Todays USA today TS article

[Van Huskey]

I actually have a marble topped Ridgid that I really like.

Was that a prototype, before they switch to granite?

[Van Huskey]

(because they were afraid of bigger lawsuits on their BORG special saws lacking the technology).

This along with what the companies considered ludicrous licensing fees and full indemnification, if the numbers reported for the offers of licensing are correct they are indeed FAR outside normal business practices for this type of intellectual property and coupled with indemnification was enough for the manufacturers to not even consider the offer, even without the considering whether or not a dual level of safety would invite more litigation. Even if it was used as a "reason" multiple levels of safety are present across lines of many if not most consumer products, an excellent example is the automobile industry. I personally think the major factor was cost.

[shane lyall]

I looked (read drooled) at ss at woodcraft last time I was there. No only for the brake tech but it a nice saw. I don't own one and don't have plans to buy one. I think it's great to have the safety feature but DONT want it tamed down my throat. It's sad he is using the court system to sell saws. That reason alone will keep me from buying an otherwise top shelf tool. On the other hand I beleve ALL school shops should be using them. After all, students a just learning the craft.

Ive been woodworking for 20+ years. I got bit a few years ago but was lucky it was not to bad. It was MY falt and mine alone. Would a ss lessened the injury? Yes. Will I do it again? I sure hope not and I'm much safer around my saw now.

[Chuck Tringo]

The free market ideal is supposed to mean that technological advances should be offered to the public to make their own decision as to whether or not they wish to buy a product. That didn't happen in this case, a monopoly interfered and attempted to lock the SS technology out of the marketplace (because they were afraid of bigger lawsuits on their BORG special saws lacking the technology). Gass's response has been to try to break the monopoly buy building the saws himself and pressuring the monopolistic powers by supporting litigation and regulation. Some call that unscrupulous, I call it just desserts for the monopoly who conspired to keep new technology off the market. Keep in mind, the reason for the conspiracy was not that they didn't think consumers wanted the SS tech, but because they were afraid they'd be sued if they sold it.

What I always find it interesting in these threads is the number of commentators saying when the patent gets taken away for 'the public good' is when they'll buy the technology. Frankly, as a semi-capitalist, I'd love to buy a SS now, but the quality and cost of the SS is just too high. That's my choice, but I sure wish I had the option to spend $800 on a $500-$600 Grizzly or Ridgid with the SS technology. I'd jump at the chance.

A MONOPOLY refers to a single company that controls a market....a trust refers to a small amount of such companies working towards monopolistic control....last I checked there were about 10 or more different table saw makers and they were competing with each other...hardly a monopoly...for all to reject him it was likely that the dude was asking too much for the tech

[Van Huskey]

A MONOPOLY refers to a single company that controls a market....a trust refers to a small amount of such companies working towards monopolistic control....last I checked there were about 10 or more different table saw makers and they were competing with each other...hardly a monopoly...for all to reject him it was likely that the dude was asking too much for the tech

Although I agree, as I postulated, that money was the key reason, one can certainly argue the "monopoly" is the power tool manufacturers association (what ever the name is) which all of them are members of and has spear headed to resistance to regulation.

[Bryan Wellman]

Was that a prototype, before they switch to granite?

Oops. Typing faster than I was thinking. Been working around marble countertops all week at a home design center. LOL

[Norman Pyles]

So, which side is winning?

[Carl Hunsinger]

Definitely not a monopoly, but I'm convinced there was collusion in an attempt to make Gass go away. I am thoroughly enjoying the current situation where those who colluded against him are now getting their collective a$$es whipped in the cabinet saw market segment, by the very same guy that was supposed to just dry up and blow away. And talk about liability. Those guys had their chance to license the technology, and at least put it on some of their models. Now it's on none of them, and it may not even be available for license now that Gass has spent so much time and money developing the Sawstop brand. The lawsuits are now beginning, and the power tool industry collectively has their n**s in a vise. If this is mandated, it will turn out, in retrospect, to have been the right decision. There was the same resistance to seatbelts and airbags, but I wouldn't buy a car without them now.

Give the ol' vise handle another quarter turn for me, Steve...

Carl

[Rob Lindquist]

I've dealt with patents, infringements and lawsuits. I'm not a lawyer, just dealt with this at work. Patents barely hold any water and can easily be worked around from everything we've seen. Patents are for lawyers to make money. I doubt for one minute that any of the bigger saw companies couldn't develop technology such as SS and beat the patents easily. There is improvement on prior art, do it better, do it so the blade isn't ruined, costs less to reset, and you would probably have it beaten one way or another. I'm sure that a big saw company has an in house law team that is top notch. They probably already have it all worked out and in testing, at least various versions of it.

Of course this is all just my opinion, but I manufacture machinery now and can think of ways to stop the blade fairly easily and quickly. Don't fret, the other manufacturers will be fine no matter what happens.

That being said, I hope I never wish I had a SS (or equivelent)!

[Bill Edwards(2)]

If someone already brought this up, I'm sorry... after 3 pages, reading
every post pushes the limits of my attention span.

This could put the hurt to Gass' plans to pal around with Bill Gates.

http://www.whirlwindtool.com/

[Vic Damone]

In my opinion, it is a good description, he's working hard to MANDATE everyone to purchase HIS invention. He also knows time is ticking and patent is only good for so long.
See Fein and all the new triangle sanders that have appeared in the past couple of years....
Technology is good, will solve many TS related injuries, but at what cost.

Given five to ten amputations daily the cost of injury and lengthy disability can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some of your own dollars have gone to defray uninsured medical cost and supplemental income to those injured. Mandate? I wish, I'm tired of paying for all the entitled Barney's out there. I'd rather feed the unfortunate.

I know two very experienced woodworkers victims of table saw accidents who wished there were a blade break mandate prior to their misfortune. Both still making sawdust, both now enthusiastic owners of the black saw as am I.

A little background knowledge regarding Mr. Gass' history and development of his system might enlighten your outlook regarding this product. There were some substantial reasons for the industries reluctance to embrace Mr. Gass' system. Regardless of the reasonable system cost they simply didn't have to. Denied, Mr. Gass decided to design an innovative and extremely high quality top tier product.


Support ampsurf.com

[Brent Ring]

If I were a school, I would buy one. If my kids were Joe Citizen, I would want them to be taught on a SS at a school if I am not there. This makes perfect sense to me.

If I were a business owner with employees, I would buy one. I could tell the employees to keep their fingers out of the blade, but I couldn't guarantee it.

I wouldn't want my children or an employee to be injured.

For my shop, I personally do not have a SS and don't plan to buy one. Reason: It is my personal choice and I DON'T SEE A NEED FOR IT FOR MY SHOP. If I put my finger in the blade it is my fault. (This isn't like the wearing seatbelt argument. The seatbelt laws were designed to protect everyone and you can even throw in the cost of insurance and cost to society and on and on. There are many variables that play into this. I agree with it and religiously wear my seatbelt.) (seatbelts are mandated because of the variables of other drivers, weather conditions, road conditions, mechanical issues, etc.)

I have never seen my tablesaw pull out on front of me or jump at my fingers or have too much to drink and swerve towards my fingers or blow a tire and roll or not get enough sleep and loose control of itself.

The tablesaw does what it does. If we lose a finger it is because our finger hit the blade. The blade doesn't normally jump out and hit our finger!

I for one will teach my children to keep their fingers out of the blade. I will also do everything in my power to keep my fingers out of the blade.

I don't agree with a business owner putting their nose into Government regulation when their intent is motivated by money. (they can say safety all they want, but if that was the truth, then the technology would be given away for a good of all)

I agree with this completely - actually I have been in the market for a new saw and was 90% sold on Sawstop until I heard and saw video of the Hammer sliders. I have given consideration to to them, and was discussing it with my wife and when she heard that Mr. Gass was trying force legislation - she said "Buy the other one". Mr. Gass is 95% assured of losing my business.

[Van Huskey]

Well slap me with a "biskit" and call me gravy. Almost 2 days, 87 replies and no need for moderator intervention.

I am usually right when I predict a thread shutdown, however there is no record of my track record.

My crystal ball says any mandates in the workplace are still 10 years plus down the road and like the UL requirement for riving knives it will result in all saws in the market meeting that requirement, not because the have to but because it is economically easier to have one line of machines. One still has plenty of time to buy a standard cabinet saw if that's what you want or perish the thought buy a better built used saw. Choice is good, we have choice and I pretty much guarantee we will continue to have choices for table saws for the next 20 years anyway.

In the end it will all be simply sound and fury. The only question is who is the poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage.

[Peter Aeschliman]

There seems to be a moral argument going on here... I don't really see it that way.

It's business. This sort of stuff goes on all the time, and it's simply capitalists trying to make the most money they can. Gass did a good thing by making a safety mechanism that will save a lot of people from injuries. Conversely, if you want to get into the moral argument, you could say that the machinery companies who passed up his offer to include the technology in their saws were morally wrong.

You could say that Gass's attempt to make as much money as possible on his invention is morally wrong, but you could also say that about the industry groups who tried to bury his technology.

I don't waste my time on such thoughts. I'm just going to buy the best saw I can with the money I have set aside for it. I weighed my options and my personal level of risk aversion to injury, and I bought a SawStop.

If you chose to see it simply as business, the attempt to get the regulators to require similar safety technology is a business move.... just the same as the way that the competing manufacturers made the business decision to pass on a technology that has way outperformed (in sales) than they probably expected. Gass's approach could also backfire on him profoundly because (as others have hinted) I'm sure he hasn't designed the only technology that can save fingers. So if he were to achieve his goal of getting the legislation passed, he very well might awake sleeping giants as a result.

I hate to bring up the old airbag comparison, which has been used a million times in these sawstop threads. But do you guys not like the fact that airbags are required in cars now? Do you hate that it limits your ability to choose, or are you glad you're less likely to die in a car accident now?

[Brodie Brickey]

In cases like this, where it is for the "public good" (Isn't that what he's arguing?) then any patents should become null and void, since it's obviously much more important to protect the public than to make money.

^Tell that one to the pharmaceutical companies, let me know how far you get.

SawStop is a great product, well made, and uniquely designed. He should have the patents on it. Its not like any of the other companies will do anything with it no matter the price.

This is in great part caused by our litigious society and people's inability to recognize that they're responsible for their own safety. I have the 'right' to run across the Interstate Freeway, but I'd better have some serious scrambling skills or I'll loose my life. The driver who hits me may be charged with 'failure to avoid an object in the lane' or some other bogus law, but I'm still dead. Since no one will take responsibility for themselves we have to blame a corporation selling the product for it. It's all Ryobi's fault Jose shoved his hand into the saw blade, not Jose for being an idiot.(italics used for sarcasm)

Everything now is so safe. You'd think there weren't enough people in the world. Darwinism needs to come more to the forefront and assert itself. Some of the best learning experiences involve pain, an adrenaline rush, and quite possibly a trip to the hospital with the resounding thought repeating in your head "I'm never doing .... again."

I don't own an SS table saw. I'm tempted to hold out for a combination machine with the technology, but I doubt I'll see it here in the US so one may be in my future. Only time will tell.