On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:18:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

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...

That's the position you're arguing. I can't help it if you don't know what
you believe.

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.

Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that
was what the actual amount would have been.

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?

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

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.

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

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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?

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?

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 .

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

" 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

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.

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".

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.

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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?

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.

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.