US Government is About to Change Table Saws FOREVER!

[RFGuy]

I am not a patent attorney and I don't care to debate the details of patent law, so I will continue to skate around the perimeter here as is my prerogative. So, if this is the key patent for SawStop's invention and if it is expired then why all of the hullabaloo??? Other manufacturers should be racing to bring to market competing saws to break this perceived unbearable legal monopoly that SawStop has. Where are their saws with AIM like technology, or are they just complacent? As for the record, yes it is a legal monopoly, though only in a very niche segment of the tablesaw market. Below is, in my opinion, a useful excerpt to summarize 2 key points about why a patent exists and what exactly it confers to the patent holder. Bare in mind this expiration date is what puts a shelf life on this legal monopoly, in essence returning back to a free market afterwards. It seems to me, that some here object to the entire patent system entirely and/or to SawStop even existing. I have no intention of debating either of these because I don't understand this logic as they are in stark opposition to the ideals I believe this country were founded on. IF you truly believe you are right, then please pursue changing the systems of government that enable all of this for SawStop and companies like them, which is your right in this country.

Excerpts from an online patent law website:
A patent is a type of intellectual property right that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a specific number of years. Patents are issued for inventions in an effort to encourage and foster ingenuity.

With a patent, its holder can market the invention and earn money through royalties or licensing agreements. This allows patent holders to recoup the investment they made in developing the invention.

[roy_okc]

Other manufacturers should be racing to bring to market competing saws to break this perceived unbearable legal monopoly that SawStop has. Where are their saws with AIM like technology, or are they just complacent?

Bosch came out with their REAXX technology in at least a jobsite saw around 2015 or so, using a method that lowered the blade without damaging it. As I recall, the cartridge could fire two times between replacement, think it was flipped over after the first firing. SawStop sued them to stop selling in some, if not all countries. Looks like the replacement cartridges are still available for those who did buy them in the U.S.

Link: https://www.boschtools.com/ca/en/produc ... 0601B13510

[HopefulSSer]

It seems to me, that some here object to the entire patent system entirely and/or to SawStop even existing. I have no intention of debating either of these because I don't understand this logic as they are in stark opposition to the ideals I believe this country were founded on. IF you truly believe you are right, then please pursue changing the systems of government that enable all of this for SawStop and companies like them, which is your right in this country.

You don't it understand because that's not what anyone is saying! Not one single post is saying that patents or Sawstop shouldn't exist. Our (or at least my) objection is that Sawstop managed to acquire an overly-broad patent portfolio which they are trying to weaponize by lobbying the government to force all table saw (and other power tools if the patents can be generalized further) manufacturers to pay THEM in order to remain in business. Recall that Gass & co. are patent lawyers and didn't initially want to make power tools but instead only wanted to license their technology. When they couldn't, they began making saws. Now they're trying to FORCE other companies to license their IP. All under the guise of safety of course. Who would object to safety, right?

Earlier in the thread you said

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?

You know all those push sticks, push blocks, and feather boards you can buy that all look basically alike? And all look like the ones Shopsmith sell? Shopsmith originally designed and patented those. Care to guess what they did with that IP in the interest of safety? (Here's a hit: They made it available for free).

[RFGuy]

I don't agree with your version of what happened at SawStop, but I am also NOT going to endlessly debate it here either. IF you feel this passionately about all of this, why not join the CPSC or advocate for patent law changes with the government to enact change? This discussion could go on ad infinitum or until "the one" kicks us off of this forum for this thread. I have a different viewpoint from a few on this thread, so I tried to present the glass half full version which happens to be how I view this particular topic. I think we all understand that a few of you think SawStop should be punished and that the patent system is "bad" in this country. Or at least that is the perception being created by the glass half empty posts on this thread in my opinion.

[DLB]

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.

