Quote Originally Posted by Edward Weber View Post
For businesses and institutions, I think it makes sense, for the individual, not as cut and dried.
I certainly don't like how SS positioned themselves in the market with their enormous web of patents but they have saved many from serious injury.
I couldn't find the actual number but I have seen things like 6,000 fingers saved. Why are so many people getting so close to the blade? SS may have saved them but I would like to know what led to all those activation's. I would rather people go through a training course or take an operators test to show they understand how to use a TS safely, rather than only relying on the built in safety feature. Maybe a little knowledge could lower that number.

My position is that as long as the safety system doesn't impede the normal operation of the saw, why not. That being said, there are, IMO better safety systems than the hotdog sensing technology out there, Many have been around for years but with SS batting down everything that might even come close to possibly infringing on their turf, there's no point in bringing anything forward.

This is another reason I don't like the original SS owners point of view, SS may be good but you're effectively stifling innovation with your monopoly.

Altendorf and others have systems that are non destructive, meaning you don't have to buy cartridges and new blades after activation, you simply reset the system. While the cost of a blade/cartridge is a small price to pay to avoid injury, in the event of an accidental misfire with SS, you need to pay.

I also DO NOT believe that tables saws are inherently dangerous, this is anthropomorphisizing a piece of machinery. This applies to all human operated tools, hand or power, the operator and how he/she uses it, is what makes it safe or unsafe.
My table saw/s have never done anything to anyone, they are safe.
FYI, Sawstop did exactly what every company and individual business person does: fully publish their invention in exchange for a 20 year (less than that in practice) monopoly. This is what a patent is. It doesn't stifle innovation; it encourages it. Otherwise, companies would be encouraged to have trade secrets that never see the light of day, and the public would never be able to improve on a company's ideas. The fact that few other companies have come out with safety devices tells you something about the complexity of the problem, the perceived market value of such an invention relative to its cost, or both.