Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 18 Aug 2012 15:47:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Jack wrote in :

I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking
group, and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop
is. Some don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw
buyers to only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let
government mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well
let them mandate a the price of the saw.

Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals
too, why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO)
...

Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations
that would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a
constitutional lawyer).

So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine a
- The saw makers were stupid. Now they are on the hook.

According to lawyers, they could have been on the hook by accepting
the safety device, too. Moot point.

That only makes the lawyers stupid (my opinion).

- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.

Yes, damned greedy monopolist. He deserves compensation and could
have made millions without all the patents and nefarious doings.

Agreed

- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety,
let Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work
under dangerous conditions.

Aren't these two contradictory?

Indeed

Anyway, tablesaws have safety devices
installed on them now, by gov't mandate. SawStop isn't necessary but
could be considered an additional safety device. It should be a
person's own choice, not the government's. I'm with Darwin.

I would have been too, but the lawyers ...

As to the culpability of the initial case for SawStop, I'd have ruled
50% idiot's fault and 50% contractor's fault. ZERO fault of mfgr.
It's both a company's and a worker's responsibility to be safe on the
worksite, and neither was acting responsible in Osorio's case. Those
saws have looked/worked like that for 100 years and were not faulty as
the damned speaking weasels maintained. It sickens me.

I wonder whether the case is going to a court higher than the Apellate
....

If I have to, or want to buy a new saw, the sawstop is something I'd
give thought to. I can probably afford it. If a guy/company goes for
the easiest profit he'd ignore worker safety unless forced to obey

People with the money have the choice of expensive saws, where the
SawStop is comparable in price. It's too expensive for most of us po
unwashed folks who have to save up for a $100 saw, or save for years
for a Grizzly 1023. Splitters and guards rule!

Lawyers may rule too ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid