This is so cool! A 'safety' table saw that detects your finger.

[Dave Balderstone]

Spot on. I think the technology is amazing, and I'm all for it. I object to the tactics of the company in trying to force their

*patented* technology on the marketplace.

[Tim Douglass]

By the time I can afford a decent saw it will be the PM 50,000

-- "We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

[Brian Henderson]

That may not hold forever, if SawStop gets their way.

Well, if they ever did mandate it and I was forced to buy a saw with their technology, I'll be the first one to disable it.

If I had to force everyone to buy my product, nope. That's why we have this thing called the FREE MARKET. It means people have a choice whether or not to buy. If they have no choice, they have no freedom.

[Brian Henderson]

Yeah, if they're so concerned about safety, how about they give up their *patent* and just provide the technology, free of charge, to the saw manufacturers?

Let's see how much they're motivated by greed.

[Upscale]

That's kind of an idiotic statement don't you think? Why would anyone disable the safety feature? If you're forced to have the technology as you claim, then it's only to your advantage to use keep that safety active. It's not like disabling it is going to make you any safer. And even if your worry about a false activation is your motivation for making that statement, you could wait for it to happen and then disable the safety feature and all you'd be out would be the blade.

[Upscale]

Right! And of course, you work for free because you don't have any bills to pay and you don't care for some of the finer things in life. My apologies, how could I even think that you might be even a little bit capitalistic.

Nah! You wouldn't be motivated by greed of any type. Of course you don't own a car or a house, or a boat, or a stereo or a television. After all, none of those things are necessary for you to live. All you need is a little bit of food once in awhile and you're set. What could I be thinking?

[Leon]

Still don't get it here. Mandating a safety DOES NOT prevent you from buying a saw with out that feature. There are thousands of used saws if you have to have on with out the feature.

You simply choose to buy a saw with the feature or not.

This thing you think is a free market unfortunately has no effect on auto insurance or new cars. Most everywhere you have to have auto insurance and you have to have air bags.

[Leon]

Well with that kind of thinking how bout you send me your next pay check.

[Leon]

He is grabbing for straws now.

[Dave Balderstone]

I'd rather they just offer a reasonably priced licence to other manufacturers, and see what the market uptake is.

[Brian Henderson]

I'm not trying to force everyone to use my services though. They are. They're not fighting to have *SOME* safety equipment mandated on all saws, they're fighting to have *THEIR* safety equipment mandated. And of course, since they own the patent on their equipment, every time any saw manufacturer sells a saw, they get a paycheck.

[Brian Henderson]

It won't happen though. They're not doing it to save fingers, they're doing it to make money by force.

[Upscale]

And what about the other side of the story? From everything that I could gather, all the other tablesaw manufacturers banded together to keep Sawstop out of the market. Reason being that incorporating Sawstop technology on their own products, would cost them profits. The idea was that if they all spoke as a single unifying force, there was much less chance they'd be sued for selling potentially dangerous equipment.

one hand, I agree with you that legislation forcing the Sawstop equipment on people is tantamount to an attempt at a cash grab from everybody. The other side of the equation is that all the other manufactures might deserve to be forced to capitulate to the technology. Read the article and decide for yourself.

[Leon]

They're not doing it to save fingers, they're

That worn out obsolete line has been dead news for a long time. Snore.

[Leon]

Kinda makes you think. While some would say that SawStop is only interested in making a buck and not interested in our safety, at least they are not the ones making the buck trying to insure that our safety is not on the agenda.

>

[Enoch Root]

Two sides to every story, and that one is very interesting. I still don't like the idea of mandating SawStop's tech, but that may have been done in desperation at the evident conspiracy to quash it.

"Defense Research Industry", indeed. Should be Industry Defense Research.

er

[Brian Henderson]

I don't blame them, they're being forced to use someone else's safety equipment, pay royalties for it, and are barred from using their own versions which may be even safer. Yeah, I think that's pretty stupid myself.

I don't think anyone should be forced to use a third party's product, period. If they want to legislate a form of safety equipment, fine. Each manufacturer can come up with their own equipment that meets the criteria. Insisting that it's SawStop's equipment is ludicrous.

[Tim Douglass]

I suspect that the real issue all through is the 8% royalty. The lawsuit issue is real, and not something that a company can just handwave away. If you don't consider the worst-case scenario you're going to be out of business if anything does go wrong. Gass has been greedy about it from the start and that has hampered his ability to get anywhere with the big manufacturers. How many table saws are sold world-wide each year? I'm guessing in the hundred-thousands, if not million plus. A $5 royalty would buy a lot of baked beans. Eight percent on a $500 saw is $40, that's a huge deal to a manufacturer - especially since they would be paying that in addition to the cost of manufacturing the parts.

Yeah, the manufacturers probably kind of banded together, although it is unlikely that it was any sort of formal "freeze-out", but the main thing it sounds like to me is that he just brought a poor business model and they couldn't justify the cost, although the interest he got from the manufacturers indicates some were seriously considering it. Of course, once they decided not to adopt his technology the simple economics of competition kicked in. What Gass interprets as an attempt to stifle his technology is more likely just the normal attempts to smother any new competitor.

All that said, it remains interesting technology, and the saw interests me, but more for the riving knife, solid construction and good fence than the blade destroyer installed under the table. I think the other features contribute more to safety than the last-ditch solution.

-- "We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

[Upscale]

I guess it will have to remain open to debate. All I know is that I've seen and witnessed some really wicked (what I believed to be) collusion between companies when they think a newcomer is trying to take some of the market. Considering the avarice that is buried in most people's souls, my tendency is to side with the notion of Gass being shut out ~ whether he was greedy or not.

[Enoch Root]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just look at the name of the legal research firm that provided the "direction" for the industry. It's an industry in itself.

er