Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 138

Thread: SawStop vs Bosch ruling

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Haubstadt (Evansville), Indiana
    Posts
    1,294
    Initial ruling was Bosch imposed on the SawStop patent. If so I hope they lose. Just because they have "deep" pockets they should not be allowed to copy an idea and not pay for it. Many resent the fact that Gass tried to make his technology mandatory on every saw, thus eliminating a choice. To me the PTI did the exact same thing saying that I didn't need and couldn't have this technology also eliminating my choice. Today I have a choice because Gass surprised the PTI by starting SawStop. I did buy the SawStop because I was able to choose if I wanted the technology or a lousy blade guard the PTI says is all I need.
    When working I had more money than time. In retirement I have more time than money. Love the time, miss the money.

  2. Quote Originally Posted by Van Huskey View Post
    Not sure Bosch has misfired at all. .....

    In any event I think the Reaxx was strategically introduced to bleed SS of resources ahead of the original patents ending.
    Though I agree with your sentiments I can't accept your view that Bosch has taken a hostile stance against SS. This legal matter is merely a defence against Gass's characteristic litigious hostility.

    Bosch is a massive corporation which registers thousands of patents and which controls a massive market for the products it develops and produces. Sawstop is no threat to them.

    Bosch will respect the court's decision despite their view that they have introduced their own technology to the market without infringement.

    Sawstop is more likely to suffer harm for their effort spent trying to deprive the consumer the benefit of choice.

    On the other hand the simple fact that Bosch will move on is itself a mortal threat to SS who cannot present a credible threat to the massive company which is Bosch, at least not for a very very long time.
    Last edited by James Raubenheimer; 09-30-2016 at 7:37 PM.

  3. #123
    I wouldn't presume that this is over. All that has happened is that SawStop got a ruling in its favor. That can be appealed and appealed again to the Supreme Court. Bosch could decide to quit but patent cases often take many years and millions of dollars to resolve. Bosch certainly has the resources to take it to the conclusion. If Bosch appeals and SS continues, their costs will increase. I don't think Gass can fight Bosch on his own. If he does, I think he will loose. Bosch will hire a firm with much more resources and more experience. It is clear that Gass thinks a lot of himself. I hope he does decide to fight Bosch without help. I think they will overwhelm him.

    Unfortunately our legal system rewards those with more resources. They hire better lawyers that make more persuasive arguments. Gass won one round, not the war.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    2,479
    A guy comes with a new innovative product, all the big companies dismiss him (for whatever reasons, high price, high risk, greed on either side, etc). He puts a lot of effort to make this product from ground up and brings it to market. He does provide excellent product, excellent service (better than all those big boys). He does lobby (which is completely legal even if you think it is illegal or nasty). All the big corporation do it behind the scene. A big company comes and steals the idea (at least the current ruling indicates it). Then some root for the big company to win (even though they have broken the law, at least so far the ruling says).
    If it wasn't for Gass we wouldn't have this product on the market and probably the bigger companies would still pump out the 100 year old technology. I am supportive of innovation and people who do it and would like to see protection of rights of them especially against big corporation.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by William C Rogers View Post
    Initial ruling was Bosch imposed on the SawStop patent. If so I hope they lose. Just because they have "deep" pockets they should not be allowed to copy an idea and not pay for it. Many resent the fact that Gass tried to make his technology mandatory on every saw, thus eliminating a choice. To me the PTI did the exact same thing saying that I didn't need and couldn't have this technology also eliminating my choice. Today I have a choice because Gass surprised the PTI by starting SawStop. I did buy the SawStop because I was able to choose if I wanted the technology or a lousy blade guard the PTI says is all I need.
    and herein lies the crux of the issue...an idea is NOT patentable...

    look, I admit to ignorance in the following statements as I've not read the judge's full ruling and justification...

    I really don't think Bosch would waste the time to develop a product that infringes upon SS patents.

    as has been noted already in this thread, the technology of skin sensing was not developed by SS

    that logically leads to the conclusion that the idea of stopping a power tool by sensing proximity of flesh is NOT patentable...what would be patentable is just how the machine is shut down...again, an idea is NOT patentable, though of course the method as to how it is accomplished is...that being qualified (I'm just a 30 yr. veteran of in the fields trades word, NOT an attorney trained in obfuscation) it seems simple to me that the stopping and retraction of a blade is not patentable and that leaves the methodology of how it is done as being what the argument is about. a bit of study into the history of patents indicates that plenty of patents have been accepted and yet later overturned when analysis was done on just what was being patented, and I'm mentioning this because it wouldn't surprise me at all if SS patents were really not valid in the first place.

    from what I read of the history of the development of SS technology one thing sticks out as giving me a very negative view of Gass: his trying to make existing companies use his product...that in of itself taints my view of that person.

    if 'history' (and yeah, I'm quite well aware of how it is being constantly rewritten and blurred) proves me wrong and Gass is proven to be in the right, then so be it...as of this writing I'll stick by my impression that the patent lawyer Gass is just blowing gas and smelling up the whole room.
    Last edited by Michael Pyron; 10-01-2016 at 11:31 AM.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    2,479
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Pyron View Post
    and herein lies the crux of the issue...an idea is NOT patentable...

    look, I admit to ignorance in the following statements as I've not read the judge's full ruling and justification...

    I really don't think Bosch would waste the time to develop a product that infringes upon SS patents.

    as has been noted already in this thread, the technology of skin sensing was not developed by SS

    that logically leads to the conclusion that the idea of stopping a power tool by sensing proximity of flesh is NOT patentable...
    Absolutely it is patentable. Almost any product you pick has components that are available out there and have been used in different products.
    If you put "known" things together in a new and innovative way to achieve something that was not done before it is patentable. The combination of those "known" things makes a new idea/product.

  7. #127
    I would think the essence of a patent is that someone has a new idea. But I believe it's not the idea that is patentable but how the idea is implemented. I hold a number of patents relating to communications. And when you look at how communications is done - for example, how you put bits into a radio to transmit them and then extract them with minimal errors at the other end - it's all ideas that are expressed as mathematics. And I can absolutely assure you that those kind of patents hold up.

    A lot of companies paid a lot of money in licensing fees to be able to use patents that applied to modems that we all used.

    But, anyway, Gass is a patent attorney so I'm quite sure that he wrote those patents so that they'd stand up in court. Note that the founders of SawStop were all attorneys. And I think they were all patent attorneys. I expect those patents will stand up in court.

    Mike
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 10-01-2016 at 3:42 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rockingham, Virginia
    Posts
    337
    Today the U.S. International Trade Commission declined to review the decision of the ALJ who found Bosch had infringed Saw Stop Intellectual Property and who had recommended a limited exclusion order from importation into the U.S. be issued and enforced by the Customs folks. I do not believe the Bosch Saws have been sold for sale here - if so that could be an issue. Note that the original decision did not find the two braking actuators were equivalent - Bosch uses a pyrotechnic device and Saw Stop a spring. However, other claims were found to be infringed and the patents were found to be valid. If anyone wants, I will post the public decision, which is not short and has some redactions because of confidential business information. It was an interesting hearing and both parties were ably represented by law firms of impeccable reputation. The Commission will still review the public interest, etc,, and both parties still have the right to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but for now, it stands.
    Last edited by Thomas Pender; 11-11-2016 at 9:28 AM.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Pender View Post
    Today the U.S. International Trade Commission declined to review the decision of the ALJ who found Bosch had infringed Saw Stop Intellectual Property and who had recommended a limited exclusion order from importation into the U.S. be issued and enforced by the Customs folks. I do not believe the Bosch Saws have been sold for sale here - if so that could be an issue. Note that the original decision did not find the two braking actuators were equivalent - Bosch uses a pyrotechnic device and Saw Stop a spring. However, other claims were found to be infringed and the patents were found to be valid. If anyone wants, I will post the public decision, which is not short and has some redactions because of confidential business information. It was an interesting hearing and both parties were ably represented by law firms of impeccable reputation. Both parties still have the right to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but for now, it stands.
    If you can post a link to it, I'd like to at least look at it.

    Mike
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    3,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    If you can post a link to it, I'd like to at least look at it.

    Mike
    +1. I would like to read that as well. Thanks!
    Brian

    "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger or more complicated...it takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - E.F. Schumacher

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    3,970
    It still isn't over. Bosch can and should appeal. The unique part of the Gass design is the inertial and spring activated stop mechanism, a technology which Bosch does not use.

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Art Mann View Post
    It still isn't over. Bosch can and should appeal. The unique part of the Gass design is the inertial and spring activated stop mechanism, a technology which Bosch does not use.
    If it was that simple, Art, you wouldn't see the outcome that we have. There's a lot to patents and a lot that can be claimed. A patent is divided into sections. One section "teaches" how to do the function and the Claims section specifies what is actually patented. The claims section is what is litigated.

    Mike
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rockingham, Virginia
    Posts
    337
    The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the only circuit court that matters for patents) has (in what amounts to a one word order) affirmed the ITC's decision to exclude the Bosch contractor's saw from import to the US since Bosch was found to be in violation of Section 337 based upon a finding that Bosch infringed various valid Saw Stop Patents. This probably ends it - unless Bosch can come up with a viable work around, which can be risky.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    2,479
    Not surprising, at least to me.

  15. #135
    Not surprising to me either. I suppose other saw makers will have to wait for the patents to expire or pay SawStop a patent license fee.

    Mike
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •