All table saws to be SawStops?

[Edward Weber]

He didn't make it impossible. He made it difficult for people to do so without compensating him for his IP. If you want to talk about a chilling effect on product development and free markets, then not protecting people's IP is a bigger problem. We aren't talking about patent trolling (though people often mistakenly refer to this situation in that way)


As I posted earlier in the thread, apparently Bosch came to a licensing agreement with SawStop that would have allowed them to sell theor saw in the US. But they chose not to do so.

I read that the settlement has remained secret.
Also lets not forget that Mr Gass is a patent attorney. He knows all the ins and out of the patent system and how to make it benefit himself. With well over 100 patents related to SS, I would say he is patent trolling.
here are but a few
https://patents.justia.com/assignee/sawstop-holding-llc

This may interest anyone following this situation.
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/COP...nd-SawStop.pdf
One small paragraph from page 2
"The requirement of AIM technology in table saws almost certainly would result in most
firms licensing the AIM technology from one of the firms who have patented the
technology. This could grant a large amount of market power in the licensing of AIM
technology. Firms would then have to spend additional money for licensing, along with
installation of the technology. While most firms would likely continue production by
licensing AIM technology, some firms, especially smaller firms, would likely drop out of
the market altogether. This cost analysis captures higher price from licensing, and other
costs, in its measurement of lost consumer surplus. There would also be an additional
increase in price if a significant number of firms exited the market due to licensing …
This impact is not measured because staff is unable to determine, with certainty, how
many firms would exit the market."

[Patrick Varley]

I read that the settlement has remained secret.
Also lets not forget that Mr Gass is a patent attorney. He knows all the ins and out of the patent system and how to make it benefit himself. With well over 100 patents related to SS, I would say he is patent trolling.
here are but a few
https://patents.justia.com/assignee/sawstop-holding-llc

This may interest anyone following this situation.
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/COP...nd-SawStop.pdf
One small paragraph from page 2
"The requirement of AIM technology in table saws almost certainly would result in most
firms licensing the AIM technology from one of the firms who have patented the
technology. This could grant a large amount of market power in the licensing of AIM
technology. Firms would then have to spend additional money for licensing, along with
installation of the technology. While most firms would likely continue production by
licensing AIM technology, some firms, especially smaller firms, would likely drop out of
the market altogether. This cost analysis captures higher price from licensing, and other
costs, in its measurement of lost consumer surplus. There would also be an additional
increase in price if a significant number of firms exited the market due to licensing …
This impact is not measured because staff is unable to determine, with certainty, how
many firms would exit the market."

Are large, multinational tool conglomerates not capable of hiring attorneys with similar patent experience? If not, they seemingly have more pressing problems to address.

The guy spent a lot of time, energy and money developing a product (and then company). He seemingly has a right to be compensated for that, including protection of his ideas. The cautionary tale of what happens in an alternate situation is Robert Kearns and the intermittent windshield wiper.

And patent trolling generally has a specific definition. It involves those who go around and buy patents to things they have no interest in manufacturing or marketing, rather they simply file frivolous suits related to the patents and hope for a settlement.

[Alan Lightstone]

Trying to get some people to follow safe practices is, sadly, a fool's errand. I made it a point in my career to not lecture patients who had serious injuries doing stupid things. Fortunately, Instagram didn't seem to have a large impact when I was doing trauma.

One exception I made was when I was taking care of patients who were on their 3rd serious motorcycle accident. I would always ask them, "Are you going to rebuild your bike?" Invariably, they would say, "of course."

I would pause a few seconds and say, "Buddy. I've got some news for you. You suck at it. Lose the bike or your not going to survive your 4th accident." I assume that none of them listened to my advice. The average IQ of trauma patients some nights was frightening.

[Ray Newman]

Why shouldn't Gass protect his idea(s) with a patent?

Maybe he learned from what happened to Robert Kearn's intermittent windshield wiper system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns

From the Wikipedia link: "Kearns won one of the best known patent infringement cases against Ford Motor Company (1978–1990) and a case against Chrysler Corporation (1982–1992). Having invented and patented the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism, which was useful in light rain or mist, he tried to interest the "Big Three" auto makers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) in licensing the technology. Each rejected his proposal, yet began to install electronic intermittent wipers based on Kearns's design in their cars, beginning in 1969, when Ford rolled out the feature to its Mercury line."

[Ernie Hobbs]

I watched most of the video yesterday- The patent attorney that he interviewed said that at best case, this couldn't be implemented for at least three years. Not sure of how long the patents will still be there for Sawstop, since he they have like 140 of them-
I'm not sure how I feel about it. It sounds like most of the lawsuits aren't coming from users. They are coming from the insurance companies that pay out on claims. So the regular user isn't driving this.

I don't have a Sawstop and I don't plan on buying one anytime soon. But I agree they are good tablesaws and I wouldn't be opposed to getting one if I was in a position that I needed a new one. They're kind of expensive, but so is most everything else in my shop. Every time I upgrade a piece of equipment, the new one is way more than the original one I'm replacing. But my old 1940s Unisaw keeps on running fine and it has been reliable to me for 15 years and for 60+ years to previous owners. Since I put a modern Unifence on it, I have never felt it was unsafe or going to get me. I've had a couple of near misses, but every time I can trace it to something I did that was stupid and I learned from it. I guess I've been lucky, but I try to be careful about using push sticks and try not to put myself in a position to cause my hands to be in a position to be near the blade (or when i do, I'm super careful about technique).

