US Government is About to Change Table Saws FOREVER!

[RFGuy]

To follow-up on my own post, it seems like some of the opposition to SawStop relates to their actions being perceived as unfair. An analogy or two may help. Business is very similar to sports or other games. In sports there is the rulebook and in business there is the law. As long as you adhere to the rules, then sports is NOT fair, by definition. Is it fair when one basketball player is 7' tall and another is only 6' tall? Clearly the 7' tall player has a competitive advantage. Competitive advantage, by definition, means it is NOT fair. Is it fair when a football/baseball player is smarter and can read the signals of the opposing team? Is it fair when a player is smarter and can count cards at blackjack (legal depending on geography)? Is it fair when one football player is faster than another, or one weighs 350lbs vs. a 200lb player? I could keep going and going with these, but I just wanted to show that business does NOT have to be fair. It does have to follow the rule of law, but even then some choose not to follow and accept the risk of consequences, which returns us to the moral & ethical side of it. I know of nothing SawStop has done that was illegal...to my knowledge they have followed the rulebook and they have a legal monopoly and are using everything available to them to defend their competitive advantage (patents and technology). IF I learn of something amoral or unethical they have done, then I will change my opinion of them, of course.

[HopefulSSer]

To follow-up on my own post, it seems like some of the opposition to SawStop relates to their actions being perceived as unfair. An analogy or two may help. Business is very similar to sports or other games. In sports there is the rulebook and in business there is the law. As long as you adhere to the rules, then sports is NOT fair, by definition. Is it fair when one basketball player is 7' tall and another is only 6' tall? Clearly the 7' tall player has a competitive advantage. Competitive advantage, by definition, means it is NOT fair. Is it fair when a football/baseball player is smarter and can read the signals of the opposing team? Is it fair when a player is smarter and can count cards at blackjack (legal depending on geography)? Is it fair when one football player is faster than another, or one weighs 350lbs vs. a 200lb player? I could keep going and going with these, but I just wanted to show that business does NOT have to be fair. It does have to follow the rule of law, but even then some choose not to follow and accept the risk of consequences, which returns us to the moral & ethical side of it. I know of nothing SawStop has done that was illegal...to my knowledge they have followed the rulebook and they have a legal monopoly and are using everything available to them to defend their competitive advantage (patents and technology). IF I learn of something amoral or unethical they have done, then I will change my opinion of them, of course.

None of those are analogous. What would be loosely analogous would be if table saw manufacturers were basketball teams, and that the Sawstop team successfully petitioned the NBA that for them the hoop would be 3 feet lower than for all the other teams. But I guess if they were to get that "law" made, it would be AOK, yes?

In my view, Sawstop attempting to mandate by force of law that all competitors must give them a cut is both immoral (not "amoral" -- amoral means without either positive or negative moral valence -- i.e. orthogonal to morality. Immoral is negative) and unethical. Especially when trying to whitewash it by claiming it all in service of user safety.

I'm fine with them having patents. I'm NOT fine with them forcing all competitors to license their IP.

I have absolutely no idea how to make this any clearer.

[BigSky]

To follow-up on my own post, it seems like some of the opposition to SawStop relates to their actions being perceived as unfair. An analogy or two may help. Business is very similar to sports or other games. In sports there is the rulebook and in business there is the law. As long as you adhere to the rules, then sports is NOT fair, by definition. Is it fair when one basketball player is 7' tall and another is only 6' tall? Clearly the 7' tall player has a competitive advantage. Competitive advantage, by definition, means it is NOT fair. Is it fair when a football/baseball player is smarter and can read the signals of the opposing team? Is it fair when a player is smarter and can count cards at blackjack (legal depending on geography)? Is it fair when one football player is faster than another, or one weighs 350lbs vs. a 200lb player? I could keep going and going with these, but I just wanted to show that business does NOT have to be fair. It does have to follow the rule of law, but even then some choose not to follow and accept the risk of consequences, which returns us to the moral & ethical side of it. I know of nothing SawStop has done that was illegal...to my knowledge they have followed the rulebook and they have a legal monopoly and are using everything available to them to defend their competitive advantage (patents and technology). IF I learn of something amoral or unethical they have done, then I will change my opinion of them, of course.

If all things are equal then there is no sport. Yes - IT is fair so long as the rules are not violated. No where in the rule book does it say that the center must be only 5'8"; therefore, 7'2" is fair.

[RFGuy]

None of those are analogous. What would be loosely analogous would be if table saw manufacturers were basketball teams, and that the Sawstop team successfully petitioned the NBA that for them the hoop would be 3 feet lower than for all the other teams. But I guess if they were to get that "law" made, it would be AOK, yes?

In my view, Sawstop attempting to mandate by force of law that all competitors must give them a cut is both immoral (not "amoral" -- amoral means without either positive or negative moral valence -- i.e. orthogonal to morality. Immoral is negative) and unethical. Especially when trying to whitewash it by claiming it all in service of user safety.

