On 10/8/2011 7:02 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in

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 government has indeed bought patents that deal with military technology.

As far as putting it in the public domain, nothing difficult about it:

"If an inventor has an issued patent, there are several ways to release
it to the public domain (other than simply letting it expire). First, he
can fail to pay the maintenance fee the next time it is due, about every
four years. Alternatively he can file a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR
1.321 for a reasonable fee. The regulations explicitly say that the
"patentee may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any
terminal part of the term, of the patent granted. Such disclaimer is
binding upon the grantee and its successors or assigns."

If a clowngress critter can orchestrate mandating that you buy private
insurance, surely the bar is low enough for even a clown to leap this
concept in a single bound.


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 15:40:57 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour wrote:

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.

Dodge noted. Life *is* dangerous. The government isn't your nanny.

Do you have GFIs in your house? Wear a seatbelt in your car? Why?
Life is dangerous. What a dumb thing to say.

Do you have any idea what cost/benefit analysis is about?

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).

What a pile of steaming crap.

Your major issue is, what?

The cost and benefit of making an unethical asshole rich, by government
mandate. Freedom, if you can understand that.

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?

....and then you continue, putting words in my mouth. Nice argument tactic.

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".

What a clueless pile of tripe.

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.

Complete hyperventilating bull****.

Brush up on a term before you start bandying it about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Clueless.

Swingman wrote in
:

On 10/8/2011 7:02 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in

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 government has indeed bought patents that deal with military
technology.

Military technologies are different from things only (sic) affecting
single proprietors and hobbyists none of whom deal with OSHA.

As far as putting it in the public domain, nothing difficult about it:

"If an inventor has an issued patent, there are several ways to
release it to the public domain (other than simply letting it expire).
First, he can fail to pay the maintenance fee the next time it is due,
about every four years. Alternatively he can file a terminal
disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 for a reasonable fee. The regulations
explicitly say that the "patentee may disclaim or dedicate to the
public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the
patent granted. Such disclaimer is binding upon the grantee and its
successors or assigns."

As I said, someone like Warren Buffett should make Gass an offer he
couldn't refuse.

If a clowngress critter can orchestrate mandating that you buy private
insurance, surely the bar is low enough for even a clown to leap this
concept in a single bound.

LOL

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:35:48 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:



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.


Reasonable? Because you have a bug up your butt about this guy, you deem it
*reasonable* to constrain a business to sell at a loss? Your use of the
word reasonable is nothing short of unreasonable.

--

-Mike-

On 10/8/2011 2:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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.

Yeah apparently it is maybe half that amount.

On 10/8/2011 7:02 PM, Han wrote:
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.

Apparently Gass is doing quite well and his product is very appealing to
those that realize the idea that their safety is indeed worth a little
more. His products are top notch and IMHO well with in reason price
wise. I don't think all consumers are being extorted. Had a great
number of consumers not thought the product was worth while or worth the
price he his business would not be introducing as many new models as it is.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:48:17 -0400, Nova wrote:

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.

On a $399 DeWally or $349 Jet worksite saw, that's a ONE HUNDRED
PERCENT increase in the cost. On a $219 Crapsman table saw, it's
closer to a 150% increase.

( Prices from http://www.toolseeker.com/WdWkMac/TableSaw.htm )

--
The most decisive actions of our life - I mean those that are most
likely to decide the whole course of our future - are, more often
than not, unconsidered.
-- Andre Gide

On Oct 8, 10:42*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On a $399 DeWally or $349 Jet worksite saw, that's a ONE HUNDRED
PERCENT increase in the cost. *On a $219 Crapsman table saw, it's
closer to a 150% increase.

( Prices from http://www.toolseeker.com/WdWkMac/TableSaw.htm)

What percentage of cost do you think seatbelts, safety glass, side
impact barriers, crumple zones, air bags, impact testing, etc., etc.
add to the price of a car?

Gass is far from stupid. When was the last time you checked out their
web site? Have you seen their "Report A Save"? This is what it says:
"You may be eligible for a free cartridge. If you send us your
activated cartridge and we determine through our diagnostic processes
that contact with skin triggered the activation, we’ll send you a new
cartridge free of charge."
Superb marketing and very simple.

So people have some choices.
Buy a saw now so you won't have to worry about the new regulations.
Buy a used saw after the regulations come out.
Buy a Sawstop.
Buy whatever the other tool manufacturers come up with that satisfies
the new requirements.

