|
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
J. Clarke wrote:
I'd like to see legislation to the effect that the first time a patentholder's representative asks a congressman to support legislation that mandates the use of the patented product, the patent is instantly and permanently invalidated and the patentholder is required to refund all royalties ever paid by anybody for use of that patent. If it's really a better solution the market will pick it up. If not then to Hell with it. Your two statements above are so assinine that it's painful to read them. Read them backwards - if it's really a better solution the market will pick it up - well hell - you've already denied him any benefit from that with your first statement. Again - you'd be singing a different tune if you held that patent. -- -Mike- |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (saw stop, et. al.)
Our workman's comp carrier is strongly recommending them. I don't know if
they discount rates though, since we have no saws at work. Great. Have at it. I much prefer my Unisaur, at less than half the price. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When they offer a saw stop with a 5 HP motor and a 12 or 14 inch blade, I'll be listening. -- Jim in NC |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
There is that Mickey's challenge again.
Mickey has no data to challenge with and wants you run around doing research to appease him. This is called "trolling" and best ignored. Perhaps his domain name is just his nickname?? --------------- "Mike Marlow" wrote in message ... Bull**** John. Want to try that one again? -- -Mike- |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 9/29/2011 10:28 PM, Bill wrote:
k-nuttle wrote: On 9/29/2011 6:57 PM, Bill wrote: Bill wrote: Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't use a TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!". I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's not plugged in, is it still a table saw? That is kind of like the old question when is a door not a door, when it is ajar Ajar of what? Door-jam??? : ) |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
"tiredofspam" nospam.nospam.com wrote in message
... I don't understand. Gass offered it to companies, they didn't want it. He creates his own... typical American ingenuity and open market. Good man! Now you want him to give it away for free? Only if it's imposed upon the public by some government fiat He tried selling the license to these companies and they balked. Which should be their right. I applaud his effort. Very American.... True. there does seem to be more government interference in our freedoms lately. You must prefer the socialist or communist countries KRW... Either that or your brains are scrambled.... That kickback hit you in the head? I would pay the going price for the device if it came with a guarantee that if the device triggered accidentally, that is without human touch, the company would restore my saw to its original condition.....free of charge. Max |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
tiredofspam wrote:
(snip) Patent holders for Saw Stop... well according to you .... they should be made to give it away... Look, I can't stand these idiot CEO's who make a fortune for destroying companies, but this is a guy who made his company, and now employs many people... It's his patent, he did everything to offer the technology to companies for a price (NOT FREE)... Why shouldn't he have made money doing it. Well, to quote Mr. Gass himself: Steve says his motivation to get the SawStop out on the U.S. market is because "I don't want to go to a trade show five years from now and have some kid come up to me with his mangled hand and ask 'Why didn't you try harder?"' That was in Woodworker's Journal, Vol 27, #6, December 2003. His product is on the market, and anyone who _wants_ to buy it and can _afford_ to buy it can buy it. If he wants to see it more widely adopted, he can license it at whatever price it takes to get the amount of market penetration which will allow him to sleep at night. It's been 8 years and he's still alive, so I can only assume that he's sleeping at night. He's obviously not overly concerned about the children at this point. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
wrote in message ... On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:11:34 -0500, "ChairMan" nospam@nospam wrote: Bill wrote: Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't use a TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!". I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's not plugged in, is it still a table saw? depends on what your definition of is isg Wait a minute! The Bill is on the wrong duck, here. that's what Monica saidg |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:52:08 -0500, "ChairMan" nospam@nospam wrote:
wrote in message .. . On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:11:34 -0500, "ChairMan" nospam@nospam wrote: Bill wrote: Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't use a TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!". I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's not plugged in, is it still a table saw? depends on what your definition of is isg Wait a minute! The Bill is on the wrong duck, here. that's what Monica saidg Well, something like that... |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:10:00 -0400, Bill wrote:
On 9/29/2011 10:28 PM, Bill wrote: k-nuttle wrote: On 9/29/2011 6:57 PM, Bill wrote: Bill wrote: Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't use a TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!". I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's not plugged in, is it still a table saw? That is kind of like the old question when is a door not a door, when it is ajar Ajar of what? Door-jam??? : ) At least it's not the toe kick. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
|
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
|
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
Ridiculous and moronic logic.
