advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

So, there will be a sudden growth in machinery sales outlets in Canada
& Mexico, just near border crossing points. Grizzly, Jet, etc will set
up some large warehouses nearby, improving employment in those
'foreign' areas too. Wonder if they can get a "foreign aid' grant as
well?

As well, existing saws will go up in value, even old junkers will be
worth refurbishing.


regards
Bruce

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen
wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

Funny the document discusses all kinds of incidents from table saws
then ends up focusing on Saw Stop which addresses only contact with
blade accidents. Wot a surprise!

This may be a good thing but no surprise that a particular manufacturer
is driving it.

------------
"Mike Paulsen" wrote in message ...

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

"A. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
(“petitioners”) requested that we require performance standards for a system
to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
Obama's re-election campaign.

On Sep 29, 9:28*am, "
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen wrote:
advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

* "A. Background
* On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
* ( petitioners ) requested that we require performance standards for a system
* to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
Obama's re-election campaign. *

Billions.

That's not how it works. The guy has a new and improved mouse trap,
he's a lawyer and he knows how to work the system.

If you or I came up with a new and improved mouse trap that's related
to safety, has potentially many millions in sales, and we stuck with
it for many years, we could have our own legislation, too.

R

On 9/29/2011 9:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

"A. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
(€œpetitioners€�) requested that we require performance standards for a system
to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
Obama's re-election campaign.


Probably as much as all of the other "inventors" who have coerced the
government into making their devices safety requirements.

I am waiting for the government to required the little plastic "save a
deers life alerts" to be required on all cars because of the number of
deer accidents.

If you invent something the best way to make it pay is to say it is a
safety device and pay off government workers in a regulatory agency to
get it to be made a required safety device on something.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:50:30 -0400, k-nuttle
wrote:

On 9/29/2011 9:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

"A. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
(“petitioners”) requested that we require performance standards for a system
to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
Obama's re-election campaign.


Probably as much as all of the other "inventors" who have coerced the
government into making their devices safety requirements.

For instance?

I am waiting for the government to required the little plastic "save a
deers life alerts" to be required on all cars because of the number of
deer accidents.

If you invent something the best way to make it pay is to say it is a
safety device and pay off government workers in a regulatory agency to
get it to be made a required safety device on something.

On 9/29/11 11:34 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:50:30 -0400,
wrote:

On 9/29/2011 9:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

"A. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
(“petitioners”) requested that we require performance standards for a system
to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
Obama's re-election campaign.


Probably as much as all of the other "inventors" who have coerced the
government into making their devices safety requirements.

For instance?


Al Gore.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:41:44 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

On 9/29/11 11:34 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:50:30 -0400,
wrote:

On 9/29/2011 9:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

"A. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
(“petitioners”) requested that we require performance standards for a system
to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
Obama's re-election campaign.


Probably as much as all of the other "inventors" who have coerced the
government into making their devices safety requirements.

For instance?


Al Gore.

"Safety requirement(s)"? ...but your point is taken.

On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

"A. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
(“petitioners”) requested that we require performance standards for a system
to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
Obama's re-election campaign.


I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really needs
government control?

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

"A. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
(“petitioners”) requested that we require performance standards for a system
to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
Obama's re-election campaign.


I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really needs
government control?

FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of government's
damned business.

" wrote in
news
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike
wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements
to address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

"A. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer,
et al. (“petitioners”) requested that we require performance
standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact
with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has
contributed to Obama's re-election campaign.


I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really
needs government control?

FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of
government's damned business.

They require ground fault interruptors, really good grounding and a host
of other safety-related things. Why not this? I agree, it looks like it
should be personal option, but I'd like to get a discount on my medical
insurance for having a sawstop ... (Which I don't have (yet))

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
" wrote in
news
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike
wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements
to address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

"A. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James
Fulmer, et al. (“petitioners”) requested that we require
performance standards for a system to reduce or prevent
injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has
contributed to Obama's re-election campaign.


I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder
how many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there
actually are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the
country really needs government control?

FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of
government's damned business.

They require ground fault interruptors, really good grounding and a
host of other safety-related things. Why not this? I agree, it
looks like it should be personal option, but I'd like to get a
discount on my medical insurance for having a sawstop ... (Which I
don't have (yet))

Well... if we're going to legislate these things to protect us from
everything that could hurt us, then why not legislate menopausal and
post-menopausal wives? Hell - a lot more harm comes from them than from
table saws...

--

-Mike-

On 29 Sep 2011 16:52:38 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike
wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements
to address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

"A. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer,
et al. (“petitioners”) requested that we require performance
standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact
with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has
contributed to Obama's re-election campaign.


I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really
needs government control?

FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of
government's damned business.

