read the decision.

I have read it and I don't agree with it. He got a shyster lawyer to make a more convincing presentation than Bosch. There are huge differences between the Saw Stop and the Bosch.

Look at this...

https://www.protoolreviews.com/news/saw ... yet/26066/

As I said the flesh sensing method may be the same but there are very limited ways available to do that and they are based on physics and nature. Hardly patent-able.

Gass may have an underlying concern for table saw safety but only if it is HIS safety mechanism. His greed is above his safety concerns.

Why expect anything different from a lawyer?
What I would love love to see is someone invent a flesh detection system that does not violate
His patents and have them give it to every manufacture free of charge. Then watch Gass spend any money trying to mandate any Saw safety system.

Ed in Tampa wrote:Why expect anything different from a lawyer?
What I would love love to see is someone invent a flesh detection system that does not violate
His patents and have them give it to every manufacture free of charge. Then watch Gass spend any money trying to mandate any Saw safety system.

I have absolutely no problem with Gass defending his patents, and I understand that he has many of them. The underlying technology does not have to be new for a system to be patentable; the standard is basically that it has to be a novel application of the technology in the field of the invention. Gass' patents have withstood serious challenges, so I presume that they are solid.

And folks, it generally requires a several million dollars for a startup company to get that kind of multidisciplinary mechatronic system developed and to market. That requires raising investment. And then you are obligated to do your best to get your investors a good return on their very risky investments. Not defending your patents would be a gross dereliction of your duty to your investors.

Like it or not, that's how our free enterprise system works. If you eliminate the possibility of a large return on investment, startups could not attract investors. And many innovations such as Gass' SawStop technology would never be developed.

In my opinion, Gass is not doing all this as an effort to be assuring better safety, but rather to line his pockets.

Heed JSB's words above.

Who else markets this technology? I do agree with Algale that there should be a safety standard for table saws. It has been an observation of mine that people don't like to read instruction manuals or follow safety procedures. That being said, I also believe that safety begins at home (or the workshop). I am responsible for safety in my workshop, not Shopsmith or anyone else.
BPR