Sawstop Patent Ending ?

[Rich Konopka]

Disclaimer: I own a sawstop.

They posted on IG that they want to make table saws safer. It got me thinking that if they truly want to make table saw’s safer than they should make their technology license available to other companies. Not happening.

So when would their patent expire? Its be almost 20 years? No?

[Kent A Bathurst]

506535

Don't do it, Pandora - don't open it!!

[glenn bradley]

They initially shopped the idea around to the big makers wanting to license the tech . . . no takers. Took their ball and went home . . . and made them themselves. Maybe their offer stunk(?). I don't think they wanted to be a tool maker. Plenty of spin and opinion. It was ugly if I recall correctly.

[Michael Burnside]

They initially shopped the idea around to the big makers wanting to license the tech . . . no takers. Took their ball and went home . . . and made them themselves. Maybe their offer stunk(?). I don't think they wanted to be a tool maker. Plenty of spin and opinion. It was ugly if I recall correctly.

Good summary. A friend of mine is a patent lawyer and woodworker and says several of their patents have already expired as early as 2021, but there are several continuation patents that extend to 2024. His take is that in the next year or two we might see other OEMs with big pockets that are willing to sift through the SawStop patent family and decide if it's worth the battle to start developing something of their own or using the expired patents as leverage to license something directly at a much better price.

Personally, I'd like to see the tech make its way into more saws, especially lines that are more affordable to a larger group of people.

[Doug Garson]

If Sawstop's main concern was to make table saws safer why did they sue Bosch over their Reaxx technology? Methinks profit is their main concern.

[Larry Frank]

Methinks most companies have profit as their primary concern. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Richard Coers]

If Sawstop's main concern was to make table saws safer why did they sue Bosch over their Reaxx technology? Methinks profit is their main concern.
Gosh Doug, no one has ever said that before! LOL Here we go, first shot fired by the other side. Let's start a betting circle. I'm taking 10 pages of comments.

[Kent A Bathurst]

Yep. I tried to warn him not to open the box

Might as well get the popcorn out and enjoy the show

[Warren Lake]

im saving for the Altendorf. Might have to start a go fund me.

[Jim Becker]

I don't know what the time frame is relative to the US patent expiring and I believe there may be ways to extend, if I'm not mistaken. There is additional complexity here in that the ownership of the company changed sometime ago to the parent company of Festool and Tanos as well as a few other brands. They may have completely different feelings about the technology from the original owner. So do not make judgements based on past actions by the previous/original owner.

And yea...keep it civil and on-topic so that this thread can live for a few days...speaking as a moderator.

[Bill Dufour]

I do not think I would buy a knockoff SS cartridge made in china by a no name company.
Bill D.

[Patty Hann]

Yep. I tried to warn him not to open the box

Might as well get the popcorn out and enjoy the show

ooooo... this is a "first time" for me. Is it as good as the IMAX?

[andrew whicker]

Lol, love this topic.

A free marketeer no doubt uses gray area legal techniques to pad his wallet for a few more years. How the heck did that happen?

Anyway, here's to hoping other manufacturers get in on the action at some point. I don't have any faith in this, but I do hope.

[Andrew More]

Serious question: Hypothetically the patents all expire tomorrow. Who's going to make the knock off SawStop cabinet saw? I'm honestly not sure that the patents expiring is going to help it. Pretty much everything is made in china, and they don't innovate much. Bosch was only going to sell a jobsite saw, not a cabinet saw. Maybe Harvey?

[Patrick Varley]

As mentioned, I don't begrudge them for trying to make their money after they bet on themselves. Also, easier to swallow since they make a solid product and have historically had very good customer service.

As for "putting it in other saws", I do wonder whether someone could actually do so and come in at a (substantially) lower price point. We assume the answer is yes, but that may not be the case. That being said, it would be nice to have in other premium saws that provide some different options.

[Michael Burnside]

I don't know what the time frame is relative to the US patent expiring and I believe there may be ways to extend, if I'm not mistaken..

Jim, my lawyer friend says that there is no extending a patent beyond the date it has been issued. There are “continuations” (I think that’s the word he used) that can be used to add a few months or sometimes a year or thereabouts, depending on additional claims and how long it took to approve them. But, they add to the existing patent and cannot extend it much beyond the 20 years. There are a few special exceptions but I don’t think SawStop is all that important to the US government :)

[Lloyd McKinlay]

Patent expiration (2021)


The SawStop patents began to expire in September 2021.[27] Sawstop holds around 100 patents, though many of them are continuations of the early Sawstop patents. The continuation patents may expire later than the "parent" patent due to patent office delays. Some Sawstop continuation patents expire as late as May 2026.[28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SawStop

The Wiki article is a fairly good summation.

[Wes Grass]

'Build it and they will come.'

Patents ... I remember *something*, I think shooting related from years back.

'The community would have happily made him a millionaire if he'd just delivered the product instead of spending his time suing everyone who he thought was infringing on his patent.'

[Rob Luter]

If Sawstop's main concern was to make table saws safer why did they sue Bosch over their Reaxx technology? Methinks profit is their main concern.

