|
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
|
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says... On 10/10/2011 12:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:43:42 -0700, 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. 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. Reread most of my comments, I understand cost and sale. You will perhaps notice that the early on proposed added cost would be a percentage of the sale, 8% and some change. Extended to todays prices the figure tossed in the air was that the fee would be in the $350 range. I more than once said that I would have no problem with paying in the $500 range and that amount being a bargain. Every bit of this is speculation. You never initially offer a product to a possible customer at rock bottom prices, it is way to hard to increase that price during negotiations. It is much easier to negotiate your price down than up when trying to close a deal. And yet he didn't negotiate it down, when they wouldn't pay the 8 percent he took his ball and went home. Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that was what the actual amount would have been. Why would he propose less when they are being required by the government to license it? Do you know this guy personally? Is that why you're defending him so vehemently? |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Oct 11, 12:16 am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote: J. Clarke wrote: It is his fault when he's clearly intending to profit from the regulation he's demanding. And you are simply jealous. "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." -- H.G. Wells I'm on an H. G. Wells quote kick. ;) R |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/10/2011 12:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:43:42 -0700, 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. 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. Reread most of my comments, I understand cost and sale. You will perhaps notice that the early on proposed added cost would be a percentage of the sale, 8% and some change. Extended to todays prices the figure tossed in the air was that the fee would be in the $350 range. I more than once said that I would have no problem with paying in the $500 range and that amount being a bargain. Are you saying that the margin, top to bottom, of a table saw is ~40%? I'd think it would be higher than that. The dealer's end of it, alone, I would expect to be at least a third of that (that's pretty small). Every bit of this is speculation. You never initially offer a product to a possible customer at rock bottom prices, it is way to hard to increase that price during negotiations. It is much easier to negotiate your price down than up when trying to close a deal. Evidently not. ;-) Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that was what the actual amount would have been. Sure. Again, the number I heard was $800 addend to the price. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/11/2011 11:27 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Evidently not. ;-) Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that was what the actual amount would have been. Sure. Again, the number I heard was $800 addend to the price. http://www.popularwoodworking.com/ar...ion-vs-numbers -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:55:37 -0500, Swingman wrote:
On 10/11/2011 11:27 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Evidently not. ;-) Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that was what the actual amount would have been. Sure. Again, the number I heard was $800 addend to the price. http://www.popularwoodworking.com/ar...ion-vs-numbers Thanks. Interesting article, but short of some the pertinent facts; the real cost. It's clear that it's greater than $100 and less than $1000. Maybe. Interestingly, the article talks about emotions overwhelming facts, then throws out this clunker; "If CPSC adopts a rule in the next year, it might well be referred to as The Patent Attorney's Relief Act of 2012". |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:55:37 -0500, Swingman wrote:
On 10/11/2011 11:27 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Evidently not. ;-) Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that was what the actual amount would have been. Sure. Again, the number I heard was $800 addend to the price. http://www.popularwoodworking.com/ar...ion-vs-numbers I can see the guy applying for all sorts of patents, but who in the hell _granted_ him 78 _related_ patents on the SS in such short time? UFR! It's nearly impossible for a normal human to get one patent OKed in that time, with wait time to just -review- the application several years behind now, the last I heard. -- Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself. -- Thomas Jefferson |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:20:19 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:55:37 -0500, Swingman wrote: On 10/11/2011 11:27 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Evidently not. ;-) Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that was what the actual amount would have been. Sure. Again, the number I heard was $800 addend to the price. http://www.popularwoodworking.com/ar...ion-vs-numbers I can see the guy applying for all sorts of patents, but who in the hell _granted_ him 78 _related_ patents on the SS in such short time? UFR! It's nearly impossible for a normal human to get one patent OKed in that time, with wait time to just -review- the application several years behind now, the last I heard. Over a decade? It depends on the area of the patent but my experience has been in the three-year range. Some have been longer if they were split or combined with others. ...and that was with "outside council". Note that he is his own patent lawyer. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/11/2011 11:27 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 10/10/2011 12:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:43:42 -0700, 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. 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. Reread most of my comments, I understand cost and sale. You will perhaps notice that the early on proposed added cost would be a percentage of the sale, 8% and some change. Extended to todays prices the figure tossed in the air was that the fee would be in the $350 range. I more than once said that I would have no problem with paying in the $500 range and that amount being a bargain. Are you saying that the margin, top to bottom, of a table saw is ~40%? I'd think it would be higher than that. The dealer's end of it, alone, I would expect to be at least a third of that (that's pretty small). Well here I am responding again.. ;~) No, you mentioned 40%. Knowing however how retail items are priced I believe that if a dealer is making 40% on a big ticket item he would be living in a dream come true retail world. I suspect that the GP on a typical high dollar saw is in the 10~15% range. It's the small items that have a large GP margin. Take the Rockler clamps to mount a sacrificial fence to you rip fence. I was told that the store cost on those pair of clamps is around 40 cents per pair and they retail in the $15-$20 range. That is not say however that the dealer may make a large purchase deal where he gets a discount from unit cost pricing. In many cases the dealer/retailer will pass "that" discount on to the consumer as a sale price, move more units, and still maintain his normal GP margin. Every bit of this is speculation. You never initially offer a product to a possible customer at rock bottom prices, it is way to hard to increase that price during negotiations. It is much easier to negotiate your price down than up when trying to close a deal. Evidently not. ;-) Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that was what the actual amount would have been. Sure. Again, the number I heard was $800 addend to the price. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:47:51 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/11/2011 11:27 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 10/10/2011 12:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:43:42 -0700, 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. 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. Reread most of my comments, I understand cost and sale. You will perhaps notice that the early on proposed added cost would be a percentage of the sale, 8% and some change. Extended to todays prices the figure tossed in the air was that the fee would be in the $350 range. I more than once said that I would have no problem with paying in the $500 range and that amount being a bargain. Are you saying that the margin, top to bottom, of a table saw is ~40%? I'd think it would be higher than that. The dealer's end of it, alone, I would expect to be at least a third of that (that's pretty small). Well here I am responding again.. ;~) No, you mentioned 40%. Your numbers: "the figure tossed in the air was that the fee would be in the $350" "I would have no problem with paying in the $500" $500/$350 = 1.42 == 42% margin I expect it to be closer the earlier stated $850 to the $1000 quoted in Swing's article. Knowing however how retail items are priced I believe that if a dealer is making 40% on a big ticket item he would be living in a dream come true retail world. I suspect that the GP on a typical high dollar saw is in the 10~15% range. That's what I said. Your numbers indicate ~40% top-to-bottom margin. That's not very big, even with only 15% to the dealer (likely pretty close). It's the small items that have a large GP margin. Take the Rockler clamps to mount a sacrificial fence to you rip fence. I was told that the store cost on those pair of clamps is around 40 cents per pair and they retail in the $15-$20 range. Sure, but we're talking the END-TO-END margin; the dealer's and the manufacturer's (and any middle men). 40% seems low. That is not say however that the dealer may make a large purchase deal where he gets a discount from unit cost pricing. In many cases the dealer/retailer will pass "that" discount on to the consumer as a sale price, move more units, and still maintain his normal GP margin. If there were such a discount, it would imply that there is an even bigger margin somewhere to tap into. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
In article ,
" wrote: Thanks. Interesting article, but short of some the pertinent facts; the real cost. It's clear that it's greater than $100 and less than $1000. Maybe. I actually discussed this with the owner of one of the major importers and the licensing cost for the saw-stop (plus the device) was much closer to the 1000 dollar cost Interestingly, the article talks about emotions overwhelming facts, then throws out this clunker; "If CPSC adopts a rule in the next year, it might well be referred to as The Patent Attorney's Relief Act of 2012". One of the things that Gass forgets is an action the Government can take on Patents that relate to public safety. They seize the Patent(s) in question and allow any firm to compete. Yes, the owner of the Patent(s) is compensated, but certainly not to the level Gass is certainly dreaming of. -- -------------------------------------------------------- Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read RV and Camping FAQ can be found at http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:39:10 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
wrote: In article , " wrote: Thanks. Interesting article, but short of some the pertinent facts; the real cost. It's clear that it's greater than $100 and less than $1000. Maybe. I actually discussed this with the owner of one of the major importers and the licensing cost for the saw-stop (plus the device) was much closer to the 1000 dollar cost Licensing cost or uplift to the consumer? If the former, it prices competing saws right out of existence. The result of the latter isn't much different. Interestingly, the article talks about emotions overwhelming facts, then throws out this clunker; "If CPSC adopts a rule in the next year, it might well be referred to as The Patent Attorney's Relief Act of 2012". One of the things that Gass forgets is an action the Government can take on Patents that relate to public safety. They seize the Patent(s) in question and allow any firm to compete. Yes, the owner of the Patent(s) is compensated, but certainly not to the level Gass is certainly dreaming of. Is that true? Universally? Gass is, by all evidence, a very good patent attorney. I wouldn't expect him to miss this little detail. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
In article ,
