Saw Stop Back in the News

[Marvin Keys]

The following is an article regarding Saw Stop's continuing agenda to force manufacturers to use their mechanism to prevent injuries. http://www.designnews.com/CA6360672.html

If you read the article you will see that engineers from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recommended that the government begin a “rulemaking process” that could result in mandatory safety standards for table saws. The agency’s commissioners have concurred with the recommendation.

Please do not take my posting of this to be anti-SawStop, but I am always skeptical when the guy who makes the product is the voice touting its need and requesting that the government mandate its use. I for one am certain that if regulations are adopted, the SawStop will not be the technology that wins this battle. I think they burned a bridge or two with their method of affecting the change that they wanted, that and an exorbitant 8% royalty fee is enough to make the big boys develop their own technology. Perhaps the creator of this technology really only wants to see safety improved, but my guess is that he wants to see it mainly because it impacts his bottom line positively (which I have no problem with).

I for one am hoping that it isn't successful because I simply prefer less regulation.

[Jeff Horton]

I have to agree. Since when it is the Governments job to protect me from myself?? If there is a problem in business and they are not willing to correct it then maybe they should be forced. But is there a big enough problem to justify this??

It's like mandatory motorcycle helmets. WHY? If I chose to be stupid and not wear one I endanger not one but by myself. I have never heard of a automobile driver injured because a motorcyclist didn't wear his helmet! I don't ride anymore but I always wore one, I think it is stupid not to. But it should be your choice to be stupid if you want too.

Kicks the soap box back to the center of the room.

[Chris Padilla]

Sometimes these regualtions are good. Through taxes, we all end up paying for the guy stupid enough not to wear his motorcycle helmet and who now needs special equipment to breath, blink, and "live" (on machines).... OSHA exists because of this. Sometimes we need protection from ourselves. Europe has done a good job with its regulations and safety on woodworking equipment.

The day you lose a finger will be the day you wished the gov't did make Delta/Jet/Grizzly/Powermatic/General have something in place...maybe! I think that it is good that SawStop is forcing the regulatory commisions to have a hard look at this.

I also agree that the big guys may well look at alternatives to SawStop...capitalism working for us at its best, IMO.

[tod evans]

i`m in the no more government regulations camp......fact is utility knifes account for most construction related injuries not power tools. plain-n-simple if it`ll cut wood it`ll eat flesh, those who fail to remember this simple fact learn the hard way. i`m all for the technology being available but think we as a society are waaay over-regulated as it is, it should be up to the person/company if they want to use the technology......same with helmets-n-seatbelts....02 tod

[Mike Henderson]

This is a tough balancing act. Personally, I think it's time that the American saw manufacturers did some things to increase the safety of saws - adding a riving knife is a good example since kickbacks are a problem. The Europeans addressed table saw safety long ago.

The problem is whether to allow market forces to bring these advances to the products or to mandate them. There are examples where government mandates have worked well, as in air bags in cars and GFCI in homes.

There are times when the user does not get to choose the table saw, such as in a woodworking school, or as an employee in a production shop. We can say that the people who supply the saw in those situations are liable but the person who loses the fingers has to live with the results, even if they get some money for it. How much would you sell a thumb for?

But asking 8% of gross revenue as a licensing fee is confiscatory - it would give a tremendous advantage to SawStop in the marketplace.

I used to participate in standards bodies for modems. The standards are set by the participants, who are primarily the people who make the products. In general, we would not include a patented technology in a standard unless the patent holder would agree in writing to license the technology "freely and reasonably", which in our industry meant to anyone who applied and for no more than about 1% to 1.5% of gross revenue for the product incorporating the technology.

I'm fairly sure that the standards for saws will be set the same way - by the manufacturers - so I'm pretty sure that whatever they come up with will be license free, or will have very low license fees.

So, my overall take is, I'm glad to see activity to improve the safety of table saws. It will benefit us all.

Mike

[Lee DeRaud]

Any comparison between mandatory SawStop technology and mandatory helmet/seatbelt usage is totally ridiculous. Consider the relative number and severity of the injuries concerned: are tens of thousands of hobbyist and semi-pro woodworkers dying or ending up in wheelchairs or on life-support from TS accidents? Don't think so.

You might be able to make a case for OSHA requiring the use of such technology in the commercial/factory environment, but I suspect the safety devices and procedures in use there are already quite sufficient.

[Mark Rios]

T How much would you sell a thumb for?
Mike

$6,127,894.22 would be my price.


While increasing the safety standards on the equipment that we use is obviously a good thing, that little 8% dealy just seems to smack of self-servance. It seems that the SawStop folks may be getting a little too greedy and damaging their point of concern for safety.


