Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

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

I'm sure lawyers will determine that.

Which will be better than relying on your own personal opinion of
what is appropriate. On this particular matter Han, you scare me.

OK, let me clarify my reasoning.
Whether we like it or not, I believe that we are going to get sawstop
technology pushed on us by the safety people, thanks to Gass's
lobbying and his patent expertise. I hope to be wrong, and that it
will remain a matter of free choice, but I fear the nanny
state(s)/feds will indeed force the stuff on us.
If that happens, licensing fees need to be established in a monopoly
situation. I am pretty sure that some hi-faluting negotiating on
those fees will occur and that lawyers will take a large part in
that, since it is a question of licensing patents and determining
what is a fair fee. Previously I was throwing numbers in the ring for
what I thought might be reasonable fees. But I am not a lawyer, have
no experience whatsoever with patents, and dislike Gass rather
strongly for his strongarm tactics.

I understand your point that far - mine was that it's scarey for any
individual to be the arbitar of what another should make as profit, or to be
able to charge. What you call a few bucks may be very different from what I
call a few bucks. Just the concept of a few bucks is rather presumptuous.
I say let the market decide. If prices skyrocket because of royalties to
Gass, and sales plummet, then changes will be made. It takes a while for
markets to self-level, but the generally do in the end.

We are in fierce agreement on the point of the governement getting too
involved in this matter in the first place. This whole issue would be moot
if CSPA simply does not decided definitively upon Gass' technology, and
instead refers to it or like technologies.

--

-Mike-