Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #82   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On 2/9/2017 9:46 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

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



  #83   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On 2/9/2017 9:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article 384812291.508340867.772248.lcb11211-
, lcb11211
@swbell.net says...

J. Clarke wrote:
In article uImdnUr596UJ2AbFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/8/2017 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/7/2017 11:35 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
SawStop.

Really?

https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools...jss-mca/14982/



I was unaware of that model.



SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
prices so the world would be a safer place.

True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular
lawsuit discussion.

Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad
guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little.



Absolutely true but with the fact that SawStop is so successful, it is
obvious that the vast majority will see SS as the good guy. There are
only a handful of people with issues that don't seem to be able to let
things go. Those type jurors would most likely be eliminated during
jury selection.

Any jurors familiar with Sawstop or having any
opinion concerning it would likely be eliminated
during jury selection. That doesn't mean that
the ones who have been selected cannot be
convinced that Gass is a flaming asshole who
deserves to rot in Hell.


Have you thought about getting therapy?


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


I will take that as a no. You might look into that.
  #86   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On 2/9/2017 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 09:08:31 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM,
wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:

The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
him up on it.

I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.


Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
to a starving homeless person for only $30.
http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878



It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
plain and simple.

If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.

If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it.

If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
they earn, then you are the problem, not them.



Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the
technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it
may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of
circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make
us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls.
Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
- on ANY saw they produced


And thinking about that a bit more, If there is indeed documentation
that Ryobi was on board and balked at 3% I can see how the attorneys
would have used that information against them when they lost that big
suit over they flooring guy that cut his finger off.

Ryobi was probably projected as the company that did not want to spend a
few dollars for the safety of their customers.

And yes a few dollars, 3% of cost to be able to add a very nice selling
feature with no R&D for that feature is cheap.



Cheap??? At 3%, Glass was GIVING the technology away, figuring to make
a bit of money on the volume. The only reason it didn't fly was
because he was a lawyer, and he stressed the liability and litigation
issues over the intrensic safety of the device.
When companies like Ryobi were scared they would have to use the
technology on EVERY saw they built, I suspect their lawyers and
accountants decided it was safer NOT to have the technology in their
"bag of tricks"
The American litigatious legal situation and corporate greed (on the
part of Ryobi, not SawStop) killed the deal, in my opinion.



I totally agree with your thoughts.
  #87   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On 2/9/2017 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 7:44:46 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:

Well you are close to correct. Any competent company would look
into all of this prior to starting the process. They would not
have been close to committing had the figures not already been
considered.


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.


Clare provided the information in another section of this thread, In a
nut shell, Ryobi apparently sent a signed license agreement to SawStop
and then would consider the feasibility, but they knew the cost up front.

I would say a signed license agreement was very close to committing.



SawStop is a going concern now. But no one knows how much money
the company is making.


Actually most manufactures and retail sales stores know exactly how
many are being sold. That is where I got my information.


All manufacturers and retail outlets report all sales of every saw to
an authority that aggregates the data and makes it available to the
public for analysis? Or do manufacturers report total dollars of
woodworking type equipment. And retailers report total dollars of
revenue. Why would Jet/Powermatic give the volume and dollars and
models of table saw sales to Delta and General and SawStop? Who
makes them give this detailed business information?


I was referring to your comment,


No one knows how many table saws are being sold. Total number of
SawStops sold and total of all table saws sold.





  #89   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,845
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
In article bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
@googlegroups.com, says...

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:

The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
on it.

I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.


Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
starving homeless person for only $30.
http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878

That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
quick to give away their City Safety technology today.

I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?


When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely
Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an
indpendent company in 1999.


How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader?

In any case...

From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ge/innovations

Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors).

2008 €“ City Safety

"Here are some amazing statistics €“ 75% of all reported collisions take
place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver
behind hasnt braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great
difference €“ our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out
whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver
doesnt brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h."

Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I
said Volvo, I meant Volvo.

http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ancial-results

  #90   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

In article abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73
@googlegroups.com, says...

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
In article bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
@googlegroups.com,
says...

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:

The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
on it.

I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.


Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
starving homeless person for only $30.
http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878

That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
quick to give away their City Safety technology today.

I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?


When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely
Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an
indpendent company in 1999.


How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader?

In any case...

From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ge/innovations

Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors).

2008 ? City Safety

"Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions take
place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver
behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great
difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out
whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver
doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h."

Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I
said Volvo, I meant Volvo.

http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ancial-results


Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no
difference in decisionmaking if you want to.
You probably think that Ford didn't exert any
control either.


  #91   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,845
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:38:20 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
In article abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73
@googlegroups.com, says...

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
In article bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
@googlegroups.com,
says...

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:

The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
on it.

I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.


Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
starving homeless person for only $30.
http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878

That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
quick to give away their City Safety technology today.

I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?

When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely
Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an
indpendent company in 1999.


How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader?

In any case...

From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ge/innovations

Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors).

2008 ? City Safety

"Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions take
place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver
behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great
difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out
whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver
doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h."

Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I
said Volvo, I meant Volvo.

http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ancial-results


Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no
difference in decisionmaking if you want to.
You probably think that Ford didn't exert any
control either.


Your problem is that you don't get the point of my post.

Moving on.
  #92   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On 2/9/2017 5:19 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:38:20 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
In article abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73
@googlegroups.com, says...

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
In article bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
@googlegroups.com,
says...

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:

The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
on it.

I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.


Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
starving homeless person for only $30.
http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878

That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
quick to give away their City Safety technology today.

I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?

When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely
Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an
indpendent company in 1999.

How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader?

In any case...

From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ge/innovations

Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors).

2008 ? City Safety

"Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions take
place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver
behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great
difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out
whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver
doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h."

Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I
said Volvo, I meant Volvo.

http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ancial-results


Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no
difference in decisionmaking if you want to.
You probably think that Ford didn't exert any
control either.


Your problem is that you don't get the point of my post.

Moving on.



It appears to escape him...
  #93   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

In article 9a508518-ed4e-44ed-ab22-
,
says...

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:38:20 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
In article abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73
@googlegroups.com,
says...

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
In article bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
@googlegroups.com,
says...

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:

The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
on it.

I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.


Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
starving homeless person for only $30.
http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878

That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
quick to give away their City Safety technology today.

I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?

When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely
Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an
indpendent company in 1999.

How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader?

In any case...

From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ge/innovations

Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors).

2008 ? City Safety

"Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions take
place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver
behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great
difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out
whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver
doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h."

Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I
said Volvo, I meant Volvo.

http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ancial-results


Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no
difference in decisionmaking if you want to.
You probably think that Ford didn't exert any
control either.


Your problem is that you don't get the point of my post.

Moving on.


I do get the point of your post, which is that
the world has changed so that Volvo would not
have made the same decision now that they did
with regard to three point seat belts.

My point is that it is not the world that has
changed, it is Volvo, which has gone through two
changes of ownership since the seat belt
decision was made.


  #95   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,845
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 7:59:49 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
In article 9a508518-ed4e-44ed-ab22-
,
says...

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:38:20 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
In article abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73
@googlegroups.com,
says...

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
In article bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
@googlegroups.com,
says...

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:

The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
on it.

I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.


Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
starving homeless person for only $30.
http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878

That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
quick to give away their City Safety technology today.

I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?

When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely
Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an
indpendent company in 1999.

How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader?

In any case...

From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ge/innovations

Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors).

2008 ? City Safety

"Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions take
place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver
behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great
difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out
whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver
doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h."

Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I
said Volvo, I meant Volvo.

http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ancial-results

Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no
difference in decisionmaking if you want to.
You probably think that Ford didn't exert any
control either.


Your problem is that you don't get the point of my post.

Moving on.


I do get the point of your post, which is that
the world has changed so that Volvo would not
have made the same decision now that they did
with regard to three point seat belts.

My point is that it is not the world that has
changed, it is Volvo, which has gone through two
changes of ownership since the seat belt
decision was made.


Close, but no cigar. Nice try.


  #96   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:52:15 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article JeGdnfjPOcDF5AHFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:

The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
him up on it.

I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.


Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
to a starving homeless person for only $30.
http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878



It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
plain and simple.

If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.

If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it.

If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
they earn, then you are the problem, not them.



Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the
technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it
may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of
circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make
us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls.
Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
- on ANY saw they produced


Yeah, I would pay 3% in a heart beat. Do you have a link to that
specific information?

I always thought that the offer was probably fair in so much that they
or another company almost went forward. I really think that they
decided to not be the only ones and that this would all blow over and
not happen.


3 percent growing to 8 percent if the rest of
the industry goes along. Most businesses shoot
for 20 percent profit so an 8 percent royalty is
HUGE.

But a 3 or 8 percent royalty translates to 100% profit. At one time,
IBM made $1B/yr on their patents. It was all profit (and in many
years, the *only* profit).
  #100   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:
On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM,
wrote:

The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
rent-seeking.

Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.


noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
biggest companies do business" adjective



I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.


Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.



Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
business owner, CEO ect.

What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
an on going advantage?

Insurance companies.
All Energy providing companies.
TV entertainment providers.
Communication providers.
The automobile industry.
The building industry.
The food industry.
The medical industry...
The entertainment industry
The recycling industry.

And the list goes on.

Mr. Gass is no different except he is the little guy that has come up
with a great product and is successful.




  #101   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:
On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM,
wrote:

The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
rent-seeking.

Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.


noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
biggest companies do business" adjective



I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.


Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.



Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
business owner, CEO ect.

What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
an on going advantage?

Insurance companies.
All Energy providing companies.
TV entertainment providers.
Communication providers.
The automobile industry.
The building industry.
The food industry.
The medical industry...
The entertainment industry
The recycling industry.


So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
"If you purchase something of this kind it
_must_ have this expensive feature"?

If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
those, it would be the airbag industry.

Mr. Gass is no different except he is the
little guy that has come up
with a great product and is successful.


And he would have been more successful if he had
just made his product and sold it without all
the legal shenanigans before he started making
it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop
product not because of any concerns about the
Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in
that asshole's pocket. I'm sure there are
others who feel the same.
  #102   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:44:24 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:
On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM,
wrote:

The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
rent-seeking.

Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.


noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
biggest companies do business" adjective


I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.

Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.



Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
business owner, CEO ect.

What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
an on going advantage?

Insurance companies.
All Energy providing companies.
TV entertainment providers.
Communication providers.
The automobile industry.
The building industry.
The food industry.
The medical industry...
The entertainment industry
The recycling industry.


So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
"If you purchase something of this kind it
_must_ have this expensive feature"?


"that only I have a government-enforced monopoly on making."

If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
those, it would be the airbag industry.


Nope. No government enforced monopoly there.

Mr. Gass is no different except he is the
little guy that has come up
with a great product and is successful.


And he would have been more successful if he had
just made his product and sold it without all
the legal shenanigans before he started making
it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop
product not because of any concerns about the
Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in
that asshole's pocket. I'm sure there are
others who feel the same.



  #103   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:
On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM,
wrote:

The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
rent-seeking.

Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.


noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
biggest companies do business" adjective


I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.

Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.



Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
business owner, CEO ect.

What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
an on going advantage?

Insurance companies.
All Energy providing companies.
TV entertainment providers.
Communication providers.
The automobile industry.
The building industry.
The food industry.
The medical industry...
The entertainment industry
The recycling industry.


So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
"If you purchase something of this kind it
_must_ have this expensive feature"?


Think about it.

Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
in getting that law.

TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
choice. No other cable providers can compete.


If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
those, it would be the airbag industry.


The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive
industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on
new vehicles.




Mr. Gass is no different except he is the
little guy that has come up
with a great product and is successful.


And he would have been more successful if he had
just made his product and sold it without all
the legal shenanigans before he started making
it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop
product not because of any concerns about the
Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in
that asshole's pocket.


That is your choice. An emotional one but all the same, your choice.

I'm sure there are
others who feel the same.

Yes there are.




  #104   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 4:52:54 AM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.


I am not sure that can be done. Legal issues. Government laws can require safety devices. Airbags and seatbelts in cars being an example. But I doubt the law can require a specific patented device be installed. With airbags and seatbelts, the patents had long expired and the devices were actually in use and production before the law took effect requiring them to be installed in all cars.
  #105   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:38:36 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:
On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM,
wrote:

The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
rent-seeking.

Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.


noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
biggest companies do business" adjective


I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.

Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.


Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
business owner, CEO ect.

What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
an on going advantage?

Insurance companies.
All Energy providing companies.
TV entertainment providers.
Communication providers.
The automobile industry.
The building industry.
The food industry.
The medical industry...
The entertainment industry
The recycling industry.


So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
"If you purchase something of this kind it
_must_ have this expensive feature"?


Think about it.

Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
in getting that law.

TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
choice. No other cable providers can compete.


If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
those, it would be the airbag industry.


The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive
industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on
new vehicles.



As well as stability control, lane guideance, TPMS systems, and
(already) ABS.


