On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:23:35 -0800, "Lobby Dosser" wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
ain.local...
In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:30:50 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 01:27:33 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
Has someone dictated/mandated/legislated that you use saw stopping
blade technology?

IIRC, the inventor was lobbying for just such legislation.

Plus, he wanted so much in royalties and licensing that ALL of the
manufacturers told him to shove it up his ass. I believe it was
after
that happened that he chose to force the issue, to pursue mandatory
use via lobbying. What a jerk.

Making things up Larry? Wher exactly did you read that the
manufacturers
"told him to shove it up his ass". And peronally I thought the
royalties
were perfectly in line. So your point of view is simply that. But
resorting to make up what actually went down to suit your own slant is
pretty rediculious. You are working yourself into a bigger lather the
more
you make things up.

What you thought of the royalties is meaningless, unless you're
planning
on
building table saws. The table saw manufacturers *obviously* didn't
agree
with you. The inventor *did* attempt to force the issue.


So that naturally means what Larry thought about the royalties is also
meaningless. I suspect that the manufacturers would have balked at any
reasonable offer. Really and truly why increase the expense of an item
if
you don't have to. No one had to and still no one has to but if they
want
to stay in business they may have to. Now that the SawStop is
succeeding
on its own I doubt that obtaining the technology or license is going to
be
as reasonable as it was when originally offered unless the Whirlwind or
like
product can come up with an equal alternative solution.

But _is_ the Sawstop "succeeding on its own"? The company is not
publicly traded--for all we know they're burning through their venture
capital and will go under when it runs out.



Then folks will own an orphan. I've owned an orphan before. Not a happy
happenstance.

Particularly when one of its "operational" modes is eating itself.