Dave Hinz said:

If the sawstop people had just marketed their product as a safety
device, I might have agreed that this is a good analogy. After all, any
automaker can add a seat belt to their cars. However, their tactic was
to try to get the government to _force_ saws to be sold with their
exclusively patented device.

Contrast this to the mentality of automakers like Mercedes and Saab -
Mercedes invented "crumple zones". It's a great safety improvement.
They also specifically decided not to patent it, and to share the
technology, so other makers could use this safety system. Similarly,
Saab has come up with dozens of innovations which they likewise have
decided not to be exclusive on.

The approach of "force everyone to buy a product that they can only get
from us" is, I think, the biggest problem. The quality control and
design problems are secondary.

Although their initial marketing approach was a bit (!) antagonistic,
our marketplace IS based on capitalism. This was a small group of
individuals who wanted to make a few bucks on their idea. They
initially approached other manufacturers and were turned down.
Admittedly, I don't know the figures they requested for the license on
their device - perhaps they were just to greedy. It's not even a new
technology, per se - only it's application to tablesaws.

But Imagine the flack if you tried to deny Thomas Edison or Steven
Jobs a profit on their 'inventions'.

FWIW,

Greg G.