Why wasn't he born a hundred years earlier? He is responsible for thousands and thousands of table saw accidents, especially children, by being born too late. He should be in jail. (sarc) ---------------- "Mike Paulsen" wrote in message ... Well, to quote Mr. Gass himself: Steve says his motivation to get the SawStop out on the U.S. market is because "I don't want to go to a trade show five years from now and have some kid come up to me with his mangled hand and ask 'Why didn't you try harder?"' That was in Woodworker's Journal, Vol 27, #6, December 2003. His product is on the market, and anyone who _wants_ to buy it and can _afford_ to buy it can buy it. If he wants to see it more widely adopted, he can license it at whatever price it takes to get the amount of market penetration which will allow him to sleep at night. It's been 8 years and he's still alive, so I can only assume that he's sleeping at night. He's obviously not overly concerned about the children at this point. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:40:09 -0500, Mike Paulsen
wrote: tiredofspam wrote: (snip) Patent holders for Saw Stop... well according to you .... they should be made to give it away... Look, I can't stand these idiot CEO's who make a fortune for destroying companies, but this is a guy who made his company, and now employs many people... It's his patent, he did everything to offer the technology to companies for a price (NOT FREE)... Why shouldn't he have made money doing it. Well, to quote Mr. Gass himself: Steve says his motivation to get the SawStop out on the U.S. market is because "I don't want to go to a trade show five years from now and have some kid come up to me with his mangled hand and ask 'Why didn't you try harder?"' And if you believe that... Read the history of the guy from a non-Gass site. Eye-opening. That was in Woodworker's Journal, Vol 27, #6, December 2003. His product is on the market, and anyone who _wants_ to buy it and can _afford_ to buy it can buy it. If he wants to see it more widely adopted, he can license it at whatever price it takes to get the amount of market penetration which will allow him to sleep at night. It's been 8 years and he's still alive, so I can only assume that he's sleeping at night. He's obviously not overly concerned about the children at this point. Do you really think he ever was? -- In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer. -- Albert Camus |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:31:33 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote: All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;) There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those. There's no proposed government monopoly for saws either. True, there's only one product on the market that will stop a saw blade before it does damage. \ Yes, that "law" (rule) would IN FACT make it a monopoly on the entire industry. But that doesn't mean others won't come along. Have you read the patent? Do, before you comment further. Not too many years ago, the federal government, in its infinite wisdom, and acting in a beneficent and loving manner for all the public, regardless of race, gender, or hair-length, mandated that washing machine tubs stop their spin cycle in five seconds or so any time the door was opened. Countless children (well, maybe two) are alive today because of this ruling. I know, the table saw ban "is for the children". So it might be with saws. ....and you don't see a problem? In fact, if such a ruling comes into force, it might spell the end for SawStop! Not wanting to pay the exorbitant fees demanded by SawStop, manufacturers will beaver their way to a non-infringing alternative. This new technique may end up costing the saw manufacturer fifty-cents per machine and double-dribble SawStop into oblivion. Read the patent. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
In article ,
says... zzzzzzzzzz wrote: All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;) There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those. There's no proposed government monopoly for saws either. True, there's only one product on the market that will stop a saw blade before it does damage. But that doesn't mean others won't come along. When they do get back to us. Not too many years ago, the federal government, in its infinite wisdom, and acting in a beneficent and loving manner for all the public, regardless of race, gender, or hair-length, mandated that washing machine tubs stop their spin cycle in five seconds or so any time the door was opened. Countless children (well, maybe two) are alive today because of this ruling. So did this require patented technology available from only one source? So it might be with saws. Find, mandate the thing but take the guy's patents away from him. In fact, if such a ruling comes into force, it might spell the end for SawStop! Not wanting to pay the exorbitant fees demanded by SawStop, manufacturers will beaver their way to a non-infringing alternative. What alternative would that be? This new technique may end up costing the saw manufacturer fifty-cents per machine and double-dribble SawStop into oblivion. Uh huh, right, they're going to instantly invent this new technology the moment a new regulation is enacted. You could make the same argument about air bags. But guess what, we got air bags. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
Mike Paulsen wrote in news:YjSgq.181$8c4.60
