Update on the Bosch ReaXX vs Sawstop issue

[Jim Dwight]

They may very well get some damages - if they actually "win". It's far from over at this point. But it is very unlikely they will recover legal fees. That typically only occurs when one party is grossly in the wrong and the winning party can show hardship from the expense. SS could try, Bosch is much bigger, but I doubt the court would think Bosch knew they were wrong in offering a competing product.

The guy behind SS is a patent lawyer but he hired outside counsel as did Bosch so they both have substantial costs.

[Art Mann]

I know Stephen Gass doesn't want it to be known, but the vast majority of table saw users without a Sawstop will never seriously injure themselves. I know a bunch right here on SMC. You never here about an accident free lifetime of sawing because it is not news and nobody wants to talk or hear about it. I know several woodworkers of 40 to 50 years, including myself, and the only injuries I know of from any of them is the result of a kickback, an issue at which Sawstop is no better than any other manufacturer.

As far as vilifying Gass? From what I've read, I have respect for him. Such an "obvious" thing that wasn't being done and clearly has saved thousands of fingers. Trying to require new table saws to require the technology? I wish that were the case because the technology would then be more widespread, cheaper, and more fingers saved. Mandatory safety features makes things more expensive. The automotive industry has been complaining about that for decades. The value to society is too great. Gass claims that mass production of the technology would reduce the cost to $55 for a benchtop saw. That absolutely seems plausible to me. Economies of Scale. The Power Tool Institute claims the minimal cost is several hundred. The Power Tool Institute arguments are lousy if you ask me.

[Mike Henderson]

I know Stephen Gass doesn't want it to be known, but the vast majority of table saw users without a Sawstop will never seriously injure themselves. I know a bunch right here on SMC. You never hear about an accident free lifetime of sawing because it is not news and nobody wants to talk or hear about it. I know several woodworkers of 40 to 50 years, including myself, and the only injuries I know of from any of them is the result of a kickback, an issue at which Sawstop is no better than any other manufacturer.

The problem, Art, is that a certain percentage of woodworkers will injure themselves on a table saw. Not the majority, but enough. We have lots of statistics about how many table saw injuries there are every year and the cost of those injuries. And none of us know who will have those injuries.

It's like auto accidents. Lots of people will go their whole life and never have an accident. But we know for certain that a percentage of drivers will have accidents, and of that percentage, some will die, some will be disabled for life, and some will walk away with minor or no injuries. Since we can't know who will have the accidents we mandate safety features on all cars.

Table saws fall into the same situation, in my opinion.

Mike

[David Kumm]

Vehicles are driven on public roads, paid for by others, and shared with other drivers. We are almost as likely to injure others as ourselves. I Understand the argument but don't think the vehicle analogy is relevant unless buying the saw for employees or public use. Dave

[John Lanciani]

Vehicles are driven on public roads, paid for by others, and shared with other drivers. We are almost as likely to injure others as ourselves. I Understand the argument but don't think the vehicle analogy is relevant unless buying the saw for employees or public use. Dave

Actually David I think Mike's analogy has some merit. Safety features like airbags and seat belts protect the occupants, not the public at large. I have been driving for over 30 years and have never needed either one but I don't get to choose whether or not I have to have (and pay for) them. I'm no fan of Gass's tactics but as it is now we consumers get to choose whether or not we want or need the extra level of safety.

[David Kumm]

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

[Dave Sabo]

I think it's only acceptable because I use public roads.

Crossing the the street is dangerous, perhaps we should mandate and pay for automaticly raising vehicle barriers at all crosswalks ? I'm sure you'll all agree that will prevent pedestrians from getting run over which will lower deaths and injuries. And you city folks won't mind paying for all the units in the small towns where they can't afford them.

Right ?

except ...............there'll be the imbecile that decides to cross when it's not his turn and gets run over anyway.



but.............maybe SS (or Bosch ) will invent a flesh sensing laser and an explosive deployment device for those barriers that detects the jaywalker and the approaching car so the barrier deploys and stops the car.

[Chris Padilla]

Folks, please keep politics out of the discussion. SS threads have a way of blowing up but this one has done rather well so I'd like to keep it open and the discussion going.

[Ronald Blue]

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.

[David J Blackburn]

Being a litigation attorney is more lucrative than most jobs, yes.

There are no damages available as a remedy in the ITC. If SS wins in a patent suit in district court - which would likely also prevent Bosch from making parts/service/etc in the United States, not just prevent them from importing - then it can get legal fees (hard to get) and damages (easy to get if you win, but the amount can be all over the place).

In the ITC, all SS is able to do - and it did - is stop Bosch from importing stuff.

[Art Mann]

The vehicle safety analogy above is a very good analogy. I worked as an engineer in the automotive industry for most of my career and know a little about how it works. At one point, I was in charge of product verification for certain airbag and antilock brake controllers for a particular automotive manufacturer. Every safety decision that is made in the design of an automobile is a trade off between cost and benefit. I have looked at proposed crash protection systems that would greatly increase survivability in head on collisions. Neither my company, nor any other, adapted anything like this because it would increase the cost of the vehicle beyond what many people could afford. The same is true of Sawstop technology. Their technology increases the price of their machines to the point that some customers can't buy even the cheapest one. 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. If we require that all new saws include the Sawstop technology, then we are locking a very large number of budget constrained people from owning a new table saw at all. I don't think that is right.

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.

[Nick Decker]

"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.

[Simon MacGowen]

"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.

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

[Randy Heinemann]

At the risk of getting a lot of blowback . . . I have never understood why people are so hard on the Sawstop guy. It seems to me that he's doing nothing but trying to protect his business and his investment in a company and technology which revolutionized the table saw industry where safety is concerned. That Sawstop makes great, high quality saws on top of it, is a credit to him and his company. Is he kind of difficult to deal with? Sure, fro what I hear. However, if you can buy a high quality table saw for about t he same price as other of the same quality on the market and get the blade brake safety feature on top of it, seems to me it's a great deal. I don't know if he's right or wrong with his efforts to protect his patents, but he deserves the protection of US laws and he has that. He definitely must look to the future when his patents run out which will be in 5 years (?) or so. At that point, it will be the quality of the Sawstop saws which he has to offer and that will still be there.

[Bill ThompsonNM]

First, you can go to www.uspto.gov and enter in the patents and see what exactly they cover. Second, you are demonstrating precisely why the system is working as intended. "30 or 40 years ago". If it were so obvious, then it would have been done 30 or 40 years ago, right? Nope, it wasn't obvious and took a new guy to come up with it. Do you think he should have just given it to the large, established tool companies? The fact is, America is still an innovation leader because of our system on intellectual property (even though it is outdated for software). Without patent protection, there is no incentive to pursue new ideas. Yet new ideas typically come from startups rather than big, established companies that are stagnant in culture and stagnant in new ideas. Without patent protection, if someone like Gass does come up with a new idea, then large established companies can choose to steal it and/or crush small companies based on the idea. Which destroys incentive for innovation and startups. I also don't blame him for petitioning the CSPC for requiring flesh-detection technology. If he tried to be unreasonable regarding patent royalties, he would be litigated for that. Qualcomm holds patents that are necessary to build cellphones that speak CDMA/LTE, and the U.S. government hands out spectrum licenses that pretty much require companies to license those patents. It is the way the world works.

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.