J. Clarke wrote:
In article , tiredofspam
says...

So the drug companies should give up their patents, because it's for
the greater good, and the only medication that can solve the problem.
And the price is high because it took years to develop and years to
go through clinical.... HMMMMMM...

Yep. If the government as a result of lobbying by the patentholder
says that every drug made MUST incorporate one of those patents then
the patentholder should not be allowed to profit from the mandate.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I for one do not agree. I bet you
would be singing a different tune if you were the patent holder.



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...

And now he wants to get a share of everybody else's company handed to
him by the government.

Stop it.


--

-Mike-

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-

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

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-

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??? : )

"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

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.

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

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...

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.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:10:00 -0400, 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.

Yeah, if the toe kick knocks over ajar...it wood knot be punny.

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.

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 it might be with saws.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

zzzzzzzzzz 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.

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...").


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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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