Mr. Gass is no different except he is the
little guy that has come up
with a great product and is successful.


And he would have been more successful if he had
just made his product and sold it without all
the legal shenanigans before he started making
it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop
product not because of any concerns about the
Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in
that asshole's pocket.


That is your choice. An emotional one but all the same, your choice.

I'm sure there are
others who feel the same.

Yes there are.






  #106   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

In article FsadnSr3peg7ZwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:
On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM,
wrote:

The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
rent-seeking.

Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.


noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
biggest companies do business" adjective


I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.

Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.


Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
business owner, CEO ect.

What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
an on going advantage?

Insurance companies.
All Energy providing companies.
TV entertainment providers.
Communication providers.
The automobile industry.
The building industry.
The food industry.
The medical industry...
The entertainment industry
The recycling industry.


So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
"If you purchase something of this kind it
_must_ have this expensive feature"?


Think about it.

Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
in getting that law.


However it is not part of the car. And if you
do not drive on public roads then you do not
need it.

TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
choice. No other cable providers can compete.


Around here there's Cox and Frontier, both
provide television by wire using different
technologies. DirecTV and Dish provide two
other options.

However you are not required by law to buy any
safety device in order to have cable.

If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
those, it would be the airbag industry.


The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive
industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on
new vehicles.


_SOME_body seems to have missed all of the
lobbying and all of the workarounds that were
tried by what you claim to be "the automotive
industry" before they finally accepted that
airbags were the only way to comply with the
law.

Follow the money on airbags and it goes to Breed
Technology, which held the patent on the
triggering mechanism at the time that airbags
were mandated.

Mr. Gass is no different except he is the
little guy that has come up
with a great product and is successful.


And he would have been more successful if he had
just made his product and sold it without all
the legal shenanigans before he started making
it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop
product not because of any concerns about the
Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in
that asshole's pocket.


That is your choice. An emotional one but all the same, your choice.


And the choice of others who if Gass had not
behaved like a greedy jackass and then lied
about his motivations might have been sales
instead.

I'm sure there are
others who feel the same.

Yes there are.



  #107   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

In article 3nas9chblki4a89kreqtr795ls9s480169@
4ax.com, says...

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:38:36 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:
On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM,
wrote:

The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
rent-seeking.

Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.


noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
biggest companies do business" adjective


I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.

Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.


Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
business owner, CEO ect.

What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
an on going advantage?

Insurance companies.
All Energy providing companies.
TV entertainment providers.
Communication providers.
The automobile industry.
The building industry.
The food industry.
The medical industry...
The entertainment industry
The recycling industry.

So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
"If you purchase something of this kind it
_must_ have this expensive feature"?


Think about it.

Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
in getting that law.

TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
choice. No other cable providers can compete.


If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
those, it would be the airbag industry.


The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive
industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on
new vehicles.



As well as stability control, lane guideance, TPMS systems, and
(already) ABS.


I don't know about the others, but ABS is an
example of a company that could have profited
instead trying to save lives. Mercedes-Benz
held the critical patents for ABS as we know it,
and chose to license them free of charge to any
other auto maker who wanted to implement the
technology.



  #108   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:48:01 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 3nas9chblki4a89kreqtr795ls9s480169@
4ax.com, says...

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:38:36 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:
On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM,
wrote:

The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
rent-seeking.

Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.


noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
biggest companies do business" adjective


I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.

Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.


Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
business owner, CEO ect.

What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
an on going advantage?

Insurance companies.
All Energy providing companies.
TV entertainment providers.
Communication providers.
The automobile industry.
The building industry.
The food industry.
The medical industry...
The entertainment industry
The recycling industry.

So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
"If you purchase something of this kind it
_must_ have this expensive feature"?

Think about it.

Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
in getting that law.

TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
choice. No other cable providers can compete.


If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
those, it would be the airbag industry.

The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive
industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on
new vehicles.



As well as stability control, lane guideance, TPMS systems, and
(already) ABS.


I don't know about the others, but ABS is an
example of a company that could have profited
instead trying to save lives. Mercedes-Benz
held the critical patents for ABS as we know it,
and chose to license them free of charge to any
other auto maker who wanted to implement the
technology.


Maxeret installed ABS on 1966 JensenFF. In 1958 the Royal Enfield
Super Meteor had alnti-lock brakes,
I believe the early silver Shadow Rolls (and some Bentleys had a type
of antilock brake where brake boost was generated by a pump driven by
the driveshaft. The faster it went, the more braking pressure was
available, and at low speeds the boost was reduced. NOt 100% sure, but
from stories I heard. At any rate, they would out-brake a Ferrari or
Porche and stop dead straight, hands off, without flatspotting tires.
The story I was told was 3 rich white South Africans were sittinf in a
diner along the Garden Route back in the late sixties or early
seventies and they got talking about their cars The one guy was
bragging about his Fararri 365 GT and how fast it was and how it
handled. The other guy was singing the praises of his Porsche 911T
while the third guy just sat their listening and nodding his head.
They asked him "so what do YOU drive - and he said "a Roller" and they
all laughed.. He said it's not as quick as your sports cars, and it's
heavier, but you REALLY need to go for a ride to appreciate it. They
went out, he fired it up and took it down a nice long straight section
of highway up to 115mph, then said :hang on". He took his hands off
the wheel and stood on the brakes. When it came to a stop he started
counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, and at five a cloud of blue tire smoke passed
them. IMPRESSIVE.
  #109   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:32:27 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 4:52:54 AM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.


I am not sure that can be done. Legal issues. Government laws can require safety devices. Airbags and seatbelts in cars being an example. But I doubt the law can require a specific patented device be installed. With airbags and seatbelts, the patents had long expired and the devices were actually in use and production before the law took effect requiring them to be installed in all cars.


Exactly what's going to stop them. The fact is that it doesn't even
take a law. The FTC could ban saws without Gass' device, all by
themselves. ...and that's exactly what they tried to do.
  #110   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On 2/10/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article FsadnSr3peg7ZwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:
On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM,
wrote:

The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
rent-seeking.

Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.


noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
biggest companies do business" adjective


I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.

Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.


Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
business owner, CEO ect.

What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
an on going advantage?

Insurance companies.
All Energy providing companies.
TV entertainment providers.
Communication providers.
The automobile industry.
The building industry.
The food industry.
The medical industry...
The entertainment industry
The recycling industry.

So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
"If you purchase something of this kind it
_must_ have this expensive feature"?


Think about it.

Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
in getting that law.


However it is not part of the car. And if you
do not drive on public roads then you do not
need it.



What is not a part of the car? Insurance? No kidding. I indicated
that if you drive a car you have to buy liability insurance, An example
that I listed as one of the type businesses that benefited from lobbying
the government for minatory compliance.



TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
choice. No other cable providers can compete.


Around here there's Cox and Frontier, both
provide television by wire using different
technologies. DirecTV and Dish provide two
other options.


Direct and Dish are not cable providers, they are satellite dish
providers. Regardless in Houston TX you have no choice of cable
providers. and again it is not because of a lack of another cable
company wanting to be here, because the only cable company has
government protected rights to be the only provider.




However you are not required by law to buy any
safety device in order to have cable.


You have really missed the point ...... Get some one to explain it to you.





  #111   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

In article j21t9c9akr3mm17d41af768fdearp96og1@
4ax.com, says...

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:48:01 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 3nas9chblki4a89kreqtr795ls9s480169@
4ax.com,
says...

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:38:36 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:
On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM,
wrote:

The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
rent-seeking.

Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.


noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
biggest companies do business" adjective


I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.

Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.


Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
business owner, CEO ect.

What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
an on going advantage?

Insurance companies.
All Energy providing companies.
TV entertainment providers.
Communication providers.
The automobile industry.
The building industry.
The food industry.
The medical industry...
The entertainment industry
The recycling industry.

So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
"If you purchase something of this kind it
_must_ have this expensive feature"?

Think about it.

Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
in getting that law.

TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
choice. No other cable providers can compete.


If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
those, it would be the airbag industry.

The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive
industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on
new vehicles.



As well as stability control, lane guideance, TPMS systems, and
(already) ABS.


I don't know about the others, but ABS is an
example of a company that could have profited
instead trying to save lives. Mercedes-Benz
held the critical patents for ABS as we know it,
and chose to license them free of charge to any
other auto maker who wanted to implement the
technology.


