Update on the Bosch ReaXX vs Sawstop issue

[Mike Henderson]

Looks like the Bosch ReaXX saw is banned from import now. See article here (http://www.woodworkersjournal.com/bosch-reaxx-jobsite-table-saw-import-ban-now-effect/).

The article indicates it also includes parts for saws already in the US.

Mike

[Ben Rivel]

Wow... Destroyed them. Well, so much for that.

[eugene thomas]

Well sure bosch can set their saw in waiting for few years and still survive. The clock keeps ticking on sawstop...

[Bob Vallaster]

Mike,

Thanks for the news. I stocked cartridges after reading the preceding thread. No regrets on the saw: it's a fine piece of equipment.

Having read the linked article, I gather Bosch will support units already in service with stock on hand. Might get dicey if they cannot replenish spares...

BobV

[Matt Day]

How many more years on SS's patent?

[Rod Sheridan]

Wow... Destroyed them. Well, so much for that.

Only in the USA which is a very small portion of the global market........Regards, Rod.

[Mike Henderson]

Only in the USA which is a very small portion of the global market........Regards, Rod.
I would imagine that for that particular saw, the USA would have been a fair sized market for Bosch. It's somewhat expensive so I think it will sell better in the advanced economies than in third world countries.

Also, I have no idea whether SawStop obtained patents on their technology in other countries. If you think your product will have a decent market in certain countries other than the USA, people often do get patents in those countries. An ITC ruling on the patents in one member country could carry over to the other member countries, I suppose.

Mike

[Bill Dufour]

I believe a patent is 17 years. But I have a feeling they had the patent for a few years before they made any saws. Of course as they reprogram the electronics they will try to claim each update as a new patent date.
Bill

[Frederick Skelly]

Thanks for the update Mike.

IIRC, the Wright brothers fought hard to protect their patents too. Over time, other people still made airplanes. This too shall pass.

Fred

[Rod Sheridan]

Mike, while I agree with your comment regarding third world countries, my understanding is that the order only covers the USA.

That leaves Canada and all of Europe as a market for a safe portable saw, it's a pretty big market.

In North America the safety focus isn't anywhere as well established as it is in the EU, I would expect that a higher percentage of woodworkers in the EU would opt for the safety feature compared to NA users...........Regards, Rod.

[Mike Henderson]

Thanks for the update Mike.

IIRC, the Wright brothers fought hard to protect their patents too. Over time, other people still made airplanes. This too shall pass.

Fred

Yes, patents all expire. It'll be interesting to see how SawStop does without patent protection. I always think of Xerox and how they fared after their patents expired.

Mike

[Chris Hachet]

Yes, patents all expire. It'll be interesting to see how SawStop does without patent protection. I always think of Xerox and how they fared after their patents expired.

MikeI think they may actually be in real trouble which is a shame, they build nice saws.

[Art Mann]

If they go down the tubes after the patent expires, I will have no pity for them at all. The company spent 10's of thousands of dollars lobbying the federal government to make passive blade technology on table saws a requirement. Of course, since no other technology existed, they were effectively forcing me and all other potential table saw buyers to buy their saw at whatever price they demanded. Fortunately, their utterly self serving efforts failed. I will never support a company or organization trying to take away my right to choose what kind of saw I buy.

[Kevin Womer]

I think they may actually be in real trouble which is a shame, they build nice saws.

Totally agree with you.

[Nick Decker]

If they continue to build good saws, how will they be in trouble? I bought my SawStop more for the quality of the saw than for the safety stuff.

[Greg Peterson]

I'm ambivalent about the matter. I do think the SS is a very well made TS. I've not used one, but have seen them and played around with them in show rooms. They certainly pass the eye test.
I've not heard any complaints about the quality of the SS. I've come to the conclusion it is simply a fine tool.
That said, I find their business tactics unsavory. I'm confident they've done everything to the letter of the law, but...
SS has designed a fine tool but it will be a challenge to muster any sympathy for them once competition is allowed into the market.

[Roger Marty]

I think they may actually be in real trouble which is a shame, they build nice saws.


