" wrote in
:
On 11 Jul 2012 17:41:55 GMT, Han wrote:
" wrote in
m:
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.../editors-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+Wood
wo 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.
Indeed, sometimes doing nothing is the best 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 don't know what the best course of action is. There are too many
tablesaws in use by people who don't know how to handle them (I got
lessons by my Craftsman what NOT to do. but it could have come out worse,
and I had good insurance). For those people it would be good to have
something like sawstop technology. While I don't really think that there
ought to be laws imposing the Gass patents on all consumers, the approach
of encouraging similar technology seems justifiable. But then we get
into the problem of encouraging a de facto monopoly, and I would
definitely be against that.
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!
I'd call it a conundrum if you would like to prevent the injuries but
don't like Gass's prices.
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.
?? What chasm am I widening?? The Kelo decision has to regarded as an
aberration. Especially after "they" decided not to do the project they
initially proposed.
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.
When (as may seem likely) the CA or Fed authorities mandate Gass-like
technology, the license fees will need to be established.
My TS is still OK. But if I were to buy a new one, I think SS is in the
running. I'd have to price it carefully, though. Not anytime soon ...
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!
If Joe working for Big Gadgets in the daytime makes something in the off-
hours that he is then marketing as a viable competitor for Big Gadgets'
product line, then I assume that Big Gadgets will want the rights. In
the case of what became Auto-Analyzer, Big Gadgets was NOT successful.
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.
I'm sure lawyers will determine that.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid