Saw Stop Question

[Gary Keedwell]

There is a little debate going on in another forum. Maybe this belongs in Off Topic but here goes: One side of the coin says that the inventor of saw stop wanted too much money for royalties so manufacturers balked. The other side of the coin is that manufacturers didn't like the legal ramifications if they incorporated it into their machines. I don't want to state what side I think is right to be fair.
Anybody know for sure?

Gary

[James Phillips]

The guy developed a technology and tried to sell it. The manufacturers did not think they could sell them for the amount required to justify the purchase of the technology. Simple economic decision (which turned out to be mistaken). I am not sure on this, but this is what I was told.

[Randal Stevenson]

Going to have to agree with both. The article I read almost 2 years ago, stated that while there was some interest, they thought the fees were too high, and while arguing that point, one of a group of them (different manufacturers), brought up a legal question (how can it be that Joe Blow can invent this in his garage and we can't come up with it, are we liable for NOT comming up with it, etc).

[Greg Pavlov]

Going to have to agree with both. The article I read almost 2 years ago, stated that while there was some interest, they thought the fees were too high, and while arguing that point, one of a group of them (different manufacturers), brought up a legal question (how can it be that Joe Blow can invent this in his garage and we can't come up with it, are we liable for NOT comming up with it, etc).

I don't know what the arguments/discussions actually were, since I - like most people - wasn't present for them, but to me, many of the suppositions lose credence when viewed in light of the fact that riving knife technology has been available for a long time and most N.A. manufacturers and importers were ignoring them. I very much suspect that its sudden popularity among such manufacturers is the direct result of Sawstop's appearance on the market.

[John Karam]

I once heard a Saw Stop Rep say that they did their own machine because other manufactures were worried about being liable if someone got hurt while using their system with the saw stop technology (If it malfunctioned and cut a persons finger off).

Food for thought.

[Jason Beam]

I spoke to the man himself at AWFS in Las Vegas. He says that they wanted a certain percentage royalty and nobody wanted to pay that much. They also pointed out the required retooling costs because their castings would have had to be redone for most of their saws.

I spoke to a Steel City rep who was with Delta at the time and he said they came to them with a deal that outlined a royalty that Delta felt was too high and turned them down.

I got this information from people who were highly involved in the deal so I'm sticking with that story.

[Gary Keedwell]

Wow Jason..sounds real convincing. My lasting impression was the legal aspect but I should have been more suspicious, since money is usually the answer to many questions Maybe it was both?

Gary

[Jason Beam]

Given that the inventor and top execs of Saw Stop are lawyers, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some legal fears on the other end of the table. Kinda like paying the mob for protection, huh?

[Bob Wingard]

The version I heard has it that representatives from all the major manufacturers banned together and rejected the technology in hopes they could cause it to go away .. .. it didn't .. ..

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Gary,

Early on there was a lot of discussion about Sawstop. What I heard is that they approached the major manufacturers. The major manufacturers would have had to retool their saw heads(for lack of a better term) to make the device work and Sawstop wanted a very high percentage for their patented device. When the manufacturers didn't buy into to it, Sawstop petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to force all manufacturers to use their device or a similar device. It's been a couple of years now since I last saw anything about the results of that petition. If you do a search here on Sawstop and look you'll find some old threads where it got very heated discussions going. I didn't particularly care for their "forcing" the issue with the CPSC as in my opinion it would force the lower income w/w out of w/w by making the cost of a table saw beyond their financial means. It got several heated discussions several years ago.

[Scott Rollins]

I have a sawstop so I have a bias toward the saw($$$ $$$). I spoke to one of the technical reps (Tony) who said that "a" protection system of similar design would be required on all saws sold in USA in a couple of years (I think he said 2015).

Any way here is a article that was published...

http://medgadget.com/archives/2006/0...ga_of_the.html

Excerpt:

The power tool industry, however, has a very different view of the subject. Representatives cite a plethora of technical problems with SawStop technology, including too many "false positives" or "nuisance trips," cost of replacement cartridges after the brake fires, and difficulties cutting conductive materials, such as moist wood. Moreover, they say, Gass is asking for an 8 percent royalty on each saw sold, a figure they describe as ridiculous.



Despite these challenges, the Consumer Product Safety Commision has sided with Gass...

Acting on a petition from Gass, engineers at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recommended that the government begin a "rulemaking process" that could result in mandatory safety standards for table saws. Days later, the agency's commissioners shocked the power tool industry by concurring with the recommendation.

There's no doubt this is excellent technology. However, it would also be unfortunate that the price of every table saw increase by $50 because regulators have decided to play nanny. Gass's proposed royalties seem to be the biggest reason the industry has issues with his technology.

[Gary Keedwell]

Ken,

I remember the threads Ken. I started a search but got caught up with time constraints. I was hoping for a quick definitive answer but I can see that it is more complex then I thought.

Gary

[Mike Henderson]

Anyone can petition the CPSC for anything but that doesn't mean that the petition will cause any rule making.

During the previous discussions, some people objected to requiring safety features, such as the blade stop mechanism, for a variety of reasons, including the one Ken mentioned - that it'd add to the cost of the saw.

The problem with not requiring safety features is that the poor wind up disproportionally exposed to the risks because they can least afford the safety features and will purchase equipment without it. But the poor are also least able to pay for the treatment required for the injuries caused by the lack of safety equipment. So the rest of us pay for their treatment.

That’s the reason we have safety regulations in many different areas of life. As a society we want to protect people from injury, not just because we care about our fellow citizens, but to protect ourselves from the financial burden of the injuries caused by the lack of safety features.

Like all complex issues, the issue is one of degree - how much protection at how much cost. Not easy to answer but best decided by a free exchange of opinions by the citizens.

Mike

[Kevin Groenke]

Well stated Mike.

The best recounting of the story that I've seen is here:
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6360672.html

[Gary Keedwell]

Well stated Mike.

The best recounting of the story that I've seen is here:
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6360672.html

I could not find anything at that link.