Because it is. The guy that owns the tech is not the inventor. He's a patent troll lawyer that bought it up and then sued the industry for not using it. He whipped up legal actions claiming that all the manufacturers knew or should have known that their products were defective and inherently dangerous because they didn't use his tech. It was a circus, I'm looking forward to SawStop having some competition.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/sawstop-stopped-judge-dismisses-antitru-33197/

https://www.hbsdealer.com/news/sawstop-lawsuit-against-tool-companies-dismissed

https://www.cosgravelaw.com/uploads/2014/07/SawStop.pdf

https://www.aboutlawsuits.com/dewalt-table-saw-lawsuit-sawstop-technology-81828/

[roger wiegand]

Both SCM and Felder now offer saw stopping systems that use different technologies that don't wreck your blade when they activate. Good to see innovation in this area.

[Rich Konopka]

Methinks most companies have profit as their primary concern. There is nothing wrong with that. I agree and it is the root of capitalism!!

[Jim Becker]

Because it is. The guy that owns the tech is not the inventor. He's a patent troll lawyer that bought it up and then sued the industry for not using it. He whipped up legal actions claiming that all the manufacturers knew or should have known that their products were defective and inherently dangerous because they didn't use his tech. It was a circus, I'm looking forward to SawStop having some competition.
"That guy" sold the company and assets years ago to the parent company of Festool, Tanos and several other brands. This was after the incidents you mention, AFAIK. I mentioned this earlier.

[Rob Luter]

Both SCM and Felder now offer saw stopping systems that use different technologies that don't wreck your blade when they activate. Good to see innovation in this area.

I'm glad to hear that.


"That guy" sold the company and assets years ago to the parent company of Festool, Tanos and several other brands. This was after the incidents you mention, AFAIK. I mentioned this earlier.

Sorry Jim, I missed that.

[Kent A Bathurst]

ooooo... this is a "first time" for me. Is it as good as the IMAX?

Better. Note that Jim - in his role as mod - hopes to go a few days before the thread gets locked. Think about the implications.

In the bygone days, SS threads were like WWE tag-team matches, but without the rules. And often did not last the day.

Various factions: free market; hug your neighbor; moral; immoral; never-give-up-my-Unisaw [that's me]; ignore the tech - it's a solid saw in its own right. Factions made common cause and joined, then broke apart. 80% emotional, 5% rational, 15% watching from the cheap seats.

[Malcolm McLeod]

...
Various factions: ... 80% emotional, 5% rational, 15% watching from the cheap seats.

You have succinctly captured every public conversation in the last (insert time interval*). Well done!

*- TOS precludes me from providing time interval.

[Ronald Blue]

ooooo... this is a "first time" for me. Is it as good as the IMAX?

In the day it was pretty close. They (moderators) don't allow much fun these days. Probably for the best.

On a side note while I detest the methodology the SawStop founder employed trying to strongarm the industry I did pickup a used PCS myself. The saw works great but so do many many other cabinet saws. The safety feature is a plus and I was mainly thinking of grandkids being in the shop with me.

[Andrew More]

Both SCM and Felder now offer saw stopping systems that use different technologies that don't wreck your blade when they activate. Good to see innovation in this area.

What the SCM offering? The Felder model relies on cameras and comes in at around $100K for the saw. I think that's outside the reach of most people here.

Also I agree we are unlikely to see much price difference. You can see that with the pricing for track saws, or how the Bosch version added about $800 to what was a direct copy of their regular job site saw.

[Kent A Bathurst]

You have succinctly captured every public conversation in the last (insert time interval*). Well done!

*- TOS precludes me from providing time interval.

You're welcome. I'm all set for the show.


506556

[Erik Loza]

…The Felder model relies on cameras and comes in at around $100K for the saw…

Are you thinking of a different brand? The Felder PCS uses the same triggering means as the SS (completing an electrical circuit), though the blade stopping technology is totally different. Also, Felder saws with the PCS system start at around half that price. Can’t speak for any other vendors but Felder is marketing these to production shops, not hobbyists. Apples-to-oranges to the average SS buyer and I assume all the slider companies know that.

Erik

[Edwin Santos]

im saving for the Altendorf. Might have to start a go fund me.

I love that Altendorf's approach does not result in destroying the blade when triggered. Their camera based optical system is a variation on the autonomous driving technology that Tesla has embraced which is also based on cameras.
I'm not sure whether it is only available on the sliding saws or whether they have built it into traditional cabinet style table saws also.

[Edwin Santos]

What the SCM offering? The Felder model relies on cameras and comes in at around $100K for the saw. I think that's outside the reach of most people here.



Are you thinking of the Altendorf? My understanding of the Felder system is that it works by electromagnetic field surrounding the blade. The Altendorf uses the optical system.

[Dan Howell]

I own a SS. I have owned other brands over the years. When I decided to buy a new saw, I looked at all the major brands. The decision came down to me getting on in years, and and interest in my grandkids wanting to learn some woodworking. That made the decision for me. With that said, I would love to see other companies either develop their own tech or use the SS tech.

[Ray Newman]

I often think that impetus behind the Delta Uni-saw redesign was to incorporate future SawStop or a SawStop clone technology.