Great question, as they say. (Often when 'they' don't know the answer.) Perhaps "extended" is just how it is characterized by PTI et al. I've had my eye on an older used SawStop ICS, and the add has a photo of the patent label. It lists 34 (!!!) U.S. patents (plus software copyrights!) and the highest patent number is 7377199. The "extended" patent is not on that list and its number is outside the range. Suggesting to me that it came later than the time when this particular saw was manufactured and has its own lifecycle.(?) Lots of guessing here on my part.

- David

[HopefulSSer]

I think we all understand that a few of you think SawStop should be punished and that the patent system is "bad" in this country.

No! You're still mischaracterizing. No one is saying the entire patent system is bad. And no one is saying SawStop should be punished. Only that they should not be allowed to manipulate the market by gaming the system via the CPSC. It should be a level playing field.

[JPG]

I think we all understand that a few of you think SawStop should be punished and that the patent system is "bad" in this country.

No! You're still mischaracterizing. No one is saying the entire patent system is bad. And no one is saying SawStop should be punished. Only that they should not be allowed to manipulate the market by gaming the system via the CPSC. It should be a level playing field.

That sums it up!

[RFGuy]

No! You're still mischaracterizing. No one is saying the entire patent system is bad. And no one is saying SawStop should be punished. Only that they should not be allowed to manipulate the market by gaming the system via the CPSC. It should be a level playing field.

Shades of gray...As you said in the past post down below, you hate patent abuse which means the patent system IS bad. The patent system includes everything including those who use it, how they use it, the gov't infrastructure that supports it, etc., etc. It is clear from multiple posts here that some perceive SawStop has somehow taken advantage, gamed the system, suppressed competitors, used the CPSC to do their "dirty" work or whatever true meaning words you want to use to properly characterize the intent behind the words already spoken on this thread. I am NOT trying to mis-characterize anyone here, so if you perceive that I have, then give a more detailed accounting of your views on this thread if you want to. From my perspective, what I perceive is as follows:

SawStop was an American company and a successful one. So much so that unfortunately a German company bought them out so they are no longer an American company. I like to see it when an American company succeeds and does well, including Shopsmith. I am a technical engineer, but I learned enough about business by being in it for so many years that I understand how business works. Competing in business means using every tool/weapon in your arsenal provided everything is legal. I prefer companies and business heads that uphold high moral and ethical boundaries, but honestly this is rarer and rarer these days in business. This is sad. One key tool, for certain industries, is the use of patents. Another one is the ITC, which I have been directly impacted by at one company that I worked at. Why not also use the CPSC??? There seems to be a belief (correct me if I am wrong) here that business competition should be fair. NO, it does not...I prefer it to be legal and with as high of a moral and ethical standard as possible, but this does not mean it has to be fair. The patent system purposely gives an inventor an unfair advantage with the right to a legal monopoly. Is this fair to the competition? NO. Is this legal? Yes. Is this the original intent of the patent system? Yes, I believe so. These are the fundamental points that I believe some of you disagree with me on in this thread. Business is typically NOT fair and this is in fact encouraged in capitalism. I hope for it to be to a high moral and ethical standard and always legal, but where the boundary conditions are will be different for everyone so perhaps you draw the lines differently of where not to cross. Talking about business that is legal, fair and with the highest moral and ethical standard implies a utopian society. While I dream of this, for today in this reality, on this planet, it is NOT this. With the information that I have, my understanding is that SawStop has not done anything illegal. I am not aware of anything that suggests they don't have a high moral and ethical standard. I do see how their competition would perceive their patent and CPSC tactics as not fair. That IS business. Now, if there are further details beneath the surface about SawStop that come to light then I may do a 180 on my opinion of them. Until then, this is my opinion and I am fine with you having a totally different opinion to mine. I share here only to further elucidate the how and why behind my opinions as already stated on this thread.

Bringing it back to Shopsmith, I am sure there has to be a corollary here to SawStop. I don't know all of the details, but when the Taiwan clone machines started streaming into the US, how did Shopsmith fend them off? Did they use any patents they owned? Did they use the ITC or a similar group to ban their import? IF I am right, their tactics would have been similar to what SawStop is doing. I point this out to say I applaud Shopsmith for doing this in the past and it was their right to do everything necessary, within the legal limit, to protect their business. Just like I am fine with SawStop using similar business tactics today within the limits of what I have already outlined here.

