Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

[darius]

As much as I don't believe in legislating stupidity out of the society, in countries with public health system I can see how mandating certain safety measures can be justified.

The patent system assures a certain period of exclusivity to innovators in order to encourage R&D into new products.

Perhaps it did a while ago. Right now the patent system is completely broken and in an increasing number of cases it stifles innovation.

[J. Vibert]

For more information on the subject check out this link, apparently right now it only applies to California and the article mentioned "money paid to politicians".
http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/ne...161219825.html

From that article...:

The newspaper noted that Gass targeted California for his lobbying efforts knowing that if successful it would likely be "uneconomical (for manufacturers) to make one product for the Golden State customers and a different one for the rest of the country."
"It seemed like a long shot, but it seemed like the right thing to do," Gass told the Times.

What Gass didn't also say was that he knew "Commie"fornia is the easy place in the world to get legislation passed that would remove the public's right to make an informed choice... It's no secret that California is the place to be if like being told what to do, and how to live...

[matt.mackinnon]

I think if you do some home work you will find that Sawstop offered their technology to all of the North American table saw manufactures. They all laughed at them and the technology. Sawstop then went to Taiwan and started to manufacture their own table saw.

You forgot to mention what Mr. Glass asked for. He wanted an upfront payment of 5% I believe on the total MSRP for each unit made. Not a percentage of the profit after the product was sold. Kind of changes the tone when the companies laughed.

But I will admit, there is a big volid of logic in some corporations. Think of the automotive industry who regularly find a flaw in their products and then decide if the cost of lawsuits would be cheaper than issuing a recall and paying to repair all the cars effected. Think ford and pinto.

[matt.mackinnon]

Anything that makes using a piece of dangerous equipment safer to use, is a good thing and I'm all for it.

Sure.. it's called a CNC table saw with laser measurement and autofeed rollers. We'll throw in a robotic arm or two for good measure. It will cost you a cool $500,000 for the unit and needs a 40'x35'x20' area to install it. And the government says if you must have it.. ie you can't do woodworking any more. But it's much safer.

How many people have lost a digit with a router? Lets just ban them. Cut off a digit with a Bandsaw? Lost a life with a lathe? All tools have an inherent danger and to what level do you protect the foolish?

[matt.mackinnon]

The patent system assures a certain period of exclusivity to innovators in order to encourage R&D into new products. If patents and market exclusivity were not assured, what incentive would there be for any individual or organization to conduct the expensive and risky work that enables innovative products to be developed?

I have no problem with patenting innovative technology, but when you patent beyond reason then it just stunts innovation. Like apple has a patent on touching a screen and sliding you finger to do something. Sorry how is that an innovation? We have been doing with a mouse for years. The touch screen has been around for years so that isn't new. But with the patent office giving this out as a patent, now makes everyone have to pay apple money to use existing technology. You can't make a product with a touch screen that people would touch to do something.

Glass invented the idea of having the blade sense a cut by voltage. But his patent goes to cover having the blade drop, the blade stops spinning, how fast it can slow down, and on and on. So he has cornered the market so that nobody can come up with any other safety device to do with cutting yourself on a table saw blade. The patents go too far into not just protecting the way he does it (that was what a patent was intended to do) but to cover every frivolous detail so nobody else can innovate a better or as good or even adequate method to add safety.

Who is the patent office protecting??

[John Bartley]

I have no problem with patenting innovative technology, but when you patent beyond reason then it just stunts innovation.

.... snipped ...

Glass invented the idea of having the blade sense a cut by voltage. But his patent goes to cover having the blade drop, the blade stops spinning, how fast it can slow down, and on and on. So he has cornered the market so that nobody can come up with any other safety device to do with cutting yourself on a table saw blade. The patents go too far into not just protecting the way he does it (that was what a patent was intended to do) but to cover every frivolous detail so nobody else can innovate a better or as good or even adequate method to add safety.

Who is the patent office protecting??

I agree with Matt. Patenting an idea is fine, but patenting beyond the idea, extending the patent in a way that impedes progress beyond the first idea is just wrong.

I have no evidence of this, but I have read that the patents for Sawstop include patenting the "concept" of using electricity for blade sensing and shutdown. I'd like to know how he could patent the concept of sensing a milliamp current when the exact same concept is what drives the GFCI outlet? His whole approach to patenting smacks of revenge for not having been able to sell his idea to the big dogs.

As far as the technology for stopping the blade goes, his device destroys both the blade and the brake. I wonder if it was someone elses patent for a disc brake system that stopped him from using a brake that doesn't destroy the blade, and allows the brake to be used for many cycles? I don't know the answer to that, but I have to wonder ....

