On 11 Jul 2012 17:22:39 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 11 Jul 2012 12:54:59 GMT, Han wrote:

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in
:

Blog references several LA Times articles.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wo...tors-blog/cali
fo
rnia-closer-to-state-table-saw-regulations?utm_source=feedburner&utm_
me
dium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PopularWoodworking+ %28Popular+Woodwork
in g%29

The sawstop technology should be adopted by all TS manufacturers.

How very "liberal" of you.

Licensing fees allowing manufacture of the systems by all TS
manufacturers should be set by law to 2.5% of manufacturing costs (or
another arbitrary low number). None of the lobbying expenditures
incurred by Stephen Gass or his coconspirators should be allowed to
play any role.

The Constitution forbids such "takings", but don't let that stop you.

I'm just giving my opinion.

Of course. Your opinion never seems to take the law into account, though. "If
I were tyrant..."

I believe that the main problem with the
sawstop technology is that Stephen Gass looked at it as a get rich quick
scheme. Of course that is fine if he can sell it to industry and
consumers of all kinds. His heavy-handed sales techniques have offended
everyone (just about), but that does not mean his invention(s) are bad,
on the contrary. Patents were invented and instituted to promote
inventions, enhance the public welfare (whatever), and give the inventor
a just reward.

We agree on this part. We don't agree about the solution. I'd rather do
something that's, you know, legal (and moral).

I believe that in the case where an invention becomes a monopoly, that
the inventor is obliged to license his invention at "reasonable" cost,
not an exorbitant cost.

It's only a "monopoly" if government forces it to be a monopoly.

My hyperbolic statements were meant to emphasize
the reasonableness of the fees. As for taking, there is also eminent
domain - much maligned, often improperly practiced, but such "takings"
are allowed by the Constitution.

That's right. You lefties think it's OK to take someone's house to give to a
shopping mall builder because they'll pay more taxes. Taking someone's IP, so
the government can meddle more, isn't a big stretch, is it?