They require ground fault interruptors, really good grounding and a host
of other safety-related things. Why not this? I agree, it looks like it
should be personal option, but I'd like to get a discount on my medical
insurance for having a sawstop ... (Which I don't have (yet))

The federal government does no such thing! If you find an insurance carrier
that gives a discount for a SawStop, or for that matter a flat roof, who
cares?! Your choice and theirs.

I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
didn't

On 9/29/11 12:52 PM, Han wrote:

They require ground fault interruptors, really good grounding and a host
of other safety-related things. Why not this? I agree, it looks like it
should be personal option, but I'd like to get a discount on my medical
insurance for having a sawstop ... (Which I don't have (yet))

My home and life insurance companies never asked about a shop or power
tools, so I am pretty sure I wouldn't get a discount. Don't really need
health insurance in Canada, so I don't know about it being on the list
of questions.

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

On 9/29/2011 12:35 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just wrote:

On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

"A. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
(“petitioners”) requested that we require performance standards for a system
to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
Obama's re-election campaign.


I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really needs
government control?

FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of government's
damned business.

I agree. But what surprises me is that health care providers haven't
tried to make it their business. Someone who uses sharp tools is
probably more likely to be cut by one than someone who doesn't own any.
Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use
a TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:58:41 -0400, Bill wrote:

On 9/29/2011 12:35 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just wrote:

On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

"A. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
(“petitioners”) requested that we require performance standards for a system
to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
Obama's re-election campaign.


I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really needs
government control?

FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of government's
damned business.

I agree. But what surprises me is that health care providers haven't
tried to make it their business. Someone who uses sharp tools is
probably more likely to be cut by one than someone who doesn't own any.
Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use
a TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".

How about that bicycle in your garage? Skis? Is your garage messy? Is your
lawn as smooth as a putting green? good grief

On 9/29/2011 11:58 AM, Bill wrote:

Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use a
TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".

I'm among those in the "table saw" accident statistics.

Mine wasn't plugged in, nor did it have a blade mounted, but the ER
classed it, for insurance purposes, as a "table saw injury".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/ewoodshop

Bill wrote:

Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't use a
TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".

I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's not
plugged in, is it still a table saw?

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

"A. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
(“petitioners”) requested that we require performance standards for a system
to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."

I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
Obama's re-election campaign.


I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really needs
government control?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

In article , says...

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

Looks like Sawstop is still at it. Somebody needs to shoot that loon
and his lawyers and burn the place to the ground.

If he wants to sell saws fine. If he wants to make it law that
everybody buy his product, he needs to be taken down.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article , says...

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

Looks like Sawstop is still at it. Somebody needs to shoot that loon
and his lawyers and burn the place to the ground.

If he wants to sell saws fine. If he wants to make it law that
everybody buy his product, he needs to be taken down.

At the very least any new law mandating "xyz" should include
mandatory provisions which invalidate all patents, copyrights, etc
relating to "xyz". This would be for the greater good and in
the public interest.
Art

Artemus wrote:

At the very least any new law mandating "xyz" should include
mandatory provisions which invalidate all patents, copyrights, etc
relating to "xyz". This would be for the greater good and in
the public interest.

Why in the world would you suggest such a thing as that? I could see it if
you had suggested that the wording of any legislation should be loose enough
to specify alternatives, and not be so specific as to mandate one particular
solution, but to suggest invalidating patents, copyrights, etc. does not
even make sense. I heartily disagree that it would be in the greater good
of the public interest, and even further argue that the public interest is
not sufficient cause for that type of behavior.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Artemus wrote:

At the very least any new law mandating "xyz" should include
mandatory provisions which invalidate all patents, copyrights, etc
relating to "xyz". This would be for the greater good and in
the public interest.

Why in the world would you suggest such a thing as that? I could see it if
you had suggested that the wording of any legislation should be loose enough
to specify alternatives, and not be so specific as to mandate one particular
solution, but to suggest invalidating patents, copyrights, etc. does not
even make sense. I heartily disagree that it would be in the greater good
of the public interest, and even further argue that the public interest is
not sufficient cause for that type of behavior.

--


Replace "xyz" in my statement with "Sawstop" for the perfect example.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Any company attempting to use the
legislative process to gain a monopoly in the market under the auspices
of "for the public good" isn't good. Ergo they should have to relinquish
their patent(s) via the same legislation. Let them compete in the market
on an even footing.
Art

In article , says...

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

Did you notice that the docket number has been removed? So no way to
protest it in a meaningful fashion.

Mike Paulsen wrote in news:YjSgq.181$8c4.60
@newsfe18.iad:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

Right now (Saturday Oct 1, ~8AM EDT):
Committee meeting Oct 5:
http://www.cpsc.gov/calendar.html, top portion:
Commission Meeting
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Hearing Room 420

Open to the Public

Matter to be Considered

Decisional Matter: Table Saws Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sep 29, 12:17*am, Mike Paulsen wrote:

advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

Here's an interesting comment thread on the topic from some months
back:
http://thewoodwhisperer.com/a-sawstop-killer/

Some interesting tidbits in the comments, such as anecdotal 'evidence'
of the big tool companies working together to develop a SawStop
alternative, expired prior patents that would fulfill the anticipated
performance requirements, etc.