@newsfe18.iad: advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to address table saw blade contact injuries. September 14, 2011 http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf Right now (Saturday Oct 1, ~8AM EDT): Committee meeting Oct 5: http://www.cpsc.gov/calendar.html, top portion: Commission Meeting Wednesday, October 5, 2011 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. Hearing Room 420 Open to the Public Matter to be Considered Decisional Matter: Table Saws Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:31:33 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote: zzzzzzzzzz wrote: All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;) There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those. There's no proposed government monopoly for saws either. True, there's only one product on the market that will stop a saw blade before it does damage. \ Yes, that "law" (rule) would IN FACT make it a monopoly on the entire industry. But that doesn't mean others won't come along. Have you read the patent? Do, before you comment further. Not too many years ago, the federal government, in its infinite wisdom, and acting in a beneficent and loving manner for all the public, regardless of race, gender, or hair-length, mandated that washing machine tubs stop their spin cycle in five seconds or so any time the door was opened. Countless children (well, maybe two) are alive today because of this ruling. I know, the table saw ban "is for the children". So it might be with saws. ...and you don't see a problem? In fact, if such a ruling comes into force, it might spell the end for SawStop! Not wanting to pay the exorbitant fees demanded by SawStop, manufacturers will beaver their way to a non-infringing alternative. This new technique may end up costing the saw manufacturer fifty-cents per machine and double-dribble SawStop into oblivion. Read the patent. You raise a good point, but patents can be litigated out of existence. The ten or so saw manufacturers have, combined, access to more patent attorneys than the owner of SawStop has friends on Facebook. While that's going on, there's money to be made. As soon as SawStop is mandated, one can stock up on entry-level table saws, at, say, $90 each, while they're still available. A year or so down the road, when entry-level table saws have disappeared from the market or sell for $500 each, you can sell those hoarded saws on Craigslist for whatever the market will bear. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
Swingman wrote:
On 9/29/2011 11:58 AM, Bill wrote: Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use a TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!". I'm among those in the "table saw" accident statistics. Mine wasn't plugged in, nor did it have a blade mounted, but the ER classed it, for insurance purposes, as a "table saw injury". What happened? Did you drop it on your foot? Run into it while playing roller-skate hockey in the garage? |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
tiredofspam wrote:
Wow, what a misinformed person. So the drug companies haven't lobbied for mandatory drugs. Hmmmm. Pampaloma virus.... How many injections are your kids required to get. Most all of that was mandated, not by involuntary... but by pushes by the drug lobbies. No drug company ever lobbied for mandatory vaccinations for measles, whooping cough, polio, diphtheria, and a few other diseases. There are many companies that provide these vaccines - the competition exists. But very misguided. Our system is not as free and open as you think. But for the most part, it is better than most other restrictive systems. But it is getting to the point where they are stiffling competition with govt regs. Some states prevent competition by the laws they have. Yep. So grow up. Get real. Gass didn't do anything that most other companies wouldn't try to do if they could. Any company CAN lobby. Whether it's worth their effort is another question. In the case of government backed loans for green energy, for example, the best way to lobby is to be a political donor. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
CW wrote:
"tiredofspam" wrote in message ... Funny how artists have copyrights for 50 years or more... and patent holders for drugs ... very short time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A copyright expires 70 years after the holders death. A bit excessive, I think. Think "Micky Mouse" and Walt Disney for this. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 07:57:36 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:31:33 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote: zzzzzzzzzz wrote: All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;) There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those. There's no proposed government monopoly for saws either. True, there's only one product on the market that will stop a saw blade before it does damage. \ Yes, that "law" (rule) would IN FACT make it a monopoly on the entire industry. But that doesn't mean others won't come along. Have you read the patent? Do, before you comment further. Not too many years ago, the federal government, in its infinite wisdom, and acting in a beneficent and loving manner for all the public, regardless of race, gender, or hair-length, mandated that washing machine tubs stop their spin cycle in five seconds or so any time the door was opened. Countless children (well, maybe two) are alive today because of this