" wrote: Is that true? Universally? Gass is, by all evidence, a very good patent attorney. I wouldn't expect him to miss this little detail. No, of course not. But it does happen, just not very often The only ones I am recalling right now were Automobile safety patents. -- -------------------------------------------------------- Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read RV and Camping FAQ can be found at http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Oct 12, 10:39 am, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
One of the things that Gass forgets is an action the Government can take on Patents that relate to public safety. They seize the Patent(s) in question and allow any firm to compete. Yes, the owner of the Patent(s) is compensated, but certainly not to the level Gass is certainly dreaming of. The Universe giveth with one hand and bitchslappeth with the other. I seriously doubt that Gass has forgotten the possibility of such an action by the government. It's a win-win situation for him, except in a popularity newsgroup contest. Either way he's going to make a boatload of money, and it's just a question of how big of a boat he'll need. R |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/8/2011 6:40 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 2:07 pm, zzz wrote: Life is dangerous. Your point? Saying "life is dangerous" is a mantra for people that don't have a better argument. No, it's just a statement of fact. You're trying to convince people that an improvement in safety is not really an improvement. I think he's saying there is a difference in people deciding what is a "better product" than having government make the decision for you. 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). Do you wear a NASCAR approved crash helmet when you drive? Why not? Should your nanny state government mandate them for all auto occupants or are you saying "**** you" to all those billions of head injury deaths and injuries that could have been avoided by simple government mandate? 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? My choice is to reject greedy business for attempting to get government force free individuals to buy his product and make him filthy stinking rich via government mandate rather than consumer demand. 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 can do that right now by going to Grizzly, Home Depot, Lowe's and buying a dangerous saw from them because I choose to live dangerously, or am stupid cheap, or am too freaking dumb to know that Saw Stop exists. Perhaps Saw Stop should be sued for not informing the public enough about their freaking product? 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. I have no compassion for government protecting me from myself. Yes, I'm against seat belt laws, helmet laws, saw stop laws. I also have no compassion for the fools that think government is the best one to make these decisions for me. -- Jack Got Change: Supply and Demand ====== Command and Control! http://jbstein.com |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/9/2011 12:28 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
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. Finally someone understands free market capitalism vs government controlled socialism. -- Jack Got Change: Supply and Demand ====== Command and Control! http://jbstein.com |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/9/2011 10:21 AM, Han wrote:
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 ... There is no "balance". Once government begins to ignore personal freedom and the constitutional protections to the individual, the "balance" goes out the window. You will eventually be mandated to buy the "right tool" and only the "right tool" and from the properly "licensed" seller at the properly mandated price. -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life. http://jbstein.com |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:10:53 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
wrote: In article , " wrote: Is that true? Universally? Gass is, by all evidence, a very good patent attorney. I wouldn't expect him to miss this little detail. No, of course not. But it does happen, just not very often Gass is obviously betting that it's not going to happen. I'm (obviously) on the other side and don't like the bet, particularly with the regulation-happy crew now running Washington. The only ones I am recalling right now were Automobile safety patents. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
Jack wrote in :
On 10/9/2011 10:21 AM, Han wrote: 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 ... There is no "balance". Once government begins to ignore personal freedom and the constitutional protections to the individual, the "balance" goes out the window. You will eventually be mandated to buy the "right tool" and only the "right tool" and from the properly "licensed" seller at the properly mandated price. Of course there is a balance. You can't buy a car these days without airbags and antipollution equipment. We as a society have deemed it necessary, while in the late 50's my Dad had a car that 2 people could lift the front of, and move it in a parking place. It had a water-cooled 4-cylinder engine in the rear, and it was easy to change spark plugs, points, whatever. Now a similar car in performance would weigh twice as much, use 3 times the gasoline, and cost 5 times as much in inflation-adjusted money. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/12/2011 9:39 AM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
In , z wrote: Thanks. Interesting article, but short of some the pertinent facts; the real cost. It's clear that it's greater than $100 and less than $1000. Maybe. I actually discussed this with the owner of one of the major importers and the licensing cost for the saw-stop (plus the device) was much closer to the 1000 dollar cost Interestingly, the article talks about emotions overwhelming facts, then throws out this clunker; "If CPSC adopts a rule in the next year, it might well be referred to as The Patent Attorney's Relief Act of 2012". One of the things that Gass forgets is an action the Government can take on Patents that relate to public safety. They seize the Patent(s) in question and allow any firm to compete. Yes, the owner of the Patent(s) is compensated, but certainly not to the level Gass is certainly dreaming of. Hummmmmm sounds like imminent domain laws. While it would not be fair for the government to say this guy is going to get rich exclusively because of a new law, would it be fair to simply take some ones hard work away for the good of all? |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/13/2011 6:58 AM, Leon wrote:
Hummmmmm sounds like imminent domain laws. While it would not be fair for the government to say this guy is going to get rich exclusively because of a new law, would it be fair to simply take some ones hard work away for the good of all? No more egregious than drafting them and sending them to die "for their country". Many have ... let's get some perspective on the situation. -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/12/2011 2:47 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in : On 10/9/2011 10:21 AM, Han wrote: 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 ... There is no "balance". Once government begins to ignore personal freedom and the constitutional protections to the individual, the "balance" goes out the window. You will eventually be mandated to buy the "right tool" and only the "right tool" and from the properly "licensed" seller at the properly mandated price. Of course there is a balance. You can't buy a car these days without airbags and antipollution equipment. We as a society have deemed it necessary, while in the late 50's my Dad had a car that 2 people could lift the front of, and move it in a parking place. It had a water-cooled 4-cylinder engine in the rear, and it was easy to change spark plugs, points, whatever. Now a similar car in performance would weigh twice as much, use 3 times the gasoline, and cost 5 times as much in inflation-adjusted money. You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government hack making decisions for me. -- Jack Got Change: Individual Freedom ======= Government Control! http://jbstein.com |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
Jack wrote in :
You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government hack making decisions for me. You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what should be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ... -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in : You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government hack making decisions for me. You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what should be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ... You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing what you wanted, do you? |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 13 Oct 2011 18:12:43 GMT, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in : You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government hack making decisions for me. You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what should be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ... The US is not a democracy (thankfully). If 51% of the people decided to kill everyone with Dutch ancestry, are you OK with that? |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:26:05 -0500, "
The US is not a democracy (thankfully). If 51% of the people decided to kill everyone with Dutch ancestry, are you OK with that? Hey Han, I have a Taliban wardrobe and convincing fake ID I can sell you if Americans of Dutch ancestry are voted out of the US . :) |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
Dave wrote in
: On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:26:05 -0500, " The US is not a democracy (thankfully). If 51% of the people decided to kill everyone with Dutch ancestry, are you OK with that? Hey Han, I have a Taliban wardrobe and convincing fake ID I can sell you if Americans of Dutch ancestry are voted out of the US . :) Thanks, Dave. I'm too upstanding a citizen to worry, really, but so thought the German Jews once upon a time. But this is not really a subject to kid about. The whole idea of modern democracies and also of our republic is that we will not capriciously discriminate against portions of our population, or so I would hope. The deliberative nature of the US Senate was supposed to take care of that if the House didn't. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
" wrote in
: The US is not a democracy (thankfully). If 51% of the people decided to kill everyone with Dutch ancestry, are you OK with that? Modern democracies and republics are supposed to have checks and balances against such ridiculous ideas. Our congress is supposed to not let a mob majority call the shots, although it sometimes seems that both right and left want to resort to that. Not my idea of an effective and prospering society. But sometimes it is very difficult to get a consensus among people with disparate ideas and philosophies, and things go awry as they seem to be doing now, unfortunately. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 13 Oct 2011 21:45:23 GMT, Han wrote:
Thanks, Dave. I'm too upstanding a citizen to worry, really, but so thought the German Jews once upon a time. But this is not really a subject to kid about. I have to agree. After winding up in my wheelchair some years ago, I've been truly shocked to experience the occasional discrimination from from friends and family, not to mention strangers. Sources that I would previously have thought impossible. And yet, the few incidents of descrimination I've experienced are nothing compared to some segments of our society. It leads me to have very little respect for much of the human race. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 13 Oct 2011 21:49:41 GMT, Han wrote:
" wrote in : The US is not a democracy (thankfully). If 51% of the people decided to kill everyone with Dutch ancestry, are you OK with that? Modern democracies and republics are supposed to have checks and balances against such ridiculous ideas. Yes, in the US it's called the Constitution. The point being, that just because 51% of the people are "for" something, doesn't mean it should be. The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Our congress is supposed to not let a mob majority call the shots, although it sometimes seems that both right and left want to resort to that. Not my idea of an effective and prospering society. But sometimes it is very difficult to get a consensus among people with disparate ideas and philosophies, and things go awry as they seem to be doing now, unfortunately. You confuse "consensus" with "right". |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
In other parts of the world "constitution" has to do with healthy ****!