Maxeret installed ABS on 1966 JensenFF. In 1958 the Royal Enfield
Super Meteor had alnti-lock brakes,
I believe the early silver Shadow Rolls (and some Bentleys had a type
of antilock brake where brake boost was generated by a pump driven by
the driveshaft. The faster it went, the more braking pressure was
available, and at low speeds the boost was reduced. NOt 100% sure, but
from stories I heard. At any rate, they would out-brake a Ferrari or
Porche and stop dead straight, hands off, without flatspotting tires.
The story I was told was 3 rich white South Africans were sittinf in a
diner along the Garden Route back in the late sixties or early
seventies and they got talking about their cars The one guy was
bragging about his Fararri 365 GT and how fast it was and how it
handled. The other guy was singing the praises of his Porsche 911T
while the third guy just sat their listening and nodding his head.
They asked him "so what do YOU drive - and he said "a Roller" and they
all laughed.. He said it's not as quick as your sports cars, and it's
heavier, but you REALLY need to go for a ride to appreciate it. They
went out, he fired it up and took it down a nice long straight section
of highway up to 115mph, then said :hang on". He took his hands off
the wheel and stood on the brakes. When it came to a stop he started
counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, and at five a cloud of blue tire smoke passed
them. IMPRESSIVE.


Yes, child, I know that antiskid existed before
Daimler-Benz patented their electronic control
system. I have sitting in the driveway right
now a 1976 Lincoln with antiskid. However it
did not become widely available or popular and
there is a reason for that. Antiskid systems
using hydaulic logic are not reliable without
expert maintenance--they were OK for aircraft,
and for Rollers, and for novelty items like the
Jensen. But put them on a Volkswagen maintained
by your garden variety Hippy and they will
fairly quickly die the death.

What made them practical was the development of
a reliable and effective electronic control
system.


  #112   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

In article M_OdnRoTtKJHBwPFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/10/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article FsadnSr3peg7ZwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:
On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM,
wrote:

The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
rent-seeking.

Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.


noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
biggest companies do business" adjective


I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.

Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.


Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
business owner, CEO ect.

What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
an on going advantage?

Insurance companies.
All Energy providing companies.
TV entertainment providers.
Communication providers.
The automobile industry.
The building industry.
The food industry.
The medical industry...
The entertainment industry
The recycling industry.

So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
"If you purchase something of this kind it
_must_ have this expensive feature"?

Think about it.

Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
in getting that law.


However it is not part of the car. And if you
do not drive on public roads then you do not
need it.



What is not a part of the car? Insurance? No kidding. I indicated
that if you drive a car you have to buy liability insurance, An example
that I listed as one of the type businesses that benefited from lobbying
the government for minatory compliance.


Since we were talking about mandating the
installation of a sole-source proprietary
component on all devices of a given type, your
example is irrelevant.



TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
choice. No other cable providers can compete.


Around here there's Cox and Frontier, both
provide television by wire using different
technologies. DirecTV and Dish provide two
other options.


Direct and Dish are not cable providers, they are satellite dish
providers. Regardless in Houston TX you have no choice of cable
providers. and again it is not because of a lack of another cable
company wanting to be here, because the only cable company has
government protected rights to be the only provider.




However you are not required by law to buy any
safety device in order to have cable.


You have really missed the point ...... Get some one to explain it to you.


Your point is that you want to be patted on the
head and told what a smart boy you are for
coming up with a bunch of red herrings and straw
men that are irrelevant to the point.

So, pat pat what a smart boy you are Leon.
Feel better?


  #113   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 06:29:19 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:



Yes, child, I know that antiskid existed before
Daimler-Benz patented their electronic control
system. I have sitting in the driveway right
now a 1976 Lincoln with antiskid. However it
did not become widely available or popular and
there is a reason for that. Antiskid systems
using hydaulic logic are not reliable without
expert maintenance--they were OK for aircraft,
and for Rollers, and for novelty items like the
Jensen. But put them on a Volkswagen maintained
by your garden variety Hippy and they will
fairly quickly die the death.

What made them practical was the development of
a reliable and effective electronic control
system.

Which even today is beyond the average garden variety hippy. (and not
terribly reliable either) Just google "abs problems".
I've had sensors fail. I've had reluctor wheels split and spin, split
and jam, and split and fall off. I've had them rust, and I've had them
fill with crud between the teeth - all rendering them inneffective.
I've had wires break and connections corrode.. I've had to replace
very expensive wheel bearing assemblies because the sensor built into
them failed.
I've had the actuators fail in Myriad different modes, including a
piston unwinding right off the actuator screw, activators seizing, and
pump motors (in the activator) burning out. Activator failures are
very hard to diagnose - in many of the cases no warning lights came on
- the ABS just stopped working -often along with one half of the
braking system. On the one with the spun off system I could even bleed
the brakes, but could never get any pressure - to the point a leaky
line didn't even show up untill the activator was replaced..
I've had them so sensitive that replacing a damaged tire with a new
one after about 10,000km threw the system into a fit, and in much of
our winter driving conditions it is virtually impossible to stop with
quite a few vehicles with ABS (particularly with OEM wide tires
installed - (even all season or snow tires). All ABS does in those
situations is make sure you hit what you hit square on.