I highly doubt it. They're a small company with a nice product in a niche market. It seems unlikely a competitor can significantly undercut them in price for the cabinet saws. I can see their jobsite product being eaten away a bit by mass-market (Home Depot) saws that come out with cheaper alternatives.

[Simon MacGowen]

Very happy with my SawStop, a user for over a decade with zero tablesaw incident, and I expect the saw will serve me well for another decade, regardless of whether its patent runs out or not. I support SAWSTOP but welcome any legal competition against it as competition encourages better service or price.

I would like to see another cabinet saw with finger saving technology and quality similar to SawStop which will drive prices down for many woodworkers who dont want to pay $3000 to $5000 for a SawStop. They deserve to be protected by a safer saw which I get to enjoy all these years.

Simon

[Roger Marty]

I highly doubt it. They're a small company with a nice product in a niche market. It seems unlikely a competitor can significantly undercut them in price for the cabinet saws. I can see their jobsite product being eaten away a bit by mass-market (Home Depot) saws that come out with cheaper alternatives.

The other reason I doubt SawStop is in trouble-- while the patents surely cover aspects like capacitive coupling as a flesh detector for a saw blade and etc., I suspect there is also a fair amount of trade secret and know-how in actually engineering the system. Is an old-school tool company going to pony up for the engineering know-how to productize the system? Bosch clearly has the engineering know-how-- hell, Bosch is the company that designs/manufactures the radars used for Tesla's autopilot driving feature. But Jet? Or Delta? Those are old-school tool companies that likely don't have an once of software or electronics talent. And they may not have the money to invest in it either.

[mreza Salav]

When the original battle started unlike many others in that thread (posted here) I suspected this would happen; no surprise here at all for me.
Eventually, they will be other players in the field. Bosch system seems superior for small saws but I suspect it would be difficult to adapt to larger saws.

[Kurt Kintner]

I'm with Nick..... I seldom think of the safety feature.... My PCS was a joy to assemble...
The quality of the whole package, IMO, is the best in the market....

[Roger Marty]

When the original battle started unlike many others in that thread (posted here) I suspected this would happen; no surprise here at all for me.
Eventually, they will be other players in the field. Bosch system seems superior for small saws but I suspect it would be difficult to adapt to larger saws.

This guy put his hand into both systems. Looks like the SawStop resulted in less blood than the Reaxx

https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools/power/corded/saws/bosch-reaxx-1041a-vs-sawstop-jss-mca/14982/

[Scott Brader]

There has to be more to it than just the capacitance sensing blade technology. That's been around for ages in the medical field with various surgical and cast saws. SawStop may make a great saw, but their owner/founder rubs me the wrong way. I would take a SS if I won one somewhere, but I won't support him with my $$$$.

[Charles P. Wright]

The other reason I doubt SawStop is in trouble-- while the patents surely cover aspects like capacitive coupling as a flesh detector for a saw blade and etc., I suspect there is also a fair amount of trade secret and know-how in actually engineering the system. Is an old-school tool company going to pony up for the engineering know-how to productize the system? Bosch clearly has the engineering know-how-- hell, Bosch is the company that designs/manufactures the radars used for Tesla's autopilot driving feature. But Jet? Or Delta? Those are old-school tool companies that likely don't have an once of software or electronics talent. And they may not have the money to invest in it either.
Stanley Black & Decker (DeWalt) and TTI (Ryobi, Ridgid) surely have the resources to produce a job site saw if they want. I think they might maintain a good following in the cabinet saw market, but the job site saw market is going to be won on price.

[Mike Henderson]

Stanley Black & Decker (DeWalt) and TTI (Ryobi, Ridgid) surely have the resources to produce a job site saw if they want. I think they might maintain a good following in the cabinet saw market, but the job site saw market is going to be won on price.
I doubt if price is going to be the only determinant. A contractor needs a saw that will not break down, and safety features become very important for insurance reasons. Additionally, a serious accident will generally shut down a work site and that costs money also.

A contractor could easily lose a lot more than the few dollars s/he saves buying the cheapest job site saw.

Mike

[Jim Becker]

Woodshop News article says they will be able to provide parts for existing customers...I hope that that gets clarifies for those who have already purchased the tool.

