Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 81415161718
Results 256 to 261 of 261

Thread: All table saws to be SawStops?

  1. #256
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,665
    What that statement doesn't address is the severity of injuries. And who is collecting data on injuries vs saw manufacturer anyway, besides SS? Emergency rooms? So of course the only available hard data would be from SS.

    My understanding of how CPSC works is that their mandate is to regulate when there is a meaningful and practical opportunity to improve product safety. They would do that by trying to estimate the economic impact on the country of lost man-hours, medical costs, and lost future earnings for people with permanent injuries. That is, the financial impact on the economy and how many such injuries could be prevented. And how much the safer technology would cost. Cost vs benefit. So an effective argument against regulation should be on that basis, not on personal experience.

    I dont think it's been too long since many experienced users used to brag about working without blade guards. New users, in the absence of any training requirements by retailers or manufacturers, were told they weren't necessary by the collective knowledge base. And manufacturers resisted going to riving knives until there were new designs and a consumer expectation that saws have them.
    < insert spurious quote here >

  2. #257
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Doylestown, PA
    Posts
    7,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd McKinlay View Post
    Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and many, many more have attempted most if not all of the above. It has been that way throughout our history.
    My understanding is that technology has something called FRAND. From Wikipedia:
    Reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, also known as fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, denote a voluntary licensing commitment that standards organizations often request from the owner of an intellectual property right (usually a patent) that is, or may become, essential to practice a technical standard.

    I wonder if something like this could be applied to woodworking machine design that potentially impact users' health and well being. My understanding is that Sawstop could be compensated for their intellectual property, they just couldn't get greedy and would have to make that I.P. available on fair and non-discriminatory terms. Or maybe I misunderstand, I'm certainly not a patent lawyer.

  3. #258
    saw one of those fail videos last night and part way through content creater pulls is sled with what he is cutting back. You dont pull stuff back

    Content creater also had his hand behind the blade so when it kicked back even with a riving knife his hand went straight into the blade. Looked like it would have done in a gaggle of fingers

    Same story people sold devices that have a visa card and no knowledge of what they are doing. If I want to buy a gun they will do a colenscopy yet one more oblivious human is working on a machine. I was taught not to do both the things he did. He wasnt.

    The device did its job, the fail was before the device in that one more human has a saw and doesnt know about using it.

    Cant remember if he had an extension table or not one more thing. Good the saw saved him, it did its job. Its still the same though, no training no understanding.

    I saw a very good you tube think Bradshaw guy, one of the real guys, hes not doing stand up comedy. He did detailed explain of all as he was doing the job and I heard once or twice as he explained this is how we were taught. Thought it was a bit sad that the content creators some millions of views and here is a real guy who is teaching and well and his view numbers were so much smaller.

  4. #259
    Quote Originally Posted by Kent Cartwright View Post
    I'm sorry, but this is not a peer-reviewed article about table saw injuries using data and a valid research method, which one normally needs to reach a defensible conclusion. After reading it completely, it appears to be conjecture, using cherry-picked information from another source, with no effort to test or vet the data, done by SawStop's competitors in their filing to the CPSC. Were it submitted for peer review, they would tear this thing apart not only for the lack of research methods but also for the lack of exploring another rationale for many of the "Conclusions". For instance, concluding that SawStop tech makes using their saw 5 times more dangerous completely ignores the fact that no other manufacturer tracks the injury rates and causes of their own saws. So this article is comparing SawStop's self-reported injury rates to ....what? Certainly not to comparable data.

    I think one needs to accept this report for what it is, which is a well-written argument by competitors trying to sway the opinions of the decision-makers at the CPSC. They very well may have valid points, but they have not established them as "facts".
    i never misrepresented it at all.
    I provided a quote and a link to where it came from, nothing more.
    If you disagree with the Power Tool Institutes position, don't blame me.

  5. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt Harms View Post
    My understanding is that technology has something called FRAND. From Wikipedia:
    Reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, also known as fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, denote a voluntary licensing commitment that standards organizations often request from the owner of an intellectual property right (usually a patent) that is, or may become, essential to practice a technical standard.

    I wonder if something like this could be applied to woodworking machine design that potentially impact users' health and well being. My understanding is that Sawstop could be compensated for their intellectual property, they just couldn't get greedy and would have to make that I.P. available on fair and non-discriminatory terms. Or maybe I misunderstand, I'm certainly not a patent lawyer.
    I participated in standards organizations for modems and if a company had a patent that might be integrated into a standard, they had to agree to license it freely and reasonably. It's been a long time, but a company may have had to agree to that before they could participate in standards setting.

    Otherwise, the standard would avoid the patent, even if it resulted in a less optimum standard.

    But even with that, it limited who could produce the modems because the major companies all had applicable patents and they would cross license each other. A new company with no patents would have to pay the (reasonable) patent license fees which would put them at a financial disadvantage. There were a lot of patents in modems. Even ten cents per modem per patent would have priced the new company out of the market.

    Mike
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 03-02-2024 at 7:24 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  6. #261
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    631
    I wonder how much it costs to license the stupid Apple patent covering a rectangular box with rounded corners for electronics.

Posting Permissions

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