The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1824P-01A.pdf



--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10/8/2011 10:42 AM, Han wrote:
The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1824P-01A.pdf


I expect this will eventually wind up in the Supreme Court, where it
will be overturned.

On 10/8/2011 9:42 AM, Han wrote:

The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1824P-01A.pdf

As I said on another forum this morning with regard to the Osario case,
lawyers routinely abuse the judicial system as a part of their business
model.


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

On 08 Oct 2011 14:42:57 GMT, Han wrote:

The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1824P-01A.pdf

As Mark Twain and others have said, "First, we shoot all the lawyers"

Guilty parties he
1. Whoever removed the blade guard - I can rip boards with the blade
guard in place. The things that requre removal of the guard (rabbet
on a flooring transition piece) are so infrequent tha I have to stop
and think about how the guard is removed.
2. The injured employee for being stupid (using a saw without a blade
guard). Unfortunately, our society makes "stupidity" a suitable trait
for litigation: blame anyone but me.
3. The employer for not buying a SawStop shop saw for use on a job
site - physically impractical if not impossible. The contractor
version of the SawStop is a recent addition to the line.
4. The "expert witness" who obviously has a monetary interest in this
case (publicly faulting the competition). His connection with a
competing product automatically makes him a biased witness and his
testimon should not have been allowed. That would have forced the
blame back to parties 1 or 3, none of whom have pockets as deep as
Ryobi and the lawyers would have gotten their cut of a much smaller
pie. If the injured employee removed the guard, he has no case.

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

John

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:31:13 -0400, news wrote:

Guilty parties he
1. Whoever removed the blade guard - I can rip boards with the blade
guard in place. The things that requre removal of the guard (rabbet on
a flooring transition piece) are so infrequent tha I have to stop and
think about how the guard is removed. 2. The injured employee for being
stupid (using a saw without a blade guard).

Wasn't this the one where the plaintiff was not only ripping without the
guard, he was ripping without a rip fence?

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

On Oct 8, 12:31*pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

On 10/8/2011 12:58 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

The problem with this seems to be that Sawstop has the technology very
thoroughly patented, and is not willing to license for anything
reasonable, then they start a suit to result in their tech being required.

My understanding is that the principal in Sawstop is actually a patent
lawyer.

Stuart

On 10/8/2011 11:31 AM, wrote:
....

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.
....

_EXTREMELY_ unlikely US Supreme Court would even agree to hear such a
case imo...

--

Han wrote:
The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1824P-01A.pdf



This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws for
occasional users like me. I still have my hand saws.

--
Gerald Ross

What's a nice girl like you doing in a
dirty mind like mine?

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 13:28:30 -0400, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:

On 10/8/2011 12:58 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

The problem with this seems to be that Sawstop has the technology very
thoroughly patented, and is not willing to license for anything
reasonable, then they start a suit to result in their tech being required.

My understanding is that the principal in Sawstop is actually a patent
lawyer.

You're three for three.

On 08 Oct 2011 14:42:57 GMT, Han wrote:

The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1824P-01A.pdf

What ever happened to the good old days when you did something stupid
it was your own damn fault!

News' mention of Mark Twain's quote "First, we shoot all the lawyers"
should definitely be the first step.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:49:26 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:31 AM, wrote:
...

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.
...

_EXTREMELY_ unlikely US Supreme Court would even agree to hear such a
case imo...

The ACLU should be all over Gass for attempting to take away the civil
liberties of people and companies.

--
I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues.
--Duke Ellington

On 10/8/2011 11:31 AM, wrote:
On 08 Oct 2011 14:42:57 GMT, wrote:

The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1824P-01A.pdf

As Mark Twain and others have said, "First, we shoot all the lawyers"

I believe Mark swiped that thought from Shakespear...

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".
(2 Henry VI, 4.2.59), Butcher to Jack Cade



I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

John

On Oct 8, 1:50*pm, Gerald Ross wrote:

This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws for
occasional users like me. *I still have my hand saws.

They're dangerous, too. A common injury back in the day was
"carpenter's thumb". That's where the saw jumped the kerf and bit
into the back of the thumb and cut the tendon. That left the poor sod
with a thumb that could be flexed but not straightened.