When I first read the article and the first post I immediately remembered the cartoon of "The OSHA Horse". If you remember seeing it, it had a big ol' safety net all the way around it and blinders and goggles on the horse and all sorts of silly appointments.

I think I'll hurry up and buy a new TS before it comes standard with a plastic blade.

[Al Willits]

The ability to buy a safer saw, I'd welcome it.
The gov't mandating it, scares me...ain't often they get it right..

Al . who thinks there's a big difference between being safe and the gov't doing it for us.

[Wes Bischel]

These issues are always very interesting to watch unfold. I, for one, would like to see more emphasis on safety from manufacturers. I also understand why they haven't - once a stake is put in the ground, it provides a basis for lawsuits. Not good logic, but financial logic - unfortunately.
I also know that the big guys have very smart people working for them. I suspect we will see some very clever and safe solutions (oh, and cost effective). What I also think we will also see is the formation of guidelines or standards which need to be met- developed with a very (suddenly) proactive industry- standards which will most likely work to the detriment of the SawStop technology - or negate it all together. A classic "Watch what you wish for" scenario. Hopefully I'm wrong on that point, but I've seen it happen before.

Thanks for the link Marvin - interesting read.
FWIW,
Wes

[Chris Barton]

Well, I will weigh in once again on this topic. First, had it been Mr. Gass' initial intention to bring a safer table saw to market and weather the market forces to sell his product as a safer and better alternative to what already exists I probably would applaud his efforts. However that is not what this attorney chose to do. First, he approached some companies with his product and tried to extort an 8% royality fee from them. When that failed he did start selling some saws that he contracted to have built (yet it is my understanding that no profit has yet to be seen) but, continued his attempt to mandate the use of his device through his efforts with regulatory bodies (very lawyer-like). I am very suspecious about Mr. Gass' intentions and I personally believe that Saw Stop table saws exist as a business only as a sham to cover his real mission, out licensing of a "mandated" technology that will put money in his pocket without any additional investment. I would be willing to bet that if the government mandated such a requirement that the production of Saw Stop table saws would cease instantaneously and their business would then become royality collections. They wouldn't even make the device that actually stops the saw any longer. That would become the job of the saw manufacturer. They would simply sit back and collect their "toll" upon the woodworking society. I will be curious to see what eventually happens with this. I am all for safety but, if safety is what we want why don't we mandate the passing of a government certified safety course before anyone purchases and power tool (or gun, or knife, or mower, or ladder...). But, myself I would rather defer to liberty and less government telling me what to do...

[scott spencer]

I have to agree. Since when it is the Governments job to protect me from myself?? If there is a problem in business and they are not willing to correct it then maybe they should be forced. But is there a big enough problem to justify this??

It's like mandatory motorcycle helmets. WHY? If I chose to be stupid and not wear one I endanger not one but by myself. I have never heard of a automobile driver injured because a motorcyclist didn't wear his helmet! I don't ride anymore but I always wore one, I think it is stupid not to. But it should be your choice to be stupid if you want too.

Kicks the soap box back to the center of the room.

I'll take that soapbox for moment....Government involvement too often results in the evolution of some minor industry (I mean goverment branch) that primarily benefits those that are employed by it, and I definitely don't like the idea of Saw Stop technology being mandated, but I have to disagree about seat belt laws and helmet laws. Saw Stop doesn't save many lives, if any for that matter...that's a lame argument, but seatbelts, airbags, and helmets do save lives. More to my point, they also reduce the number of head injuries that result in long term stays in tax payer subsidized institutions, which do indeed impact me. Most cyclists/motorists/individuals don't have enough money or insurance to cover the actual cost of an extended care facility, and that's when you and I step in and pay the difference.

[Dave Fifield]

Why shouldn't Mr.Gass make a decent amount of money from his patent/s? I'm miffed that I didn't think of the idea first, but not so miffed that I begrudge him his just deserves. An 8% royalty is not unheard of. The guy has a monopoly position and rightfully asserted it. The TS manufacturers refused to play (whether they conferred on their decision to turn Mr.Gass down or not is a question I'd like answered) and so Mr.Gass decided to go it alone. I applaud that decision. The TS manufacturers were very short sighted IMO - they could easily have incorporated the SawStop technology into new ranges of machines, raised the prices 25% (which we all would have paid) and paid Mr.Gass his 8%. When I build my new 'shop in a year or two, I'll be looking for a new TS and you can be darned sure it will have SawStop technology in it.

The only con argument that I have seen so far that I agree with is the legal liability one. Right now, if someone looses a finger on a TS, they are on their own - the TS manufacturer is like teflon. The day someone loses a finger on a SawStop machine that failed to work, there'll be an outcry and huge sums of money will be changing hands. This could force the TS manufacturers to take on an additional insurance burden. However, it seems to me that the cost of the extra insurance would still be worth it.

Dave F.

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

First, had it been Mr. Gass' initial intention to bring a safer table saw to market and weather the market forces to sell his product as a safer and better alternative to what already exists I probably would applaud his efforts.

Yup a hearty "bravo well met" would have been my responce too.

that is not what this attorney chose to do. First, he approached some companies with his product and tried to extort an 8% royality fee from them.

He'd have been in the general ball park compared to some royalties I have paid inventors. Then again I paid 2% to plenty.

When that failed he did start selling some saws that he contracted to have built

More power to him. Takes guts to do that.

continued his attempt to mandate the use of his device through his efforts with regulatory bodies (very lawyer-like).

I dunno bout "lawyer like" but it is true that too many people think all the world's ills can be solved with a federal law.

I am very suspecious about Mr. Gass' intentions and I personally believe that Saw Stop table saws exist as a business only as a sham to cover his real mission, out licensing of a "mandated" technology that will put money in his pocket without any additional investment.

The conflict of interest does appear plain on its face. It is possible however that he's just another loose geared leftist who thinks all the world's ills will be solved by yet another (Oh please dear god not another) federal law.

I would be willing to bet that if the government mandated such a requirement that the production of Saw Stop table saws would cease instantaneously and their business would then become royality collections.

This would be the most logical step. Most manufacturers would probably want it that way too. They'd not want to be in direct competition with the company that first introduces the gadget gizmo thingie that they had to incorporate.

They wouldn't even make the device that actually stops the saw any longer. That would become the job of the saw manufacturer.

It would be more economical.

I will be curious to see what eventually happens with this. I am all for safety but, if safety is what we want why don't we mandate the passing of a government certified safety course before anyone purchases and power tool (or gun, or knife, or mower, or ladder...).

and on and on and on God forbid that we let people take some responsibility for their own conduct.

But, [...] I would rather defer to liberty and less government telling me what to do...

Amen to that.

I never really liked that saw stop gizmo at all. I just don't trust things that use tekgnoglogogly to do what I ought to be doing. Eventually I'd lose the ability to do it for myself learning instead to trust the gizmo, and 10 years later when the xxxxx hits the fan the damn gizmo is broken and that's all she wrote.

But then I am one of those people who disapproves of fly by wire computer compensated navigation for private planes.

[Chris Padilla]

Well, I will weigh in once again on this topic. First, had it been Mr. Gass' initial intention to bring a safer table saw to market and weather the market forces to sell his product as a safer and better alternative to what already exists I probably would applaud his efforts. However that is not what this attorney chose to do. First, he approached some companies with his product and tried to extort an 8% royality fee from them. When that failed he did start selling some saws that he contracted to have built (yet it is my understanding that no profit has yet to be seen) but, continued his attempt to mandate the use of his device through his efforts with regulatory bodies (very lawyer-like). I am very suspecious about Mr. Gass' intentions and I personally believe that Saw Stop table saws exist as a business only as a sham to cover his real mission, out licensing of a "mandated" technology that will put money in his pocket without any additional investment. I would be willing to bet that if the government mandated such a requirement that the production of Saw Stop table saws would cease instantaneously and their business would then become royality collections. They wouldn't even make the device that actually stops the saw any longer. That would become the job of the saw manufacturer. They would simply sit back and collect their "toll" upon the woodworking society. I will be curious to see what eventually happens with this. I am all for safety but, if safety is what we want why don't we mandate the passing of a government certified safety course before anyone purchases and power tool (or gun, or knife, or mower, or ladder...). But, myself I would rather defer to liberty and less government telling me what to do...

Mr. Barton,

You use some rather strong and negative words in there like "extort" and "toll" and "sham". It is Capitalism at its finest--defer to your Liberty on that! Freedom in the market allowed him to pursue this avenue and if he becomes obsecenely wealthy because of it, then so be it. Do you feel similarly about Bill Gates, maybe Steven Jobs (Apple guy), or any other wealthy Capitalistic opportunist? For a "sham", his TS sure is a nice piece of equipment! Have you seen or used one at all?

[Lee DeRaud]

Why shouldn't Mr.Gass make a decent amount of money from his patent/s? I'm miffed that I didn't think of the idea first, but not so miffed that I begrudge him his just deserves.

I don't begrudge him his right to benefit from his patent and make a decent amount of money as a result. The problem is, apparently he can't. What he's trying to do now is have the federal government ensure his success by regulatory fiat.