In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

As far as forcing everyone to use it, they demonstrated that the
technology exists and asked for legislation to make such a safety device
be mandatory on table saws.

But the technology does _not_ exist, except in their demo units. If
they could ship a reliable product, they would be.


I agree, I'd like to see a reliable product first.

Assuming that such a law was passed, it
seems reasonable that the manufacturers of table saws could find
alternate methods of accomplishing the same thing.

Not if the patent is written in such a way as to restrict others
from adapting it.


Well, that's the whole point of patents, isn't it. But despite the
millions of patents out there, usually companies find a way to duplicate
the functionality of a product without infringing if there is money to
be made. Either that, or they license the patent.

Public good is _not_ their motivation. That's fine, really it is, but
pretending it is is what gets me.

I don't see any conflict between being interested in the public good and
wanting to make a profit at the same time. If the standard is to give
away anything that would benefit the public, why don't I get my air bags
for free? Why can't I just walk into the store and walk out with a fire
extinguisher without paying?

I _think_ I understand your ire at their attempt to make their device
mandatory. I guess it just doesn't bug me in the same way. I'd like to
see the justification from the saw manufacturers as to why they were not
interested. That has the potential to irritate me much more.

--
Hank Gillette