John

[Mike in Waubaushene]

Most patent squabbles end up in the courthouse. And in most cases, the patent owner wins the squabble. Examples are Apple/Samsung, Microsoft/Sun Microsystems and numerous high profile cases. Microsoft had to pay Sun a pile for the Java technology that they used in Windows. Samsung is barred from selling their tablet in several countries.
If I were an inventor with a must have idea to patent, I'd make sure there were no back door loopholes that some big company could exploit. It's all part of innovation. They should have thought of it first. I'm kinda curious. If General or Delta had done it first, instead of a new kid on the block, don't you think they would have used their might to protect there idea?
Back in the 70s, some 18 Year old kid working in Sears automotive part time came up with the idea of putting the quick release button on the back of a ratcheting socket wrench to release the socket. He patented it. Sears stole the patent as theirs because they said he was their employee at the time. It was an innovation ahead of its time. He got a good lawyer and sued. Took him several years, but he won. Sears had to pay many millions for past sales and the rights to future sales.
If other companies were truely interested in the finger saver, they'd pay to put it on their product. But as long as Delta, General, etc are dominant players in the market, and Sawstop is not, there is no incentive.

Drug companies patent their "inventions" that could save lives or make life better for millions of people if they can afford it. Most can't.

[J. Vibert]

Anything that makes using a piece of dangerous equipment safer to use, is a good thing and I'm all for it.

Sure.. it's called a CNC table saw with laser measurement and autofeed rollers. We'll throw in a robotic arm or two for good measure. It will cost you a cool $500,000 for the unit and needs a 40'x35'x20' area to install it. And the government says if you must have it.. ie you can't do woodworking any more. But it's much safer.

How many people have lost a digit with a router? Lets just ban them. Cut off a digit with a Bandsaw? Lost a life with a lathe? All tools have an inherent danger and to what level do you protect the foolish?

Way to twist my opinion into something it's clearly not Matt.

[matt.mackinnon]

Most patent squabbles end up in the courthouse. And in most cases, the patent owner wins the squabble.

I'd say it's generally the consumer who looses the squabble. Most patent cases now take millions of dollars and multi years to conclude. So if you were a startup company who is innovative, you would be long out of business before any conclusion ever is given.

You point on the sears quick release.. that is a patent that describes an idea. But if the patent went on to lock out any button placed on a tool, any button that is round, any button that you press, any button that has resistance, and button that ejects something .... you'd get the point that I am making. A patent should not be given to protect and abstract idea, but should only be protection for the product that you are making. Like, you could not patent the idea of music, but could patent the idea of an instrument.

[billh]

I agree with Matt about the blanket coverage of some patents to cover very general ideas being ridiculous. Some of this has surfaced in the Apple et al patent wars and is unbelievable.

Saying that companies or (most) people are willing to forgo a profit for the common good is a stretch at best. Seat belts and other automotive safety equipment needed legislation to put it in place and we are aware of the calculations done showing it was cheaper to pay lawsuits rather than fix the problems with both Ford and GM vehicle gas tanks.

Of course there is a difference with the Cdn perspective vs the US perspective. We are much more likely to raise fewer objections to government intervention on any topic than our friends to the south where it is the last thing they want.

billh

[TH LWC]

You can’t legislate to make people safe from themselves.


I think this is more of a money grab, I don’t think the people of California are particularly interested in safety, cigarettes, cars, alcohol and kitchen knives all do much more harm than table saws ever could.


Have a look at proposition 65, lawyers with no plaintiff required can sue a company if they don’t comply. Being in another jurisdiction is no protection.


It is their safe water act and even something like brass that might contain a small amount of a listed metal is a problem.


Doesn’t the human body contain heavy metals? Shouldn’t all residents of California be required to wear a label warning of this in case they should happen to expire in a water course?


Where does it end? If this keeps up two hundred years from now all that will be allowed will be to sit and breathe through a filter, maybe!

[Rusty]

This subject, as most of us know, is ancient.

From another perspective, imagine the technology installed on EVERY saw and the money it will cost [They ain't cheap] to replace the blade and brake cartridge when Joe the DIY'er sets it off every time he uses it and the system is almost bigger than all those little CTC, Craftsman and Rigid "Plastic Saws." Those saws will probably fly apart when the brake is activated. A good blade is almost as expensive as some of the plastic saws. Someone is going to make a bunch of money.

[John JMK]

The problem is what will be the next target. Routers, shapers, planers, bandsaws. The tools are only as dangerous as the people operating them. I have yet to see a piece of equipment turn itself on and force a body part into a turning blade. Unfortunately we have empowered these people by our , "it wasn't my fault attitude". Sawstop tech will not replace proper training, technique and safety procedures.

John

[hawk223]

There is a really long thread on sawmill creek talking about this. It's interesting to note that people have still been injured using a saw stop it's just less likely.

[jgarrett forsberg]

Sawstop tech will not replace proper training, technique and safety procedures.