There simply will not be an overnight change in the entire saw
market. If and when the new regs roll out it will mean that only new
tools would be required to conform to the new and improved safety
regulations. Used tools will still be available, though the prices of
those will probably rise a bit as well. The regulations would have a
date of compliance set at some point in the future, which will allow
people to start hoarding existing saws, new and used.

Take a gamble - buy a dozen hobbiest tablesaws from Harbor Freight.
Shouldn't cost more than a few hundred and the potential payback might
be double that...if you live that long.

R

On 10/8/2011 9:42 AM, Han wrote:
The ridiculously frivolous suit of an ignorant laborer injured because of
stupidity has been upheld at the Appellate Court:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1824P-01A.pdf





The ignorant laborer is not the only ignorant one involved in this whole
fiasco.

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

On 10/8/2011 12:28 PM, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
On 10/8/2011 12:58 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

The problem with this seems to be that Sawstop has the technology very
thoroughly patented, and is not willing to license for anything
reasonable, then they start a suit to result in their tech being required.

Might be a problem now however Sawstop approached most every
manufacturer about acquiring a license to use the product. They had
their change and thumbed their noses at it.


My understanding is that the principal in Sawstop is actually a patent
lawyer.

Yup!

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

Do you know what that "price" was?

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:17:25 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:49:26 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:31 AM, wrote:
...

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.
...

_EXTREMELY_ unlikely US Supreme Court would even agree to hear such a
case imo...

The ACLU should be all over Gass for attempting to take away the civil
liberties of people and companies.

ACLU Companies? Shirley, you jest.

On 10/8/2011 3:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

Do you know what that "price" was?

Furthermore, all the people I know who have one in their shops have had
triggers. Some of them were on wet wood, stray metal or other nuisance
reasons, some were for no known reason. None were for human/blade
contact. Each trigger costs at least $100, often more depending on the
value of the blade. This is a solution looking for a problem,
especially when you consider that a standard guard, or any after market
guard would solve the problem just as well.

Stuart

RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 1:50 pm, Gerald Ross wrote:

This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws
for occasional users like me. I still have my hand saws.

They're dangerous, too. A common injury back in the day was
"carpenter's thumb". That's where the saw jumped the kerf and bit
into the back of the thumb and cut the tendon. That left the poor sod
with a thumb that could be flexed but not straightened.

There simply will not be an overnight change in the entire saw
market. If and when the new regs roll out it will mean that only new
tools would be required to conform to the new and improved safety
regulations. Used tools will still be available, though the prices of
those will probably rise a bit as well. The regulations would have a
date of compliance set at some point in the future, which will allow
people to start hoarding existing saws, new and used.

Take a gamble - buy a dozen hobbiest tablesaws from Harbor Freight.
Shouldn't cost more than a few hundred and the potential payback might
be double that...if you live that long.


Look for instructions on the web on how to defeat SawStop, thereby saving
$100 or so on the false positives.

Defeating the required SawStop will be as common as removing the blade guard
and might be as simple as clipping a couple of wires...

On Oct 8, 4:18*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

Look for instructions on the web on how to defeat SawStop, thereby saving
$100 or so on the false positives.

Defeating the required SawStop will be as common as removing the blade guard
and might be as simple as clipping a couple of wires...

That should be just about as effective as clipping a couple of wires
inside your computer to circumvent Windows registration. Sheesh.

BTW, who exactly is "defeating" the SawStop? A business? An
individual?

Let's see how that works...
"Oh, I'm soooo sorry for you accident, Mr. HeyRube, but we at
Northwest South Federal Insurance and Bowling have investigated the
situation and since you "defeated" the safety mechanism, you're ****
out of luck. Would you be interested in adding your autos to your
insurance policy?"

R

On Oct 8, 3:02*pm, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. *I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. *They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.


Totally agree! *I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

In a nutshell. The SawStop guy came out swinging from the get go, the
manufacturer's balked, and it's moved on to the next round. Too early
to tell who the winner will be, but I wouldn't bet against the guy
with the deepest pockets.

R

RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 1:50 pm, Gerald wrote:

This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws for
occasional users like me. I still have my hand saws.