[Simon MacGowen]

Woodshop News article says they will be able to provide parts for existing customers...I hope that that gets clarifies for those who have already purchased the tool.

Up to whatever existing inventory they have or whatever they can produce inside US as the ban is about imports, and the retailers no longer can import new parts, if my understanding of the news is correct.

Simon

[Dave Sabo]

A few thoughts:

Do you think Bosch is so inept as to not have already stockpiled inventory before the ban actually took effect ? Certainly they didn't wake up yesterday and have an oh crap moment wondering if they'd have egg on their face and upset the few people who did jump on board with their saw by not having parts in hand to keep them running for a few years.

You do know that bosch has manufacturing facilities in the U.S. And they make cartridges similar to Reaxx for the auto industry?

Do we suppose Stanley/B&D and TTi have been sitting still all these years since they decided not to license Gass's device. They have capable management teams that plan long term too. As well as designers, engineers and budgets for coming up with a similar solution. They also have a humongous and established distribution pipeline to sell their new saw. Something SS will never have.

While Bosch can't import the stuff, I can't see a practical way to keep an individual from getting Amazon to deliver a cartridge or two to their doorstep from the European distribution chain. Or one of the Bosch forum members from bringing back a couple from a vacation or business trip to keep a fellow member's saw working.

Do do we think that Delta, Powermatic /Jet ,or General won't be able to source a similar solution after the patent expires to add to their saws for less than $1000? Do we think those brands still have enough storied history to compete with SS?

Who wants to bet me $100 that the Chineese (who manufacture SS) don't already have copies of the plans to Gass's gizmos and also have their own manufacturing and marketing plan ready to roll out a cheap copy once the patent expires ? Even if they don't have it on the shelf today, do you think it'd take them more than a quarter to reverse engineer it when the expiration date lands ?

Anyone flown on a Wright plane lately ? Bet you've been on a Boeing though.

[Art Mann]

Those of you who refer to the capacitive sensing technology as some sort of high tech near miracle need to realize that the same technology is used all over the place in industrial applications and has been for decades. Gass just thought of a clever way to apply existing technology.

[Todd Willhoit]

This guy put his hand into both systems. Looks like the SawStop resulted in less blood than the Reaxx

https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools/power/corded/saws/bosch-reaxx-1041a-vs-sawstop-jss-mca/14982/

Slapping/slamming a palm and dragging a finger are hardly controlled tests. In addition the Bosch result images are close-up vs the SawStop images making it difficult to compare visually. From the text, "The results [from the SawStop] were very similar to what we experienced from the Bosch Reaxx."

[Rick Fisher]

It appears the patents all expire between 2021 and 2024 .. 2021 is more likely.. SawStop has a bit over 4 years left ..

[Roger Marty]

And I'll bet you $100 that in 2025, SawStop is still the leading cabinet saw. They're the only cabinet saw that my local stores (Woodcraft and one other) even carry.

It is not the capacitive coupling, it is probably the software.

Black-and-Decker/Stanley? Phff. Do they even sell a product with a microprocessor?

I'm with Gass. The tool companies response was pathetic as shown by Colbert.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/hgxqxc/the-colbert-report-people-who-are-destroying-america---sawstop

[Bill ThompsonNM]

The patents for this have always bern amazing to me. 30 or 40 years ago when the patent office was doing its job they would never have issued one for capacitive sensing of flesh. Patents are not supposed to apply to processes where any competent engineer would have made the same decisions. We all use capacitive sense for fingers every day and have for many years. (Used your phone lately?). Capacitive sense keyboards snd screens were developed well before sawstop and almost every engineer asked to develop a method to sense fingers with saw blades would have used the same pre existing technology so it shouldn't have been granted a patent. The method for stopping the blade to avoid injury is clearly patentable. I was very surprised that the courts sided with sawstop since bosch has a completely different blade stopping mechanism

[Roger Marty]

The patents for this have always bern amazing to me. 30 or 40 years ago when the patent office was doing its job they would never have issued one for capacitive sensing of flesh. Patents are not supposed to apply to processes where any competent engineer would have made the same decisions. We all use capacitive sense for fingers every day and have for many years. (Used your phone lately?). Capacitive sense keyboards snd screens were developed well before sawstop and almost every engineer asked to develop a method to sense fingers with saw blades would have used the same pre existing technology so it shouldn't have been granted a patent. The method for stopping the blade to avoid injury is clearly patentable. I was very surprised that the courts sided with sawstop since bosch has a completely different blade stopping mechanism



First, you can go to www.uspto.gov (http://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.

