"JackD" wrote in message ...
Did you read the "performance specification" that was submitted? It states
a
number of requirements which are clearly tailored to a specific
implementation - the very same implementation that is patented by those
submitting the petition.

Well of course it is, since their product is the only one on the market that
detects human flesh and stops a spinning blade. I did read the petition,
and in my opinion, it stops whort of mandating use of one system. For
example, it states that the system must be, "capable of detecting contact or
dangerous proximity between a person and the saw blade..." It doesn't state
how such detection must be accomplished. In theory, someone could come up
with an infrared ro laser based system that detects close proximity to the
blade, and meet this requirement.

The petition also states that the system must have, "a reaction system to
perform some action upon detection of such contact or dangerous proximity,
such as stopping or retracting the blade..." Again, the petition does not
state exactly how this requirement is to be met. Perhaps a system could be
developed that uses a brake system similar to the disc brakes in your car,
rather than one that works directly on the teeth of the saw blade. If so,
this requirement would be met, and not infringe upon SawStop's patents in
any way.

If the petition were more broadly worded, then I'd
agree with you. But it isn't and therefore people are crying foul.

I think it's worded broadly enough to allow for competition to crop up.
Don't you think that, since SawStop approached them a few years ago, Delta,
Jet/Powermatic, Dewalt and others have been exploring ways of accomplishing
the same thing?