The first three give people plenty of choice, and then it's just a
question of determining your own risk/reward solution.

The last one is only a major problem for the competing tool
manufacturers.

R

In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 10/8/2011 7:02 PM, Han wrote:
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.

Apparently Gass is doing quite well and his product is very appealing to
those that realize the idea that their safety is indeed worth a little
more. His products are top notch and IMHO well with in reason price
wise. I don't think all consumers are being extorted. Had a great
number of consumers not thought the product was worth while or worth the
price he his business would not be introducing as many new models as it is.

You're missing the point. If the market perceives his product as such
incredible value, why is he not content to just let the free market
provide him dominance? The problem is that he wants the government to
force his competition to buy his product.

In article 2033ae57-46cf-4738-a594-64881a1626a8
@d18g2000yql.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 8, 10:42*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On a $399 DeWally or $349 Jet worksite saw, that's a ONE HUNDRED
PERCENT increase in the cost. *On a $219 Crapsman table saw, it's
closer to a 150% increase.

( Prices from http://www.toolseeker.com/WdWkMac/TableSaw.htm)

What percentage of cost do you think seatbelts, safety glass, side
impact barriers, crumple zones, air bags, impact testing, etc., etc.
add to the price of a car?

Gass is far from stupid. When was the last time you checked out their
web site? Have you seen their "Report A Save"? This is what it says:
"You may be eligible for a free cartridge. If you send us your
activated cartridge and we determine through our diagnostic processes
that contact with skin triggered the activation, we?ll send you a new
cartridge free of charge."
Superb marketing and very simple.

So people have some choices.
Buy a saw now so you won't have to worry about the new regulations.
Buy a used saw after the regulations come out.
Buy a Sawstop.
Buy whatever the other tool manufacturers come up with that satisfies
the new requirements.

The first three give people plenty of choice, and then it's just a
question of determining your own risk/reward solution.

The last one is only a major problem for the competing tool
manufacturers.

Elect a Congress that will take the asshole's patents away from him if
he continues to insist that the government force other businesses to
license them.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 10/8/2011 7:02 PM, Han wrote:
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.

Apparently Gass is doing quite well and his product is very appealing
to those that realize the idea that their safety is indeed worth a
little more. His products are top notch and IMHO well with in reason
price wise. I don't think all consumers are being extorted. Had a
great number of consumers not thought the product was worth while or
worth the price he his business would not be introducing as many new
models as it is.

That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
technologies.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" wrote in
in.local:

Elect a Congress that will take the asshole's patents away from him if
he continues to insist that the government force other businesses to
license them.

Clarke, that's a non-starter. Gass has patents. The purpose of patents is
to provide exclusivity for a set period of time to allow the patent holder
to profit from his invention(s). The lawyers will fight about the prices
the competition should pay. The task of government is (apparently) to
protect us from ourselves, for single proprietors and hobbyists, that is.
OSHA does it for general commerce.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/9/2011 7:29 AM, Han wrote:

snip

the competition should pay. The task of government is (apparently) to
protect us from ourselves, for single proprietors and hobbyists, that is.
OSHA does it for general commerce.

It boils down to the fact that life has inherent risks and whether you
want to live in a society that shares those risks; or a society that
attempts to eliminate those risks through the elimination of personal
freedoms and individual discretion.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Swingman wrote in
:

On 10/9/2011 7:29 AM, Han wrote:

snip

the competition should pay. The task of government is (apparently)
to protect us from ourselves, for single proprietors and hobbyists,
that is. OSHA does it for general commerce.

It boils down to the fact that life has inherent risks and whether you
want to live in a society that shares those risks; or a society that
attempts to eliminate those risks through the elimination of personal
freedoms and individual discretion.

Balance is a good thing ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Oct 9, 12:37*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:

Elect a Congress that will take the asshole's patents away from him if
he continues to insist that the government force other businesses to
license them.

He's _insisting_ that the CPSC grant him a de facto monopoly? They're
free to say no. You're projecting superhuman powers onto this Gass
guy. I wonder if he can fly backwards around the Earth and reverse
time?

I'd like to elect a Congress that would take away your right to post
on Usenet.
That makes just as much sense. The guy is doing nothing outside his
rights, yet you want government to intervene and _take_ something away
from him. There was a mention of the government buying his patent
from him, which makes way more sense.

In any event there are mechanisms in place for dealing with monopolies
and anti-trust regulations. Oh, wait, those aren't free market
mechanisms so they must be bad things.

R

On 10/8/2011 7:55 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 10/8/2011 7:02 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in

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 government has indeed bought patents that deal with military
technology.

Military technologies are different from things only (sic) affecting
single proprietors and hobbyists none of whom deal with OSHA.

Your question addressed the possibility/mechanism, not the purpose.

It is possible, it has been done, and there is NO reason why it can't be
done.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

In article ea311077-257b-4041-adc5-
, says...

On Oct 9, 12:37*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:

Elect a Congress that will take the asshole's patents away from him if
he continues to insist that the government force other businesses to
license them.

He's _insisting_ that the CPSC grant him a de facto monopoly? They're
free to say no. You're projecting superhuman powers onto this Gass
guy. I wonder if he can fly backwards around the Earth and reverse
time?

And he'll keep on lobbying until eventually they say yes. This isn't
the first time he's tried this approach you know, and it's clear that
he won't give up until either he gets his way or somebody takes his ball
away from him and sends him home.

I'd like to elect a Congress that would take away your right to post
on Usenet.

It is unlikely that the courts would find that Congress has that power.

That makes just as much sense. The guy is doing nothing outside his
rights, yet you want government to intervene and _take_ something away
from him. There was a mention of the government buying his patent
from him, which makes way more sense.

No, I want government to place a condition on giving him his way. If he
wants to lobby for forcing people to license his patents then the
conditions should be that he's not allowed to profit from the
regulation.

In any event there are mechanisms in place for dealing with monopolies
and anti-trust regulations. Oh, wait, those aren't free market
mechanisms so they must be bad things.

So you're saying that you're fine if the government gives him his
regulation then takes his company away from him under the antitrust act?

If so then we're pretty close to the same page.

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:07:29 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:35:48 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:



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.


Reasonable? Because you have a bug up your butt about this guy, you deem it
*reasonable* to constrain a business to sell at a loss? Your use of the
word reasonable is nothing short of unreasonable.

If it's going to be mandated by law, you bet! You, OTOH, think the government
should give him an unlimited monopoly. THAT is unreasonable.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:28:32 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 2:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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.

Yeah apparently it is maybe half that amount.

Wrong. The proposed licensing alone was far more than that.

On Oct 9, 10:44*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ea311077-257b-4041-adc5-
, says...



On Oct 9, 12:37 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:

Elect a Congress that will take the asshole's patents away from him if
he continues to insist that the government force other businesses to
license them.

He's _insisting_ that the CPSC grant him a de facto monopoly? *They're
free to say no. *You're projecting superhuman powers onto this Gass
guy. *I wonder if he can fly backwards around the Earth and reverse
time?

And he'll keep on lobbying until eventually they say yes. *This isn't
the first time he's tried this approach you know, and it's clear that *
he won't give up until either he gets his way or somebody takes his ball
away from him and sends him home.

I'd like to elect a Congress that would take away your right to post
on Usenet.

It is unlikely that the courts would find that Congress has that power.

That makes just as much sense. *The guy is doing nothing outside his
rights, yet you want government to intervene and _take_ something away
from him. *There was a mention of the government buying his patent
from him, which makes way more sense.

No, I want government to place a condition on giving him his way. *If he
wants to lobby for forcing people to license his patents then the
conditions should be that he's not allowed to profit from the
regulation.

All the CPSC has to do is adopt the new safety regulations and place a
compliance date that is well into the future. What, five years? That
should give the lawyers and development teams time to duke it out and
come up with alternatives.

That's similar to what the FDA did with BPA. When the BPA reports
first came out the FDA went on record saying that was NO problem with
BPA...and then a while later said OOPS! The intervening time gave
manufacturers time to retool and get rid of inventory.

In any event there are mechanisms in place for dealing with monopolies
and anti-trust regulations. *Oh, wait, those aren't free market
mechanisms so they must be bad things. *

So you're saying that you're fine if the government gives him his
regulation then takes his company away from him under the antitrust act?

If so then we're pretty close to the same page.

Pretty close. I didn't say take the patent away. The guy deserves to
be paid for his work and invention. A forced arbitration would be a
start. A lump sum payment, amortized and paid back by the licenses
over five or ten years would make sense.

