Update on the Bosch ReaXX vs Sawstop issue

[Bill ThompsonNM]

Safety features mandated on automobiles by the federal government aren't lining the pocket of only one company and to my knowledge no auto manufacturer builds their air bag systems. They are designed and manufactured by a third party. Air bags were developed in the 50's but didn't begin to be used on autos until much later. In the 70's Ford and GM both dabbled in the market with some experimental offerings. TRW began manufacturing the gas fired air bag in 1994. They became mandatory on all new vehicles in 1998. I agree with Art that there are a lot of woodworkers that have safely used table saws for their whole lives. I am not going to suggest that some people shouldn't run power tools. Accidents do happen. However nearly all can be anticipated with a little forethought. Respect what hand or power tools can do because they can both injure us so very easily. IF you are fatigued or suffering from some other impairment GET out of the shop. I have no dog in the fight but resent Gass's attempt to force his system on everyone. Regardless of how this turns out within 5 years we will have other options. You can be sure of that. I am very patient.

Hmm all this talk of air bags-- we could just put one in the table in front of the bag-- then if you touch the blade-- boom and it pushes you away!
😀

[Mike Henderson]

No, the problem is that the recent patent office is overwhelmed and Frequently gives out patents for things that have been in general use for years.
Many patents are also given with much greater coverage than they deserve. Large companies will frequently pay licensing rather than litigate. Small companies just go out of business. In this case it would appear the patent isn't encouraging innovation its hindering the development of a non blade damaging, resettable solution.

You underestimate the difficulty of getting a patent. I've been through the process a number of times and it always goes like this:

They send the disclosure back to you and reject your claims as prior art - citing a number of previous patents. Your attorney then has to answer that rejection and show why your patent idea is not covered by those previous patents.

If you're lucky, the reply will be sufficient and you'll get your patent.

But most of the time, they reject a second time. Then, your attorney has to narrow the claims and resubmit.

If your attorney did a good job, you'll get your patent after that second reply. But sometimes that's not enough and you have to keep working the disclosure.

My opinion is that the patent examiner basically makes your attorney do the "examination" before the patent can be issued.

When a patent case is brought before the court, the first thing the defendant does is to try to show that the patent was issued in error. So, in essence, there's another "examination" of the validity of the patent by the court. In some cases, the patent is held to have been issued in error and is invalid.

Mike

[eugene thomas]

I was in amazon today shopping and a bosch brake cartrage showed up. though could not sell them in usa now?

[Mike Henderson]

I was in amazon today shopping and a bosch brake cartrage showed up. though could not sell them in usa now?

No, can't import them.

Mike

[Chris Hachet]

I'm a new SS ICS owner. I bought it because I was impressed with the quality of the saw. The brake is secondary for me. Thus far I am very happy with it.

This is my thinking. I wish they built the saw at a cheaper price without the safety feature.

[Chris Hachet]

I am saying all this because I remember the days when I made beehive interior parts for sale and my own personal use. I used a Craftsman 1 hp table saw, a 4 inch off brand jointer and a router table that consisted of a low end Craftsman router, a plywood panel with a hole in the middle and a 2X4 clamped on as a fence. I would hate to give some prospective woodworker the impression he has to buy expensive tools to prevent getting maimed when that is obviously false.

A metric crap ton of good work has been done with inexpensive and simple tools. For much of Americas history we built most of what we built with simple hand tools.

Common sense goes a long, long way in using power tools.

[Chris Hachet]

"Sawstop's dinky jobsite saw is more than twice as expensive as a contractor's saw you can buy at Lowes or Home Depot and isn't as capable in most respects."

As an owner of the SawStop jobsite saw, I'd like to hear how it is inferior, in any respect, to jobsite saws sold at Lowes or Home Depot. Or anywhere else.

Space limitations kept me from the cabinet saw market, and I researched jobsite saws long and hard. Please tell me what I missed. As I've said before, the quality of the saw was more important to me than the safety features.