They're dangerous, too. A common injury back in the day was
"carpenter's thumb". That's where the saw jumped the kerf and bit
into the back of the thumb and cut the tendon.

It still works! Somewhere I learned to use my left thumb to guide the
saw at the start of the cut. I got an entra lesson for the small cost of
a band-aid and I will henceforth hold that thumb higher.

I'm on the verge of getting some wood carving gouges. I wonder what they
will teach me...lol. I read a good tip yesterday, "Never catch a
falling gouge...stitches are even more expensive".



That left the poor sod
with a thumb that could be flexed but not straightened.

In article ffec27d9-9389-43f6-a48c-deda65a00827
@i14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 8, 3:02*pm, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. *I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. *They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.


Totally agree! *I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

In a nutshell. The SawStop guy came out swinging from the get go, the
manufacturer's balked, and it's moved on to the next round. Too early
to tell who the winner will be, but I wouldn't bet against the guy
with the deepest pockets.

Merceces-Benz licenses their antiskid braking patents at no charge (or
did while they were still in force, they may be expired now). If Mr.
Sawstop was really all that interested in preventing injury instead of
lining his own pockets he'd do the same.

On Oct 8, 6:30*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
says...

In a nutshell. *The SawStop guy came out swinging from the get go, the
manufacturer's balked, and it's moved on to the next round. *Too early
to tell who the winner will be, but I wouldn't bet against the guy
with the deepest pockets.

Merceces-Benz licenses their antiskid braking patents at no charge (or
did while they were still in force, they may be expired now). *If Mr.
Sawstop was really all that interested in preventing injury instead of
lining his own pockets he'd do the same.

ABS were first used in airplanes in the 30's or 40's. Chrysler had
anti-skid technology in the early 70's. Bosch and Mercedes
collaborated in the late 70's and MB rolled them out in the 80's. Not
quite the same thing as having a totally unique technology. I'd also
be very interested to see where they gave away their technology when
there were already competing technologies out there. That's not the
purpose of a patent and it makes no sense from any angle. I did a
quick search but couldn't find anything about it - do you have a link
that I could check out?

Please don't attribute some moral lapse in not taking the high road to
a guy that all the major manufacturer's told to get lost. Anyone
would have a bone to pick with them in that situation, and now he's
set on making his point and teaching them a lesson. After all - he's
a LAWYER. Lawyer's don't necessarily differentiate between making
money and doing good. They're not automatically mutually exclusive.

As far as Gass' position, I could see him negotiating downwards once
the regulations come out. It would be in his best interests to make
the money while he can as numerous billion dollar companies can afford
to lawyer-spank anybody. And it would be in the major players
interest to avoid lawyer fees and work with existing proven technology
instead of losing time in development.

R

On 10/8/2011 2:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

Do you know what that "price" was?

I did have a good idea but no longer recall. Right now Bosch has
indicated that the cost would be $55 for their bench top saws.

On 10/8/2011 2:45 PM, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
On 10/8/2011 3:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

Do you know what that "price" was?

Furthermore, all the people I know who have one in their shops have had
triggers. Some of them were on wet wood, stray metal or other nuisance
reasons, some were for no known reason. None were for human/blade
contact. Each trigger costs at least $100, often more depending on the
value of the blade. This is a solution looking for a problem, especially
when you consider that a standard guard, or any after market guard would
solve the problem just as well.

Stuart

And every false trigger that I have heard of was taken care of by SawStop.

On 10/8/2011 3:18 PM, HeyBub wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 1:50 pm, Gerald wrote:

This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws
for occasional users like me. I still have my hand saws.

They're dangerous, too. A common injury back in the day was
"carpenter's thumb". That's where the saw jumped the kerf and bit
into the back of the thumb and cut the tendon. That left the poor sod
with a thumb that could be flexed but not straightened.

There simply will not be an overnight change in the entire saw
market. If and when the new regs roll out it will mean that only new
tools would be required to conform to the new and improved safety
regulations. Used tools will still be available, though the prices of
those will probably rise a bit as well. The regulations would have a
date of compliance set at some point in the future, which will allow
people to start hoarding existing saws, new and used.

Take a gamble - buy a dozen hobbiest tablesaws from Harbor Freight.
Shouldn't cost more than a few hundred and the potential payback might
be double that...if you live that long.


Look for instructions on the web on how to defeat SawStop, thereby saving
$100 or so on the false positives.

Defeating the required SawStop will be as common as removing the blade guard
and might be as simple as clipping a couple of wires...


Contact SawStop and ask them how many false stops that they have not
helped the owner out with. From what I have always heard by those that
had a story to go with the situation, SawStop always provided the
replacement parts.

On 10/8/2011 7:52 PM, Leon wrote:
On 10/8/2011 2:45 PM, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
On 10/8/2011 3:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

Do you know what that "price" was?

Furthermore, all the people I know who have one in their shops have had
triggers. Some of them were on wet wood, stray metal or other nuisance
reasons, some were for no known reason. None were for human/blade
contact. Each trigger costs at least $100, often more depending on the
value of the blade. This is a solution looking for a problem, especially
when you consider that a standard guard, or any after market guard would
solve the problem just as well.

Stuart

And every false trigger that I have heard of was taken care of by SawStop.

It is at Sawstop's discretion, and I have heard of cartridges that were
not replaced, and where the user could not identify a real cause for the
trigger. I also do not believe that the blade is covered, and it is
quite thoroughly destroyed. Furthermore, the user will need to stock
replacement cartridges in anticipation of a trigger when working to a
deadline. This all adds costs to the user above and beyond the license
fee.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:51:31 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 2:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

Do you know what that "price" was?

I did have a good idea but no longer recall. Right now Bosch has
indicated that the cost would be $55 for their bench top saws.

I had heard numbers like $800 on the price of a cabinet saw.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:56:37 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 3:18 PM, HeyBub wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 1:50 pm, Gerald wrote:

This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws
for occasional users like me. I still have my hand saws.

They're dangerous, too. A common injury back in the day was
"carpenter's thumb". That's where the saw jumped the kerf and bit
into the back of the thumb and cut the tendon. That left the poor sod
with a thumb that could be flexed but not straightened.

There simply will not be an overnight change in the entire saw
market. If and when the new regs roll out it will mean that only new
tools would be required to conform to the new and improved safety
regulations. Used tools will still be available, though the prices of
those will probably rise a bit as well. The regulations would have a
date of compliance set at some point in the future, which will allow
people to start hoarding existing saws, new and used.

Take a gamble - buy a dozen hobbiest tablesaws from Harbor Freight.
Shouldn't cost more than a few hundred and the potential payback might
be double that...if you live that long.


Look for instructions on the web on how to defeat SawStop, thereby saving
$100 or so on the false positives.

Defeating the required SawStop will be as common as removing the blade guard
and might be as simple as clipping a couple of wires...


Contact SawStop and ask them how many false stops that they have not
helped the owner out with. From what I have always heard by those that
had a story to go with the situation, SawStop always provided the
replacement parts.

Do they fork over $125 for a new blade, too?

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:03:19 -0400, Bill wrote:

RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 1:50 pm, Gerald wrote:

This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws for
occasional users like me. I still have my hand saws.

They're dangerous, too. A common injury back in the day was
"carpenter's thumb". That's where the saw jumped the kerf and bit
into the back of the thumb and cut the tendon.

It still works! Somewhere I learned to use my left thumb to guide the
saw at the start of the cut. I got an entra lesson for the small cost of
a band-aid and I will henceforth hold that thumb higher.

I'm on the verge of getting some wood carving gouges. I wonder what they
will teach me...lol. I read a good tip yesterday, "Never catch a
falling gouge...stitches are even more expensive".

Some time back I was working in the lab and a soldering iron fell off the
bench. I automatically moved my hands and feet outward so that it fell
harmlessly to the floor. My boss happened to be watching and was amazed that
I didn't try to catch it. "Boss, it's hot!" ;-)

Before using any dangerous tool it's good to think; "now if this falls...".
It's really no different than thinking about where a knife is about to go if
it slips.

wrote

Before using any dangerous tool it's good to think; "now if this
falls...".
It's really no different than thinking about where a knife is about to go
if
it slips.

Same thing for blacksmiths. I was watching one work once and he told me he
dropped a piece of hot metal once and tried to catch it. It cured him of
that habit forever. To this day, if something falls in the house, he just
lets it fall. To the chagrin of his wife.

On 10/8/2011 7:51 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:51:31 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 2:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

Do you know what that "price" was?

I did have a good idea but no longer recall. Right now Bosch has
indicated that the cost would be $55 for their bench top saws.

I had heard numbers like $800 on the price of a cabinet saw.

Yeah I have heard those numbers too, but not from a manufacturer.

On 10/8/2011 7:53 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:56:37 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 3:18 PM, HeyBub wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 1:50 pm, Gerald wrote:

This may be the beginning of the end of reasonably priced table saws
for occasional users like me. I still have my hand saws.

They're dangerous, too. A common injury back in the day was
"carpenter's thumb". That's where the saw jumped the kerf and bit
into the back of the thumb and cut the tendon. That left the poor sod
with a thumb that could be flexed but not straightened.

There simply will not be an overnight change in the entire saw
market. If and when the new regs roll out it will mean that only new
tools would be required to conform to the new and improved safety
regulations. Used tools will still be available, though the prices of
those will probably rise a bit as well. The regulations would have a
date of compliance set at some point in the future, which will allow
people to start hoarding existing saws, new and used.

Take a gamble - buy a dozen hobbiest tablesaws from Harbor Freight.
Shouldn't cost more than a few hundred and the potential payback might
be double that...if you live that long.


Look for instructions on the web on how to defeat SawStop, thereby saving
$100 or so on the false positives.

Defeating the required SawStop will be as common as removing the blade guard
and might be as simple as clipping a couple of wires...


Contact SawStop and ask them how many false stops that they have not
helped the owner out with. From what I have always heard by those that
had a story to go with the situation, SawStop always provided the
replacement parts.

Do they fork over $125 for a new blade, too?

Not sure but I recall some one saying that one must take responsibility
for ones mistakes.

In article 945f0f6f-92d5-4e9e-86cd-9be5a71b59e7
@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 8, 6:30*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
says...

In a nutshell. *The SawStop guy came out swinging from the get go, the
manufacturer's balked, and it's moved on to the next round. *Too early
to tell who the winner will be, but I wouldn't bet against the guy
with the deepest pockets.

Merceces-Benz licenses their antiskid braking patents at no charge (or
did while they were still in force, they may be expired now). *If Mr.
Sawstop was really all that interested in preventing injury instead of
lining his own pockets he'd do the same.

ABS were first used in airplanes in the 30's or 40's. Chrysler had
anti-skid technology in the early 70's. Bosch and Mercedes
collaborated in the late 70's and MB rolled them out in the 80's. Not
quite the same thing as having a totally unique technology. I'd also
be very interested to see where they gave away their technology when
there were already competing technologies out there. That's not the
purpose of a patent and it makes no sense from any angle. I did a
quick search but couldn't find anything about it - do you have a link
that I could check out?

Please don't attribute some moral lapse in not taking the high road to
a guy that all the major manufacturer's told to get lost. Anyone
would have a bone to pick with them in that situation, and now he's
set on making his point and teaching them a lesson. After all - he's
a LAWYER. Lawyer's don't necessarily differentiate between making
money and doing good. They're not automatically mutually exclusive.

As far as Gass' position, I could see him negotiating downwards once
the regulations come out. It would be in his best interests to make
the money while he can as numerous billion dollar companies can afford
to lawyer-spank anybody. And it would be in the major players
interest to avoid lawyer fees and work with existing proven technology
instead of losing time in development.

I'm sorry, but Gass is a self-serving ****head. If you think otherwise
you're a damned fool.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:52:29 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/8/2011 2:45 PM, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
On 10/8/2011 3:26 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:02:40 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/8/2011 11:58 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:31 pm, wrote:

I predict that the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the
testimony of the expert witness was biased and thus not acceptable.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Supreme Court will overturn
it. I'm glad the suit happened, though, and got so much attention.
The major tool companies have had plenty of time to start retooling
and upgrading safety since SawStop came on the scene. They've known
which way the wind was blowing and something needed to be shaken
loose.

R

Totally agree! I am not too happy about SawStop pushing their product
through government intervention however I am equally unhappy about all
the other other manufacturers that have decided that more safety is too
high a price to pay.

Do you know what that "price" was?

Furthermore, all the people I know who have one in their shops have had
triggers. Some of them were on wet wood, stray metal or other nuisance
reasons, some were for no known reason. None were for human/blade
contact. Each trigger costs at least $100, often more depending on the
value of the blade. This is a solution looking for a problem, especially
when you consider that a standard guard, or any after market guard would
solve the problem just as well.

Stuart

And every false trigger that I have heard of was taken care of by SawStop.

Nice! They charge you double the regular rate for a saw of that
particular quality (an extra $1,600 or so) and then give you a couple
$50 freebies to make up for it. Whatta guy!

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

On Oct 8, 10:47*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article 945f0f6f-92d5-4e9e-86cd-9be5a71b59e7
@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...











On Oct 8, 6:30*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
says...

In a nutshell. *The SawStop guy came out swinging from the get go, the
manufacturer's balked, and it's moved on to the next round. *Too early
to tell who the winner will be, but I wouldn't bet against the guy
with the deepest pockets.

Merceces-Benz licenses their antiskid braking patents at no charge (or
did while they were still in force, they may be expired now). *If Mr.

In article fc743fad-b912-430e-8225-c4bb1ec19e82
@e9g2000vby.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 8, 10:47*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article 945f0f6f-92d5-4e9e-86cd-9be5a71b59e7
@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...











On Oct 8, 6:30*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
says...

In a nutshell. *The SawStop guy came out swinging from the get go, the
manufacturer's balked, and it's moved on to the next round. *Too early
to tell who the winner will be, but I wouldn't bet against the guy
with the deepest pockets.

Merceces-Benz licenses their antiskid braking patents at no charge (or
did while they were still in force, they may be expired now). *If Mr.
Sawstop was really all that interested in preventing injury instead of
lining his own pockets he'd do the same.

ABS were first used in airplanes in the 30's or 40's. *Chrysler had
anti-skid technology in the early 70's. *Bosch and Mercedes
collaborated in the late 70's and MB rolled them out in the 80's. *Not
quite the same thing as having a totally unique technology. *I'd also
be very interested to see where they gave away their technology when
there were already competing technologies out there. *That's not the
purpose of a patent and it makes no sense from any angle. *I did a
quick search but couldn't find anything about it - do you have a link
that I could check out?

Please don't attribute some moral lapse in not taking the high road to
a guy that all the major manufacturer's told to get lost. *Anyone
would have a bone to pick with them in that situation, and now he's
set on making his point and teaching them a lesson. *After all - he's
a LAWYER. *Lawyer's don't necessarily differentiate between making
money and doing good. *They're not automatically mutually exclusive.

As far as Gass' position, I could see him negotiating downwards once
the regulations come out. *It would be in his best interests to make
the money while he can as numerous billion dollar companies can afford
to lawyer-spank anybody. *And it would be in the major players
interest to avoid lawyer fees and work with existing proven technology
instead of losing time in development.

I'm sorry, but Gass is a self-serving ****head. *If you think otherwise
you're a damned fool.

Who's he supposed to be serving - you?

No, the government is supposed to be serving me and by trying to get it
to force businesses to buy his product he is subverting the free market.

It's his fookin' business, and
he gets to run it any way he sees fit. I don't give a rat's ass about
Gass and it's not a popularity contest anyway.

It would be fine if he was content to run his own business, what makes
him a sack of **** is his attempt to run everyone else's business as
well.


There's an old saying, "You can't blame a guy for asking." He's
asking the CPSC for something. It's up to them whether they say yes
or no. Nobody's holding a gun to their heads.

You most assuredly can blame a guy for asking. Or would you be
perfectly cool if some guy with AIDS asked you if he could **** your
daughter in the ass?

Your righteous indignation is misplaced, and mis-timed. Your beef
shouldn't be with him. If you have a beef it should be with the CPSC
- IF they essentially pass a SawStop mandate. That's a big if. When
and if that mandate happens, then you can tell me I told you so. I
won't be holding my breath.

That's a separate beef. He should not be asking.