Re: SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US

Page 1 of 7  
Leon writes:

When I was a kid, New York instituted forced auto liability insurance. We won't talk about the cost rise from maybe 50 bucks to whatever it is in Westchester County today--I can't afford the houses there, either. But that was in 1957. Today, you have to be exceptionally poor or crazy to go without auto insurance. Even a small accident involving other people can not only bankrupt you, but can keep you bankrupt for a lifetime. This is not totally the fault of insurance companies getting what they want, but is the combined problem created by overly powerful insurance companies (sit back and think about how much of your life is run by insurnace company demands--they even tell churches how many dusk-to-down lights they've got to have to keep their policies), but also by lawyers who inflate judgments in order to make sure their half the result is worth keeping.
Charlie Self
If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to. Dorothy Parker
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

*EXCEPT* that anything that meets the 'petition' specifications is covered by _their_ PATENT.
Thus, _effectively_, giving them a *monopoly* of the market.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, it doesn't. The proposed regulation would dictate what a saw safety device would hve to do. It does not say HOW it must be done. If someone else can come up with a different product that achieves the same performance goals in a different way, they would meet the definitions in the regulation and would not violate SawStop's patent.
Again, a monopoly is not created just because someone is first to the market with a new product. If that were the case, there would never be another new innovation!
--
=====================
Sam Chambers
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: No, it doesn't. The proposed regulation would dictate what a saw safety : device would hve to do. It does not say HOW it must be done. If someone : else can come up with a different product that achieves the same performance : goals in a different way, they would meet the definitions in the regulation : and would not violate SawStop's patent. : : Again, a monopoly is not created just because someone is first to the market : with a new product. If that were the case, there would never be another new : innovation! : : : -- :The product is on the market. Apparently very few people are buying it. Saw Stop appears to want to get their development cost back by having the Govt. legislate it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, and no. The product has been developed, and the company has been taking reservations for their own brand of saws for some time. But I'm not aware that they're actually shipping anything.
Now, if they could come up with a way to retrofit the darned thing, they'd obviously have a much broader market.
SawStop sees a market for their product, but the manufacturers aren't willing to adopt it on their own. As I stated in another post, there may be reluctance on the manufacturers' parts to voluntarily add better safety equipment, due to increased lawsuits filed by people who were injured using (or not using) the old safety equipment.
--
=====================
Sam Chambers
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sam,
Did you read the "performance specification" that was submitted? It states a number of requirements which are clearly tailored to a specific implementation - the very same implementation that is patented by those submitting the petition. If the petition were more broadly worded, then I'd agree with you. But it isn't and therefore people are crying foul.
-Jack
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well of course it is, since their product is the only one on the market that detects human flesh and stops a spinning blade. I did read the petition, and in my opinion, it stops whort of mandating use of one system. For example, it states that the system must be, "capable of detecting contact or dangerous proximity between a person and the saw blade..." It doesn't state how such detection must be accomplished. In theory, someone could come up with an infrared ro laser based system that detects close proximity to the blade, and meet this requirement.
The petition also states that the system must have, "a reaction system to perform some action upon detection of such contact or dangerous proximity, such as stopping or retracting the blade..." Again, the petition does not state exactly how this requirement is to be met. Perhaps a system could be developed that uses a brake system similar to the disc brakes in your car, rather than one that works directly on the teeth of the saw blade. If so, this requirement would be met, and not infringe upon SawStop's patents in any way.

I think it's worded broadly enough to allow for competition to crop up. Don't you think that, since SawStop approached them a few years ago, Delta, Jet/Powermatic, Dewalt and others have been exploring ways of accomplishing the same thing?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message news>

I think that the problem with the petition is that it was not worded in a way that everyone understands with out perhaps an attorney to help out. I believe a lot may be being read into the petition.
I agree that if the performance modification is mandated, which will guarantee a market also, other people much smarter than me will jump at the opportunity to offer a better mouse trap. I have thought of the laser detection and that seems pretty reasonable as laser are pretty inexpensive now days, or a device similar to what garage door openers use to reverse the door if you break the beam. The trick here would be to determine if a hand or wood was in the path of the blade. As for brakes, a disk and caliper on the opposite side of the arbor sounds like a great idea or a simple pin to engage into a blade hole or arbor hole.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I glanced over the petition but have not read it. My comment was based on openions made about the petition. The openions seem to be rather broad based and and non specific. The lack of specific indicators mentioned lead me to my comment. While that was probably not a good thing to do and contrubutes to the " he said she said" chatter concerning the petition.

Well Jack I dont want to reveal all my secrets... LOL.. It was just a suggested avenue to explore. The disk and caliper method would be an easier solution and that could be followed with a back up pin locking in to insure absolute imobility. Something like applying the parking brake after putting the transmission in park on an automobile.

I wonder if the insert were to raise from the table with a shield around it to encase the blade with out dropping the blade would be in violation?

Well Jack, like I dont know all the details of the petition, you dont know all the details of my professional working career. But to put some clairity on my career,
From the time I was a senior in HS and attended college 1972-1976 I worked for Ameron Automitive Centers. I was eventually promoted to store manager in 1976. In 1977 a better position was offered with BF Goodrich as an assistant manager. Again in 1978 I was offered a better job opportunity as Parts Manager of a new Oldsmobile franchise in Houston. I was 23. This was also the year that I started taking woodworking more seriously. This was a start from scratch company. The dealership was Ray Hewitt Oldsmobile. One year later the franchise was sold and became Rice Menger Oldsmobile. I advanced to Service Sales Manager in 1983. In 1985 I was promoted to Parts Coordinator of the Oldsmobile and Isuzu Dealerships. In 1987 I was offered a position as General Manager of a AC/Delco 3M wholesale distributor. This was a relative small company that was very profitable while I was employeed there. The retirement plan was extremely attractive and afforded me the opportunity to retire in 1995 at age 40. One of the owners that was my age retired 5 years later as a millionaire. In 1997 I started my own Woodworking business so that I could do what I wanted to do and make money in the process. From year 1 I have been profitable and work at my leasure.
So from 1978 to the present I have been involved in woodworking. That is about 25 years. I was in the Automotive field from 1972 untill 1995 when I retired at age 40. That is about 23 years. Since 1997 I have been self employeed to keep my self busy. That has been about 7 years. I will be 49 next month.

Now, I can assure you I have absolutely no financial interest in SawStop unless my mutual funds portfolio include SawStop. To tell you the truth there are hundreds of companies that my mutual funds invest in and I could not name one company off the top of my head. As far as being a troll, No, not a troll, I have been a very active participant in this news group since early 1999 maybe 2000 IIRC. I doubt any one would consider me a troll. That said, the poster of this SawStop thread posted this thread under another thread started by Jim Mc. If there is a troll, it would be Gary Milliorn. He is the one that has dropped this piece of bait that started this OT conversation under another thread and has yet to mention a peep since his original post as far as I can see.
(you have claimed both) and with

Well certainly not broke and certainly not rich but very comfortably retired at 48. I can certainly afford the SawStop brand saw now but like I have run businesses and run my business now I choose not to buy a whole new saw now when my current saw is 3 years old. When I do replace my saw I will go for stop system similar to the one we are talking about. I did not retire at 40 by spending frivolously.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK, I understand that. I hope you will accept my apologies for calling you a troll.
-Jack
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Apologies accepted and absolutely not necessary... This is all just lively discussion and tempers get a bit out of whack now and then... It has been a long long time since I have been the target.. Ha.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But did you also read the PATENT CLAIMS ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com says...

