Larry Jaques wrote:
On 21 Nov 2011 04:37:22 GMT, Larry wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:
Larry wrote:
So, explain to me why the owner of the sawstop patent is
involved in a lawsuit against Ryobi unless it was greed.
If the product was so damn good it would sell itself and
he wouldn't need to bother with Ryobi. Go ahead, I'll
wait...
So - anyone who is interested in profit - regardless of the
amount of that profit is motivated by greed? Perhaps he is
- I don't know, because I don't know the guy. What he is
doing is fairly commonplace in the world - why this
disproportionate ire over sawstop?
It's proportionate, Mike. I get upset every time I hear about a scam
like this, no matter who pulls it.
That's fair. To be equally fair - I get upset when I hear people (not at
all singling you out here Larry) grousing about a person or a company making
a profit, and stating that the party in question should offer their product
for some price that they feel is appropriate, while they themselves would
not work for free. It's the Capitalist in me coming through...
You're correct, it is fairly commplace, that sir -is- the
problem.
Where's Mike's head? "It's OK because everybody does it."?
tsk tsk tsk Go talk to an inmate in a federal prison. Are you going
to start raping men, stabbing other inmates and guards, and taking
illegal drugs just because he says "Everybody's doing it."? Hmm?
Well, that's a bit of an extreem analogy, and I'm not sure it really applies
to this discussion. Your analogy references illegal activities, while Gass'
activities are completely within the law - regardless of how distasteful
they may be to some.
It's not about how much money he's making, it's about the
methods he's trying to use to make it (see quote at the bottom).
He came up with an invention that based on cost most people
won't buy. So instead he lobbies to get laws passed requiring
the use of his invention.
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/bal.../TableSaws.pdf
The plantiff admitted he was using the saw with the guard and
fence removed, sounding as though he was free handing his cuts.
How about some personal responsibility? You stick your finger in
a table saw you lose a finger. If you choose to purchase a
product that prevents that from happening, good for you, I'm
sure you'll be happy with it.
Admittedly there have been many improvements in products that
make them safer, some probably as a result of litigation such as
this case (stupidity, plain and clear). It's also costing us an
enormous amount of money for the government to babysit everyone
that isn't smart enough to survive on their own. Product
liability is a huge financial drain on everyone. The only
winners are a few victims and a lot of attorneys.
But the people making all the REAL money are the attorneys.
Victims get a pittance of the overall funds transferred in these
rapes, erm, I mean lawsuits.
Actually, if it's not a class action suit, the plaintif makes the most of
the money.
If there wasn't a victim involved, personally, it would thrill
me to see the first failure of the SawStop mechanism. Maybe he'd
have a different point of view when the shoe's on the other
foot.
"Stephen Gass, the inventor of the SawStop technology that
safety advocates would like to see on table saws, has retained
Pamela Gilbert, a former executive director at the CPSC, to
lobby for a saw safety rule that could help make Gass wealthy.
Gass, of Tualatin, Ore., paid Gilbert $20,000 over a two-month
period in the first quarter of the year."
Read mo http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/health/new-rules-for-
table-saws-sought-to-cut-amputations-052511#ixzz1eJ8zOh00
Why isn't lobbying illegal, or at least pursued as influence peddling,
yet? sigh
Now that is a totally different topic - and a worthwhile one in my opinion.
FTR, I think the SawStop technology is a good solution to a problem, though
I do not think it is the only solution. For one, I don't like to trust
completely in technology and mechanisms to prevent accidents of this nature.
I'm much more in the camp that suggests personal responsibility and common
sense. That said, if I were in the market for a new cabinet saw, I would
consider a SawStop. Don't know if that would be the winner in my book, but
I'd consider it.
I don't want to see Gass succeed in his attempt to work the system in order
to market his product, but I also do not like to hear voices proclaim that
he should be forced to market it for some price that they consider
"appropriate". Rather - I believe in letting the market decide what is
"appropriate". Whether we like it or not, he's working within the system.
Yeah - he's working the system hard, but that's one of the risks of a
society that does not lock everything down. Forcing an inventor to give his
concept over to the greater good, or to limit his profits to a level that
some indiduals think should be appropriate by some arbitrary standards is
just a bit to Socalistic for my tastes.
--
-Mike-