On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 13:18:01 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
Not usually but there is a chance to show the USPTO prior art before a
patent is granted. The point is that the normal way of dealing with
this is to go to the patent holder with prior art in hand and
negotiate a license. That usually does the trick because once that
prior art is out of the bag it's out for everyone. It's in both
parties interest to keep it out of court. Courts are expensive, in
the best case and can mean the whole Magilla if things don't go so
Bosch could have sued to negate the patents, too. This way, they may
end up with tripled damages. It's a big risk.
(1) We do not know that Bosch did not try this. In fact I do not
believe with know with any certainty that Bosch has not obtained a
license from Sawstip.
(2) That it may be "the normal way of dealing with this" does not mean
that doing so is mandatory. Why license something for which no license
is actually needed?
And this is a bad thing because? Bosch may see invalidating the Sawstop
patent as a public service. Remember how Mercedes-Benz handled their
antiskid brake patent? They could have done like Gass and demanded huge
licensing fees for it, but instead, since they saw it as having a major
impact on highway safety, they licensed it to everyone at no charge.
It's true that courts are expensive. However there is a long history of
those with deep pockets using this fact to beat the crap out of those
with shallower pockets. Last financials I can find show Sawstop with
about 6 million in total sales. Bosch has about 16 billion in profits.
Bosch is far far more capable of absorbing that expense than is Sawstop.
For certain values of "big". If it amounts to three times Sawstop's
total revenues then it's about 0.1 percent of Bosch's profits.
Note that Bosch is privately held--they do not have to explain
themselves to shareholders--if they choose to risk a tiny fraction of
profits to swat an annoying fly, so be it.
However they should have just bought the bastard, waited until he stuck
his hand in the cookie jar, and then fired him for cause. But maybe
they tried and he was too stupid to sell. This might be a Ford vs
Ferrari situation--Ford tried to buy Ferrari, Enzo told them to sod off,
and so Henry wrote the engineers a blank check and told them to beat
Ferrari on his own ground, and of course they did.
There is a suit filed against Bosch by SawStop in the Oregon
courts (*). While it's certainly possible for a company to sue
another that they have previously licensed, it's uncommon and
unlikely to prevail.
(* Oregon does not, apparently, beleive in free access to public
records, or else I'd quote the details)
Since you put two ideas under one bullet, I'll separate them for
1a) We don't know whether they approached SawStop with what they
consider prior art but we do know that if they did, it didn't impress
1b) Yes, we certainly do know that Bosch has not obtained a license
from SawStop. If Bosch had obtained a license, SawStop would not have
sued them. That makes no sense at all.
Again, with the run-on ideas...
2a) Of course it's not mandatory but courts are exceedingly expensive
and unreliable. There is a reason things are done the way they are.
2b) A license is required if a patent is in force. Their only hope to
come out of the situation without major financial losses is to win the
court case totally. This is pretty rare since the USPTO is considered
the expert on patents, deserved or not.
Do try to follow along. It's not a good thing for SawStop. It's not
even a good thing for Bosch, if they can get a license cheap (or
free). Patents limit competition, which is in their interest.
If that's the only alternative but only if.
But Gass is not MB, quite obviously.
OK, how much of their corporate profits are going to come from table
saws? Are the executives willing to risk the expense of a court trial
against the profits generated by one product? How do they pay this
cost out of profits of a table saw over five years, especially
considering that they're looking at treble damages. Not smart but it
appears that's what's afoot.
Look at the risk/reward. The reward for Bosch is miniscule. The
risk, large. They are taking on a pretty big risk for a couple of
years in the market.
Perhaps but how is SawStop annoying them? Why now? I might agree
more if they'd done it fifteen years ago.
Except Ferrari didn't have the patent on the internal combustion
engine and wasn't up against the power of the federal government (and
Goliath vs. David in courtroom full of technical illiterates.
You are of course correct. I claim insomnia, senior moment,
insufficient caffeine, or all of the above.
For certain values.
License is not required if patent is not valid. One may go ahead and
license the invalid patent rather than attempting to prove that it is
nto valid. Bosch has apparently chosen not to do this.
Of course not. Having something bad happen to Sawstop is the whole
You are assuming that you understand their objective.
Only if they see "their interest" in having a partial monopoly on safety
saws. Maybe they are more public-spirited than that.
No. But Bosch is a large German company with vast resources, just like
Mercedes-Benz. And perhaps they think like Mercedes-Benz.
You are assuming that they care.
Why do they have to pay the costs out of the profits from saws?
What appears to be afoot is someone with vast resources setting out to
see if they can beat the crap out of Gass.
I think you grossly underestimate the public relations value of "beat
the crap out of that Sawstop asshole and made the technology freely
available for everybody".
The risk to Bosch is about the same as the risk to you of having a
quarter accidentlly go down the storm sewer while you are flipping it to
determine "heads or tails".
It's only a "big risk" if you consider a few million dollars to be a lot
You'd have to ask them. Perhaps it took them this long to come up with
something that their lawyers believe has a fair chance of prevailing in
No, they were up against the power of Goliath vs David on the racetracks
of Europe. And in fact I suspect that Ferrari helds a variety of
patents relating to high performance engines. Which were of no
relevance since Ford beat them with brute force and awfulness.
I don't think I'd describe the GT40 as "brute force" and
certainly not "awfulness". Awesomeness, maybe.
What's interesting there is that, having been given a blank
check by Henry Ford, his engineers took advantage to not
only beat Ferrari at Le Mans, but also to fund Meyer-Drake
to build an Indy engine (later sold to AJ and known as the
Foyt-Ford); to fund Holman-Moody in NASCAR; and to fund
Cosworth to build the DFV that dominated F1 for so long.
That's actually a condemnation of Ferrari's engineering. For
a long endurance race, a large, low-revving engine is more
likely to be durable. Using the largest engine the rules
allowed was intelligent engineering. The same idea was used
by Jaguar many years later, when they used a turbo V6 for
the short races, and the big V12 for Le Mans.
Your understanding of NASCAR history is somewhat lacking.
>> > As for NASCAR, all the automakers at the time backed NASCAR teams.
Yeah, memory is a tricky thing. I'm guessing you're thinking
NASCAR of the 70's more than the 60's.
After the 1955 Le Mans disaster, all the automakers agreed to
get out of racing. All of them then pretty quickly started
supporting teams under the table, but for several years there
was no official backing of NASCAR teams. Then in the early
60's Plymouth started backing Petty, and as noted upthread,
Ford started funding Holman-Moody. GM stayed out of official
involvement in NASCAR until 1970.
I like this idea, unlikely as it is. I would rather cut my arm off than
buy anything from that Sawstop asshole.
If Bosch wins, my next saw will be a Bosch. Chances are good I'll be
well over 100 years old before I wear out my current saws that depend
solely on user for safety.
If I ever cut myself, which gets more likely as I age, I'll simply have
to sue myself...
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
Well Jack, you are of the persuasion that makes emotional decisions
rather than rational, I strongly suspected that.
Not saying that there is anything wrong with that but leaving emotion
out of the decision process typically makes for better decision making.
And that is often hard to do.
When I read your comments, I'll try to remember that.
Everyone one has emotions. In this case, you can call it emotions, I'll
call it principles. That "Sawstop asshole" tried to get the government
to require every saw manufacturer to license his crap. That to me is an
underhanded way to make a buck, not surprising for a lawyer.
My emotions tell me the first one to cut off a finger and sue Sawstop
for every penny they have would make my day.
My principles tell me not to support an asshole, and, after almost 60
years of safely using saws w/o his crap hanging on it I can probably
live without it. Others may be better off with it, that's fine by me.
Aside from that, if Bosch has a way to do the same thing w/o ruining
your blade, not to mention a $100 mechanism you need to buy from Goss,
then I would buy that tech in my next saw, which will not likely happen
until I'm well into my 100's.
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
Absolutely but if used to make decisions the result is a 50/50 chance
that it is not a good one.
In this case, you can call it emotions, I'll call it principles.
I'll call it emotions. You are basing a decision on a product, not by
the product, but by your feelings towards the inventor. And that's ok
if you feel better making decisions that way. But for some one that
might value your opinion on a product yours will not be based on fact if
you let your emotions stand in the way of an honest evaluation of the
product. It is important that I and others understand that.
That "Sawstop asshole" tried to get the government
Welcome to the American way. At least he went about that in a legal way
and in a way that was perfectly with in his rights.
I think you are way too invested in wanting revenge for something that
might have happened in the past but did not happen. While I understand
your feelings towards Gass, it is unlikely that his insurance would not
cover the loss and IIRC there are limitations to this type settlement.
Again emotions interfering logical judgement with what is likely to
really happen, if it happened. At least eight years in production and I
don't think there has been a report of even a cut. It is likely that
information would come up in a trial and the jury would probably favor
the defendant rather than sacrifice ending a great safety feature on a
good tool, if they took every penny.
Your emotions have lead you to believe that Gass is an asshole. Have
you met him? He might be a nice guy, not an ass hole. He did not do any
thing wrong, that we know of, other than pursue promoting his product in
a way that you apparently do not agree with. Ignorance is bliss. There
is no telling how many products you use that have come to reality that
affect you every day that yu don't know any thing about.
Ok, again with the emotional exaggerations. I know the SS brake is
under $70. for the single blade brake and under $90 for the dado brake.
IIRC the Bosch tripping insert is approximately $80. But it is true
that it can be used two times so the effect cost would be about half of
what either SS brake costs. See, I'm using facts here so the it is
easier to form a valid decision. Emotions do not care about facts of
what the real decision process should be considering.
And the assumption of the blade being destroyed is just that, an
assumption. I have seen many pictures and demonstrations of a brake
stopping a blade. Never have I seen a destroyed blade. I understand
that it is not unusual for a blade to be resharpened, re-flattened, or
repaired. IMHO the blade is more likely to need to be re-flattened
than anything else. The brake is aluminum. I would not care to say how
many times I have cut into my aluminum miter fence with not damage to
the blade. And direct power is immediately disconnected from the blade
as it droops down below the table surface so the brake does not have to
harness the energy of the motor too.
Now, would "I" have a blade repaired and reuse it? that has not
happened yet and I don't have enough information to make that decision
right now. If I were letting my emotions enter into that decision
process I might cut my nose off to spite my face to bolster my thoughts
on the whole subject.
the amount of time you spend defending your tool purchases/choices is
you do know that no one really cares
but i think you should ask the respective manufacturers for some free
t-shirts, blades, spare parts, etc.
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.