John

agree


Yet another high-tech gizmo to dazzle those who have gadgetitis! The point is it STILL cannot protect you from a kickback (one of the major injury risks on a table saw) - which is the result of rising teeth at the rear of the blade digging into the timber. If you have a properly designed saw with sufficient power, a sharp blade, a riving knife, a decent crown guard (the last two both mandatory on new saws in the UK) and a European short rip fence, and you have bothered to learn how to use your saw properly - i.e. with push blocks, push sticks, etc so that your fingers are always at least 10 to 12 inches away from the blade - then this device is just about superfluous. I think that the reason it was introduced in the USA is because American saws are to say the least safety deficient, the design of the guards being the same as 40 years ago. In Europe they have, moved on. I'd rather see other safety measures, such as standards for rip fences, than this.

fitting a piece of electronics onto a machine which seems to lack some of what are regarded in Europe as basic safety devices, namely a riving knife and a short rip fence. The north american fore and aft rip fence is really a cheap solution more suited to sawing plywood than solid wood and can never be as good consistently as a properly triangulated short rip fence (like the wadkin TS, for example, not the flimsy confections on certain other machins which shall be nameless) for solid stock ripping ask anyone who worked on a Wadkin BGP in the 60s or 70s.

My experience of electronic devices on (industrial) woodworking machinery are that the dust and resin inevitably cause problems (premature failure of electronic sensors, etc) in the longer term, leading to disconnection, which to me is another reason to distrust devices such as this. I feel that electronics are never going to be a substitute for proper training and understanding of the processes of wood machining


Finally, you are never going to get a blade which will totally eliminate the possibility ofkickback , it just isn't possible unless you also specify that all wood must not warp when being rip sawn What you can get is a riving knife, crown guard and rip fence which when used in concert with push sticks and some basic common sense (or better still, training) will protect you from the vast majority of potential hazardous situations. After all, if it doesn't look safe, it probably isn't.


jack Who will most definitely NOT be sticking his "weaner" anywhere near a spinning saw blade either now or in the forseeable future
English machines

[MrMac204]

I am a finishing carpenter, and as such I use a table saw every day. I would absolutely love it if my employer had a saw stop saw at our location. Reason is that the saw that we have is way way under powered, and has a bent arbor. (it cannot cut a 2x4 in half, even going really slowly with a newly sharpened rip blade)

I don't care if someone makes a profit on this technology, I would use that saw. I will prob. buy one in the next couple of years myself.

I was in a local dealer recently and he showed me a purchase order from WCB (British Columbia) for a saw stop saw, that was to go to a manufacturer here in the lower mainland. Seems that someone in that shop had been injured twice on a table saw. I don't know if they back-charged the manufacturer for the cost of the saw or not.

A few weeks back one of our guys got a small bit of wood kicked back at him- (two weeks go by) he's now had his surgery and he has full use of his fingers. 18 years on the job! the pos saw that we have? contributed to this injury, and the guy is also at fault. (captured a small 1/8" rip between the blade and the fence, part of it went down the huge opening in the throat plate, and then flew back into his hand)

I don't know if the saw stop saw would have prevented this accident, but it sure would be a lot safer to use.

There is also an over-ride switch on the saw so if you are cutting wet 2 x's, you won't trigger the stopping mechanisim.

[Lost in the Woods]

I wish people would stop protecting me from their stupidity unless I ask for it.

[Ryan Shervill]

If cheap saws were non existant, I (among thousands of others) would have never taken up the craft.

By saying "if anyone can afford it, hacks can buy them" is implying that low income people are somehow inferior to someone who can afford an expensive saw....and saying that if someone can afford an expensive saw they are somehow safer (ie: not a "hack") due to their income is rediculous. Some of the biggest/most dangerous "hacks" I have ever had the displeasure of working with have had incomes that completely eclipse my own (and yours as well)

I can't say I agree with your position in the least.

You are absolutely right. Any saw will take your fingers off. But if a saw is so cheap that anyone can afford it then there are alot of hacks out there who are trying to operate a table saw with no clue how to. One of the reasons they are considering mandating the Sawstop technology is because of the sheer volume of tablesaw accidents. Not just anyone should have one. Accidents will happen with any tool and obviously they will happen with quality saws as well, but normally they would only be purchased by someone who knows how to use them because it is a large expense to buy good tools

[Mike in Waubaushene]

You are absolutely right. Any saw will take your fingers off. But if a saw is so cheap that anyone can afford it then there are alot of hacks out there who are trying to operate a table saw with no clue how to. One of the reasons they are considering mandating the Sawstop technology is because of the sheer volume of tablesaw accidents. Not just anyone should have one. Accidents will happen with any tool and obviously they will happen with quality saws as well, but normally they would only be purchased by someone who knows how to use them because it is a large expense to buy good tools

OK. Now I understand you. Its not because they are cheaply made that makes them unsafe. Its because they are sold cheap. I just dont agree with your reasoning.

Some kid goes to a college like Sheridan in Oakville and drops 40,000 to learn furniture design and when he finishes his course, his only choice is to buy a Unisaw, General. Hammer, Felder or any other saw that set him back over 2 grand. He cant go buy that $400 piece of crap jobsite saw that Ridgid sells, which I own, because he is up to his neck in loans. He know how to handle a saw safely but he cant buy one. Ok. I get your point, but still disagree.
.

[J. Vibert]

I wish people would stop protecting me from their stupidity unless I ask for it.

/thread