If you were to look closely at the proposed Spec., you would see that it would be fairly impossible to meat it without either violating the patent, or licensing it. I've seen enough lockout spec's in my time to spot this one a mile away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:>I hear what you're saying, but that's not really what the petition says. :>True, they've modeled the petition based on what their system can do (makes :>sense, since there's is the only such product), but it doesn't mandate use :>of the SawStop system. : *EXCEPT* that anything that meets the 'petition' specifications is covered by : _their_ PATENT.
: Thus, _effectively_, giving them a *monopoly* of the market.
Do you have any understanding of the intent of patent law?
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Here is a copy of an email I sent to SawStop and their response FYI:
MY LETTER
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 11:09 AM To: snipped-for-privacy@sawstop.com Subject: Petition Requesting Performance Standards to reduce table saw injury
Petition Requesting Performance Standards for a System To Reduce or Prevent Injuries From Contact With the Blade of a Table Saw (Petition No. CP 03-2)
Dear Sir or Madame:
This letter is in reference to the above Consumer Product Safety Commission petiton.
I am a hobbyist woodworker and currently own a Delta Unisaw 3HP 10" table saw. I was considering purchasing your invention. I am no longer considering this purchase. The reason for this is that I judge the companies that I do business with in a number of ways. One of these is the value of their product. Another is integrity. Your invention certainly has value. Your company, however, has absolutely no integrity.
The United States is a nation based on freedom and your efforts to increase your personal and corporate profits via reduction in all American's personal rights are deplorable. I was shocked and sickened to see your blatant use of the regulary system to force consumers into a situation where you and only you would profit.
I also intend to take every opportunity and to encourage the numerous fellow woodworkers I know to contact the Safety Commission and any other pertinent parties and express our opposition to this change in table saw safety regulation.
A free market is a wonderful thing. If you would have used this market as intended and let your product stand on its own merits then I could respect you. By choosing the route of forcing consumers to use your product you have clearly shown your true colors. You have chosen your own fate and the inevitable failure of your endeavor.
Sincerely,
Michael Logman
THEIR REPLY:
Thanks for the email and comments. We understand your position concerning government intervention. In many cases we would agree with you. However, in this case, where there are over 30,000 serious injuries each year, where information concerning the number and severity of injuries is not readily available to the public, and where manufacturers do not seem to care about the injuries, we think filing a petition for rulemaking is appropriate. In short, it makes more sense to petition for new safety rules than it does to live with the tremendous number of serious injuries. At least we think so.
Additionally, we hope that the petition will motivate other companies to adopt the technology so that it becomes available faster than it otherwise would. The petition also will allow the government to gather information concerning the economic cost to society of table saw injuries, which will be available to the public and will be helpful in deciding whether to create new safety regulations.
Finally, as a point of clarification, our proposed standard requires manufacturers to make saws safer, just as car manufacturers are required to put seat belts and airbags in cars. Our proposed standard does not require consumers to use a particular type of saw.
Anyway, thanks for your comments.
David Fanning
SawStop, LLC 22409 SW Newland Road    503-638-6201 Wilsonville, OR 97070        503-638-8601 fax snipped-for-privacy@sawstop.com        www.sawstop.com
___________________________________________________________
Nothing too surprising in their reply, and it probably is a form letter that they send to anyone complaining about their business tactics. Leon, you really should ask them if you can be a spokesman for their company, you and this Fanning guy are definitely on the same wavelength.
Mike
--
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Good for you Mike... you showed em. ;~)
AND maintained your integrity.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike in Mystic wrote:

A damned fine letter. Good job.

Their reply is a nice bit of semantic gamesmanship with a great deal of intentional misdirection.
Let me count the flaws...
They are attempting to compel us to to use saws equipped with a safety device.
But only THEIR safety device.
Their analogy to car seat belts and airbags is flawed, because there are several competing manufacturers making seat belts and airbags.
They're trying to assist the government in assuming the role of Nanny State in yet another field of regulation.
As things stand now, I'd remove and throw away a SawStop product if I found one hidden in my saw. I'm that furious at the company for trying to shove this right up our asses "for our own good".
I look forward to when they send a reply to me in response to MY little shot across the bow I sent them. The response they get back from me will be so hot it'll set the paper on fire if they print it.
CJ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@my.shiny.metal.ass says...

recognize self-serving bullshit when I saw it.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

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

So you think I make a convincing case do you? LOL May be I should...I wonder what the pay is? ;~)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message news:3L3Pa.881$h

Not a hypocrite.... If I knowingly chose to buy the next TS with out the Saw Stop or similar device, then I would be a hypocrite.
But I just may speed up that process anyway and get one sooner than later.
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.