The guy developed something new that works, patented it, set his price
and tried to license it, got shot down, persevered, started
manufacturing them himself, and is now going through the proper
channels to improve saw safety (though he does seem to believe he has
a lock on any and all attempts at an alternative system). If by
chance he happens to make the odd million or twenty for his largesse,
well, that's not his fault!

If that's not an American success story I don't know what is.

Remember the Workmate guy? He dabbled in workbenches and was always
tinkering. Had his shop make some magnesium prototypes, and tried to
sell the patent outright to the major tool manufacturers for $50K.
Free and clear - $50K...and he got shot down. Started manufacturing
them himself and last I knew he'd made enough money to buy his own
island.

Gass is that same type, except he's a patent lawyer and a PHD. I have
no knowledge of what the guy is like personally, but from his actions
I'm guessing he's part pitbull and maybe a little short on the warm
and fuzzies. But the guy's no dummy and it will probably cost the
tool manufacturer's more in the long run to have shot him down.

I'm still going to look into electing a Congress that will take your
Usenet posting rights away. I'll be doing it for the children.

R

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 00:02:01 +0000, Han wrote:

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!!

That was definitely a risky investment, but it's insignificant compared
to what's being wasted by the military and their contractors on a daily
basis.

It's just something for the opposition to scream about. Like this was
the only administration to ever throw away money on a failing idea?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 10/9/2011 10:19 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:28:32 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 2:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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.

Yeah apparently it is maybe half that amount.

Wrong. The proposed licensing alone was far more than that.

That was then 8 or so years ago. Bosch has testified that they can use
similar technology on their bench top for about $55.

On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 10/8/2011 7:02 PM, Han wrote:
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.

Apparently Gass is doing quite well and his product is very appealing
to those that realize the idea that their safety is indeed worth a
little more. His products are top notch and IMHO well with in reason
price wise. I don't think all consumers are being extorted. Had a
great number of consumers not thought the product was worth while or
worth the price he his business would not be introducing as many new
models as it is.

That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
technologies.


I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line. You can't
please every body. Some one is always going to be left behind,.

On 10/8/2011 9:42 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:48:17 -0400, 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.

On a $399 DeWally or $349 Jet worksite saw, that's a ONE HUNDRED
PERCENT increase in the cost. On a $219 Crapsman table saw, it's
closer to a 150% increase.

( Prices from http://www.toolseeker.com/WdWkMac/TableSaw.htm )


SO WHAT. Have you quit buying gasoline lately since it has increased in
cost more than that since the SawStop has come to market. When you work
with CHEAP equipment adding a quality component IS going to raise the
cost and significantly. Not so much on a $3000 Unisaw.

In article ad4a2440-4a14-42a1-ad5e-e15f289641c7
@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 9, 10:44*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ea311077-257b-4041-adc5-
, says...



On Oct 9, 12:37 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:

Elect a Congress that will take the asshole's patents away from him if
he continues to insist that the government force other businesses to
license them.

He's _insisting_ that the CPSC grant him a de facto monopoly? *They're
free to say no. *You're projecting superhuman powers onto this Gass
guy. *I wonder if he can fly backwards around the Earth and reverse
time?

And he'll keep on lobbying until eventually they say yes. *This isn't
the first time he's tried this approach you know, and it's clear that *
he won't give up until either he gets his way or somebody takes his ball
away from him and sends him home.

I'd like to elect a Congress that would take away your right to post
on Usenet.

It is unlikely that the courts would find that Congress has that power.

That makes just as much sense. *The guy is doing nothing outside his
rights, yet you want government to intervene and _take_ something away
from him. *There was a mention of the government buying his patent
from him, which makes way more sense.

No, I want government to place a condition on giving him his way. *If he
wants to lobby for forcing people to license his patents then the
conditions should be that he's not allowed to profit from the
regulation.

All the CPSC has to do is adopt the new safety regulations and place a
compliance date that is well into the future. What, five years? That
should give the lawyers and development teams time to duke it out and
come up with alternatives.

Yeah, like it gave the automakers time to come up with alternatives to
airbags.

Gass is a patent lawyer--you think he doesn't have it sewn up so tight
that any "alternative" will violate his patents?

That's similar to what the FDA did with BPA. When the BPA reports
first came out the FDA went on record saying that was NO problem with
BPA...and then a while later said OOPS! The intervening time gave
manufacturers time to retool and get rid of inventory.

Not analogous--in the one case they were removing a substance, not
adding a patented device.

In any event there are mechanisms in place for dealing with monopolies
and anti-trust regulations. *Oh, wait, those aren't free market
mechanisms so they must be bad things. *

So you're saying that you're fine if the government gives him his
regulation then takes his company away from him under the antitrust act?

If so then we're pretty close to the same page.

Pretty close. I didn't say take the patent away. The guy deserves to
be paid for his work and invention. A forced arbitration would be a
start. A lump sum payment, amortized and paid back by the licenses
over five or ten years would make sense.

He only deserves to be paid for it if he's not the one asking that it be
mandated. If the government, without his ever asking for it, mandated
it then he'd deserve compensation, but he's clearly trying to get it
mandated in order to enrich himself and that behavior should be
discouraged.

The guy developed something new that works, patented it, set his price
and tried to license it, got shot down, persevered, started
manufacturing them himself, and is now going through the proper
channels to improve saw safety (though he does seem to believe he has
a lock on any and all attempts at an alternative system). If by
chance he happens to make the odd million or twenty for his largesse,
well, that's not his fault!

It is his fault when he's clearly intending to profit from the
regulation he's demanding.

If that's not an American success story I don't know what is.

An "American success story" would involve his company becoming dominant
in the market buy building a product that clearly represented better
value than the competition, not getting the government to mandate that
the competition buy his product.

Remember the Workmate guy? He dabbled in workbenches and was always
tinkering. Had his shop make some magnesium prototypes, and tried to
sell the patent outright to the major tool manufacturers for $50K.
Free and clear - $50K...and he got shot down. Started manufacturing
them himself and last I knew he'd made enough money to buy his own
island.

And he never once lobbied the government to mandate that anyone license
his technology.

Gass is that same type, except he's a patent lawyer and a PHD. I have
no knowledge of what the guy is like personally, but from his actions
I'm guessing he's part pitbull and maybe a little short on the warm
and fuzzies. But the guy's no dummy and it will probably cost the
tool manufacturer's more in the long run to have shot him down.

Personally I want to see him totally destroyed.

I'm still going to look into electing a Congress that will take your
Usenet posting rights away. I'll be doing it for the children.

Go for it. You'll also have to elect a 2/3 majority in both houses and
majorities in 3/4 of the state legislatures, otherwise you'll be
enacting a bill of attainder and will be running afoul of the First
Amendment.

There is no right to profit from government regulation for which one has
lobbied, but there is a right to free speech.

In any case, if you do not like what I have to say there is something
called a "killfile", although you google types wouldn't know about
things like that.

In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 10/9/2011 10:19 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:28:32 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 2:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leonlcb11211@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.

Yeah apparently it is maybe half that amount.

Wrong. The proposed licensing alone was far more than that.

That was then 8 or so years ago. Bosch has testified that they can use
similar technology on their bench top for about $55.

"Similar technology"? So is that manufacturing cost of something they
believe circumvents the patents or is that including the licensing fee?

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
technologies.

I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.

If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
be illuminating.

--
Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself.
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:39:09 -0700, Larry Jaques
If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
be illuminating.

Because they were too cheap and figured they could all collectively
freeze him out. Now, it's going to cost them more. If even *one*
tablesaw manufacturer had paid the price and contracted the sawstop
technology exclusively, they'd own the market. Now, it's too late.

On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
technologies.

I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.

If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
be illuminating.

I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
usual.

FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
car purchase in most cases.





--
Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself.
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 10/10/2011 12:30 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:39:09 -0700, Larry Jaques
If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
be illuminating.

Because they were too cheap and figured they could all collectively
freeze him out. Now, it's going to cost them more. If even *one*
tablesaw manufacturer had paid the price and contracted the sawstop
technology exclusively, they'd own the market. Now, it's too late.

I can see it now, SawStop will be blamed for not forcing the license
early on, to the companies that will fail.

A problem with most businesses is that they want to blame their short
sightedness on some one else.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:18:07 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
technologies.

I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.

If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
be illuminating.

I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
usual.

FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
car purchase in most cases.

Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.

I'd call a $1k licensing fee plus a buck or three on each saw a fair
price. He'd make millions the very first year. After all, he seems to
be trying to pose as an altruist in all of this mess.

--
Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself.
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 10/10/2011 8:43 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.

Agreed ... very damn few manufacturers of this type equipment, with the
regulations and "social engineering" they already have to deal with via
government mandate just to do business, have a _margin_ that will
withstand an 8% hit on each product + mandated parts.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 10/10/2011 8:43 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:18:07 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
technologies.

I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.

If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
be illuminating.

I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
usual.

FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
car purchase in most cases.

Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw.

Is that all???? I had not yet done the math. I have spent more than
that on TS accessories, I would consider $500 a bargain on most any
priced saw but I am not one to buy low end crap to begin with. Hell I
spent double that on a Festool track saw, so nop, I do not consider $355
extra for that feature to be any thing to debate, It's a no brainer for me.


You think
that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
to get for his invention?

I and apparently many others do, his saw which sells for more that the
prices you mentioned above are selling like hot cakes. I would think
that a Delta, Jet, or Powermatic with the $500~$600 "optino" would
increase sales for those manufacturers. They would basically have a
competitive product to offer and most likely be less expensive or
equally priced. Yes the option will increase the cost of a TS but so
does buying a better blade than the one that came on your TS.



I call it highway robbery. If all saw
manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.

Initially but cars with air bags and seat belts have replaced all those
with out.



I'd call a $1k licensing fee plus a buck or three on each saw a fair
price. He'd make millions the very first year. After all, he seems to
be trying to pose as an altruist in all of this mess.

You have never run a business have you? You seem to be clueless about
the cost of R&D. Gass had a real risk of loss in his investment, he
should not be penalized for taking that risk and succeeding.

Life is not always fai,r some people invest and are rewarded. Some
people take no risks and loose out on the opportunity to be rewarded.

This is the society we live in like it or not. When life you deals you
lemmons.....

And to once again sum up my position on the whole matter, I don't look
fondly at the reported ways Gass has been painted nrt do I look fondly
at the ways it has been reported about other manufacturers refusing to
offer a safer saw when they had the opportunity. I do know that
competition brings prices down and right now the SawStop has no
competition in the category that it is in. I truly believe that if
other manufacturers offer the same technology their sales will go up.

But if it makes yo feel better many others did not believe the SawStop
would ever come to market and Sawstop had to start with nothing and
build a customer base.

On 10/10/2011 8:53 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/10/2011 8:43 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.

Agreed ... very damn few manufacturers of this type equipment, with the
regulations and "social engineering" they already have to deal with via
government mandate just to do business, have a _margin_ that will
withstand an 8% hit on each product + mandated parts.



Well if they try to absorb the cost and not pass it on to the consumer
they certainly will have problems.

On 10/10/2011 9:39 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/10/2011 8:53 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 10/10/2011 8:43 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.

Agreed ... very damn few manufacturers of this type equipment, with the
regulations and "social engineering" they already have to deal with via
government mandate just to do business, have a _margin_ that will
withstand an 8% hit on each product + mandated parts.



Well if they try to absorb the cost and not pass it on to the consumer
they certainly will have problems.

Do the math on C-Less's post above ... would you, shopping for a new
table saw, buy the Unisaw for almost $3600 (the estimated cost with the
technology) versus SawStop's $3300?

Remember, Gass' saw does not have to pay the license fee since he owns
the patent.

Now, just who is it that has the opportunity to stifle competition with
an unfair advantage should the technology become mandated?

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:43:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:18:07 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
technologies.

I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.

If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
be illuminating.

I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
usual.

FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
car purchase in most cases.

Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.

It adds that $355 to the *COST* of the saw, not the price. There *is* a
difference.

I'd call a $1k licensing fee plus a buck or three on each saw a fair
price. He'd make millions the very first year. After all, he seems to
be trying to pose as an altruist in all of this mess.

Even ten times that. ...or make it optional, and see how few are bought.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:27:14 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/10/2011 8:43 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:18:07 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
technologies.

I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.

If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
be illuminating.

I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
usual.

FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
car purchase in most cases.

Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw.

Is that all???? I had not yet done the math. I have spent more than
that on TS accessories, I would consider $500 a bargain on most any
priced saw but I am not one to buy low end crap to begin with. Hell I
spent double that on a Festool track saw, so nop, I do not consider $355
extra for that feature to be any thing to debate, It's a no brainer for me.

All? That's an adder to the cost of manufacture, not to the price. You had
the choice of the purchase of the TS accessory, yet you don't want to allow
the choice of SS technology.

You think
that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
to get for his invention?