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

[BigSky]

No! You're still mischaracterizing. No one is saying the entire patent system is bad. And no one is saying SawStop should be punished. Only that they should not be allowed to manipulate the market by gaming the system via the CPSC. It should be a level playing field.

Shades of gray...As you said in the past post down below, you hate patent abuse which means the patent system IS bad. The patent system includes everything including those who use it, how they use it, the gov't infrastructure that supports it, etc., etc. It is clear from multiple posts here that some perceive SawStop has somehow taken advantage, gamed the system, suppressed competitors, used the CPSC to do their "dirty" work or whatever true meaning words you want to use to properly characterize the intent behind the words already spoken on this thread. I am NOT trying to mis-characterize anyone here, so if you perceive that I have, then give a more detailed accounting of your views on this thread if you want to. From my perspective, what I perceive is as follows:

SawStop was an American company and a successful one. So much so that unfortunately a German company bought them out so they are no longer an American company. I like to see it when an American company succeeds and does well, including Shopsmith. I am a technical engineer, but I learned enough about business by being in it for so many years that I understand how business works. Competing in business means using every tool/weapon in your arsenal provided everything is legal. I prefer companies and business heads that uphold high moral and ethical boundaries, but honestly this is rarer and rarer these days in business. This is sad. One key tool, for certain industries, is the use of patents. Another one is the ITC, which I have been directly impacted by at one company that I worked at. Why not also use the CPSC??? There seems to be a belief (correct me if I am wrong) here that business competition should be fair. NO, it does not...I prefer it to be legal and with as high of a moral and ethical standard as possible, but this does not mean it has to be fair. The patent system purposely gives an inventor an unfair advantage with the right to a legal monopoly. Is this fair to the competition? NO. Is this legal? Yes. Is this the original intent of the patent system? Yes, I believe so. These are the fundamental points that I believe some of you disagree with me on in this thread. Business is typically NOT fair and this is in fact encouraged in capitalism. I hope for it to be to a high moral and ethical standard and always legal, but where the boundary conditions are will be different for everyone so perhaps you draw the lines differently of where not to cross. Talking about business that is legal, fair and with the highest moral and ethical standard implies a utopian society. While I dream of this, for today in this reality, on this planet, it is NOT this. With the information that I have, my understanding is that SawStop has not done anything illegal. I am not aware of anything that suggests they don't have a high moral and ethical standard. I do see how their competition would perceive their patent and CPSC tactics as not fair. That IS business. Now, if there are further details beneath the surface about SawStop that come to light then I may do a 180 on my opinion of them. Until then, this is my opinion and I am fine with you having a totally different opinion to mine. I share here only to further elucidate the how and why behind my opinions as already stated on this thread.

Bringing it back to Shopsmith, I am sure there has to be a corollary here to SawStop. I don't know all of the details, but when the Taiwan clone machines started streaming into the US, how did Shopsmith fend them off? Did they use any patents they owned? Did they use the ITC or a similar group to ban their import? IF I am right, their tactics would have been similar to what SawStop is doing. I point this out to say I applaud Shopsmith for doing this in the past and it was their right to do everything necessary, within the legal limit, to protect their business.

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

It seems to me as though they (Sawstop) did win. I doubt that the sale to the German compant was at a loss.

[RFGuy]

It seems to me as though they (Sawstop) did win. I doubt that the sale to the German compant was at a loss.

Yeah, I just wish they had stayed an American company and continued to grow organically. Unfortunately M&A's are very attractive, at least they were when interest rates were lower. Too often companies that get acquired change, and not for the better. Does anyone think Budweiser is better off after InBev bought them? Just one example, but I remember others in the past. Also I have seen first hand how destructive a European company taking over an American one can be. The entire culture and focus of the company changed after acquisition and they struggled until they got gobbled up by an even bigger fish. The cycle continues.