[Malcolm McLeod]

I've got no dog in this fight. If you like SS, buy one, or sing praises for Gass, or hiss at the Dewalts in the BORG tool department. If you don't like Gass' tactics or product, buy the Bosch and hiss at the SS. Your call.


Personally, I think our patent system works reasonably well. Not perfect, but what is? I also agree that protection of IP is the biggest incentive to innovation and is why the US has enjoyed a better than average entrepreneurial success rate.

Like all innovators, the path forward for SS will probably be very predictable: The new products they're offering are their attempt to diversify; first the job-site saw, soon the re-branded lift (etc.), and I won't be surprised to see a circular saw with a brake on it. The SS saw prices will start coming down as they reduce their margins to discourage new competitors from entering the niche (Bosch excluded). Patents will expire and competitors will use the IP or not. Gass will continue to innovate or not. And consumers will still buy the tool they feel is right for them. Capitalism at work.


My personal suspicion is that SS is a one-trick-pony. When the various saw's features equalize, can SS be the 'Festool engineering' of the table saw market? From all reports and my limited look, it may very well be a really good saw. But the overall fit and finish, solidity, and precision are probably funded by the brake margins. When those margins go away, what else goes with them? What is the next generation of saw safety and innovation? And then Bosch will bury SS because they too probably have good (and optional) margins in the ReaXX.


....If I was a SS owner, I might load up on brake cartridges in 3 years.;)

[Steve Demuth]

I would agree that the patent system is broken, and issues protection for ideas that in no way deserve it. Drug patent protection is the poster child for this, but it is common elsewhere. Apple has patents on round corners on a cell phone for heaven's sake. I used to work at a place that emphasized patenting their work, and as a consequence hold several patents myself that in a reasonable world would never be issued. The patent office says you can't patent something that "would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art." Drug patents that involve modest re-arrangements of the molecular make-up of a compound flunk this test. Many things I have reviewed or submitted for patenting in the IT world also flunk it. I think that whether the Sawstop mechanism does or doesn't pass this test is arguable, but I probably would side with it not passing the test. If someone had issued a design challenge to 100 mechanical/electrical engineers to build a table saw mechanism that would stop the blade upon contact with flesh within 5 msec and given them 24 hours, half of them would have designed something not significantly different from what Gass built. It would have been obvious to anyone skilled in the arts that this was possible, and how to go about doing it.

What the patents really reward here is Gass beliefs that it was worth the effort (that there was a market, in other words) to work out the details and build a device that could be manufactured and would work in the field. But the patents cover the broad, rather obvious to someone skilled in the art, idea, not all that faith and detailed engineering work. Whether that's right or wrong, I leave to others to decide.

The truth is that many ideas that get patented are rather obvious, because the world is full of very knowledgeable, very talented people, and the logic of our entire system of science and engineering leads easily and naturally to the answer to many questions. The insight is often more about the marketability of a product, or the utility of an already developed idea in a different field, than "invention" per se. And the protection more about the hard work of perfecting a product (or testing a drug) than about an idea.

[Peter Aeschliman]

I'm in the camp that believes SS will be in trouble when their patents expire.

For two reasons:

1) The technology itself, while very innovative, won't be difficult to reverse engineer. Heck, other manufacturers can straight-up copy it with no recourse after the patents expire. You don't need top engineering talent to do that. And given that SS has proven the market with their sales, you bet the major manufacturers will give a go (assuming they're good capitalists at least). In fact, I'd be willing to bet that a number of them have already figured it out and are just waiting for those patents to expire to flood the market.