[Marc Fenneuff]

I often think that impetus behind the Delta Uni-saw redesign was to incorporate future SawStop or a SawStop clone technology.

The inability to add a riving knife to the traditional cabinet saws is what caused the design changes. Tough to implement with a pivoting arbor.

[Edward Weber]

I followed this topic pretty closely over the years and one conclusion that I came to is, that while SS did have a positive impact on safety, in number of digits saved.
There's no way to know how much better things could have been with some healthy competition.
It's hard to boast that your system is the safest, if there is no competition due to you impenetrable web of patents.
There have been plenty of other systems developed that in testing, have the same level of safety, without demolishing the blade.
If and when, the SS patents expire, the consumer just might benefit from more, possibly better choices when it comes to safety.

[roger wiegand]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIYx7aA8I-I&t=256s

Here's a demo video of the SCM system. It may be the Altendorf technology, I don't know. The hot dog part of the demo is about at 4 minutes in. It's video based. Yes, it doesn't look like a cheap saw they're showing it on. OTOH, I'd love to have one.

The narration is in Italian, but the fellow speaks slowly and clearly enough that I'm almost getting it. Gives me at least a little hope that the many, many hours I've put into trying to learn how to ask where the facilities are in Florence haven't all gone to waste.

[Kent A Bathurst]

..,,,,, haven't all gone to waste.

Cue the rim-shot

[Michael Burnside]

I own a SS. I have owned other brands over the years. When I decided to buy a new saw, I looked at all the major brands. The decision came down to me getting on in years, and and interest in my grandkids wanting to learn some woodworking. That made the decision for me. With that said, I would love to see other companies either develop their own tech or use the SS tech.

Agreed. I think my Powermatic equipment is as good if not better built than my SS. If they came out with something, I'd probably ditch the SS and go team Gold for all the major tools in the shop. :D

My bet is on Harvey though. Those guys seem to be big innovators in the woodworking world and make some really nice stuff too. Maybe they'll come up with something?

[Andrew Hughes]

The Altendorf saw looks great and it might save a finger or two but will cost a arm or leg to own one.
:)

[Kendall Scheier]

The Altendorf saw looks great and it might save a finger or two but will cost a arm or leg to own one.
:)

love that one!

[Patty Hann]

The Altendorf saw looks great and it might save a finger or two but will cost a arm or leg to own one.
:)

Give up the leg.... the arm is much more useful in the shop ;)

[Myles Moran]

Give up the leg.... the arm is much more useful in the shop ;)

I'm sure some of the woodturners would be happy to help me with the new peg leg too.

[Rod Sheridan]

What the SCM offering? The Felder model relies on cameras and comes in at around $100K for the saw. I think that's outside the reach of most people here.

Also I agree we are unlikely to see much price difference. You can see that with the pricing for track saws, or how the Bosch version added about $800 to what was a direct copy of their regular job site saw.

Hi Andrew, the Felder system does not rely on cameras, Altendorf’s does.

Felder, like SawStop relies on blade contact to initiate the safety system.

Both Felder and Altendorf simply require a reset command to return the saw to initial setup.

Regards, Rod

[Andrew Hughes]

I'm sure some of the woodturners would be happy to help me with the new peg leg too.

The IFW would look like a pirates convention. :)

[Rich Konopka]

[I]Patent expiration (2021). Thanks .. it is a really good summation of the SawStop technology. It’s interesting that the inventor was a patent attorney.

[Edward Weber]

Thanks .. it is a really good summation of the SawStop technology. It’s interesting that the inventor was a patent attorney.
Yep, it's funny how there was no competition for all those years he ran the company :rolleyes:

[Stan Calow]

I think this discussion demonstrates a difference in perspective between hobbyists and professionals.

[Doug Garson]

I think this discussion demonstrates a difference in perspective between hobbyists and professionals.
Not sure I see that, mind describing the difference?

[Stan Calow]

Doug, as a hobbyist, I'm grateful that the technology was invented and became readily available in quality saws that were affordable to hobbyists, rather than just in the high-end brands that have been mentioned. Only when it was seen to have a market, did the other makers decide to cash in. Then people complained about patents. Thats the way it looks to me. i dont blame the investors for making money.

I remember when I was first starting out, many years ago, and had a cheap low-end Delta saw. I was talking to a Delta rep at a local store, who pretty much laughed at me when I complained about the lack of riving knives, and the cheap design of the guards. His reply was basically real men don't need safe tools, and improvements on the age-old Unisaw design were unnecessary. When I pointed out the Ryobi BT3000 had a riving knife, he said that was a tool for amateurs. Yes, I guess it was.

[Doug Garson]

Stan, thanks for the clarification.

[Jim Dwight]

I'm glad the inventor of the SawStop technology is out of the picture these days. There is nothing wrong with him wanting to make as much as possible. But in my view, trying hard to get the government to force us to buy his technology - at his price - if we wanted a table saw was awfully aggressive and not at all ethical. Testifying as an expert witness that Ryobi was negligent for not using his technology on a $100 saw so a flooring guy making rip cuts without bothering to use the guard or even the rip fence could win his lawsuit was also highly unethical in my view. I also own and like my PCS.

Desiring money is not the issue. What you do to obtain the money can be.

[Keegan Shields]

Looking back, seems like Powermatic would have been well served to license the SS technology given how much of the high end TS market that SawStop has taken from them (and Jet, Delta, etc).

I’m still waiting on a SS bandsaw, router table, jointer, etc.

[Edward Weber]

I'm glad the inventor of the SawStop technology is out of the picture these days. There is nothing wrong with him wanting to make as much as possible. But in my view, trying hard to get the government to force us to buy his technology - at his price - if we wanted a table saw was awfully aggressive and not at all ethical. Testifying as an expert witness that Ryobi was negligent for not using his technology on a $100 saw so a flooring guy making rip cuts without bothering to use the guard or even the rip fence could win his lawsuit was also highly unethical in my view. I also own and like my PCS.

Desiring money is not the issue. What you do to obtain the money can be.
+1
That original ruling was terrible IMO and started a chain of events that wasn't always positive.

[George Yetka]

I think that Sawstop offers a solid saw at a price point that is competitive with all the other similar saws so I think there is a place for them if everyone has the tech. But I'm some guy on the internet they are a global company and are probably not willing to take that bet. I dont know what PM,Laguna, etc would price at if they had the tech. What they should do or should have done is sell the parts to everyone else all these years or sell design that would allow the other brands to accept a **$500.00** package sold by SS to add to your Powermatic saw that would be factory ready for it.

No company is so altruistic that it doesnt want to profit.

[James Jayko]

If Sawstop's main concern was to make table saws safer why did they sue Bosch over their Reaxx technology? Methinks profit is their main concern.

Because they paid to develop it. That's what patents are. I don't understand the question. If nobody is willing to pay you for what you develop and you develop it on your own, why should you be compelled to give it away for free? Pay for the tech, or don't. At the peril of your fingers.

Methinks profit was also everyone else's main concern as well when they decided that, like the Ford Pinto, some lawsuits over a few thousand amputations every year is cheaper than making a the most dangerous machine in the shop safer.

[Doug Garson]

Because they paid to develop it. That's what patents are. I don't understand the question. If nobody is willing to pay you for what you develop and you develop it on your own, why should you be compelled to give it away for free? Pay for the tech, or don't. At the peril of your fingers.

Methinks profit was also everyone else's main concern as well when they decided that, like the Ford Pinto, some lawsuits over a few thousand amputations every year is cheaper than making a the most dangerous machine in the shop safer.

So you are agreeing with me, their main concern was profit not making saws safer. Some argue the Bosch system was significantly different from the Sawstop system and Bosch should have won the lawsuit, maybe Sawstop just had better lawyers?

[Patrick Varley]

So you are agreeing with me, their main concern was profit not making saws safer. Some argue the Bosch system was significantly different from the Sawstop system and Bosch should have won the lawsuit, maybe Sawstop just had better lawyers?

Where does "ensuring your company exists" end and "profit" begin?

I think it's safe to say that protecting your IP to maintain a healthy company is reasonable. And SS's actions to that end seem fair. On the other hand, trying to force government regulations which require inclusion of something only you produce is almost certainly beyond what we might consider reasonable.

There's really only one example of what people suggest SS should have done happening (that I can think of). And that's Volvo essentially giving away the patent for the three-point seatbelt. The difference there is that Volvo was already an established company. The seatbelt could have made them more money, no doubt, but it wasn't the basis for a completely new venture as in the case of SS.

[Doug Garson]

Where does "ensuring your company exists" end and "profit" begin?

I think it's safe to say that protecting your IP to maintain a healthy company is reasonable. And SS's actions to that end seem fair. On the other hand, trying to force government regulations which require inclusion of something only you produce is almost certainly beyond what we might consider reasonable.

There's really only one example of what people suggest SS should have done happening (that I can think of). And that's Volvo essentially giving away the patent for the three-point seatbelt. The difference there is that Volvo was already an established company. The seatbelt could have made them more money, no doubt, but it wasn't the basis for a completely new venture as in the case of SS.
Good points, well said. To be clear I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Sawstop acting to maximize their profits by protecting their IP, I was just reacting to the comment that Sawstop's main concern was woodworker's safety. If that were the case they would have followed Volvo's lead. Not sure Sawstop was a "completely new venture " when they sued Bosch, they had been selling their saws for over a decade.

[Edward Weber]

SS became a monopoly in terms of having a safety system.
They not only blocked other companies from copying their design, which I agree with but blocked other companies like Bosch from moving forward with their own Reaxx design, which is almost an entirely different approach. Unfortunately, not so different that they were sued to stop. Bosch opted to not get into a prolonged legal battle.
SS makes a good saw from all accounts and I have nothing against anyone who has one.
I don't agree with the original owners philosophy that all saws are dangerous without his safety system. Saws are not dangerous, people are.
The original case that started all of this set the stage by determining that One Wolrd technologies was responsible for Mr Osarios injury, even though he was using the tool improperly without a guard.
https://www.quimbee.com/cases/osorio-v-one-world-technologies-inc

[Keegan Shields]

It goes even farther than that - if firms don't enforce their IP (patents, trademarks, etc) then those firms lose their IP.

Here's an example - If the University of Texas doesn't send cease-and-desist letters to all of the small business that steal their trademark long horn symbol (use without a license), then the University of Texas loses the trademark protection for its symbol.

In other words, it was necessary for SawStop to enforce their patent in order to keep its protection.

[Michael Burnside]

Good points, well said. To be clear I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Sawstop acting to maximize their profits by protecting their IP, I was just reacting to the comment that Sawstop's main concern was woodworker's safety. If that were the case they would have followed Volvo's lead. Not sure Sawstop was a "completely new venture " when they sued Bosch, they had been selling their saws for over a decade.

Doug, it's ok for SS to say they care about woodworker's safety and not want to give their stuff away at the same time. With all due respect, your Volvo example isn't a fair comparison. SawStop is a one trick pony. Yea, their saws are great, high quality, blah, blah, blah, but so are a lot of other saw manufacturers. I might argue, there are even some saws that are better quality, etc in the same price range. What makes a SawStop unique IS the safety technology. They give that way, they have zip, zero, nada. May as well close the doors, turn off the lights and go home. Volvo, on the other hand, is giving away a seatbelt design. My wife drives a Volvo. Beautiful car, 60k miles and still runs perfect. So,so many things to like, but the seatbelt isn't even in the top 100 reasons why we bought the car. The SS safety is THE only reason I bought a SS, or I'd probably have a Harvey or Powermatic in the shop.

[Dave Sabo]

Search older SS threads if you want the details, but I recall an industry exec. commenting here that SS's ask including the the tech cost, plus some kind of ongoing/recurring cost was not economically feasible for high volume consumer products.

May have been the same conversation (don;t recall) but there was sentiment that if one co. bought in - that would be an admission the tech was necessary and all would then have to provide it - possibly through govnt. regulation No one wanted to be the guy that opened that box.

[Edward Weber]

It goes even farther than that - if firms don't enforce their IP (patents, trademarks, etc) then those firms lose their IP.

Here's an example - If the University of Texas doesn't send cease-and-desist letters to all of the small business that steal their trademark long horn symbol (use without a license), then the University of Texas loses the trademark protection for its symbol.

In other words, it was necessary for SawStop to enforce their patent in order to keep its protection.

Your correct but to use your analogy, this would be like the University of Texas sending cease-and-desist letters to all of the small business that had any depiction of a bulls horns. Even if it was purple and only had one horn. Or anyone who used the term, Longhorn or University or Texas or used the same color or font.
This is not an exaggeration of how many patents SS had.

Many companies have safety systems in the works, ready to go or have agreements to use someone elses tech in their equipment.
They decided to not get involved in an expensive litigation with a competitor and simply wait until the patents ran out or they were regulated to have a safety system.

[Keegan Shields]

Many companies have safety systems in the works, ready to go or have agreements to use someone elses tech in their equipment.
They decided to not get involved in an expensive litigation with a competitor and simply wait until the patents ran out or they were regulated to have a safety system.

Source for this assertion?

[Bill Dufour]

Movies, plays and books from 1923 and older are now public domain with no copyrights in the USA. They can show old movie son tv and pay no royalties. Or make a new version and pay no fee to the author.
Bill D

[Edward Weber]

Look at what Bosch did with the Reaxx system.
https://www.protoolreviews.com/sawstop-vs-bosch-reaxx-table-saw-lawsuit/
https://beltsandboxes.com/dewalt-sawstop-like-patent-filed-what-could-this-mean/
Do you recall the Ridgid Whirlwind, which was meant to be available for license to other tool makers.
https://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/power_tool_makers_accused_in_lawsuit_of_thwarting_ adoption_of_finger_saving_device_partner/

When it becomes legal for others to bring their safety systems to market, they will. If anything SS showed that with everything being equal, people will choose safety. So far, there has been only one option for this.

[roger wiegand]

The thing about patents (as distinct from copyright that last the life of the creator plus 70 years in the US and trademarks, which last as long as they are enforced), is that their protection is brief (around 20 years at most) and fully disclosing how to make the patented thing work is a requirement for a valid patent. In the real world, because of development time and now the "first to file" priority patents generally only offer protection to the inventor for 10-15 years, as the product isn't brought to market until years after the patent is issued. In pharmaceuticals effective patent life is often less than five years once clinical trials and approvals are done.
Patents, as the SS patents are now doing, are gone in, what looks like as I get older, the blink of an eye and everyone is free to use the patented subject matter.

[mike calabrese]

I don't own a SS most likely never will.
The easiest solution to the debate here is to simply eliminate the patent system all together. Then every time someone develops a useful product , a new idea like SS then anyone can copy it and create the competition that would lower the price for all of us. Let the best maker of the other guy's great new idea win all the sales. If you buy into that then I strongly suggest you discover the story of Atlas Shrugged and the character John Galt.
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=atlas+shrugged&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

The best way to kill innovation is to not protect the innovator who paid the dues, did the hard work to discover and develop a new idea. Why would anyone risk it all to develop a product then if anyone can simply take it and capitalize on it because they are bigger or can be faster to bring it to market. Would it be fair for someone to take an artists song like Hotel California by the Eagles change it around a little and record it and profit from the sales ?

