On 11 Jul 2012 17:41:55 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

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...ditors-blog/ca
li fo
rnia-closer-to-state-table-saw-regulations?utm_source=feedburner&ut
m_ me
dium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PopularWoodworking+ %28Popular+Woodwo
rk 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 agree that sometimes it seems that way. In the vein of, there ought to
be a law ...

It often happens when the "unintended consequences" aren't taken into account.
Bad things happen when one falls into the "just do something" mode. Usually,
doing nothing is a better solution.

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).

But there is a solution. If Gass's patents turn out to be a de facto
monopoly, because the bills being discussed will absolutely require using
his technologies (remember?) then government or whoever should set the
maximum license fees. Or don't you remember that Gass really wants a
lot?

No, the solution is for government to tell him to pound salt. He'll then drop
the licensing fees to something more reasonable. ...or not and leave money on
the table (saw).

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.

But if CA or the Consumer protection whatever issue rules or laws that
require the technology, then "government forces it to be a monopoly".

Well, there's the *real* problem that needs fixing!

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?

I didn't think the CT case was a very good one, and there are likely many
more. Sometimes though, eminent domain is good. I'm sure you can find
examples ...

There are *many* that the Kelo decision let loose. ...and you want to widen
the chasm even further.

As for Gass's inventions, I'm sure that they'll eventually will come up
with a way to remunerate him. After all, he is a lawyer ...

"They"? Who's "they"? Why don't *we* let his invention stand on its own?
Sure, I'd like to have a SawStop but I wasn't willing to pay 2x for it. A
couple hundred, most probably. $2000? Not happening.

As for "taking IP", most companies take their employees' IP very easily
and fast. Just read the rules of employment. You have to have very good
records to show that your invention was yours, derived at home, outside
working hours, if you don't want "them" to take it. I believe that the
"Auto-Analyzer" invention was such a case.

They didn't *TAKE* anything. It's a contract, willingly entered into. There
is a *big* difference!

And yes, I am of the opinion that an inventor should be rewarded for
his/her efforts. Just not that it should be an exorbitant reward, thanks
to lawyering, lobbying, and prescribing (with great emphasis on
exorbitant - generous is enough).

Who decides what's "exorbitant"? You? I haven't paid Gass a dime, and won't.