We'll see where this leads. I guess in 10 years I'll be in the market for a Sawstop or another manufacturer licensing their tech.

[Edward Weber]

Why shouldn't Gass protect his idea(s) with a patent?

Maybe he learned from what happened to Robert Kearn's intermittent windshield wiper system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns

From the Wikipedia link: "Kearns won one of the best known patent infringement cases against Ford Motor Company (1978–1990) and a case against Chrysler Corporation (1982–1992). Having invented and patented the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism, which was useful in light rain or mist, he tried to interest the "Big Three" auto makers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) in licensing the technology. Each rejected his proposal, yet began to install electronic intermittent wipers based on Kearns's design in their cars, beginning in 1969, when Ford rolled out the feature to its Mercury line."

If the main theme is really about safety, as Mr Gass has claimed in the past, maybe look at what Volvo did after they invented the three point seat belt.

[Warren Lake]

Had a car once with a lap belt and another seat belt that came through the seat and down to clip into the lap belt. Really nice, the roadmastes the belt is on the post and not as comfortable. Thanks for mentioning to look up Volvo had no idea.

The saw thing is wrong from the start. You have a license for cars and weapons and for trades.

You have a visa you can get a table saw. Not taught most people so they learn as go. Or you learn from a you tube guy who is learning as he goes. They should break down accidents to Hobby and Trade. Trade guys I knew had their fingers yet had huge hours over 50 plus years and at times big pressure which puts the stakes up. They were taught stuff before they could work on the machines. No gaurantees of course but most of them are safer for the teaching they had.

You are treating an issue with a device when not learning in the first place is much of the issue. Some will have more natural ability than others.



Volvo seat belt.JPG

[mike stenson]

The tone of this is funny. I didn't have safety equipment that was transparent to use, neither should you.

It seems that change is the issue.

[jack duren]

Why shouldn't Gass protect his idea(s) with a patent?

Maybe he learned from what happened to Robert Kearn's intermittent windshield wiper system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns

From the Wikipedia link: "Kearns won one of the best known patent infringement cases against Ford Motor Company (1978–1990) and a case against Chrysler Corporation (1982–1992). Having invented and patented the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism, which was useful in light rain or mist, he tried to interest the "Big Three" auto makers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) in licensing the technology. Each rejected his proposal, yet began to install electronic intermittent wipers based on Kearns's design in their cars, beginning in 1969, when Ford rolled out the feature to its Mercury line."

He should protect it.

[Steve Demuth]

Festool does not own the patents. Their parent company does with their ownership of Sawstop in the same way they own Festool, Tanos, etc.

Yes. Thanks for the precision. Sloppy writing on my part to attribute them to Festool.

[Steve Demuth]

My health insurance has begun to offer incentives. Join our gym program and we'll give you points for stuff. Eventually they will track those who go to the gym and those who don't. People who don't meet their thresholds for health/activity will pay more. Folks who smoke already pay more because we know that collectively it's a dangerous hobby/habit. Life is dangerous and the insurance will pay out for accidents etc. They will however make you, as an individual, pay more if you knowingly engage in things that they deem risky behaviors. I don't like it but it will happen and probably sooner than we think.

In the United States, if you're talking about medical insurance, all small group and individual insurance must comply with the ACA guaranteed issue rule: an insurer cannot deny a coverage to anyone (who is eligible to be insured) in the areas the policy is offered, and the insurance premium can only vary based on the applicants, geographical location (zipcode), and smoking status. That's the law. So no, they won't charge you more based on your occupation or hobbies, and can't start doing so unless the law is changed in a significant way. Life insurance is a different matter, with different rules.

[Steve Demuth]

This. Once it's no longer a protected technology, it'll be adopted fast.

And, in as much as the first SawStop PCS was on the market in 2004, that date is very close now, by legal construction. Everything used to construct the PCS will have been in the public domain for a full 22 years by early 2026. You could manufacture and market a pretty close rip-off of the PCS at that date, and be beyond the reach of patent infringement.

But as I said earlier, the primary patents that were at issue with the Bosch saw are all already expired. In particular, the voltage leak detection mechanism and the blade withdrawal mechanism are no longer protected.

I have little doubt, personally, that the CPSC's timing of their proposal to require blade stopping on table saws is related to the ending of patent protection.

[Stan Calow]

No doubt Chinese manufacturers have already been gearing up to make their versions.

[Monte Milanuk]

Glass / Sawstops "concerns" about end-user safety would have a lot more merit if they weren't actively trying to extend those patents that give them an effective choke-hold on the market under the proposed rulings.

[James Jayko]

Living is inherently dangerous.
Owning safety gear doesn't make you safe.

Attachment 514485Attachment 514486Attachment 514487Attachment 514484

But if you don’t think it HELPS, you’re being silly. I’ve seen three people trigger the sawstop in a public workshop that would have 💯 led to three amputations on a Unisaw.

If it prevents 9/10 tablesaw amputations, seems worth it in my book. But I love keeping all 10.