I'm betting the performance requirements pass, major changes are made,
and SawStop is out of business in 10 years. Hubris, and all that.

R

On 9/28/2011 11:17 PM, Mike Paulsen wrote:
advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

A rebuttal to Mr Gass by the PTI issued today 10/18 ... if you're going
to argue either way, you still need to read it:


http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/i...ble-saw-safety

Interesting section, copied he

Stephen Gass, a patent attorney, has filed more than 120 U.S. patent
applications, and has over 70 issued U.S. patents which pertain to the
SawStop technology.

quote

Stephen Gass told the U.S. government that it should assume that no
manufacturer will be able to introduce injury mitigation technology that
does not infringe on his patents.

After the PTI-JV technology became known, SawStop amended one of their
then-pending patent applications to purportedly cover any table saw that
retracts the blade rapidly within 14 milliseconds – using any retraction
technique after detecting contact. This patent application which was
subsequently allowed by the U.S. Patent Office, is arguably not limited
to SawStop's blade brake technology for retracting the blade, but rather
is designed to cover any retraction technique, hindering the development
of alternative blade retraction technologies and blocking competing
inventors from using their own inventions.

/quote

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

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:34:04 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 9/28/2011 11:17 PM, Mike Paulsen wrote:
advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

A rebuttal to Mr Gass by the PTI issued today 10/18 ... if you're going
to argue either way, you still need to read it:


http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/i...ble-saw-safety

Interesting section, copied he

Stephen Gass, a patent attorney, has filed more than 120 U.S. patent
applications, and has over 70 issued U.S. patents which pertain to the
SawStop technology.

quote

Stephen Gass told the U.S. government that it should assume that no
manufacturer will be able to introduce injury mitigation technology that
does not infringe on his patents.

After the PTI-JV technology became known, SawStop amended one of their
then-pending patent applications to purportedly cover any table saw that
retracts the blade rapidly within 14 milliseconds – using any retraction
technique after detecting contact. This patent application which was
subsequently allowed by the U.S. Patent Office, is arguably not limited
to SawStop's blade brake technology for retracting the blade, but rather
is designed to cover any retraction technique, hindering the development
of alternative blade retraction technologies and blocking competing
inventors from using their own inventions.

/quote

I believe the only remedy is to allow the gummint to mandate SS use,
build a knock off on a saw, sell it, let Gass sue you, file an
anti-trust suit against the monopoly, and have the patent seized by
the gummint, nullifying the infringement. Then everyone is happy,
fingers are safe, and saws aren't priced out of reach.

The only one to lose this time is the frackin' speaking weasel!
For a change. wink

--
Good ideas alter the power balance in relationships, that is why
good ideas are always initially resisted. Good ideas come with a
heavy burden. Which is why so few people have them. So few people
can handle it.
-- Hugh Macleod

On 10/19/2011 12:09 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:34:04 -0500, wrote:

On 9/28/2011 11:17 PM, Mike Paulsen wrote:
advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.

September 14, 2011

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI...f/tablesaw.pdf

A rebuttal to Mr Gass by the PTI issued today 10/18 ... if you're going
to argue either way, you still need to read it:


http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/i...ble-saw-safety

Interesting section, copied he

Stephen Gass, a patent attorney, has filed more than 120 U.S. patent
applications, and has over 70 issued U.S. patents which pertain to the
SawStop technology.

quote

Stephen Gass told the U.S. government that it should assume that no
manufacturer will be able to introduce injury mitigation technology that
does not infringe on his patents.

After the PTI-JV technology became known, SawStop amended one of their
then-pending patent applications to purportedly cover any table saw that
retracts the blade rapidly within 14 milliseconds – using any retraction
technique after detecting contact. This patent application which was
subsequently allowed by the U.S. Patent Office, is arguably not limited
to SawStop's blade brake technology for retracting the blade, but rather
is designed to cover any retraction technique, hindering the development
of alternative blade retraction technologies and blocking competing
inventors from using their own inventions.

/quote

I believe the only remedy is to allow the gummint to mandate SS use,
build a knock off on a saw, sell it, let Gass sue you, file an
anti-trust suit against the monopoly, and have the patent seized by
the gummint, nullifying the infringement. Then everyone is happy,
fingers are safe, and saws aren't priced out of reach.

There could be other advantages to the SawStop patents. One of the
manufacutrers may offer an alternative like a CNC router or laser as a
replacement for a spinning saw blade.