Left coast headed towards flesh detecting table saws in 2015

[John Grossbohlin]

Blog references several LA Times articles.

[Han]

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in news:IOKdnXtjrMaz-GDSnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

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.

[krw]

How very "liberal" of you.

The Constitution forbids such "takings", but don't let that stop you.

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

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.

[krw]

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?

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

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).

[krw]

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.

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

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.

[krw]

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.

[HeyBub]

Meh!

ALL patents are monopolies, guaranteed by the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8

"The Congress shall have the power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;..."

[John Grossbohlin]

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

[krw]

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.

[Swingman]

There, but for the grace of the woodworking gods, go most of us.

Well put...

[Dave]

Such an act would play absolute havoc with the capitalist ideals of the US nation. For all the screaming that people do about Gass trying to get his invention mandated, the shrieking of the capitalists so affected by such an act by government setting a maximum price would be deafening.

Can you spell PRECIDENT!

[Scott Lurndal]

Yes, it is spelled precedent.

The government of the United States has a long history of setting prices (called price controls) in the past. For example, President Nixon imposed price controls on August 15, 1971 finally ending in

1973.

:-)

[Lee Michaels]

"Dave" wrote

No, I can not. Neither my dictionary nor spell checker think that is a word.

The spellings gods are unhappy with you.

I assume you mean Precedent.

I looked up precident, The dictionary never heard of this word.

I am not a net nanny or a a compulsive spell guy. But when people start talking about spelling on the net, it is some sort of instant karma. Don't understand it, it just happens to me, you and others. (I corrected two spelling errors in this message.) ;-)

[Dave]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:08:58 -0400, "Lee Michaels"

On 12 Jul 2012 00:06:34 GMT, [e-mail] (Scott Lurndal)

Perhaps the real *precedent* here is that you two spelling nerds need to go out and get real lives.

[Han]

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:1260$4ffe0c26$4b75eb81$ [e-mail]:

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.

[Han]

"HeyBub" wrote in news:7amdnRCnuuXAcmDSnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

And? If a law makes use of a patent mandatory, licensing fees shall be reasonable it says somewhere IIRC. Wasn't that the case with telephone fees, and a host of other things?

[Swingman]

Hmmm ...

Where have I heard that before? :)