Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/12/2012 6:33 AM, Han wrote:

That's the "crux" of the situation. Gass is an excellent patent
attorney, and he has seized a problem and technology (flesh in
proximity to a spinning metal blade) and provided a solution to
greatly reduce the inherent dangers. He has done this rather
thoroughly, so that it is nigh impossible for competing technologies
to bypass his patents. After he approached TS manufacturers to sell
them his technologies, they all said he was making a solution for a
non-existing problem, and refused his offers (probably in part
because they were afraid they'd price themselves out of the market,
offering a technology nobody was going to buy). Then Gass
(brilliantly, actually) went on a 3-prong attack. He started
producing some excellent tablesaws incorporating his technologies, he
lawyer-like started lobbying the safety agencies, and he helped start
a lawsuit to further the safety angle of his premises. (I don't know
whether he had any hand in the Ryobi suit, but it wouldn't surprise
me).


Please replace the below listed words/phrases with the following, more
realistic descriptions, in order of appearance: "greedy"; "greedily";
"greedily"; "greedily"; "game the legal system"; "lining his pockets";
"sure thing"

excellent
thoroughly
brilliantly
lawyer-like
lawsuit
safety angle
surprise

Thanks ...

That too, but I do admire his ingenuity and his execution. That doesn't
make him less of a greedy *******, right?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/12/2012 8:52 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012 11:33:03 GMT, Han wrote:


One rough answer is this:
There is a 25% rule that people use to "ballpark" royalties. The
rule suggests that the licensee should pay 25% of profits resulting
from the license to the license.

That's likely an answer given by someone with a patent who wants as
much as they can rape ya for. Maybe someone with a recent metric
****load of "skin sensing technology" patents for a tablesaur. It's
outrageously high.

Obviously that is subject to a lot of interpretation, definition and
negotiation, as it is doubtful whoever had the patent on the
intermittent windshield wiper was paid 25% of the profit on a car.

That said, if there is one thing generally accepted in business these
days it is that our patent system is broken and has been subverted by
none other than lawyers like Gass, particularly regarding
technology/software patents.

It is to the point of absurdity, at unbelievable cost to the consumer
and innovation ... for the past decade or so the patent office,
underfunded and grossly inept in the usual bureaucratic manner, has
been operating under the concept that they will patent anything
presented to them, and let anyone affected by their ineptness fight it
out in the courts, benefiting no one but guess who? ... asshat
lawyers, like Gass.

A pox on the greedy *******s ...

+1

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 07:48:32 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 22:26:50 -0400, Bill wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:50:57 -0400, Bill wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012 01:06:38 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

I believe that in the case where an invention becomes a monopoly,
that the inventor is obliged to license his invention at "reasonable"
cost, not an exorbitant cost. My hyperbolic statements were meant to
emphasize the reasonableness of the fees. As for taking, there is
also eminent domain - much maligned, often improperly practiced, but
such "takings" are allowed by the Constitution.

Meh!

ALL patents are monopolies, guaranteed by the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8

"The Congress shall have the power... To promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries;..."

And? If a law makes use of a patent mandatory, licensing fees shall be
reasonable it says somewhere IIRC. Wasn't that the case with telephone
fees, and a host of other things?

The telephone companies were/are regulated monopolies.

Totally different animals.


So are newspaper publishers, record companies, and American car makers.

Make sense, please.

Due to VoIP, Skype, etc.. telephone companies aren't what they used to
be. They have been impacted by a host of other factors which make them a
poor example of a regulated monopoly to use as a reference point.

...and your point is?


That however suggested telephone companies as a "success story",
regarding the issues here, should seek a better example.

Even your strawman makes no sense.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 07:48:32 -0400, Bill wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 22:26:50 -0400, Bill wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:50:57 -0400, Bill wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012 01:06:38 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

I believe that in the case where an invention becomes a monopoly,
that the inventor is obliged to license his invention at "reasonable"
cost, not an exorbitant cost. My hyperbolic statements were meant to
emphasize the reasonableness of the fees. As for taking, there is
also eminent domain - much maligned, often improperly practiced, but
such "takings" are allowed by the Constitution.

Meh!

ALL patents are monopolies, guaranteed by the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8

"The Congress shall have the power... To promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries;..."

And? If a law makes use of a patent mandatory, licensing fees shall be
reasonable it says somewhere IIRC. Wasn't that the case with telephone
fees, and a host of other things?

The telephone companies were/are regulated monopolies.

Totally different animals.


So are newspaper publishers, record companies, and American car makers.

Make sense, please.

Due to VoIP, Skype, etc.. telephone companies aren't what they used to
be. They have been impacted by a host of other factors which make them a
poor example of a regulated monopoly to use as a reference point.

...and your point is?


That however suggested telephone companies as a "success story",
regarding the issues here, should seek a better example.

Even your strawman makes no sense.


Sorry for the typo, that should be

That *whoever* suggested telephone companies as a "success story",
regarding the issues here, should seek a better example

On Jul 11, 6:36*am, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:
Blog references several LA Times articles.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wo...tors-blog/cali...

Hell, it is a wonder that California hasn't outlawed table saws.

RonB

"RonB" wrote in message
...
On Jul 11, 6:36 am, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:
Blog references several LA Times articles.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wo...tors-blog/cali...

Hell, it is a wonder that California hasn't outlawed table saws.

After all, tables saws cause cancer!!

Don't give them any ideas.

In article ,
says...

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

I believe that in the case where an invention becomes a monopoly,
that the inventor is obliged to license his invention at
"reasonable" cost, not an exorbitant cost. My hyperbolic
statements were meant to emphasize the reasonableness of the fees.
As for taking, there is also eminent domain - much maligned, often
improperly practiced, but such "takings" are allowed by the
Constitution.

Meh!

ALL patents are monopolies, guaranteed by the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8

"The Congress shall have the power... To promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries;..."

And? If a law makes use of a patent mandatory, licensing fees shall
be reasonable it says somewhere IIRC. Wasn't that the case with
telephone fees, and a host of other things?

Er, no, not to my knowledge.

It would be impossible, under law, to make a specific product mandatory.
What an entity COULD do is mandate a device (or formula or whatever) that
had specific "charateristics" with clever wording such that only one product
in the world would match the specifications. Actually, this is fairly
common.

Why would it be impossible? Anything that the Congress can be convinced
to enact and the Supreme Court to uphold is "possible, under law". And
both are getting crazy.

In the case of the proposed California law, intelligent people can
come up
with circumventions. For example, assume the retail price of an economy
table saw without "SawStop" is $150 and with "SawStop" is $650. The saw
manufacturer could pack the saw with the SawStop uninstalled, just like the
splitter or stand.

What the buyer of the saw does then is to "sell" the separately-packaged
SawStop back to the saw manufacturer for $500. If that's too obvious, the
buyer could sell the thing to an "independent" third company. What the third
company does with the gizmo is kept a complete mystery (wink-wink).