Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16

    Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

    Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

    Some of the patents are focused on the reaction time and operational spd of the safety mechanism without correlation to it's mechanics. With these types of patents in place, in theory another individual could design a better system but be in violation of the existing patents on tablesaw safety granted to Sawstop.

    That is a idiotic patent that should have never been granted....

    Comment


    • #17

      Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

      Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

      Idiotic (e.g. excessively broad) claims in patents are standard fare, and open to be challenged. They are frequently disallowed.

      A granted patent/claim is not necessarily a valid patent/claim.

      Comment


      • #18

        Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

        Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

        Whatever... the point is the guy, (whatever his name is) isn't out to protect his innovation, but to actively force his tech down the throats of users (he's the main lobbyist for the possible government mandate), and prevent other manufactures from developing their own "simliar" devices. If it were about safety and good will to all woodworkers, why would he actively try to prevent innovation by anyone else....?

        It's ^^^this^^^ that has people hating the guy and subsequent tech...

        Anyways.... this topic has been beaten to death numerous times already.

        Comment


        • #19

          Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

          Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

          Well, I'm not here to defend his motives (can't blame a guy for trying to make a buck though ). I'm also not here to be the banner waver for the PTO. The system is far from perfect, I grant that.

          It is a shame to see such a marvelous piece of technology lead to such division as a result of the innovator's greed.

          Comment


          • #20

            Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

            Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

            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

            My issue is how it is being approached.

            Personally I use roll feeders on everything, table saw, shaper, jointer, router, they all are not only safer but also more efficient. Feeders are not cheap, I haven't found any place to buy new fingers !

            I would also agree that if it's MADE LAW because it is pushed by the owner of the patent then something should be done to allow other companies to use the technology at no cost.

            Comment


            • #21

              Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

              Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

              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.

              Originally posted by Mentor View Post
              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.
              In order to understand recursion, one must first understand recursion

              Comment


              • #22

                Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                Originally posted by TH LWC View Post
                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...
                Last edited by J. Vibert; 07-15-2012, 02:42 AM.

                Comment


                • #23

                  Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                  Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                  Originally posted by Andywoj View Post
                  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

                  People are like a box of chocolates. It's hard to tell initially which ones are nuts.

                  Comment


                  • #24

                    Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                    Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                    Originally posted by J. Vibert View Post
                    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

                    People are like a box of chocolates. It's hard to tell initially which ones are nuts.

                    Comment


                    • #25

                      Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                      Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                      Originally posted by Mentor View Post
                      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??
                      Matt

                      People are like a box of chocolates. It's hard to tell initially which ones are nuts.

                      Comment


                      • #26

                        Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                        Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                        Originally posted by matt.mackinnon View Post
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #27

                          Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                          Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                          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.
                          Last edited by Mike in Waubaushene; 07-15-2012, 09:01 AM.
                          Discussion is the mother or father of ideas.
                          Discord is the bastard son of discussion.


                          Comment


                          • #28

                            Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                            Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                            Originally posted by J. Vibert View Post
                            Anything that makes using a piece of dangerous equipment safer to use, is a good thing and I'm all for it.
                            Originally posted by matt.mackinnon View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #29

                              Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                              Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                              Originally posted by Mike in Waubaushene View Post
                              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.
                              Matt

                              People are like a box of chocolates. It's hard to tell initially which ones are nuts.

                              Comment


                              • #30

                                Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                                Re: Sawstop technology debates in the USA...

                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X