Blog references several LA Times articles.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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).
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
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.
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
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
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:39:17 -0400, "John Grossbohlin"
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.
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.
That's the "crux" of the situation. Gass is an excellent patent
attorney, and he has seized a problem and technology (flesh in proximity
to a spinning metal blade) and provided a solution to greatly reduce the
inherent dangers. He has done this rather thoroughly, so that it is nigh
impossible for competing technologies to bypass his patents. After he
approached TS manufacturers to sell them his technologies, they all said
he was making a solution for a non-existing problem, and refused his
offers (probably in part because they were afraid they'd price themselves
out of the market, offering a technology nobody was going to buy). Then
Gass (brilliantly, actually) went on a 3-prong attack. He started
producing some excellent tablesaws incorporating his technologies, he
lawyer-like started lobbying the safety agencies, and he helped start a
lawsuit to further the safety angle of his premises. (I don't know
whether he had any hand in the Ryobi suit, but it wouldn't surprise me).
The Consumer Product Safety Commission <www.cpsc.gov/> ... "is charged
with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death
from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's
jurisdiction." So the question now is whether table saws fall in that
category, and likely they (being bureaucrats sensing a big job at hand -
pun intended) will take that challenge.
As I said IF and WHEN the CPSC gets a rule effective, TS manufacturers
might have to get patent licenses. This is a reference to one answer to
the question that then arises (How can I determine the right licensing
fees for our product? What is the formula??):
One rough answer is this:
There is a 25% rule that people use to "ballpark" royalties. The rule
suggests that the licensee should pay 25% of profits resulting from the
license to the licensor.
And so on and so forth.
Please replace the below listed words/phrases with the following, more
realistic descriptions, in order of appearance: "greedy"; "greedily";
"greedily"; "greedily"; "game the legal system"; "lining his pockets";
Thanks ... ;)
Yes, he was a witness against Ryobi in the lawsuit, Han.
Page 3 of the appeal decision (another bad judgment, IMO)
"Osorio largely relied on the testimony of his witness, Dr. Stephen
Gass, inventor of "SawStop," a"
When Gass had a chance to be a hero (AND make millions off it), he
will be remembered only as a @#$%^&* lawyer by future generations.
Typical and very sad. I can only hope that review by an appeals judge
brings out the probable vengeance angle by him against Ryobi after
they failed to complete the licensing agreement.
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen
First answer is a whole lot more sensible: 3-10% for 1-3 years.
My favorite is a minimal licensing fee and set small amount per unit.
For tablesaurs, I'd think $10k for licensing and a buck or two per saw
would double his (and his fellow conspirees') millionaire status in a
That's likely an answer given by someone with a patent who wants as
much as they can rape ya for. Maybe someone with a recent metric
shitload of "skin sensing technology" patents for a tablesaur. It's
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen
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.