Sawstop's suit against Ryobi is upheld

Page 1 of 13  
The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1824P-01A.pdf
--
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 10/8/2011 10:42 AM, Han wrote:

I expect this will eventually wind up in the Supreme Court, where it will be overturned.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/8/2011 9:42 AM, Han wrote:

As I said on another forum this morning with regard to the Osario case, lawyers routinely abuse the judicial system as a part of their business model.
--
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

As Mark Twain and others have said, "First, we shoot all the lawyers"
Guilty parties here: 1. Whoever removed the blade guard - I can rip boards with the blade guard in place. The things that requre removal of the guard (rabbet on a flooring transition piece) are so infrequent tha I have to stop and think about how the guard is removed. 2. The injured employee for being stupid (using a saw without a blade guard). Unfortunately, our society makes "stupidity" a suitable trait for litigation: blame anyone but me. 3. The employer for not buying a SawStop shop saw for use on a job site - physically impractical if not impossible. The contractor version of the SawStop is a recent addition to the line. 4. The "expert witness" who obviously has a monetary interest in this case (publicly faulting the competition). His connection with a competing product automatically makes him a biased witness and his testimon should not have been allowed. That would have forced the blame back to parties 1 or 3, none of whom have pockets as deep as Ryobi and the lawyers would have gotten their cut of a much smaller pie. If the injured employee removed the guard, he has no case.
I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:31:13 -0400, news wrote:

Wasn't this the one where the plaintiff was not only ripping without the guard, he was ripping without a rip fence?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Oct 8, 12:31pm, snipped-for-privacy@jecarter.us wrote:

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention. The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken loose.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/8/2011 12:58 PM, RicodJour wrote:

The problem with this seems to be that Sawstop has the technology very thoroughly patented, and is not willing to license for anything reasonable, then they start a suit to result in their tech being required.
My understanding is that the principal in Sawstop is actually a patent lawyer.
Stuart
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You're three for three.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/8/2011 12:28 PM, Stuart Wheaton wrote:

Might be a problem now however Sawstop approached most every manufacturer about acquiring a license to use the product. They had their change and thumbed their noses at it.

Yup!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too high a price to pay.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do you know what that "price" was?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/8/2011 3:26 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Furthermore, all the people I know who have one in their shops have had triggers. Some of them were on wet wood, stray metal or other nuisance reasons, some were for no known reason. None were for human/blade contact. Each trigger costs at least $100, often more depending on the value of the blade. This is a solution looking for a problem, especially when you consider that a standard guard, or any after market guard would solve the problem just as well.
Stuart
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/8/2011 2:45 PM, Stuart Wheaton wrote:

And every false trigger that I have heard of was taken care of by SawStop.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/8/2011 7:52 PM, Leon wrote:

It is at Sawstop's discretion, and I have heard of cartridges that were not replaced, and where the user could not identify a real cause for the trigger. I also do not believe that the blade is covered, and it is quite thoroughly destroyed. Furthermore, the user will need to stock replacement cartridges in anticipation of a trigger when working to a deadline. This all adds costs to the user above and beyond the license fee.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nice! They charge you double the regular rate for a saw of that particular quality (an extra $1,600 or so) and then give you a couple $50 freebies to make up for it. Whatta guy!
-- The most decisive actions of our life - I mean those that are most likely to decide the whole course of our future - are, more often than not, unconsidered. -- Andre Gide
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/8/2011 9:49 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Have you priced a Powermatic or The new Unisaw "with out" any the blade brake lately? Are you normally this ignorant or do you simply have a bug up your butt?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

X5s are still available for a *LOT* less than $3500; a perfectly good saw.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/9/2011 4:20 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

A perfectly good saw but it is fair to compare apples to apples, the latest design to the latest design.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's more fair to compare utility to utility. When I bought my X5, it was a no-brainer, over the SS at over twice the price. Suggesting a SS wasn't even worth the giggle from SWMBO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/9/2011 5:59 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

IIRC the X5's were selling at an all time low price. Not saying that they were not good saws, just that they were probably below market price. Either way the latest version is in line with the price of a SS considering that it has no blade stop feature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.