ruling. I know, the table saw ban "is for the children". So it might be with saws. ...and you don't see a problem? In fact, if such a ruling comes into force, it might spell the end for SawStop! Not wanting to pay the exorbitant fees demanded by SawStop, manufacturers will beaver their way to a non-infringing alternative. This new technique may end up costing the saw manufacturer fifty-cents per machine and double-dribble SawStop into oblivion. Read the patent. You raise a good point, but patents can be litigated out of existence. The ten or so saw manufacturers have, combined, access to more patent attorneys than the owner of SawStop has friends on Facebook. Can be, if you have MILLION$ to gamble. This one is particularly air-tight. No one with a brain would challenge it. While that's going on, there's money to be made. No, there really isn't. As soon as SawStop is mandated, one can stock up on entry-level table saws, at, say, $90 each, while they're still available. A year or so down the road, when entry-level table saws have disappeared from the market or sell for $500 each, you can sell those hoarded saws on Craigslist for whatever the market will bear. Why would anyone sell them for $90? Do light bulbs, instead. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Sep 29, 12:17*am, Mike Paulsen wrote:
advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to address table saw blade contact injuries. September 14, 2011 http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf Here's an interesting comment thread on the topic from some months back: http://thewoodwhisperer.com/a-sawstop-killer/ Some interesting tidbits in the comments, such as anecdotal 'evidence' of the big tool companies working together to develop a SawStop alternative, expired prior patents that would fulfill the anticipated performance requirements, etc. I'm betting the performance requirements pass, major changes are made, and SawStop is out of business in 10 years. Hubris, and all that. R |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
|
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 07:00:48 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote: You raise a good point, but patents can be litigated out of existence. The ten or so saw manufacturers have, combined, access to more patent attorneys than the owner of SawStop has friends on Facebook. Can be, if you have MILLION$ to gamble. This one is particularly air-tight. No one with a brain would challenge it. Heh! Ever heard the expression "Time is money"? Back in the day, Control Data and the anti-trust division of the Justice Department, sued IBM. IBM had more lawyers on the case than the DOJ had lawyers in the entire anti-trust division! IBM dragged the case out for a little over TEN years. Throwing money at the suit was just another cost of doing business. In other words, IBM was making more money than the suit was costing them. Any more straw you want to stuff in that shirt? A similar tactic has been recently employed by Microsoft. Now it may be that Ryoibi, DeWalt, et all do not have the $35 billion in CASH that Microsoft has, but they damned sure have more moola than SawStop. The table-saw cartel, really, can litigate SawStop to death if they choose that tactic. For example, by claiming patent infringement on the part of SawStop ("We control the patent on all things that go round-and-round..."). Um, "things that go round-and-round" have, demonstrably, been around more than 20 years. If, by some accident of history that there was a patent, it would have expired sometime last week. While that's going on, there's money to be made. No, there really isn't. As soon as SawStop is mandated, one can stock up on entry-level table saws, at, say, $90 each, while they're still available. A year or so down the road, when entry-level table saws have disappeared from the market or sell for $500 each, you can sell those hoarded saws on Craigslist for whatever the market will bear. Why would anyone sell them for $90? Do light bulbs, instead. That's what I paid for my Ryobi about two years ago. As for lightbulbs, I figure there are already too many people in the lightbulb hoarding business. Sucker. I'll *OWN* you! |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
|
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:55:04 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote: Now it may be that Ryoibi, DeWalt, et all do not have the $35 billion in CASH that Microsoft has, but they damned sure have more moola than SawStop. The table-saw cartel, really, can litigate SawStop to death if they choose that tactic. For example, by claiming patent infringement on the part of SawStop ("We control the patent on all things that go round-and-round..."). Um, "things that go round-and-round" have, demonstrably, been around more than 20 years. If, by some accident of history that there was a patent, it would have expired sometime last week. So what? So you're "what if", isn't. That won't stop the filing of lawsuits in every possible jurisdiction. No, but that will just bleed them dry, with no possible gain. Then there are the interrogatories, depositions, counter-filings, witnesses, travel, rescheduling, writs and paper filling several wheelbarrows, and notary publics without number. That's even BEFORE they bring in the patent filings from Patagonia that must be adjudicated under the Panama Intellectual Property Act. That might work drawing out a finding by the courts, but it