I and apparently many others do, his saw which sells for more that the
prices you mentioned above are selling like hot cakes. I would think
that a Delta, Jet, or Powermatic with the $500~$600 "optino" would
increase sales for those manufacturers. They would basically have a
competitive product to offer and most likely be less expensive or
equally priced. Yes the option will increase the cost of a TS but so
does buying a better blade than the one that came on your TS.

Great. Choice is wonderful. Why do you want to take it away from others?

I call it highway robbery. If all saw
manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.

Initially but cars with air bags and seat belts have replaced all those
with out.



I'd call a $1k licensing fee plus a buck or three on each saw a fair
price. He'd make millions the very first year. After all, he seems to
be trying to pose as an altruist in all of this mess.

You have never run a business have you? You seem to be clueless about
the cost of R&D. Gass had a real risk of loss in his investment, he
should not be penalized for taking that risk and succeeding.

You seem clueless about the difference between cost and price. shrug

Life is not always fai,r some people invest and are rewarded. Some
people take no risks and loose out on the opportunity to be rewarded.

This is the society we live in like it or not. When life you deals you
lemmons.....

And to once again sum up my position on the whole matter, I don't look
fondly at the reported ways Gass has been painted nrt do I look fondly
at the ways it has been reported about other manufacturers refusing to
offer a safer saw when they had the opportunity. I do know that
competition brings prices down and right now the SawStop has no
competition in the category that it is in. I truly believe that if
other manufacturers offer the same technology their sales will go up.

But if it makes yo feel better many others did not believe the SawStop
would ever come to market and Sawstop had to start with nothing and
build a customer base.

Great! ...if it stopped there. No one is saying that SawStop shouldn't
exist.

J. Clarke wrote:


Gass is a patent lawyer--you think he doesn't have it sewn up so tight
that any "alternative" will violate his patents?

And that just ****es you off, doesn't it?



He only deserves to be paid for it if he's not the one asking that it
be mandated. If the government, without his ever asking for it,
mandated it then he'd deserve compensation, but he's clearly trying
to get it mandated in order to enrich himself and that behavior
should be discouraged.


Funny that you feel you should be the arbitar of what should be and what
should not be. There are laws in this country and he is within the law.
But - you feel you have the right to decide what he should do, should be
compensated for, and how that all should work. I'm quite glad that you are
not the king.


The guy developed something new that works, patented it, set his
price and tried to license it, got shot down, persevered, started
manufacturing them himself, and is now going through the proper
channels to improve saw safety (though he does seem to believe he has
a lock on any and all attempts at an alternative system). If by
chance he happens to make the odd million or twenty for his largesse,
well, that's not his fault!

It is his fault when he's clearly intending to profit from the
regulation he's demanding.

And you are simply jealous.


If that's not an American success story I don't know what is.

An "American success story" would involve his company becoming
dominant in the market buy building a product that clearly
represented better value than the competition, not getting the
government to mandate that the competition buy his product.


He's already in the process of doing that but you just won't let yourself
see it.



Gass is that same type, except he's a patent lawyer and a PHD. I
have no knowledge of what the guy is like personally, but from his
actions I'm guessing he's part pitbull and maybe a little short on
the warm and fuzzies. But the guy's no dummy and it will probably
cost the tool manufacturer's more in the long run to have shot him
down.

Personally I want to see him totally destroyed.

And what a fool you are. You don't know squat about the guy and you post
something like this? Sorry - that's a pityful statement.



In any case, if you do not like what I have to say there is something
called a "killfile", although you google types wouldn't know about
things like that.

So... you are free to exercise your free speach, but others are not if they
contradict you? Or at least that they will be put down by you? You really
need to practice what you preach.

--

-Mike-

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:07:29 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:35:48 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:



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.


Reasonable? Because you have a bug up your butt about this guy, you
deem it *reasonable* to constrain a business to sell at a loss?
Your use of the word reasonable is nothing short of unreasonable.

If it's going to be mandated by law, you bet! You, OTOH, think the
government should give him an unlimited monopoly. THAT is
unreasonable.

You, on the other hand are a complete fool by presuming what I believe. Sad
for you...

--

-Mike-

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices
Gass is asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
technologies.

I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.

If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
be illuminating.

Could be Larry - but why not post a link? Too much of this thread has been
based on unsubstantiated bull**** and a good link would serve this thread
well.

--

-Mike-