On 2/9/2017 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 09:08:31 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:

The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
him up on it.

I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.


Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
to a starving homeless person for only $30.
http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878



It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
plain and simple.

If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.

If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it.

If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
they earn, then you are the problem, not them.



Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the
technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it
may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of
circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make
us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls.
Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
- on ANY saw they produced


And thinking about that a bit more, If there is indeed documentation
that Ryobi was on board and balked at 3% I can see how the attorneys
would have used that information against them when they lost that big
suit over they flooring guy that cut his finger off.

Ryobi was probably projected as the company that did not want to spend a
few dollars for the safety of their customers.

And yes a few dollars, 3% of cost to be able to add a very nice selling
feature with no R&D for that feature is cheap.



Cheap??? At 3%, Glass was GIVING the technology away, figuring to make
a bit of money on the volume. The only reason it didn't fly was
because he was a lawyer, and he stressed the liability and litigation
issues over the intrensic safety of the device.
When companies like Ryobi were scared they would have to use the
technology on EVERY saw they built, I suspect their lawyers and
accountants decided it was safer NOT to have the technology in their
"bag of tricks"
The American litigatious legal situation and corporate greed (on the
part of Ryobi, not SawStop) killed the deal, in my opinion.



I totally agree with your thoughts.