On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:50:47 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

Spot on. I think the technology is amazing, and I'm all for it. I
object to the tactics of the company in trying to force their
*patented* technology on the marketplace.

Yeah, if they're so concerned about safety, how about they give up
their *patent* and just provide the technology, free of charge, to the
saw manufacturers?

Let's see how much they're motivated by greed.

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message

Well, if they ever did mandate it and I was forced to buy a saw with
their technology, I'll be the first one to disable it.

That's kind of an idiotic statement don't you think? Why would anyone
disable the safety feature? If you're forced to have the technology as you
claim, then it's only to your advantage to use keep that safety active. It's
not like disabling it is going to make you any safer. And even if your worry
about a false activation is your motivation for making that statement, you
could wait for it to happen and then disable the safety feature and all
you'd be out would be the blade.

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message

Yeah, if they're so concerned about safety, how about they give up
their *patent* and just provide the technology, free of charge, to the
saw manufacturers?

Right! And of course, you work for free because you don't have any bills to
pay and you don't care for some of the finer things in life. My apologies,
how could I even think that you might be even a little bit capitalistic.

Let's see how much they're motivated by greed.

Nah! You wouldn't be motivated by greed of any type. Of course you don't own
a car or a house, or a boat, or a stereo or a television. After all, none of
those things are necessary for you to live. All you need is a little bit of
food once in awhile and you're set. smack me silly What could I be
thinking?

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
If I had to force everyone to buy my product, nope. That's why we
have this thing called the FREE MARKET. It means people have a choice
whether or not to buy. If they have no choice, they have no freedom.

Still don't get it here. Mandating a safety DOES NOT prevent you from
buying a saw with out that feature. There are thousands of used saws if you
have to have on with out the feature.

You simply choose to buy a saw with the feature or not.

This thing you think is a free market unfortunately has no effect on auto
insurance or new cars.
Most everywhere you have to have auto insurance and you have to have air
bags.

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:50:47 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

Spot on. I think the technology is amazing, and I'm all for it. I
object to the tactics of the company in trying to force their
*patented* technology on the marketplace.

Yeah, if they're so concerned about safety, how about they give up
their *patent* and just provide the technology, free of charge, to the
saw manufacturers?

Let's see how much they're motivated by greed.

Well with that kind of thinking how bout you send me your next pay check.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

Nah! You wouldn't be motivated by greed of any type. Of course you don't
own
a car or a house, or a boat, or a stereo or a television. After all, none
of
those things are necessary for you to live. All you need is a little bit
of
food once in awhile and you're set. smack me silly What could I be
thinking?


He is grabbing for straws now.

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 16:55:39 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
Yeah, if they're so concerned about safety, how about they give up
their *patent* and just provide the technology, free of charge, to the
saw manufacturers?

Right! And of course, you work for free because you don't have any bills to
pay and you don't care for some of the finer things in life. My apologies,
how could I even think that you might be even a little bit capitalistic.

I'm not trying to force everyone to use my services though. They are.
They're not fighting to have *SOME* safety equipment mandated on all
saws, they're fighting to have *THEIR* safety equipment mandated. And
of course, since they own the patent on their equipment, every time
any saw manufacturer sells a saw, they get a paycheck.

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 10:43:57 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

I'd rather they just offer a reasonably priced licence to other
manufacturers, and see what the market uptake is.

It won't happen though. They're not doing it to save fingers, they're
doing it to make money by force.

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message

I'm not trying to force everyone to use my services though. They are.
They're not fighting to have *SOME* safety equipment mandated on all
saws, they're fighting to have *THEIR* safety equipment mandated. And
of course, since they own the patent on their equipment, every time
any saw manufacturer sells a saw, they get a paycheck.

And what about the other side of the story? From everything that I could
gather, all the other tablesaw manufacturers banded together to keep Sawstop
out of the market. Reason being that incorporating Sawstop technology on
their own products, would cost them profits. The idea was that if they all
spoke as a single unifying force, there was much less chance they'd be sued
for selling potentially dangerous equipment.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050701...ptor-gass.html

On one hand, I agree with you that legislation forcing the Sawstop equipment
on people is tantamount to an attempt at a cash grab from everybody. The
other side of the equation is that all the other manufactures might deserve
to be forced to capitulate to the technology. Read the article and decide
for yourself.

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...


They're not doing it to save fingers, they're
doing it to make money by force.


That worn out obsolete line has been dead news for a long time. Snore.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
"Brian Henderson" wrote in message

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050701...ptor-gass.html

On one hand, I agree with you that legislation forcing the Sawstop
equipment
on people is tantamount to an attempt at a cash grab from everybody. The
other side of the equation is that all the other manufactures might
deserve
to be forced to capitulate to the technology. Read the article and decide
for yourself.


Kinda makes you think. While some would say that SawStop is only interested
in making a buck and not interested in our safety, at least they are not the
ones making the buck trying to insure that our safety is not on the agenda.

Upscale wrote:

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050701...ptor-gass.html

On one hand, I agree with you that legislation forcing the Sawstop equipment
on people is tantamount to an attempt at a cash grab from everybody. The
other side of the equation is that all the other manufactures might deserve
to be forced to capitulate to the technology. Read the article and decide
for yourself.

Two sides to every story, and that one is very interesting. I still
don't like the idea of mandating SawStop's tech, but that may have been
done in desperation at the evident conspiracy to quash it.

"Defense Research Industry", indeed. Should be Industry Defense Research.

er
--
email not valid

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 17:56:28 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

And what about the other side of the story? From everything that I could
gather, all the other tablesaw manufacturers banded together to keep Sawstop
out of the market. Reason being that incorporating Sawstop technology on
their own products, would cost them profits. The idea was that if they all
spoke as a single unifying force, there was much less chance they'd be sued
for selling potentially dangerous equipment.

I don't blame them, they're being forced to use someone else's safety
equipment, pay royalties for it, and are barred from using their own
versions which may be even safer. Yeah, I think that's pretty stupid
myself.

On one hand, I agree with you that legislation forcing the Sawstop equipment
on people is tantamount to an attempt at a cash grab from everybody. The
other side of the equation is that all the other manufactures might deserve
to be forced to capitulate to the technology. Read the article and decide
for yourself.

I don't think anyone should be forced to use a third party's product,
period. If they want to legislate a form of safety equipment, fine.
Each manufacturer can come up with their own equipment that meets the
criteria. Insisting that it's SawStop's equipment is ludicrous.

"Tim Douglass" wrote in message

Yeah, the manufacturers probably kind of banded together, although it
is unlikely that it was any sort of formal "freeze-out", but the main
thing it sounds like to me is that he just brought a poor business
model and they couldn't justify the cost, although the interest he got
from the manufacturers indicates some were seriously considering it.

I guess it will have to remain open to debate. All I know is that I've seen
and witnessed some really wicked (what I believed to be) collusion between
companies when they think a newcomer is trying to take some of the market.
Considering the avarice that is buried in most people's souls, my tendency
is to side with the notion of Gass being shut out ~ whether he was greedy or
not.

Tim Douglass wrote:

Yeah, the manufacturers probably kind of banded together, although it
is unlikely that it was any sort of formal "freeze-out"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^

Just look at the name of the legal research firm that provided the
"direction" for the industry. It's an industry in itself.

er
--
email not valid

"Enoch Root" wrote in message
...
Tim Douglass wrote:

Yeah, the manufacturers probably kind of banded together, although it
is unlikely that it was any sort of formal "freeze-out"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^

Just look at the name of the legal research firm that provided the
"direction" for the industry. It's an industry in itself.

In addition, it's par for the course that there would never be any formal
"freeze-out". *Any* hint of something formal or documented and charges of
collusion would have them all in court costing them all fortune.

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:25:55 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

"Tim Douglass" wrote in message

Yeah, the manufacturers probably kind of banded together, although it
is unlikely that it was any sort of formal "freeze-out", but the main
thing it sounds like to me is that he just brought a poor business
model and they couldn't justify the cost, although the interest he got
from the manufacturers indicates some were seriously considering it.

I guess it will have to remain open to debate. All I know is that I've seen
and witnessed some really wicked (what I believed to be) collusion between
companies when they think a newcomer is trying to take some of the market.
Considering the avarice that is buried in most people's souls, my tendency
is to side with the notion of Gass being shut out ~ whether he was greedy or
not.

I think my point would be that even if the companies all acted
entirely independently they would have done the same things because of
the business model they were presented with. None of them could afford
the cost and they would all recognize both the danger of competition
and the lawsuit problem so independently or in collusion they would
want to prevent the new technology from coming to the market. The fact
that there was some interest shown tells me that the engineering side
liked it, but the management side scotched it for the reasons given
above.

I also don't mean to accuse Gass of being "greedy", merely that he
presented a typical beginners plan, one that demands too much, too
quickly to be palatable to the industry. I've seen it happen the same
way before with other good ideas. The problem is that the inventor
wants to recover his R&D more quickly than the industry normally
amortizes such things. A lot of things go into it, and we will never
know the full truth, but Gass lost my sympathy (which he had up to
that point) when he went the regulatory route.

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com