We have that very saw in our theater department for building sets in the University I work at. It is a decent saw but nowhere near as good as almost any major brand cabinet saw IMHO.

There is no shame in having a space limitation. I worked with a basic Craftsman 1 HP contractors saw for many years. It had an Incra Fence on it, but was otherwise a stock Craftsman saw. I got a lot of good use out of that saw.

Watching some of our student build sets, I am very glad for the safety feature in this case...!

[Chris Hachet]

As an owner of the SAWSTOP professional model, an occasional user of the jobsite model and a frequent user of the Indust. model, I could say nothing but just laughed at that dinky comment. We can all dislike SawStop or its owners or its company or its prices or even its name, but trashing its products without proofs is not a gentleman's act.

Simon

Sawstop discussions invariably produce more heat than light. I prefer to produce sawdust myself.

[Dave Sabo]

No, can't import them.

Mike

Mike, I don't think you have your fact correct on this one.

Bosch is still able to sell the cartridges in the USA from stock they amassed before the import ban. Thinking the management team didn't hedge their bets by stockpiling saws and cartridges before the ban is a bit naive. Dealers that have have stock can also continue to sell saws and cartridges.

Bosch cannot import any more units.

But I can. So can you, or anyone else that wants to jet over to Europe and fill their suitcase with some and bring em back.

I'd have to double check this, but it's also my understanding that they can also sell the cartridges if they are made in the USA and not imported. Given Bosch's manufacturing presence here, I'm betting they can whip those out I'm sufficient numbers easy enough. Assuming they didn't stockpile five years worth already.

Bottom line is is if you have a saw, or are buying one, you don't have to worry about getting cartridges for it. There are plenty of them already in the distribution channel. Plus, they are pretty generous with the included ones in the box.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike, I don't think you have your fact correct on this one.

Bosch is still able to sell the cartridges in the USA from stock they amassed before the import ban. Thinking the management team didn't hedge their bets by stockpiling saws and cartridges before the ban is a bit naive. Dealers that have have stock can also continue to sell saws and cartridges.

Bosch cannot import any more units.

But I can. So can you, or anyone else that wants to jet over to Europe and fill their suitcase with some and bring em back.

I'd have to double check this, but it's also my understanding that they can also sell the cartridges if they are made in the USA and not imported. Given Bosch's manufacturing presence here, I'm betting they can whip those out I'm sufficient numbers easy enough. Assuming they didn't stockpile five years worth already.

Bottom line is is if you have a saw, or are buying one, you don't have to worry about getting cartridges for it. There are plenty of them already in the distribution channel. Plus, they are pretty generous with the included ones in the box.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I didn't say that Bosch, specifically, is no longer allowed to import any of those particular saws or parts for the saws.

Mike

[I'm not really following this situation but I assume that SS has also brought a patent infringement suit in US courts. If they prevail there, Bosch will no longer be allowed to sell saws or parts in the US, no matter what the origin. I suspect they went to the trade commission because they could get a decision faster there than they could with a patent infringement case in US courts. Patent cases can go on for years.]

[Randy Heinemann]

Never have had a serious injury and I've been using table saws since the 1970's. However, I think the odds are against me, for one. Second, as I get older, I know for a fact that my reactions are slower (maybe only a fraction of a second) and my concentration sometimes isn't what it used to be. Regardless of all of that, if I have a choice between a saw that has the Sawstop blade brake and one that does not, I will pay for that feature and I did when I replaced my saw. I guess it's just like life, auto, or health insurance. Maybe you'll never need it, but when you do you're always glad you have it. Just a matter of how you personally look at life I think. For me, being sure that a kickback, loss of attention, or just plain stupid mistake will not result in losing my finger is worth the price.

[Homer Faucett]

Fair point John. I doubt there is only one supplier of air bags or seat belts though. If the government mandates usage of a devise due to the overwhelming benefit to society, you could also argue that public safety supercedes patent protection so the marketplace can price the technology. Not sure that would be good for SS. Dave

Actually, there are laws and regulations related to this. I see a lot of outrage from people here regarding patent law who don't seem to have invested time in actually reading about it. Having a license to practice before the US Patent Office, I have a fair amount of understanding and have actually put in the time reading and practicing. I've seen guys go bankrupt trying to take a great product to market, only to have the competitors jump in once it was free.

Gass put his time, money, and intellect on the line. He received a patent for it. He tried to license it to everyone in the industry. They refused. Now, he's succeeded in overcoming the odds and building a market for his invention. He's defending his patents legally to recoup his investment.

That's business 101 in technology industry. You don't like it because you've never leveraged your life in a high risk undertaking just to have someone try to copy you and undercut your market. You'd do the same if you had the savvy. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes or at least try to think about it before throwing stones and making hypotheticals you haven't read up on. We'd still be using 1920's pharmaceuticals and paying $18/bushel for corn if your reality existed.

FYI, look up patents for seatbelts and airbags. There are definitely patents on those. It's a perfect example for the originating patent situation like this where you have to take a license to play.

[David Kumm]

Homer, I think you missed my point. I have no problem with defending a patent and agree that Gass should do so. My complaint is with any inventor patenting a safety devise and lobbying for the government to mandate usage. When doing so you are trading a free market for a pricing monopoly. Asking the government to create the market yet allow you to license the sole choice at your determined price is where I differ. I've been in business for 40+ years and understand the risk. Difference is no one is forced to use my services. If they were I would not expect to price at will. Dave

[Homer Faucett]

Homer, I think you missed my point. I have no problem with defending a patent and agree that Gass should do so. My complaint is with any inventor patenting a safety devise and lobbying for the government to mandate usage. When doing so you are trading a free market for a pricing monopoly. Asking the government to create the market yet allow you to license the sole choice at your determined price is where I differ. I've been in business for 40+ years and understand the risk. Difference is no one is forced to use my services. If they were I would not expect to price at will. Dave

You apparently did not read my post thoroughly or look up the area you are complaining about. Lobbying for usage of a patented system or item for a particular market is highly regulated, and precludes you from having anyone you know on the board you are applying to.

You also made an argument regarding airbags and seatbelts that completely undercuts your argument, as you did not look it up. Those items are now completely required for safety, although there are base patents that have been required for licensing and participating, or require significant design around costs. Further, I highly doubt you have read the actual claims of the Gass base patent or know how to construe them, although you have cast aspersions on his enforcement of them. You continue to belittle a man for doing the most logical thing to further his business. I wonder how you would feel if someone did the same to you?

[Mike Henderson]

Homer, I think you missed my point. I have no problem with defending a patent and agree that Gass should do so. My complaint is with any inventor patenting a safety devise and lobbying for the government to mandate usage. When doing so you are trading a free market for a pricing monopoly. Asking the government to create the market yet allow you to license the sole choice at your determined price is where I differ. I've been in business for 40+ years and understand the risk. Difference is no one is forced to use my services. If they were I would not expect to price at will. Dave

I participated in international standards meetings for communications. Every standard that I was involved with had quite a few patented concepts included. If a company was going to implement the standard, they had to use the patents. You didn't have to examine the other company's product - if they advertised that they met the standard, they used your patents (if your patents were part of the standard).

To participate in the standards meetings, each company had to agree to license their patents that were included in the standard "freely and reasonably". Freely was easy to define - the patents would be licensed to all comers. Reasonably was more difficult but there were some historical guidelines.

But for lower priced products, such as dial modems, if you did not have any patents that you could trade, you probably could not compete in the market. The patent fees would make your product too expensive.

There's a dispute going on right now between Apple and Qualcomm about what a "reasonable" patent license fee is. For more info, google "apple qualcomm lawsuit".

I suspect that if "flesh sensing technology" were to become a mandated feature, the agency issuing the mandate would have some requirements on the licensing fees for required patents. If they didn't, the patent holder(s) could become a monopoly provider by simply making the license fees so large that no one could produce the product for a reasonable price.

Mike