2) SS has not expanded its product line, and has missed a huge opportunity to build a competitive moat. While its brand is well-known in the woodworking industry and amongst hobbyists, it's associated with table saws only. And for some meaningful segment of consumers (judging by the angry folks who always pop up in these threads), the brand is associated with shady business practices that equate to taking away freedom of choice. They had a huge market lead. But there has been very little follow-on innovation. They've made a few other versions of table saws (contractor, benchtop, PCS) and have focused on table saw accessories- overarm dust collection, an over-priced and under-whelming sliding table attachment, and lately, a bunch of re-branded General International TS accessories (and a router table).

I'm rooting for sawstop because they brought innovation into a stale industry. I bought a PCS and love the thing. But I'm really disappointed. Much like my Nest thermostat, when I bought it, I had high hopes for follow-on products and continuing innovation... But so it goes.

[Roger Marty]

I'm in the camp that believes SS will be in trouble when their patents expire.

For two reasons:

1) The technology itself, while very innovative, won't be difficult to reverse engineer. Heck, other manufacturers can straight-up copy it with no recourse after the patents expire. You don't need top engineering talent to do that. And given that SS has proven the market with their sales, you bet the major manufacturers will give a go (assuming they're good capitalists at least). In fact, I'd be willing to bet that a number of them have already figured it out and are just waiting for those patents to expire to flood the market.

2) SS has not expanded its product line, and has missed a huge opportunity to build a competitive moat. While its brand is well-known in the woodworking industry and amongst hobbyists, it's associated with table saws only. And for some meaningful segment of consumers (judging by the angry folks who always pop up in these threads), the brand is associated with shady business practices that equate to taking away freedom of choice. They had a huge market lead. But there has been very little follow-on innovation. They've made a few other versions of table saws (contractor, benchtop, PCS) and have focused on table saw accessories- overarm dust collection, an over-priced and under-whelming sliding table attachment, and lately, a bunch of re-branded General International TS accessories (and a router table).

I'm rooting for sawstop because they brought innovation into a stale industry. I bought a PCS and love the thing. But I'm really disappointed. Much like my Nest thermostat, when I bought it, I had high hopes for follow-on products and continuing innovation... But so it goes.


Yes, your arguments could be right. After all Google's original PageRank patent expires in 2017 but I don't think anybody thinks Google is in trouble.

But the thing is, who makes Cabinet saws? Delta? Jet? Who else? It is not a big enough market to flood, and brand value goes a long ways.

If things go south, their value will go low enough such that someone will just purchase the company and the brand (and perhaps keep selling brake cartridges). If things go south, I guess I might have to go buy a Black-and-Decker or Bosch cabinet saw replacement in 10 years :-)

[Steve Demuth]

The technology itself, while very innovative, won't be difficult to reverse engineer.

Indeed, but there is no need to reverse engineer anything. There is no element of the SawStop system that, absent patent protection for the ideas themselves, any competent mechanical and electrical/electronic engineering organization couldn't duplicate from first principles as a routine matter. There are more complicated and nuanced systems designed and built into automobiles, construction equipment, farm equipment, and industrial manufacturing equipment all the time. Somebody poses a particular mechanical need, and the engineers design and build a solution. Gass got there first on table saw safety, and earned himself a nice 20 year monopoly. That's good for him, and hasn't been particularly bad for consumers (SawStops are probably overpriced compared to what they'd be absent the monopoly, but not wildly so given their overall engineering quality). That's how our system works. But it's not magic, and it's way more market innovation than it is technical innovation at this point.

[John Sanford]

One question to be asked is this:

What other areas are ripe for this technology?

Bandsaws -- Need to brake both wheels and the blade itself.
Jointers -- (gear driven cutterhead with flywheel NOT on the cutterhead that is braked. Why? Because there's no room for a flywheel on the cutterhead itself without a complete redesign of the fence system....)
Miter/Radial Arm saws in all their flavors
Circular Saws - serious sizing issues....
Shapers -- Add a "flywheel" to the bottom of the shaft, brake that.

ALL of them would require some significant re-engineering, but they're all doable. Also, bringing the tech to Sliding Table Saws would be good, and that's something we're more likely to see with Bosch's approach, in part because of their strength in Europe.

Planers would be an afterthought, for the simple reason that getting one's flesh into a planer almost requires deliberate intent. Sure, one COULD brain fart and reach into a running planer to free a jam, but... Or one COULD get their sleeve caught on a big honkin' splinter that pops up, but... So from a cost perspective, it's unlikely to happen.

IF SawStop can move into these other areas, then they have a good chance of keeping their market position. If not...

All that said, I should pick up another pair of cartridges. Just in case.... :D

[Steve Demuth]

What other areas are ripe for this technology?

Cutting and sewing machines in garment and shoe manufacturing!

[Malcolm McLeod]

I was bored today and started thinking about my 'SS circular saw'. Stopping a rotating mass means the frame has to absorb that much energy (less that absorbed as deformation & heat by the SS billet). If you dump that much inertia into a circular saw frame in a couple of milliseconds, it will probably twist it out of your hand - - and maybe break a wrist in the process? Maybe not such a good idea?:confused: (And we'll ignore wet wood, nails, and rain on the job-site, too.)

...And I was 'this' close to fame and fortune!! Drat!

The rotating mass in a 500-1000lb jointer/planer/bandsaw might mean playing Twister with it in your shop...?:eek:

[Jim Dwight]

I think SS will end up somewhere between Xerox and Fein when their patents run out. Probably not as badly as Xerox but perhaps not as well as Fein. A lot depends on what they do. If they continue to improve their saws (have they done that?) then they can hold a significant position. But if they continue to be a good but not great saw with the only advantage of blade stopping technology - that they then loose, they will fade away.

[David Kumm]

The technology would need serious revision for most other woodworking machines. The inability to use the design to stop a blade larger than 10" is all ready a limiting factor in penetrating the commercial market. Jointers, planers, and particularly shapers spin much more mass than even a 12" blade. Shapers in particular vary the mass rotating and - at least the good ones - run on precision bearings. Bearings take a real beating when stopped that quickly and large bearings running at higher speeds than a saw, won't fare well. The fact that SS hasn't offered a 12" saw tells me that it won't be easy or cheap to apply their design to commercial machines. Dave

[Mike Henderson]

The rotating mass in a 500-1000lb jointer/planer/bandsaw might mean playing Twister with it in your shop...?:eek:

There are bandsaws used in the meat industry that have brakes on them. I haven't looked at the technology closely but I think they use one or more cameras and the operators use blue gloves. If the camera detects a finger going into the blade, it stops the saw.

Again, I don't know a lot about these and how they work but I know the meat processing industry has bandsaw safety technology.

Mike

[Roger Marty]

The inability to use the design to stop a blade larger than 10" is all ready a limiting factor in penetrating the commercial market. Jointers, planers, and particularly shapers spin much more mass than even a 12" blade.

An 8" Dado stack at 13/16" wide is a lot of spinning mass.

[Dave Sabo]

And I'll bet you $100 that in 2025, SawStop is still the leading cabinet saw. They're the only cabinet saw that my local stores (Woodcraft and one other) even carry.

It is not the capacitive coupling, it is probably the software.

Black-and-Decker/Stanley? Phff. Do they even sell a product with a microprocessor?

I'm with Gass. The tool companies response was pathetic as shown by Colbert.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/hgxqxc/the-colbert-report-people-who-are-destroying-america---sawstop


Roger- you view of the world is so myopic I wonder if you have blinders on ?

Stanley owns a ton of companies that utilize microprocessors. They own about a dozen security related firms as well as measurement stalwart CST/BERGER. One of the division's contracts with NASA and it ain't to supply Dustbusters for the maintence staff. Dewalt's new battery platform uses microprocessors in it too. They have the brain power necessary in spades. And the vertically integrated business to exploit a new product. They also own AeroScout - a firm specializing in RFID and realtime location services. Something way more technically complex than SS's brake module and switch.

Cabinet saws are sexy to talk about , but don't add much to the bottom line. How many of those SS do you think your local or the Quad Cities Rockler actually sell each year ? The real money is in pedaling $100-$500 portable table saws at every Lowes, HomeDepot, Menards, Sears, and ACE across the country which combined is close to 10,000 locations. All of which can provide financing in store too. Plus, wait til the infomercial boys start pedaling the stuff. I can just hear the Saw Wow guy now. " it's made in China, you know the Chinese make good stuff ". :D

- the market Gass was really after when he tried to get big brother to strong arm the industry.

Need further convincing ? Why do you suppose SS is trying to pedal router lifts and dust arms along with other re branded accessories now ? Because their saw is so wonderful that it sells itself in huge numbers and will continue to do so ? Don't you think there was a market for that stuff 5 years ago too? They are trying to diversify so they're not caught with their pants down when the body guards up and leave town.

---------

It's been reported SS has been working on a bandsaw system for a while now. They have also been reported to be close or actually entered into a deal with one of the European sliding saw manufacturers for licensing just recently.

[mreza Salav]

The technology would need serious revision for most other woodworking machines. The inability to use the design to stop a blade larger than 10" is all ready a limiting factor in penetrating the commercial market. Jointers, planers, and particularly shapers spin much more mass than even a 12" blade. Shapers in particular vary the mass rotating and - at least the good ones - run on precision bearings. Bearings take a real beating when stopped that quickly and large bearings running at higher speeds than a saw, won't fare well. The fact that SS hasn't offered a 12" saw tells me that it won't be easy or cheap to apply their design to commercial machines. Dave

Not SS but the technology is there for larger (e.g. a 14" slider) saws:

http://www.griggio.com/en/products/panel-saws/unica-safe/

[Roger Marty]

Roger- you view of the world is so myopic I wonder if you have blinders on ?

Stanley owns a ton of companies that utilize microprocessors. They own about a dozen security related firms as well as measurement stalwart CST/BERGER. One of the division's contracts with NASA and it ain't to supply Dustbusters for the maintence staff. Dewalt's new battery platform uses microprocessors in it too. They have the brain power necessary in spades. And the vertically integrated business to exploit a new product. They also own AeroScout - a firm specializing in RFID and realtime location services. Something way more technically complex than SS's brake module and switch.

Cabinet saws are sexy to talk about , but don't add much to the bottom line. How many of those SS do you think your local or the Quad Cities Rockler actually sell each year ? The real money is in pedaling $100-$500 portable table saws at every Lowes, HomeDepot, Menards, Sears, and ACE across the country which combined is close to 10,000 locations. All of which can provide financing in store too. Plus, wait til the infomercial boys start pedaling the stuff. I can just hear the Saw Wow guy now. " it's made in China, you know the Chinese make good stuff ". :D

- the market Gass was really after when he tried to get big brother to strong arm the industry.

Need further convincing ? Why do you suppose SS is trying to pedal router lifts and dust arms along with other re branded accessories now ? Because their saw is so wonderful that it sells itself in huge numbers and will continue to do so ? Don't you think there was a market for that stuff 5 years ago too? They are trying to diversify so they're not caught with their pants down when the body guards up and leave town.

---------

It's been reported SS has been working on a bandsaw system for a while now. They have also been reported to be close or actually entered into a deal with one of the European sliding saw manufacturers for licensing just recently.

Ok, you are right that Stanley Black&Decker is an industry conglomerate that I wasn't aware of. I also completely agree that the most revenue is in peddling $100-$500 machines.
But a myopic world view with blinders on? All I'm saying is that brand value and SawStop's niche focus on higher-end tools will probably keep them going beyond 2021. Sure, they may very well lose the Jobsite saw market, and yes, we'll likely see them diversify their product line. DeWalt (Stanley's major tool brand?) seems unlikely to enter the cabinet saw market. Now what portion of SS's revenue comes from the jobsite product versus cabinet saws? No idea. I think they just came out with the jobsite saw somewhat recently (2015?), right? I highly doubt any subsidiary of Stanley Black&Decker enters the niche cabinet saw market. Not enough revenue to justify the investment. SS is a small company and I bet their revenue doesn't exceed $50m.

PM me your e-mail if you want to take my bet of $100 for whether they're still around selling brake cartridges in 2025. I'll set a calendar reminder 8 years from now ;-)

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.

[Jim Dwight]

I am pretty sure that In read in one of these discussions, possibly at the FOG, that the patent situation is reversed in Europe. Bosch has the advantage. If they "gave up" I am confident that was just a business decision. Not enough lost sales to justify the expense. While SawStop won a decided victory, it isn't over if Bosch is willing to keep paying lawyers. Patents can and have gone all the way to the supreme court.

[David Kumm]

The Griggio video is pretty neat. Is that the Bosch technology? Looks like the blade is not damaged. Dave

[Greg Peterson]

Employing a flywheel introduces a host of additional engineering challenges to overcome.
Using a gear driven drive system would allow the implementation of a pinion gear that could laterally slide out of the drive system while simultaneously the cutterhead could be braked.
A cutterhead has far less mass to arrest than a flywheel.
Anyone know a good patent lawyer?

[Andrew J. Coholic]

The Griggio video is pretty neat. Is that the Bosch technology? Looks like the blade is not damaged. Dave

Nope. Sawstop. It was in FDM+C a few years ago.

[Roger Marty]

I just took a look at the Dado break cartridge I bought. I looked up the code of the main integrated circuit-- a 32-bit Texas Instruments DSP (digital signal processor). Implies they're doing non-trivial math.

[Andrew J. Coholic]

I wish I could predict the future at 100% certainty as some here claim/seem to be able to do... lol

I'm more worried how my company will be doing in 4, 10 or more years though :)

[Jim Dwight]

This article seems to have the latest update, a late March statement from Bosch saying they will appeal. That means it is not close to over. All that has happened is SawStop convinced ONE JUDGE they are right. Bosch still has a lawsuit against SawStop in Illinois to resolve and then there is their appeal. Not over yet. But SawStop definitely won round one.

https://www.protoolreviews.com/news/sawstop-vs-bosch-reaxx-lawsuit-not-yet/26066/

[John Sanford]

Employing a flywheel introduces a host of additional engineering challenges to overcome.
Using a gear driven drive system would allow the implementation of a pinion gear that could laterally slide out of the drive system while simultaneously the cutterhead could be braked.
A cutterhead has far less mass to arrest than a flywheel.
Anyone know a good patent lawyer?

Perhaps I should have simply used the term "brake disc", because that's what I have in mind. The problem with braking a jointer's cutterhead is WHERE can you apply the brake?

[Greg Peterson]

Perhaps I should have simply used the term "brake disc", because that's what I have in mind. The problem with braking a jointer's cutterhead is WHERE can you apply the brake?

Casually considering the parameters, the two things that need to be addressed are 1.) disengaging the drive and 2.) stopping the cutter head.

The drive could be a simple transmission with a final belt drive to the cutterhead, not unlike a motorcycle.

For arresting the the cutterhead, now that is a tougher nut to crack. Perhaps a brake rotor on each end of the cutterhead with enough mass to perform as needed but not hinder instantaneous stopping?

Just spit balling here and of course the devil is always in the details.

[Steven Wayne]

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.

[Edwin Santos]

Maybe there's a lawyer here that can answer this - Does SS get to recover their legal fees by prevailing over Bosch, or is the high cost of legal fees for patent enforcement just part of SS's cost of doing business? Do they get damages on top of fees? Maybe not, if the Bosch saw never saw any sales. Either way, seems like the attorneys are in the so called catbird seat while these guys duke it out.

Just imagine how much must get spent in Silicon Valley over patent disputes. Seems like being a patent litigation attorney is probably more lucrative than being a woodworker in today's world!

[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 (http://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.

[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.

SimonSawstop 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 (https://www.digitaltrends.com/business/apple-vs-qualcomm-news/) 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

[David Kumm]

I participated in 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 the 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 (https://www.digitaltrends.com/business/apple-vs-qualcomm-news/) 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 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

That would be fair. I still hope that no mandate is made but in no way meant to belittle Gass. He has given us a choice. I'm all for choices. Dave

[Roger Marty]

I participated in 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 the 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 (https://www.digitaltrends.com/business/apple-vs-qualcomm-news/) 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

Yup, you are spot on. Mandating use of a patented technology does not automatically mean that the patent holder has complete power to determine licensing fees.