Benz basically put their patent "into the public domain" because they
knew there were so many ways to re-engineer the system to get around
their patent that they would spend millions ineffectively trying to
defend the patent - due in part to the prior state of the science
which rendered the patent almost undefendable. It had all been done,
in one way or another, by someone else before them.
Their releasing the patent just made it a lot simpler for everyone
else yto move ahead without worrying about patent infringement suites
like the old Selden Patent fiasco.
  #114   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

In article hoau9clk2urjpaten1c84d0lpc1aajne3g@
4ax.com, says...

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 06:29:19 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:



Yes, child, I know that antiskid existed before
Daimler-Benz patented their electronic control
system. I have sitting in the driveway right
now a 1976 Lincoln with antiskid. However it
did not become widely available or popular and
there is a reason for that. Antiskid systems
using hydaulic logic are not reliable without
expert maintenance--they were OK for aircraft,
and for Rollers, and for novelty items like the
Jensen. But put them on a Volkswagen maintained
by your garden variety Hippy and they will
fairly quickly die the death.

What made them practical was the development of
a reliable and effective electronic control
system.

Which even today is beyond the average garden variety hippy. (and not
terribly reliable either)


The difference is that the hydraulic system has
to be maintained--you have to do stuff to it
regularly or it stops working--the electronic
system in general just works without being
messed with.

Just google "abs problems".
I've had sensors fail. I've had reluctor wheels split and spin, split
and jam, and split and fall off. I've had them rust, and I've had them
fill with crud between the teeth - all rendering them inneffective.
I've had wires break and connections corrode.. I've had to replace
very expensive wheel bearing assemblies because the sensor built into
them failed.


What do you _do_ to the poor things? The only
ABS maintenance my Jeep has needed in 20 years
was having one cable replaced after it got
snagged on something or other and got physically
ripped off.

I've had the actuators fail in Myriad different modes, including a
piston unwinding right off the actuator screw, activators seizing, and
pump motors (in the activator) burning out. Activator failures are
very hard to diagnose - in many of the cases no warning lights came on
- the ABS just stopped working -often along with one half of the
braking system. On the one with the spun off system I could even bleed
the brakes, but could never get any pressure - to the point a leaky
line didn't even show up untill the activator was replaced..
I've had them so sensitive that replacing a damaged tire with a new
one after about 10,000km threw the system into a fit, and in much of
our winter driving conditions it is virtually impossible to stop with
quite a few vehicles with ABS (particularly with OEM wide tires
installed - (even all season or snow tires). All ABS does in those
situations is make sure you hit what you hit square on.

Benz basically put their patent "into the public domain" because they
knew there were so many ways to re-engineer the system to get around
their patent that they would spend millions ineffectively trying to
defend the patent - due in part to the prior state of the science
which rendered the patent almost undefendable. It had all been done,
in one way or another, by someone else before them.
Their releasing the patent just made it a lot simpler for everyone
else yto move ahead without worrying about patent infringement suites
like the old Selden Patent fiasco.



Uh, huh, right. So there was not one iotia of
altruism involved, in your opinion.

  #115   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, wrote:

Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
comparison doesn't hold water.


Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can mandate insurance and/or safety devices.




Can anyone give an example of a law that required using a patented, licensed device?


This question still stands. Does anyone have an example of a government mandated device that was still under license and restricted? ABS, airbags, seatbelts were all public property free to everyone when they were mandated.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw Leon[_7_] Woodworking 138 September 26th 15 09:16 PM
Bosch palm router $99 a good price? Han Woodworking 11 June 24th 11 01:06 AM
Random orbit sanders - green Bosch PEX400 vs blue Bosch GEX 125? Andy Dingley UK diy 4 January 12th 08 09:56 PM
Bosch 3915 10" SCMS good price? Fred Woodworking 7 September 15th 05 09:35 AM
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good Leonard Caillouet Electronics Repair 2 April 23rd 05 04:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"