I'm fine with them having patents. I'm NOT fine with them forcing all competitors to license their IP.

I have absolutely no idea how to make this any clearer.

I am not perfect and yes I meant immoral, not amoral, but I stand by everything else I said. You continue to ignore key points that I make and I don't think you have a clear understanding of how businesses operate. It is pointless for me to continue to discuss with you.

[dusty]

None of those are analogous. What would be loosely analogous would be if table saw manufacturers were basketball teams, and that the Sawstop team successfully petitioned the NBA that for them the hoop would be 3 feet lower than for all the other teams. But I guess if they were to get that "law" made, it would be AOK, yes?

In my view, Sawstop attempting to mandate by force of law that all competitors must give them a cut is both immoral (not "amoral" -- amoral means without either positive or negative moral valence -- i.e. orthogonal to morality. Immoral is negative) and unethical. Especially when trying to whitewash it by claiming it all in service of user safety.

I'm fine with them having patents. I'm NOT fine with them forcing all competitors to license their IP.

I have absolutely no idea how to make this any clearer.

I am not perfect and yes I meant immoral, not amoral, but I stand by everything else I said. You continue to ignore key points that I make and I don't think you have a clear understanding of how businesses operate. It is pointless for me to continue to discuss with you.

Then I would say "You have not made the point" and probably never will .

[HopefulSSer]

It is pointless for me to continue to discuss with you.

We agree on that! ;-)

[dusty]

Maybe it is time to "lay this thread to rest".

[edma194]

There's nothing wrong with people expressing their opinions on the patent system in general or the validity of this specific patent. However, the CPSC is not going to consider any such opinions because the patent system is the law of the land and the CPSC is going to consider the patent to be valid and applicable. The question is whether or not the CPSC should require the use of patented technology in all table saws. Their primary concern is obviously safety, just look at their name. Costs imposed by such regulation is still one of their concerns and they have stated that to be the case. There are only two non-procedural issues that matter now, first will the patented technology make table saws safer, and secondly if that is so is it prudent to require a clear increase in cost for all table saws to achieve that level of safety. Arguing the former is difficult based on the facts at hand. There is the argument that people will be driven to buy used table saws or use other means of cutting wood if the costs become too high resulting in no decrease in the number of severity of accidents from cutting wood. My personal opinion is any table saw that uses this technology is safer to operate than saws lacking it. The question of cost is not so ambiguously defined though. There is no doubt that requiring this technology will add to the cost of all table saws. We don't know how much, and that becomes the heart of the question. Statements about dedicating patents to public safety are meaningless, as are non-specific licensing arrangements. Based on the evidence being considered I don't see any chance the CPSC will find that SawStop technology does not make table saws safer, so the remaining issue of the costs involved are paramount. We've all had a chance to respond to the CPSC on this matter but we can continue to have opinions on the subject and express them as we wait for a resolution on this matter.

[JPG]

Oh how interesting to observe how some individuals claim to be open minded and seek others understanding but when they fail to convince others decide to say further conversation is pointless. Somebody is being verbose with a deaf ear.

However I also perceive a vast divide between degree of knowledge of the subject(s) being discussed by the individuals involved.

The major point of 'disagreement' is I believe as has already been alluded to - Legal sets the rules, but ethical and/or fair is only in the minds of the of the 'perpetrator" and the 'victim'.

BTW I hate analogies(especially those picked to make a narrow point regarding them). There are simply too many variances between the supposedly analogous examples to lead to a precise conveyance of understanding.

Ya getting way off the initial subject, but, it has evolved to the present.

I ignored moral above as I see it as a subset of ethical. Ethical relates to business, moral relates to personal.

JMHO

[DLB]

SawStop is taking a lot of heat for this, not just here. So I found this interesting:

"Is SawStop behind the current proposed CPSC regulations?
No. SawStop’s founders were advocates of CPSC regulation, but the CPSC’s recent reengagement on this topic was a surprise to SawStop. The current owners have had nothing to do with that reengagement."
[From SawStop FAQ's, under the heading of PROPOSED CPSC REGULATIONS (https://www.sawstop.com/why-sawstop/faqs/)]

Given that the company has been sold, it doesn't seem fair to blame SawStop for anything that the CPSC has done or is perceived as having done. The original petitioners for this rule were associated with SawStop, but that's 20+ years ago. The criticisms of SawStop in several of the responses don't seem applicable today. Bosch stated in their response to the SNPR that they have an agreement with the new ownership to sell their AIM saws in the United States:

"Bosch Power Tools indicated that during the ITC patent litigation between Bosch Power Tools and SawStop, Bosch Power Tools was not able to obtain a license agreement with SawStop until SawStop was acquired by TTS. Bosch Power Tools and TTS, the parent company of SawStop, reached an amicable solution on Aug. 8, 2018, that allows Bosch Power Tools to sell REAXX™ jobsite table saws in the United States."

- David