I am a capitalist pig , if I had the brains to write a song, build a better mouse trap or maybe invent SS I think then I should like to financially benefit from the fruits of my labor and know that for a time others could not take from my labors.
The fact that SS tried to sell their idea to other companies and got turned down is tough darts for the other companies.
Look at it this way should Warren Buffet stop making money until everyone can learn from him and catch up financially to his level?

WHO IS ROBERT KEARNS............................................ .....................https://thehustle.co/windshield-wiper-inventor-robert-kearns/#:~:text=The%20company%27s%20response%3A%20They%20 had,wiper-equipped%20car%20Ford%20sold.

WHO IS JOHN GALT.............................................. ..........................https://www.forbes.com/sites/robclarfeld/2012/02/15/who-is-john-galt/?sh=68bab0f95dae
calabrese55

[Ole Anderson]

Would be interesting to see if Grizzly enters the fray.

[Jim Becker]

The easiest solution to the debate here is to simply eliminate the patent system all together. Then every time someone develops a useful product , a new idea like SS then anyone can copy it and create the competition that would lower the price for all of us.

Not having the patent system would eliminate the incentive for innovation other than for what is likely a small number of folks who enjoy "doing good" even if it doesn't pay well. There would be no "price lowering" because the innovation wouldn't exist. Humans need that incentive to be creative.

[Edward Weber]

I am a capitalist pig , if I had the brains to write a song, build a better mouse trap or maybe invent SS I think then I should like to financially benefit from the fruits of my labor and know that for a time others could not take from my labors.
The fact that SS tried to sell their idea to other companies and got turned down is tough darts for the other companies.
Look at it this way should Warren Buffet stop making money until everyone can learn from him and catch up financially to his level?



While I agree with this section of your post, you're respectfully missing something about this story.
Early on, SS did offer their system to other manufacturers, but for many reasons no one bought. That's only part of the issue.
A few years later, after SS had been out, they tried to sue many of the other saw manufacturers, to get their system put on ALL tablesaws. Part of their argument was, that any saw without a SS safety system was defective.
As you can imagine, the other companies were not happy with SS. First they were offered the tech and didn't want it, now they're getting sued to include it. All the while, not being able to market their own or anyone else's safety system. These companies were accused of banding together to boycott SS, but there is no evidence that they did.

This is why many people don't like the way SS went about things, feeling that they were suing just for revenge on the larger companies that didn't buy their tech early on and using safety as their stated motivation.

I don't think we'll ever know the whole story

[mike calabrese]

That is exactly my point "The best way to kill innovation is to not protect the innovator who paid the dues, did the hard work to discover and develop a new idea. Why would anyone risk it all to develop a product then if anyone can simply take it and capitalize on it because they are bigger or can be faster to bring it to market. Would it be fair for someone to take an artists song like Hotel California by the Eagles change it around a little and record it and profit from the sales ?
calabrese55

[mike calabrese]

Not having the patent system would eliminate the incentive for innovation other than for what is likely a small number of folks who enjoy "doing good" even if it doesn't pay well. There would be no "price lowering" because the innovation wouldn't exist. Humans need that incentive to be creative.



Correct Jim actually that is what I said in the next para
"The best way to kill innovation is to not protect the innovator who paid the dues, did the hard work to discover and develop a new idea. Why would anyone risk it all to develop a product then if anyone can simply take it and capitalize on it because they are bigger or can be faster to bring it to market. Would it be fair for someone to take an artists song like Hotel California by the Eagles change it around a little and record it and profit from the sales ?
calabrese55

[mike calabrese]

While I agree with this section of your post, you're respectfully missing something about this story.
Early on, SS did offer their system to other manufacturers, but for many reasons no one bought. That's only part of the issue.
A few years later, after SS had been out, they tried to sue many of the other saw manufacturers, to get their system put on ALL tablesaws. Part of their argument was, that any saw without a SS safety system was defective.
As you can imagine, the other companies were not happy with SS. First they were offered the tech and didn't want it, now they're getting sued to include it. All the while, not being able to market their own or anyone else's safety system. These companies were accused of banding together to boycott SS, but there is no evidence that they did.

This is why many people don't like the way SS went about things, feeling that they were suing just for revenge on the larger companies that didn't buy their tech early on and using safety as their stated motivation.

I don't think we'll ever know the whole story

Understood what SS did on a BS safety issue is foul play . It isn't any different than trying to ban all cars because they crash or airplanes because they crash or stairs because people fall down them.
It was utterly ridiculous for SS to even try that move . If successful then other companies would have to buy their rights to make saws. That is a monopoly and could never happen.
The part I tried to focus on s not about the integrity of a company hell that stuff goes on all the time on car lots. Taking advantage of a consumer is a national past time and comes in many forms and SS tried that by tying the hands of the competition and limiting consumer access to a broader range of products.
calabrese55

[Roger Feeley]

Give up the leg.... the arm is much more useful in the shop ;)
I would give up my left arm to be ambidextrous.

[Doug Garson]

I would give up my left arm to be ambidextrous.
How can you be ambidextrous with only one arm?:confused:
ambidextrous = able to use the right and left hands equally well

[Jay Houghton]

FWIW, the club I belong to has two SS's. We've had at least 4 brake activation's, none by flesh contact, and the only blade damaged was a thin kerf. If you're using a full kerf blade it will survive the contact with the aluminum in the brake and may (or may not) need a new tooth or to be sharpened. But the blades aren't automatically "trashed" as someone repeatedly states.
Jay

[Larry Frank]

I do not know if the blades are trashed. But, I am not going to take the risk. It is not unreasonable to believe the brazing of the tooth could be weakened with a brake activation. I do not believe that a visual examination is sufficient to know.

I had an activation with a Freud rip blade and tossed it in the trash. I am not going to risk a tooth flying off for the price of a blade. But everyone can make their own choice.

[Patty Hann]

How can you be ambidextrous with only one arm?:confused:
ambidextrous = able to use the right and left hands equally well

I'm semi-ambidextrous.

[Keegan Shields]

Once a thread looses its sense of humor, its all down hill :)

[Andrew More]

I do not know if the blades are trashed. But, I am not going to take the risk. It is not unreasonable to believe the brazing of the tooth could be weakened with a brake activation. I do not believe that a visual examination is sufficient to know.

I agree with Frank here. I'm not an expert on saw blades, but I could not see the damage on my Freud Glue Line blade when I tripped the sawstop. I could hear it running a bit differently, and I could see it in the cut, but whatever damage had occurred was pretty subtle. Not worth saving $50-60 IMHO.

[Edward Weber]

I agree with Frank here. I'm not an expert on saw blades, but I could not see the damage on my Freud Glue Line blade when I tripped the sawstop. I could hear it running a bit differently, and I could see it in the cut, but whatever damage had occurred was pretty subtle. Not worth saving $50-60 IMHO.

From SS

"When the safety system activates, it will sometimes damage one or more teeth on the blade. Some users discard and replace the blade, while others choose to have their blades inspected/repaired by a qualified specialist."

Personally, I would get a new blade.

[Rich Konopka]

I’m loving this thread!!

[mike calabrese]

I don't have a SS and I am not an engineer or even formally educated for that matter. I have a 1972 vintage Sears table saw now on it's 3rd motor. I have had several kick backs over the years and I have found as a result of the kick back is my saw blade is not quite the same after the event. Runs a little more vibration and certainly has some runout.
Keep in mind with a kick back there is no instant stop to the blade rotation. Even though a portion of the kinetic energy of the running saw blade is delivered to the new projectile smoking across my shop a large amount of the energy remains with the running blade.

In the case of a SS trip there is an instant and violent transfer of 100% of the kinetic energy delivered to a very solid mass across , through the saw blade.
The blade IMHO has to take on some damage or degrade in the previous condition.
I am sure you have heard the old adage It is not the fall that hurts it is the sudden stop at the end.
If I had a SS trip I would thank my lucky stars I am still in one piece and get me a new 10% saw blade. Why 10% saw blade because the least expensive SS is about $1000.00 and $100.00 can buy a pretty nice saw blade.
calabrese55

[Michael Burnside]

From SS

"When the safety system activates, it will sometimes damage one or more teeth on the blade. Some users discard and replace the blade, while others choose to have their blades inspected/repaired by a qualified specialist."

Personally, I would get a new blade.

Agreed. The brake is aluminum, which is much softer than your average steel blade, so I'd be looking less at the teeth and more at stress along the radius between the arbor hole and outer diameter. Things like cracks, warping of blade or arbor hole, etc. Depending on how tightly the arbor nut/waster were clamped would change how much stress the blade received stopping the motor. Even if I crashed one of my Ridge Carbide blades, I'd cry, but I'd replace it.

[John Kananis]

Off topic but Ridge does an awesome job at rehabbing their blades. I had a saw in storage for a few years with one of their combo blades still installed. There was a water leak... long/short, they turned that turd of a blade brand new looking, runs like a top and they even etched my name in it lol. I assume spin-balancing is part of their process. The more I think about it though, if I owned a ss and had a brake trip, I'd probably replace it too.


Agreed. The brake is aluminum, which is much softer than your average steel blade, so I'd be looking less at the teeth and more at stress along the radius between the arbor hole and outer diameter. Things like cracks, warping of blade or arbor hole, etc. Depending on how tightly the arbor nut/waster were clamped would change how much stress the blade received stopping the motor. Even if I crashed one of my Ridge Carbide blades, I'd cry, but I'd replace it.

[Michael Burnside]

LOL, maybe I'll send off my blades just to have my names etched! Cool story, I'm a fan of Ridge Carbide myself. They're always helpful in answering questions and their blades are 2nd to none.

[Edward Weber]

Off topic but Ridge does an awesome job at rehabbing their blades. I had a saw in storage for a few years with one of their combo blades still installed. There was a water leak... long/short, they turned that turd of a blade brand new looking, runs like a top and they even etched my name in it lol. I assume spin-balancing is part of their process. The more I think about it though, if I owned a ss and had a brake trip, I'd probably replace it too.