does *nothing* in this case because the patent is *assumed*valid* until found otherwise. It might be in SawStop's interest to draw out a trial, if there were a chance they'd lose. It would never be in the challenger's interest. Look at the recent health care law: At least a dozen lawsuits have been filed in federal courts, so we're not even talking about something that has to bubble up through a state court system. The Supreme Court will probably hear the combined cases right after the new year with a decision expected in the spring of 2012. This contention has been fast-tracked by everybody and it's still going to take TWO YEARS to get it settled! What's that strawman wearing? No, a determined law firm can massage the system for a decade at significant cost. It then comes down to who has the greater staying power. But ITS NOT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE TO DO SO. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Oct 2, 6:52*pm, "
wrote: On Sun, 2 Oct 2011, "HeyBub" wrote: No, a determined law firm can massage the system for a decade at significant cost. It then comes down to who has the greater staying power. But ITS NOT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE TO DO SO. It is the mark of the mind untrained to take its own processes as valid for all men, and its own judgments for absolute truth. - Aleister Crowley I do believe old Aleister just said you were full of crap. :)~ I've made my prediction already. Let's hear yours. Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop? Will Stanley Black & Decker, with a market cap of $8.5 billion, rollover and ask for Vaseline because of a paltry ten or fifteen million in lawyer's fees? Will Bosch baulk, will Makita make tracks, will Festool...okay, let's just keep Festool out of this one. Tune in tomorrow, same crazy bat**** channel, same crazy bat**** time! R |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
In article ,
says... zzzzzzzzzz wrote: Now it may be that Ryoibi, DeWalt, et all do not have the $35 billion in CASH that Microsoft has, but they damned sure have more moola than SawStop. The table-saw cartel, really, can litigate SawStop to death if they choose that tactic. For example, by claiming patent infringement on the part of SawStop ("We control the patent on all things that go round-and-round..."). Um, "things that go round-and-round" have, demonstrably, been around more than 20 years. If, by some accident of history that there was a patent, it would have expired sometime last week. So what? That won't stop the filing of lawsuits in every possible jurisdiction. Then there are the interrogatories, depositions, counter-filings, witnesses, travel, rescheduling, writs and paper filling several wheelbarrows, and notary publics without number. That's even BEFORE they bring in the patent filings from Patagonia that must be adjudicated under the Panama Intellectual Property Act. Look at the recent health care law: At least a dozen lawsuits have been filed in federal courts, so we're not even talking about something that has to bubble up through a state court system. The Supreme Court will probably hear the combined cases right after the new year with a decision expected in the spring of 2012. This contention has been fast-tracked by everybody and it's still going to take TWO YEARS to get it settled! No, a determined law firm can massage the system for a decade at significant cost. It then comes down to who has the greater staying power. See Uri Gellar and James Randi. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 2, 6:52*pm, " wrote: On Sun, 2 Oct 2011, "HeyBub" wrote: No, a determined law firm can massage the system for a decade at significant cost. It then comes down to who has the greater staying power. But ITS NOT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE TO DO SO. It is the mark of the mind untrained to take its own processes as valid for all men, and its own judgments for absolute truth. - Aleister Crowley I do believe old Aleister just said you were full of crap. :)~ I've made my prediction already. Let's hear yours. Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop? I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters. Will Stanley Black & Decker, with a market cap of $8.5 billion, rollover and ask for Vaseline because of a paltry ten or fifteen million in lawyer's fees? If #1 is wrong, they'll have no choice. Will Bosch baulk, will Makita make tracks, will Festool...okay, let's just keep Festool out of this one. Tune in tomorrow, same crazy bat**** channel, same crazy bat**** time! If it's that crazy, you'll be there. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 18:56:00 -0500, "
wrote: On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour wrote: On Oct 2, 6:52*pm, " wrote: On Sun, 2 Oct 2011, "HeyBub" wrote: No, a determined law firm can massage the system for a decade at significant cost. It then comes down to who has the greater staying power. But ITS NOT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE TO DO SO. It is the mark of the mind untrained to take its own processes as valid for all men, and its own judgments for absolute truth. - Aleister Crowley I do believe old Aleister just said you were full of crap. :)~ I've made my prediction already. Let's hear yours. Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop? I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters. Will Stanley Black & Decker, with a market cap of $8.5 billion, rollover and ask for Vaseline because of a paltry ten or fifteen million in lawyer's fees? If #1 is wrong, they'll have no choice. Let me rephrase that, they may attack the SS but it won't be on patent grounds or by designing around the patent (that one is a *hard* target). They won't dilly-dally around, either. It's *NOT* in their interest. Will Bosch baulk, will Makita make tracks, will Festool...okay, let's just keep Festool out of this one. Tune in tomorrow, same crazy bat**** channel, same crazy bat**** time! If it's that crazy, you'll be there. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:56:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour wrote: Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop? I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters. The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). They're seeing thousands per year of amputations. If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and non-discriminatory' terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per replacement cartridge) the commission MIGHT institute requirements that only the Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme outcome I'd believe. Congress doesn't have much to say at this point, of course; CPSC is INDEPENDENT of Congress. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:35:48 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:56:00 PM UTC-7, wrote: On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour wrote: Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop? I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters. The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). They're seeing thousands per year of amputations. Life is dangerous. Your point? If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and non-discriminatory' terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per replacement cartridge) the commission MIGHT institute requirements that only the Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme outcome I'd believe. That's the reasonable path but it's not going to happen. Congress doesn't have much to say at this point, of course; CPSC is INDEPENDENT of Congress. The USPS is "independent", too. Congress most certainly does have "something to say" about it. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/8/2011 12:35 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:56:00 PM UTC-7, wrote: On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop? I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters. The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). They're seeing thousands per year of amputations. If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and non-discriminatory' terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per replacement cartridge) the commission MIGHT institute requirements that only the Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme outcome I'd believe. Congress doesn't have much to say at this point, of course; CPSC is INDEPENDENT of Congress. Do you really believe that even in mass production that the prices you suggested would be of a dependable quality? From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00. If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and prevents you from being badly injured. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/8/2011 12:35 PM, whit3rd wrote: On Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:56:00 PM UTC-7, wrote: On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop? I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters. The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). They're seeing thousands per year of amputations. If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and non-discriminatory' terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per replacement cartridge) the commission MIGHT institute requirements that only the Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme outcome I'd believe. Congress doesn't have much to say at this point, of course; CPSC is INDEPENDENT of Congress. Do you really believe that even in mass production that the prices you suggested would be of a dependable quality? He's talking about the LICENSE fee, not the mechanism price. From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00. No one is talking about the cost of the hardware. If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and prevents you from being badly injured. It's *NOT* $100. There are all sorts of dangerous things in this world. Can't protect everyone from all of them. It's a cost/benefit trade-off. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: snip From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00. If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and prevents you from being badly injured. From what I've read, based on the Gass's proposed cost to Bosch, the cost to a manufacturer would be $150 - $200 plus an 8% licensing fee on the total wholesale price of the saw. In the case of my saw it would add $300 - $350. -- Jack Novak Buffalo, NY - USA |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Oct 8, 2:07*pm, "
