Sawstop's Patenet To Expire in 2021 Cheaper Saws?

[Martin Wasner]

Any product that is made safer (due to government regulations or not) is a good thing.

That is subjective to view point. I'm in the camp of there being too many people and seemingly those who should fall prey to Darwinism are far out breeding those who can avoid it on their own.

I say take the labels off for a few decades and see if we're not better off as a specie.

[Simon MacGowen]

That is subjective to view point. I'm in the camp of there being too many people and seemingly those who should fall prey to Darwinism are far out breeding those who can avoid it on their own.

I say take the labels off for a few decades and see if we're not better off as a specie.

Even with warning labels, the rate of incidents, accidents and injuries is not lowering. Why would we think the opposite would make things better?

I understand your point and no, I am not saying everyone needs the extra protection such as the SS feature. The same can be said of airbags, seat belts, smoking etc. I still remember the days of flying in a smoking chamber for over 8 hours and if no laws were passed about forbidding smoking today, I think I would still be flying, but with a portable O2 and/or water tight air filtration mask.

But when the public safety concerns are ignored by certain group -- in this case, the saw making industry -- the government has to do its duty. If, say, a professional group -- doctors or lawyers -- fails to govern itself well, the government will step in and enforce certain measures. Why saw makers should be exempted?

Simon

[Art Mann]

Doctors and lawyers have failed miserably to regulate themselves and the government hasn't done anything about it. Why should the government single out tool manufacturers?

I would prefer that consumers make their own choices. There are thousands of people who wouldn't be able to own a table saw if the purchase price suddenly jumped $300. That is what Gast lobbied for. I used to be one of those people. Every law or regulation has unintended consequences that may be worse than the unhappy outcome the regulation is designed to prevent.

But when the public safety concerns are ignored by certain group -- in this case, the saw making industry -- the government has to do its duty. If, say, a professional group -- doctors or lawyers -- fails to govern itself well, the government will step in and enforce certain measures. Why saw makers should be exempted?
Simon

[Simon MacGowen]

Doctors and lawyers have failed miserably to regulate themselves and the government hasn't done anything about it. Why should the government single out tool manufacturers?

I would prefer that consumers make their own choices. There are thousands of people who wouldn't be able to own a table saw if the purchase price suddenly jumped $300. That is what Gast lobbied for. I used to be one of those people. Every law or regulation has unintended consequences that may be worse than the unhappy outcome the regulation is designed to prevent.

As someone close to people in the medical profession, I disagree with your first statement. Yes, the system has many holes but please don't paint with a super big brush and the changes in the medical society are ongoing with stresses on the practitioners that outsiders cannot feel. Those stresses come from both the governing bodies, governments (state etc). insurers and patient groups. All for the good of everyone, if I may. The point is, like it or not, the government is doing something even not to the extent or speed we consumers (or patients) like it to be. But you are making a good argument that more, not less, government action seems to be needed!

Now, no one is saying better safety has no cost implications. By your reasoning, we should allow cars without airbags, etc. to be sold, at a lower cost ($2,000 less?) so more people can afford them!

Let us put the Gass factor aside (he no longer owns the SS company). If the SS patents have all expired and anyone can produce a saw with such technology, would you still support the notion that every new saw must have the finger-saving technology? Riving knives cost more money for saw makers to make their saws? Would you support that every new cabinet saw should have a riving knife (which has no Gass or patents concerns)?

What about those who want nothing of those features? They can take care of themselves, they say. NO worries, in the next 50 years and more, there will still be endless supply of old saws or old stock without such add-ons. The new regulations I have in mind do not ban using or reselling them; I am talking about designing and manufacturing new saws.

If Festool came up with a finger-saving bandsaw and mitre saw etc. that doesn't infringe on the SS patents, would you support that every new bandsaw, mitres saw etc, be sold with such safety feature? Again, there is no Gass factor here.

I know there are people who even think we can live peacefully and constructively without ANY government. Can we?

Simon

[Pat Barry]

As someone close to people in the medical profession, I disagree with your first statement. Yes, the system has many holes but please don't paint with a super big brush and the changes in the medical society are ongoing with stresses on the practitioners that outsiders cannot feel. Those stresses come from both the governing bodies, governments (state etc). insurers and patient groups. All for the good of everyone, if I may. The point is, like it or not, the government is doing something even not to the extent or speed we consumers (or patients) like it to be. But you are making a good argument that more, not less, government action seems to be needed!

Now, no one is saying better safety has no cost implications. By your reasoning, we should allow cars without airbags, etc. to be sold, at a lower cost ($2,000 less?) so more people can afford them!

Let us put the Gass factor aside (he no longer owns the SS company). If the SS patents have all expired and anyone can produce a saw with such technology, would you still support the notion that every new saw must have the finger-saving technology? Riving knives cost more money for saw makers to make their saws? Would you support that every new cabinet saw should have a riving knife (which has no Gass or patents concerns)?

What about those who want nothing of those features? They can take care of themselves, they say. NO worries, in the next 50 years and more, there will still be endless supply of old saws or old stock without such add-ons. The new regulations I have in mind do not ban using or reselling them; I am talking about designing and manufacturing new saws.

If Festool came up with a finger-saving bandsaw and mitre saw etc. that doesn't infringe on the SS patents, would you support that every new bandsaw, mitres saw etc, be sold with such safety feature? Again, there is no Gass factor here.

I know there are people who even think we can live peacefully and constructively without ANY government. Can we?

Simon

Lets not make this about government per se, but about what it is - some people are just smarter than others and they want to make sure everyone else knows it and that everyone complies with their super smart wishes.

This happens everywhere - not just table saws. Take seat belts for example - its idiotic that there are laws mandating use of seat belts. Without the law, dumb people will not use seat belts and might get hurt. Who cares? You care, because at some level this might cost you, the faithful seatbelt user and law abider, in your pocketbook. Otherwise, why worry about what those dumb people do?

Same thing for smoking.

Another example - backyard mechanics get hurt working on their cars, probably more get hurt and some far worse than with table saws. Wouldn't you just love it if there was a hood sensor that kept the motor from running if the hood was open, then only give the keys to the sensor to the 'real' mechanics.

[Peter Christensen]

SawStop did in the beginning have a bandsaw with a blade break. It was on their website.

[Edwin Santos]

Lets not make this about government per se, but about what it is - some people are just smarter than others and they want to make sure everyone else knows it and that everyone complies with their super smart wishes.

This happens everywhere - not just table saws. Take seat belts for example - its idiotic that there are laws mandating use of seat belts. Without the law, dumb people will not use seat belts and might get hurt. Who cares? You care, because at some level this might cost you, the faithful seatbelt user and law abider, in your pocketbook. Otherwise, why worry about what those dumb people do?

Same thing for smoking.

Another example - backyard mechanics get hurt working on their cars, probably more get hurt and some far worse than with table saws. Wouldn't you just love it if there was a hood sensor that kept the motor from running if the hood was open, then only give the keys to the sensor to the 'real' mechanics.

Pat - one of the things that ties in to what you're saying is the attitudes that are characteristic of certain groups. I'd say woodworkers as a group tend to be not-so-receptive to being told what to do by the government no matter how benevolent the mandate may be. This does not surprise me because most woodworkers are do-it-yourself types that are used to being self-reliant and self-accountable. Usually people wired that way see less need for the government to save them from harm, instead they place that responsibility upon themselves. I think it's more an issue of human nature of the demographic than legal or political. And I'm not saying it's right or wrong.

This may also be why SawStop in general is such a polarizing subject among woodworkers. On the one hand you have the story where Mr. Gass, the well intended inventor, was simply trying to make the world a safer place and the greedy, powerful tool corporations snubbed him, forcing the poor fellow to valiantly manufacture his own table saw and defend himself when large companies were trying to squash him. David and Goliath.

On the other hand you have the alternative story that says once Mr. Gass, the opportunistic patent attorney, secured his web of patents, he used that influence and the threat of liability to shake down the tool companies and when they balked at his license and royalty demands, he then went and petitioned the Feds to mandate HIS technology in a shrewd attempt to create a legal monopoly, one that would be imposed upon all of us, which attempt failed. And then when one company (Bosch) tried to come to market with a safety device that they hoped was different enough to safely exist as an alternative to SawStop, Mr. Gass, the patent attorney successfully detonated his patent landmines and that was the end of that.

Which story is more correct? I think you'd have to have been directly involved to know for sure, and I wasn't so I really don't. But unsurprisingly the latter story, which was widely spread, did not play well with a good many woodworkers, as good as the SawStop saw itself may be. It's a very interesting situation and I wonder how it might change with Festool as the new owner.

For an interesting story in contrasts, look up the story of inventor/woodworker/boatbuilder Bill Biesemeyer and the Biesemeyer fence. His story played very well with woodworkers.


Edwin

[Peter Christensen]

Keep in mind that Mr. Bosch like the other companies wanted nothing to do with blade brakes until they were sued and lost because a worker on a job site using one of their saws without guards sustained severe hand injuries. Mr. Bosch was put in a position of having to make saws with a brake or be seen as negligent when the next accident with their saws happened and they had done nothing knowing the saws could be dangerous. They were just forced into covering their behinds. They are sold here in Canada for a couple hundred more than the same SawStop sized one, unchallenged by SawStop, but that could be due to the much smaller market here or perhaps because our laws are different.

[Simon MacGowen]

They are sold here in Canada for a couple hundred more than the same SawStop sized one, unchallenged by SawStop, but that could be due to the much smaller market here or perhaps because our laws are different.

The new owner may choose to continue to ignore that situation even though its muscles are much larger and stronger than SS. If the patents are actually running out in 6 to 10 years as rumored (no one outside the old or new ownership knows for sure), a Canadian battle may not be worth a fight at all. Better put the resources into expanding the SS feature to other Festool machines.

Simon

[Mike Henderson]

Keep in mind that Mr. Bosch like the other companies wanted nothing to do with blade brakes until they were sued and lost because a worker on a job site using one of their saws without guards sustained severe hand injuries. Mr. Bosch was put in a position of having to make saws with a brake or be seen as negligent when the next accident with their saws happened and they had done nothing knowing the saws could be dangerous. They were just forced into covering their behinds. They are sold here in Canada for a couple hundred more than the same SawStop sized one, unchallenged by SawStop, but that could be due to the much smaller market here or perhaps because our laws are different.

Patents can only be asserted in the country of their issue. That is, if you want protection in Canada, you have to get a Canadian patent. Same with every other country - I don't know how the EU works now, maybe you can get an EU patent and it will cover all the EU countries. When I was working, we would only get a patent in a limited number of countries because of the cost of each patent. So, USA for sure. Maybe England, Germany and France for a valuable patent. Most of the time we would not get a Canadian patent - too small of a market.

SawStop may not have Canadian patents.

Mike

[Simon MacGowen]

Patents can only be asserted in the country of their issue. That is, if you want protection in Canada, you have to get a Canadian patent. Same with every other country - I don't know how the EU works now, maybe you can get an EU patent and it will cover all the EU countries. When I was working, we would only get a patent in a limited number of countries because of the cost of each patent. So, USA for sure. Maybe England, Germany and France for a valuable patent. Most of the time we would not get a Canadian patent - too small of a market.

SawStop may not have Canadian patents.

Mike

Is it expensive to get a patent?

I don't know how big or small the Canadian market is, but if we use the two countries' populations as a guide, the Canadian market would be 1/10 of the US ballpark. That's 10% of the sales...shouldn't that potential revenue be able to more than cover any one time additional costs incurred on getting the necessary Canadian patents?

Simon

[Glen Gunderson]

Is it expensive to get a patent?

I don't know how big or small the Canadian market is, but if we use the two countries' populations as a guide, the Canadian market would be 1/10 of the US ballpark. That's 10% of the sales...shouldn't that potential revenue be able to more than cover any one time additional costs incurred on getting the necessary Canadian patents?

Simon

But they can still sell (and do sell) in Canada without a patent, so they're not foregoing the revenue. The only risk is if someone copies it just for the Canadian market which is probably not economical for anyone to do.

[Mike Henderson]

Is it expensive to get a patent?

I don't know how big or small the Canadian market is, but if we use the two countries' populations as a guide, the Canadian market would be 1/10 of the US ballpark. That's 10% of the sales...shouldn't that potential revenue be able to more than cover any one time additional costs incurred on getting the necessary Canadian patents?

Simon

The company I worked for filed a lot of patents every year so they had a deal with a patent law firm where the law firm did the patents for a fixed fee each. But if you do a one-off, I expect it could run up to about $10,000. That's in the US. I expect that the cost would be similar in every country you filed in.

We only filed in countries where the market for the product was reasonably large.

Also, if you stopped someone else from selling in the US, the European Union and China, they wouldn't have much market left to sell into. And as Glen pointed out above, you would be selling in all those countries, also, just without patent protection. So not only would a competitor have a limited market to sell into, they would be competing with you. It just wouldn't be profitable for someone else to compete with you under those conditions.

Mike

[Simon MacGowen]

Just found out from the SS manual (2012) that in addition to U.S. patents, Aust, Canada, Japan, etc. patents are listed.

Simon

[Kevin Smira]

I didn't read every post, so if this has been discussed, I apologize...But, with Festool now being the owner, will we see the price of Sawstops increase every year in March...just like Festool (said somewhat tongue-in-cheek)...