On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:46:49 -0500, Hank Gillette wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

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.

That's not what I'm saying. If you read their petitions to the government,
they did the "it's for the chillllldrun" method of emotionalizing the
issue as a reason for why they should be given a monopoly. It's disgusting
to me when a company claims they're doing something for one reason, when
really they're just in it for profit. Fine. Be in it for profit, that's
perfectly valid, but be honest about it.

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?

Yes, you're missing my point.

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.

Let's see. It has never shipped a unit to a consumer, and the company
who makes this non-existant product wanted to force everyone to use
their device, which doesn't yet exist. Yeah, I can't see any
reason the manufacturers would tell 'em to go away, can you?