Stuart Wheaton wrote:


The problem with this seems to be that Sawstop has the technology very
thoroughly patented, and is not willing to license for anything
reasonable, then they start a suit to result in their tech being
required.

A lot of people are saying this, but I'm not so sure it's completely true.
The only things that I have seen that related to licensing fees were the
fees that Gass attempted to get in his conversations with the manufacturers.
I have not heard anyone here state that they have any real information on
the negotiations that were attempted between Gass and any of the
manufacturers. For him to come in high, and be negotiated down, would be
normal business.

On the other hand, the other side of that whole thing is that the lawyers
for the manufacturers tried to avoid any liabilities that would potentially
arise if the manufacturers "admitted" safety issues by adopting this new
technology. While Gass may have been guilty of trying to charge too much
for his product, he's not the one responsible for this line of thinking by
the manufacturers.


My understanding is that the principal in Sawstop is actually a patent
lawyer.


Yes, he is as well as two of his partners in the venture. And that means...
what?

--

-Mike-