edfan wrote:
(Dave Mundt) wrote in message .. .
I don't object to the Saw Stop system as an
alternative, made available as an option in a free
market. I strenuously object to any one company being
handed the keys to the candy store by legislating a
requirement for their product. That is, to put it
plainly, UnAmerican.
Regards
Dave Mundt
EXTREMELY WELL SAID. Bears rereading.
I've been burning their ears off at SawStop. The first email I sent to
them attacking their tactics was greeted with their standard form
letter, to which I responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------
I"m really not interested in your form letter.
Here are the facts:
Your company is attempting to get a private market legislated and rammed
down the throats of the consumer whether we want to buy your product or not.
The patents held by your company are comprehensive and leave little room
for another company to field a competing product without infringing upon
your patent rights. As such, competition is restricted.
For the CPSC to attempt to institute a regulation requiring your product
to be installed on saws is to create an illegal monopoly, thereby
instantaneously putting your company's operations within the realm
covered by federal antitrust laws. If this should happen, I hope that
you ARE charged with violating those federal antitrust laws.
I also resist, in the absolute strongest of terms, any attempt to FORCE
me to purchase a safety device as part of a product that I might buy.
I have no problem with being able to purchase such a device as an
option, but to be forced to buy it, especially when there is only
ONE supplier of such an item?
No way in hell.
I was much in favor of your devices as a smart option for installation
in saws that I might purchase. But this blatant attempt to ram your
product up my backside whether I want to buy it or not, and without
even a choice of competing products, has caused me to turn completely
against your company for its unscrupulous operations.
I'd expect this kind of thinking from politicians. BAD ones.
If I ever end up with a product that has one of your devices in it, I
will go to great lengths to remove that device and throw it in the trash
where it belongs. It's not because of a problem with the device, it's
because of your company's blatant attempt to acquire an exclusive and
mandatory market by means of legislative action.
I wouldn't feel this way if the device were an option that was made
readily available for purchase, IF DESIRED, by the consumer. But if
you try to ram it down my throat, don't be surprised when I gag on it.
Very sincerely,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their reply:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a couple of points. First, we are offering to license our
technology to all manufacturers. Thus, if the CPSC adopts our proposed
regulation, there will be competition. Second, it is the patent system
that will restrict competition and that may grant us a "monopoly," not a
regulation from the CPSC. It sounds like your fundamental disagreement
is with the patent system. Third, our proposed regulation would only
"force" you to purchase our technology to the extent that similar
regulations "force" you to buy a blade guard when you buy a saw, "force"
you to buy a car with seat belts, or "force" you to buy a certain kind
of bike helmet for your kids. Your statements sound like you disapprove
of a government entity like the CPSC, which has the authority to mandate
safety standards for consumer products. Finally, ask yourself whether a
manufacturer's "freedom" to make and your "freedom" to buy unsafe saws
is really worth one high school kid losing a finger.
Sincerely,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which I responded,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I'll take apart your arguments one line at a time, if necessary.
SawStop wrote:
Just a couple of points. First, we are offering to license our
technology to all manufacturers.
So of course, you get a royalty for each system produced under license.
In any event, as your patents are fairly comprehensive, it would be
difficult to design a competitive safety system that operates on the
same concept of removing and/or stopping the blade on contact with
flesh.
You won't hear me argue that it's not a good design. In fact, it's an
incredible feat and for that by itself, I have nothing but praise for you.
But if you succeed in ramming a mandatory equipment regulation down our
throats, you have removed our freedom of choice as to what we buy and
whom we do business with. As there IS no competitive product to
SawStop and probably won't be due to your patents, I would be FORCED to
hand you some of my money whether I wanted to or not, if I had to buy
any new saws. (I will NOT, if the CPSC adopts such a regulation! I
will buy USED tools and refurbish them myself rather than be FORCED to
give you any of my money!)
Thus, if the CPSC adopts our proposed regulation, there will be
competition.
NO, there will NOT. Your patents are pretty comprehensive, as
mentioned before, and as for licensed products, you still make money on
products made under license.
Second, it is the patent system that will restrict competition and
that may grant us a "monopoly," not a regulation from the CPSC.
Splitting hairs and it makes no difference. A monopoly is a monopoly,
period. And I won't voluntarily do business with a monopoly if I don't
have to do so for my survival.
It sounds like your fundamental disagreement is with the patent
system.
No. I never thought that. Still don't. It's all well and good that
you MIGHT have a product that would be hard to follow without patent
infringement, but my issue is with being FORCED to buy ANYTHING without
a choice.
Third, our proposed regulation would only "force" you to purchase
our technology to the extent that similar regulations "force" you to
buy a blade guard when you buy a saw, "force" you to buy a car with
seat belts, or "force" you to buy a certain kind of bike helmet for
your kids.
This is a VERY poor analogy as there are SEVERAL manufacturers of
seatbelts, airbags, blade guards, bike helmets, etc. And though I
still don't like having no choice but to buy cars that have airbags and
seatbelts, purely on principle, I DO have a choice of manufacturers
of cars and if I care to do so, I can select cars that have different
brands of equipment in them. No single company is getting ALL the
business by a CPSC mandate. To me, that's the important part.
Your statements sound like you disapprove of a government entity like
the CPSC, which has the authority to mandate safety standards for
consumer products.
1: Yes, I do disapprove of a "nanny state" and the agencies that enact
rules that can restrict my freedom of choice.
2: It would be fairly easy to show that once you get past a certain
range of price and features in power tools, you're well within the
market of PROFESSIONAL woodworkers and not mere CONSUMERS. Just as
cars built for professional racing do not have to have certain
safety features that a passenger vehicle is required to have,
woodworking tools built for professionals are usually being operated by
people who know and live by their safety standards, for the most part.
They are people who would usually CHOOSE to buy a tool with your
safety device installed if it's available that way anyway.
It's completely unnecessary to try to FORCE me to buy your product by
mandate.
Finally, ask yourself whether a manufacturer's "freedom" to make and
your "freedom" to buy unsafe saws is really worth one high school kid
losing a finger.
So you're in favor of a nanny state? Should everything have a safety
device on it? Are you your brother's keeper?
Working with any highly energetic machine involves a certain amount of
risk. We can't control all risk factors and even your product isn't
foolproof. If you think it is, slap a running sawblade as fast as you
can and see how tiny the nick is. I'll watch but first let me get a
first aid kit ready.
I don't object to your product. I object to your attempt to ram it down
my throat without my consent or any choice in the matter.
And I strenuously object to the incredible money-grubbing attitude of
you and your company for trying to get rich by a forced monopoly. I
won't play.
Good day, and may the CPSC laugh in your face.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can tell, I have decidedly chosen sides on this issue!
CJ