wrote: On Sat, 8 Oct 2011, whit3rd wrote: The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). * They're seeing thousands per year of *amputations. Life is dangerous. *Your point? Saying "life is dangerous" is a mantra for people that don't have a better argument. You're trying to convince people that an improvement in safety is not really an improvement. Do you have GFIs in your house? Wear a seatbelt in your car? Why? Life is dangerous. What a dumb thing to say. There are people on this newsgroup who have had power tool accidents, and you're basically saying "**** You" to them - and this without having any knowledge about what happened in the accident(s). Your major issue is, what?, your "ethical" objection to a _business_ doing whatever it can to sell its product? Gee, now there's a surprise. Which would you prefer - a company that uses whatever means it can to get a safety device into widespread use, or a company that uses whatever means it can to get more money in its pockets with a shoddy, dangerous device? You'd do business differently? Great - go do it. Get the law changed, eliminate or change the patent process, write a letter to the CPSC, start your own business that has your "ethics". I think you have a major moral failing in that your "ethics" - and that's clearly not the issue here - are not ethical. You exhibit no compassion. A lack of compassion is antithetical to ethical behavior. Brush up on a term before you start bandying it about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics Thanks. R |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/8/2011 3:48 PM, Nova wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: snip From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00. If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and prevents you from being badly injured. From what I've read, based on the Gass's proposed cost to Bosch, the cost to a manufacturer would be $150 - $200 plus an 8% licensing fee on the total wholesale price of the saw. In the case of my saw it would add $300 - $350. For the cost of the monies lost to Solyndra, and literally thousands of other examples of frivolous, 'bridges to nowhere' spending of taxpayers money, the government, instead of a mandate, would do well to make Gass an offer he couldn't refuse and put the patent in the public domain. The resultant technological _innovation_ coming from just that one action would go a long way to really making table saw usage much safer for everyone at a reasonable price. Those who espouse "social cost" as a justification, over individual responsibility, should have no problem with that. -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Oct 8, 7:45*pm, Swingman wrote:
On 10/8/2011 3:48 PM, Nova wrote: On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: snip *From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00. If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and prevents you from being badly injured. *From what I've read, based on the Gass's proposed cost to Bosch, the cost to a manufacturer would be $150 - $200 plus an 8% licensing fee on the total wholesale price of the saw. *In the case of my saw it would add $300 - $350. For the cost of the monies lost to Solyndra, and literally thousands of other examples of frivolous, 'bridges to nowhere' spending of taxpayers money, the government, instead of a mandate, would do well to make Gass an offer he couldn't refuse and put the patent in the public domain. The resultant technological _innovation_ coming from just that one action would go a long way to really making table saw usage much safer for everyone at a reasonable price. Those who espouse "social cost" as a justification, over individual responsibility, should have no problem with that. That's a very good idea. Has anything like that ever been done before? R |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
Swingman wrote in
: For the cost of the monies lost to Solyndra, That thing stinks to high heaven, and I hope we'll get to the bottom of the episode's wrongdoings. It reminds me of the stuff the farmeres spayed over their fields at summer's end, near where I grew up (Usually about 100-200 yards from home). The "stuff" was what was left in the pits below the cows, filled with excrement etc. That smell was something!! and literally thousands of other examples of frivolous, 'bridges to nowhere' spending of taxpayers money, the government, instead of a mandate, would do well to make Gass an offer he couldn't refuse and put the patent in the public domain. I wish that could work, but I think it'll take a Warren Buffett to do that. At least, I haven't heard of the goverment doing anything like that. The resultant technological _innovation_ coming from just that one action would go a long way to really making table saw usage much safer for everyone at a reasonable price. Gass did us all a favor by inventing something useful. In true capitalist fashion, he thought he should instantaneously become a millionaire. Of course, OTOH, the manufacturers of tablesaws didn't want to be bothered with something like this. Now, it appears, and this is IMPORTANT, that only hobbyists who aren't subject to OSHA regulations are stupid enough (like me) to not follow safety rules and regulations and get injured. Read the CPSC report, it is quite instructive! Those who espouse "social cost" as a justification, over individual responsibility, should have no problem with that. I'm fora certain amount of forcing people to be responsible for their own safety/good. Seatbelts are a good example of how things should be done. Now the problem is how to give Gass his due rewards for his invention without all consumers being extorted like he is now trying to do. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter