Left coast headed towards flesh detecting table saws in 2015

Page 1 of 3  
Blog references several LA Times articles.
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/editors-blog/california-closer-to-state-table-saw-regulations?utm_source edburner&utm_mediumed&utm_campaigned%3A+PopularWoodworking+%28Popular+Woodworking%29
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The sawstop technology should be adopted by all TS manufacturers. Licensing fees allowing manufacture of the systems by all TS manufacturers should be set by law to 2.5% of manufacturing costs (or another arbitrary low number). None of the lobbying expenditures incurred by Stephen Gass or his coconspirators should be allowed to play any role.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How very "liberal" of you.

The Constitution forbids such "takings", but don't let that stop you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


I'm just giving my opinion. I believe that the main problem with the sawstop technology is that Stephen Gass looked at it as a get rich quick scheme. Of course that is fine if he can sell it to industry and consumers of all kinds. His heavy-handed sales techniques have offended everyone (just about), but that does not mean his invention(s) are bad, on the contrary. Patents were invented and instituted to promote inventions, enhance the public welfare (whatever), and give the inventor a just reward.
I believe that in the case where an invention becomes a monopoly, that the inventor is obliged to license his invention at "reasonable" cost, not an exorbitant cost. My hyperbolic statements were meant to emphasize the reasonableness of the fees. As for taking, there is also eminent domain - much maligned, often improperly practiced, but such "takings" are allowed by the Constitution.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course. Your opinion never seems to take the law into account, though. "If I were tyrant..."

We agree on this part. We don't agree about the solution. I'd rather do something that's, you know, legal (and moral).

It's only a "monopoly" if government forces it to be a monopoly.

That's right. You lefties think it's OK to take someone's house to give to a shopping mall builder because they'll pay more taxes. Taking someone's IP, so the government can meddle more, isn't a big stretch, is it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


I agree that sometimes it seems that way. In the vein of, there ought to be a law ...

But there is a solution. If Gass's patents turn out to be a de facto monopoly, because the bills being discussed will absolutely require using his technologies (remember?) then government or whoever should set the maximum license fees. Or don't you remember that Gass really wants a lot?

But if CA or the Consumer protection whatever issue rules or laws that require the technology, then "government forces it to be a monopoly".

I didn't think the CT case was a very good one, and there are likely many more. Sometimes though, eminent domain is good. I'm sure you can find examples ... As for Gass's inventions, I'm sure that they'll eventually will come up with a way to remunerate him. After all, he is a lawyer ...
As for "taking IP", most companies take their employees' IP very easily and fast. Just read the rules of employment. You have to have very good records to show that your invention was yours, derived at home, outside working hours, if you don't want "them" to take it. I believe that the "Auto-Analyzer" invention was such a case.
And yes, I am of the opinion that an inventor should be rewarded for his/her efforts. Just not that it should be an exorbitant reward, thanks to lawyering, lobbying, and prescribing (with great emphasis on exorbitant - generous is enough).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It often happens when the "unintended consequences" aren't taken into account. Bad things happen when one falls into the "just do something" mode. Usually, doing nothing is a better solution.

No, the solution is for government to tell him to pound salt. He'll then drop the licensing fees to something more reasonable. ...or not and leave money on the table (saw).

Well, there's the *real* problem that needs fixing!

There are *many* that the Kelo decision let loose. ...and you want to widen the chasm even further.

"They"? Who's "they"? Why don't *we* let his invention stand on its own? Sure, I'd like to have a SawStop but I wasn't willing to pay 2x for it. A couple hundred, most probably. $2000? Not happening.

They didn't *TAKE* anything. It's a contract, willingly entered into. There is a *big* difference!

Who decides what's "exorbitant"? You? I haven't paid Gass a dime, and won't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Indeed, sometimes doing nothing is the best solution.

I don't know what the best course of action is. There are too many tablesaws in use by people who don't know how to handle them (I got lessons by my Craftsman what NOT to do. but it could have come out worse, and I had good insurance). For those people it would be good to have something like sawstop technology. While I don't really think that there ought to be laws imposing the Gass patents on all consumers, the approach of encouraging similar technology seems justifiable. But then we get into the problem of encouraging a de facto monopoly, and I would definitely be against that.

I'd call it a conundrum if you would like to prevent the injuries but don't like Gass's prices.

?? What chasm am I widening?? The Kelo decision has to regarded as an aberration. Especially after "they" decided not to do the project they initially proposed.

When (as may seem likely) the CA or Fed authorities mandate Gass-like technology, the license fees will need to be established. My TS is still OK. But if I were to buy a new one, I think SS is in the running. I'd have to price it carefully, though. Not anytime soon ...

If Joe working for Big Gadgets in the daytime makes something in the off- hours that he is then marketing as a viable competitor for Big Gadgets' product line, then I assume that Big Gadgets will want the rights. In the case of what became Auto-Analyzer, Big Gadgets was NOT successful.

I'm sure lawyers will determine that.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's not in *my* job description to make you "safe". It shouldn't be Congress', either. Deal with it yourself.

No, the real problem is that government is sticking its big fat nose in my life. Let me decide what Gass' invention is worth.

It's *NOT* an aberration. It's the law of the land, and has been used *many* times to steal land from people since. ...and you want to use it to steal Gass' IP.

A "taking".

I bought mine three years ago. I didn't buy SS because it wasn't worth the 2x price. If I bought today, given the same choices, I'd *certainly* not put money in Gass' pocket. I don't deal with scum.

If Joe signed the contract, it's a contract. It really is that simple.

Maybe having public policy in lawyer's hands is a comforting thought to you but it certainly gives me the willies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Some will... most wouldn't due to the up front cost for something that they don't think THEY need. Remember, everyone is above average and invulnerable... just ask them!
Some have a change of heart. For example, a friend of mine, a well known professional who teaches, writes for FWW and does DVDs for them, got nicked a few months ago when something slipped on a saw in a shop not his own. Though having been a professional for decades, and this being his first incident of it's kind, he decided to get a Saw Stop to replace his existing saw. His existing saw was a pretty good one in terms of safety (relatively new with a riving knife) but after the experience he felt justified in the change.
Free choice should remain the standard with a healthy dose of instruction thrown in. I also keep in mind that if something feels unsafe it probably is!
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:39:17 -0400, "John Grossbohlin"

Yes, but that's why we have this thing called "liberty". *You* choose what's good for you. It's not so good when you decide for your neighbor.

Good for him.

Absolutely agree. I haven't use my RAS in a couple of decades. I got to feeling unsafe when ripping with it. I've since bought a table saw and now have space for both, so will probably set it up for crosscutting. OTOH, nothing in this world is perfectly safe. We should stop pretending we can make it so. ...or should even try.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There, but for the grace of the woodworking gods, go most of us.
Well put...
--
www.ewoodshop.com

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK, let me clarify my reasoning. Whether we like it or not, I believe that we are going to get sawstop technology pushed on us by the safety people, thanks to Gass's lobbying and his patent expertise. I hope to be wrong, and that it will remain a matter of free choice, but I fear the nanny state(s)/feds will indeed force the stuff on us. If that happens, licensing fees need to be established in a monopoly situation. I am pretty sure that some hi-faluting negotiating on those fees will occur and that lawyers will take a large part in that, since it is a question of licensing patents and determining what is a fair fee. Previously I was throwing numbers in the ring for what I thought might be reasonable fees. But I am not a lawyer, have no experience whatsoever with patents, and dislike Gass rather strongly for his strongarm tactics.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If the government does require SS, what makes you think there will be any negotiations? Gass wins, takes his marbles and everyone else goes home. He and his lobbyists have grins on their faces.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

+1
-- [Television is] the triumph of machine over people. -- Fred Allen
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's the "crux" of the situation. Gass is an excellent patent attorney, and he has seized a problem and technology (flesh in proximity to a spinning metal blade) and provided a solution to greatly reduce the inherent dangers. He has done this rather thoroughly, so that it is nigh impossible for competing technologies to bypass his patents. After he approached TS manufacturers to sell them his technologies, they all said he was making a solution for a non-existing problem, and refused his offers (probably in part because they were afraid they'd price themselves out of the market, offering a technology nobody was going to buy). Then Gass (brilliantly, actually) went on a 3-prong attack. He started producing some excellent tablesaws incorporating his technologies, he lawyer-like started lobbying the safety agencies, and he helped start a lawsuit to further the safety angle of his premises. (I don't know whether he had any hand in the Ryobi suit, but it wouldn't surprise me).
The Consumer Product Safety Commission <www.cpsc.gov/> ... "is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction." So the question now is whether table saws fall in that category, and likely they (being bureaucrats sensing a big job at hand - pun intended) will take that challenge.
As I said IF and WHEN the CPSC gets a rule effective, TS manufacturers might have to get patent licenses. This is a reference to one answer to the question that then arises (How can I determine the right licensing fees for our product? What is the formula??): <http://tinyurl.com/c5v45mz or <http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/corporate-law/intellectual - property/LAW_COR_IPP/219676-642480>
One rough answer is this: There is a 25% rule that people use to "ballpark" royalties. The rule suggests that the licensee should pay 25% of profits resulting from the license to the licensor.
And so on and so forth.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/12/2012 6:33 AM, Han wrote:

Please replace the below listed words/phrases with the following, more realistic descriptions, in order of appearance: "greedy"; "greedily"; "greedily"; "greedily"; "game the legal system"; "lining his pockets"; "sure thing"
excellent thoroughly brilliantly lawyer-like lawsuit safety angle surprise
Thanks ... ;)
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, he was a witness against Ryobi in the lawsuit, Han. Page 3 of the appeal decision (another bad judgment, IMO) http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1824P-01A.pdf "Osorio largely relied on the testimony of his witness, Dr. Stephen Gass, inventor of "SawStop," a"

Precisely.
When Gass had a chance to be a hero (AND make millions off it), he will be remembered only as a @#$%^&* lawyer by future generations. Typical and very sad. I can only hope that review by an appeals judge brings out the probable vengeance angle by him against Ryobi after they failed to complete the licensing agreement.
-- [Television is] the triumph of machine over people. -- Fred Allen
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That too, but I do admire his ingenuity and his execution. That doesn't make him less of a greedy bastard, right?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

First answer is a whole lot more sensible: 3-10% for 1-3 years.
My favorite is a minimal licensing fee and set small amount per unit. For tablesaurs, I'd think $10k for licensing and a buck or two per saw would double his (and his fellow conspirees') millionaire status in a few years.

That's likely an answer given by someone with a patent who wants as much as they can rape ya for. Maybe someone with a recent metric shitload of "skin sensing technology" patents for a tablesaur. It's outrageously high.
-- [Television is] the triumph of machine over people. -- Fred Allen
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.