Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

[Leon]

Could you share ?

[Leon]

And what does that have to do with anything.

[Leon]

I can see how YOU would think that way, given your strange temperament.

[Leon]

I have no idea, I though you had all the answers.

[Leon]

You don't like people that rent things to other people?

[J. Clarke]

Have you thought of having your cranio-rectal inversion corrected?

[J. Clarke]

Since you were discussing the likely behavior of a nonexistent company it has quite a lot to do woth anything.

[J. Clarke]

Coming from the location of your head that is quite amusing.

[J. Clarke]

Geezus, Leon, can't you even come up with a decent FLAME?

[Scott Lurndal]

Could it be possible that someone other than Leon usurped his newsgroup identity? The posts weren't typical of his normal style.

In any case, one need not respond.

[Bill]

Go over to the moulding thread where we are concerned, instead, with using (stealing?) a coach-makers radial filister! ; )

[clare]

Hear you go Leon, and anyone else interested:

From FairWarning.org:

Negotiations were held with several companies. Talks with Ryobi advanced farthest, then collapsed under mysterious circumstances.

A leading manufacturer and supplier to Home Depot, Ryobi is based in Anderson, S.C., and is a subsidiary of Techtronics, Inc. of Hong Kong.

In January, 2002, Ryobi sent SawStop a signed licensing agreement. It called for Ryobi to investigate SawStop?s feasibility, and to incorporate it in Ryobi saws within 18 months if it proved feasible. SawStop would get a royalty equal to 3 percent of the wholesale cost of each saw, with the fee rising as high as 8 percent should the technology be widely adopted.

Gass said a small typo led him to return the contract to Ryobi?s general counsel, who Gass said told him he would immediately fix the mistake and mail the contract back. Days turned into weeks, then months. Gass said he got repeated assurances that Ryobi wanted to proceed, but the contract never came back.

Years later, in the trial of a lawsuit against Ryobi, a company lawyer explained it this way: ?Ryobi decided that it did not want to go forward with this project,? he said. Ryobi was going through a corporate acquisition, the SawStop deal took ?a back seat?, and ?eventually Ryobi lost interest.?

Robert Bugos, the former general counsel Gass said had strung him along, put it another way in a deposition. ?There was negotiation back and forth,? Bugos said. ?Our position was always that SawStop was asking too much.?

From WikiPedia, very similar:

In January 2002, SawStop appeared to come close to a licensing agreement with Ryobi, who agreed to terms that involved no up-front fee and a 3% royalty based on the wholesale price of all saws sold with SawStop's technology; the royalty would grow to 8% if most of the industry also licensed the technology.[1] According to Gass, when a typographical error in the contract had not been resolved after six months of effort by Gass to get Ryobi to sign the proposed deal, Gass gave up on the effort in mid-2002.[1] Some subsequent licensing negotiations were deadlocked when the manufacturers insisted that Gass should "indemnify them against any lawsuit if SawStop malfunctioned", something Gass wouldn't agree to since he would not be manufacturing the saws."[1]

The failure to license it to Ryobi or another manufacturer prompted SawStop to start its own company; over two years later, the company's first saw was produced by a Taiwanese manufacturing plant in November

2004; by 2005 SawStop had grown to "eight people out of a two-story barn Gass built himself."[1]

From "Fine Woodworking" Nov 29, 2011:

In October, Gass demonstrated a SawStop prototype for Ryobi representatives in Anderson, S.C. He also gave Ryobi a prototype to test. Gass wasn?t interested in selling the technology to just one company. Instead, he was looking for a larger sales opportunity and to change the industry for the better, he said. ?We did not want to see it on just one brand of saws,? he said, ?and so we were unwilling to give an exclusive license to any one company. It was our feeling that this technology, like air bags or something like that, should be on every saw.?

In 2001, Gass sent the CPSC a prototype of the SawStop. After testing it, the CPSC awarded SawStop the Chairman?s Commendation for product safety.

While negotiations with Ryobi went on, Gass said he pitched his product to other tablesaw manufacturers. To entice as many as he could, he asked for what he considered a low 3% royalty at first, to help offset the additional costs of incorporating the technology. That royalty would increase if more tablesaw makers adopted SawStop (when market share reached 25% the royalty would go to 5%; 75% share would increase the royalty to 8%).

To avoid litigation, manufacturers believed they would have to equip every saw in their lines with the new technology, a process that would require redesigning the saws and retooling the factories where they?re made. And yet Gass?s invention hadn?t yet been proven to work in the real world. It was a tough decision.

In 2002, SawStop and Ryobi came close to a licensing agreement. However, the deal was never closed, and people involved in the negotiations differ as to why. According to witnesses who testified in a recent legal case (Osorio vs. One World Technologies, Inc.), Ryobi chose to work with other members of the PTI on a joint venture to design a flesh-sensing alternative to SawStop, as well as a better guard system. David Peot, former director of advanced technology for Ryobi, testified that such cooperation among PTI members was unprecedented. ?The people who belong to the Power Tool Institute are very fierce competitors. Never in my 30, 35 years of working with [them] had I ever been exposed to something where they said ?let?s get together and develop something.? ?

After the Ryobi deal fell through and with no responses from other tablesaw makers, Gass and his partners decided to develop their own brand. While they were working with designers on a saw, Gass and his partners petitioned the CPSC in 2003 to do something about the large number of tablesaw accidents that were occurring yearly. They told the CPSC that ?current table saws pose an unacceptable risk of severe injury because they are inherently dangerous and lack an adequate safety system to protect users from accidental contact with the blade.? They asked the CPSC ?to require performance standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw.? In essence they were asking for a mandatory ruling that would require all tablesaws to have some sort of flesh-sensing technology and blade-stopping device.

In 2004, SawStop rolled out its first model, a cabinet saw. Then, in the spring of 2005, an accident on a Lexington, Mass., job site cracked open the floodgates on the tablesaw safety debate and its legal fallout.

[Leon]

Are you saying that SawStop does not exist? I made no comments about Volvo. Try to keep up, Life might be easier for you.

[Leon]

Thank you!

[russellseaton1]

Close to committing? What does that mean? Where did that information come from? There are only two outcomes in the negotiating process. Deal done. Or no deal. Black or white. No gray.

All manufacturers and retail outlets report all sales of every saw to an au thority that aggregates the data and makes it available to the public for a nalysis? Or do manufacturers report total dollars of woodworking type equi pment. And retailers report total dollars of revenue. Why would Jet/Power matic give the volume and dollars and models of table saw sales to Delta an d General and SawStop? Who makes them give this detailed business informat ion?

Prices of new equipment will affect sales of used equipment. Sales of used equipment affect demand for new equipment. They are all interrelated.

[russellseaton1]

ever made and ever will be made. I want saws to not cut people. I want s afety. Hopefully the patents expire sometime soon and every saw maker in t he world will be able to make saws with this safety device on it. And hope fully they can make it cheaper, easier for the replacement cartridges. Not that anyone should ever need a replacement cartridge if they follow safe s mart cutting methods. I want a SawStop or Bosch safety saw. But I want a real European sliding saw more because I think its safer and far more funct ional than the old outdated American style saw. So I will have to wait awh ile longer until a European company puts the SawStop technology onto their sliding table saw. Until then I will have to work with my older Delta Cont ractor saw and use safe handling methods to cut wood. Thinking is importan t when using a saw.

That is good. Hopefully all saws will have this safety device. I want saf e saws. Safe European sliding saws. Not USA style cabinet saws.

So being a lawyer does not automatically make someone evil. Businesses are not good or evil either. Whether the inventor of the technology tried to make a huge amount of money is not important either. I try to make money e very day too.

Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.

[Leon]

[Leon]

I will take that as a no. You might look into that.

[Leon]

Oh, are in a one person pissing contest?

[Leon]

No, I confess, I am responding to this, as childish as it is. Some don't understand any other way. I apologize.