I'm not trying to rationalize. One assumption is that they're doing this
for the greater good. Another assumption is that they're trying to make
a buck. The fact that they attempted to make their invention the 'law of
the land' could be an action spawned by either motivation.
The fact that they were licensing it for $$, not placing it in the
public domain, supports the latter. That they were trying to FORCE the
public to license their product via governmental coercion after their
efforts to market the device failed - that is what ticks me off.

I have no inside information on how much they were asking in royalties.
I do however have Google; in at least one instance they were asking 8%.
Reasonable? I can't say. Apparently the big manufacturers didn't want to
pony up that much, or perhaps it had more to do with liability concerns.

I do still use an unsafe saw. Not to spite them, but to spite the evil
saw. My ever-sore, tingly, disfigured, sawn-to-the-bone left thumb is a
constant, nagging reminder each and every time I turn the saw on to keep
it, and all body parts attached to it, safely away from the spinning
blade. It's a very effective safety device, albeit an expensive one.

I would pay for a sawstop device, but only if I had the ability to
disable it when necessary. It still won't handle wet/green wood without
triggering needlessly.
Besides... what if I WANTED to cut some hot dogs on my Jet? Can't do it
without buying a new Forrest blade and sawstop cartridge every time.

I don't dislike the sawstop device, or any other safety device. I do
dislike, despise even, being strong armed by someone who wants to sell
me something. Call me libertarian, but I believe that letting the market
- AKA peoples spending decisions - determine what products make it into
my garage.
I'll decide for myself what safety devices are right for me. Not some
bureaucrat or snake oil salesman.

And after all that, sawstop found some investors and are now producing a
good quality, safe saw. They'll probably do very well financially. That
should have been the path they took first.

Mike Berger wrote:
They filed a petition. Do you really think it rationalizes
your original comment as quoted below? Do you have inside
information on how much was being asked for royalties?

I'll bet you use an unsafe table saw just to spite them :-)

***
I however can't get over the greedy inventor's attempt to legislate
this device into every saw in the US. When his invention wasn't snapped
up by all of the major manufacturers as he assumed it would, he lobbied
to make it illegal to manufacture or import saws without a safety device
(his being the only one that would meet the requirements) installed.


Russ wrote:
Mike Berger wrote:
We've all heard this anecdotally. How much direct knowledge do you
really have of the inventor's greed and disdain for humanity?
Even if he lobbied to have the device made mandatory,

In April 2003, sawstop filed a petition with the Consumer Product
Safety Commission to make SawStop-like technology standard on all
table saws.