On 2010-03-09 13:10:57 -0500, " said:

You appear to be the only one here. You don't see a conflict of
interest? He has a state-mandated monopoly (patent) and you don't see
a problem with the state also requiring his device? boggle

Nope -- he offered to license the technology (perhaps the fee was
higher than some might deem appropriate, but's that's not _really_ the
issue). The others were certainly free to develop their own systems.

What seems to gall many writing in this thread is that with a mandated
safety system, there well be no _cheap_ (read: inexpensive) saws. That
means no saws built to a price point for the HDs of this world. Is that
a bad thing? If that's all you think you could afford, yes, it's bad.

If you're DELTA hawking a new Unisaw, yeah, it's bad, because your
price point is in the neighborhood of the SawStop.

If you're a hand surgeon (Anyone out there falling into this category?
Hands, please!) this is a bad thing because it's gonna affect your
livelihood. Conversly, this is a good thing for insurance companies...
but you knew that.

If you'd like to keep your fingers where they belong (on your hands, of
course -- what did you think I meant?) then this is a damn good thing.

The price of a SawStop (irrespectively of the technology, I'm told this
is a GOOD machine) is real cheap insurance. The repair of a partially
severed tendon ten years ago (don't ask, it wasn't in the shop) was
$3,500. Granted, you can barely see the scar, but I'd much rather have
spent that on something else.

I'm pretty new to woodshop. I gulped at the price when I first saw the
SawStop, but I made the decsion right then and there this would be my
next TS. And I will be plunking down the cash real soon.

So, is the management of SawStop ethical in pushing for the safety mandate?

For me, it's not an issue.