On Oct 9, 12:24*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
says...
On Oct 8, 10:47 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
says...
On Oct 8, 6:30 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:

Merceces-Benz licenses their antiskid braking patents at no charge (or
did while they were still in force, they may be expired now). If Mr.
Sawstop was really all that interested in preventing injury instead of
lining his own pockets he'd do the same.

ABS were first used in airplanes in the 30's or 40's. Chrysler had
anti-skid technology in the early 70's. Bosch and Mercedes
collaborated in the late 70's and MB rolled them out in the 80's. Not
quite the same thing as having a totally unique technology. I'd also
be very interested to see where they gave away their technology when
there were already competing technologies out there. That's not the
purpose of a patent and it makes no sense from any angle. I did a
quick search but couldn't find anything about it - do you have a link
that I could check out?

You used Mercedes as an example of how you think Gass should run his
business licensing his invention. I've looked some more, and still
can't find anything on Mercedes giving away ABS technology. Was that
one of those illustrative parables used to make a point? You know -
made up?

I also find it curious that you use a company that worked with the
Nazis as an example of how businesses should work. Wouldn't it be
only fair to give Gass fifty years to become magnanimous?

Please don't attribute some moral lapse in not taking the high road to
a guy that all the major manufacturer's told to get lost. Anyone
would have a bone to pick with them in that situation, and now he's
set on making his point and teaching them a lesson. After all - he's
a LAWYER. Lawyer's don't necessarily differentiate between making
money and doing good. They're not automatically mutually exclusive.

As far as Gass' position, I could see him negotiating downwards once
the regulations come out. It would be in his best interests to make
the money while he can as numerous billion dollar companies can afford
to lawyer-spank anybody. And it would be in the major players
interest to avoid lawyer fees and work with existing proven technology
instead of losing time in development.

I'm sorry, but Gass is a self-serving ****head. If you think otherwise
you're a damned fool.

Who's he supposed to be serving - you?

No, the government is supposed to be serving me and by trying to get it
to force businesses to buy his product he is subverting the free market.

The government is not supposed to be serving any one individual. I
don't foresee any major problem (other than for the competing tool
manufacturers), so I'm not overly concerned. You're getting worked up
about something that probably won't happen the way you seem to be
imagining it. Have you taken any action to help prevent the problem
you see looming on the horizon? Made a phone call, written a
letter...anything?

There's also no such thing as a free market, not in any sense of the
word. If you want a truly open market, there's always a flea.

It's his fookin' business, and
he gets to run it any way he sees fit. *I don't give a rat's ass about
Gass and it's not a popularity contest anyway.

It would be fine if he was content to run his own business, what makes
him a sack of **** is his attempt to run everyone else's business as
well.

He is running his business. His aims don't coincide with yours. Why
is this so strange and upsetting to you? I get more upset by China
exporting kids toys with lead paint, and making _fake_ chicken eggs
for consumption. I get more upset by oil companies falsifying data to
circumvent regulations. Gass' actions barely register on the meter.

There's an old saying, "You can't blame a guy for asking." *He's
asking the CPSC for something. *It's up to them whether they say yes
or no. *Nobody's holding a gun to their heads.

You most assuredly can blame a guy for asking. *Or would you be
perfectly cool if some guy with AIDS asked you if he could **** your
daughter in the ass?

What curious analogies run through your mind. But okay, let's run
with it. If the guy were asking randomly and just for the sport of a
it, I'd say no, and _might_ get heated about it. More likely I'd
realize the guy was a looney tune, and there's no use continuing the
interaction. But if the guy were a doctor and he was the only one
with the invention/technology that would be able to save my daughter's
life, I'd take it under consideration - with the final decision made
by the imaginary daughter, of course.

Your righteous indignation is misplaced, and mis-timed. *Your beef
shouldn't be with him. *If you have a beef it should be with the CPSC
- IF they essentially pass a SawStop mandate. *That's a big if. *When
and if that mandate happens, then you can tell me I told you so. *I
won't be holding my breath.

That's a separate beef. *He should not be asking.

Your opinion has been duly noted.

R