+1
The unseen issues (micro fractures, balance, etc) is what would concern me. There is a tremendous amount of energy involved in the triggering process that must go somewhere.

Also from SS;
"Can I use thin and thick kerf 10″ blades with a SawStop saw?
The SawStop safety system is designed for use with standard 10” blades with kerfs from 3/32” to 3/16”. Blades with kerfs much thinner than 3/32” should not be used because those blades might not be strong enough to withstand the force applied by the brake when it activates. As a result, those blades might deform and stop more slowly in the event of an accident, resulting in a more serious injury."

[Rich Konopka]

+1
The unseen issues (micro fractures, balance, etc) is what would concern me. There is a tremendous amount of energy involved in the triggering process that must go somewhere.

Also from SS;
"Can I use thin and thick kerf 10″ blades with a SawStop saw?
The SawStop safety system is designed for use with standard 10” blades with kerfs from 3/32” to 3/16”. Blades with kerfs much thinner than 3/32” should not be used because those blades might not be strong enough to withstand the force applied by the brake when it activates. As a result, those blades might deform and stop more slowly in the event of an accident, resulting in a more serious injury."

Are there 10” blades thinner than 3/32”? If the blade is greater than 3/16” than 1/4” or higher you use the Dado cartridge. I have not heard of micro fractures of a blade ever brought up before. Is this a common occurrence? Have you experienced this? Please share your experience with micro fractures on a saw blade. Enquiring minds want to know!! Im not sure what this has to do with the original post.

[Jim Becker]

Are there 10” blades thinner than 3/32”?
There may be a few "super specialty blades" out there, but it would otherwise be very uncommon for something to be thinner than a 3/32" kerf. Those specialty blades may be less than 10", too...I'm thinking blades used for applications like guitar fret slot cutting. Doubtful that would be a common application for a larger machine like the SS anyway.

[John Kananis]

Agreed. The only thing that comes to mind are some osb board blades.

[Edward Weber]

https://www.aaamowers.com/stens-cross/pdfs/Conversion_Chart.pdf
3/32" = .094"
As an example, Freud Thin kerf blades have a kerf of .091" but the plate is .071"
https://www.freudtools.com/products/LU83R010

I'm not sue I understand why the width of the kerf matters, the thickness of the blade plate is what takes the force.

[Rich Konopka]

https://www.aaamowers.com/stens-cross/pdfs/Conversion_Chart.pdf
3/32" = .094"
As an example, Freud Thin kerf blades have a kerf of .091" but the plate is .071"
https://www.freudtools.com/products/LU83R010

I'm not sue I understand why the width of the kerf matters, the thickness of the blade plate is what takes the force.

It does matter if you have a riving knife and the blade kerf is almost the thickness of Riving knife. The Riving knife on my Saw Stop is .090

[Edward Weber]

It does matter if you have a riving knife and the blade kerf is almost the thickness of Riving knife. The Riving knife on my Saw Stop is .090

I understand riving knife and kerf thickness, but I still don't understand what that has to do with the braking mechanism and whether or not the blade can handle it.

I might not be considering some aspect of this
Thanks

[Wade Lippman]

I do not think I would buy a knockoff SS cartridge made in china by a no name company.
Bill D.
Reading this thread, my thought was "gee, I hope they have cheap knockoff cartridge", but you make an excellent point. If they were cheap enough, I might test one with a hotdog though. I've always wanted to do that.

But knockoffs might make SS drop their prices.

[Micah Stolowitz]

Disclaimer: I own a sawstop.

They posted on IG that they want to make table saws safer. It got me thinking that if they truly want to make table sawÂ’s safer than they should make their technology license available to other companies. Not happening.

So when would their patent expire? Its be almost 20 years? No?

Actually, Steve Gass tried for years to license the technology to all the saw makers. No one wanted the added cost. He also pushed the federal government safety folks to require it - like seat belts. The manufacturer's lobby killed that effort. Steve finally decided to build the saw himself. The rest, as they say, is history. I have heard rumors that the school district liability insurance carriers will BUY the sawstop for the high school shop class.

Back to patents: There is a lot of misinformation circulating. I practiced patent law for nearly 40 years. (I am still registered to practice in the PTO but thankfully retired.) Yes, patents expire 20 years after the "priority date" - also called the "first filing date." So often the term is shorted than than 20 years. Measured from grant of a patent application, the typical term may be 17 years, allowing 3 years for examination of the application to allowance. Steve Gass and company continued to file additional patent applications for many years - likely they are still doing so. Steve Gass was himself a patent attorney until he pivoted to form sawstop. In any event, exactly when a given patent will expire can be complicated - and is not often clear from the face of the patent. Different claims in one patent may have different priority dates. Enough of that for now.

So I recently ran a quick search for sawstop patents and applications in the PTO; anyone can do this. Two documents of results are attached. Well, I may need more permission to attach documents as a new user. Or run your own search here: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/ppubsbasic.html
Note the search results are published patent applications - some of them may now be granted patents, others may be in examination, or even abandoned. Most US applications are published soon after 18 months after that "priority date." HTH

[Micah Stolowitz]

Here you go.