Only in the USA! -------------- wrote in message ... Yes, in the US it's called the Constitution. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/13/2011 2:12 PM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote: You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government hack making decisions for me. You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what should be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ... The congressman I voted for last election is doing what I want (so far.) The congressman I didn't vote for last time didn't do what I wanted. I helped vote him out. The Senator I didn't vote for is not doing what I want, I'll try to vote him out next time around. The president I didn't vote for is not doing what I want, I'll try to vote him out next time around. Right now, it's 2 against one, hopefully that will continue change for the better. Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period. -- Jack You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out! http://jbstein.com |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0400, Jack wrote:
Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period. It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort. Do you actually believe that all the surgery and rehabilitation you'd go through for cutting off a finger would be covered entirely by the fees you'd pay? Society funds the bulk of your screwups whether you believe it or not. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/14/2011 8:51 AM, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0400, wrote: Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period. It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort. Do you actually believe that all the surgery and rehabilitation you'd go through for cutting off a finger would be covered entirely by the fees you'd pay? Society funds the bulk of your screwups whether you believe it or not. Wink! |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0400, Jack wrote:
On 10/13/2011 2:12 PM, Han wrote: Jack wrote: You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government hack making decisions for me. You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what should be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ... The congressman I voted for last election is doing what I want (so far.) The congressman I didn't vote for last time didn't do what I wanted. I helped vote him out. My Congressman is invisible. The Senator I didn't vote for is not doing what I want, I'll try to vote him out next time around. One of my Senators is on the top of the heap, the other is invisible. The only time I've seen him is on billboards (guess it's better than the post office). Tried to vote him out last time but incumbency has its perks. The president I didn't vote for is not doing what I want, I'll try to vote him out next time around. Right now, it's 2 against one, hopefully that will continue change for the better. Indeed. Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period. +1 |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:51:05 -0400, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0400, Jack wrote: Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period. It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort. Do you actually believe that all the surgery and rehabilitation you'd go through for cutting off a finger would be covered entirely by the fees you'd pay? Society funds the bulk of your screwups whether you believe it or not. With that "logic" any manner of evil can be justified. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/13/2011 1:09 PM, Leon wrote:
On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote: wrote in : You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government hack making decisions for me. You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what should be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ... You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing what you wanted, do you? And what if the person you voted for didn't get elected? |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on thehorizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On 10/14/2011 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/13/2011 1:09 PM, Leon wrote: On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote: wrote in : You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government hack making decisions for me. You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what should be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ... You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing what you wanted, do you? And what if the person you voted for didn't get elected? Moot point! Nothing good happen regardless. Voting these days makes the population feel like they have a choice. |
Consumer Products Safety Commision - New table saw rules on the horizon. (sawstop, et. al.)
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:24:59 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/13/2011 1:09 PM, Leon wrote: On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote: wrote in : You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government hack making decisions for me. You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what should be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ... You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing what you wanted, do you? And what if the person you voted for didn't get elected? You try harder. Maybe volunteer next time. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter