Blog references several LA Times articles.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wo...Woodworking%29

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in
:

Blog references several LA Times articles.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wo...rs-blog/califo
rnia-closer-to-state-table-saw-regulations?utm_source=feedburner&utm_me
dium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PopularWoodworking+ %28Popular+Woodworkin
g%29

The sawstop technology should be adopted by all TS manufacturers.
Licensing fees allowing manufacture of the systems by all TS manufacturers
should be set by law to 2.5% of manufacturing costs (or another arbitrary
low number). None of the lobbying expenditures incurred by Stephen Gass or
his coconspirators should be allowed to play any role.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 11 Jul 2012 12:54:59 GMT, Han wrote:

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in
:

Blog references several LA Times articles.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wo...rs-blog/califo
rnia-closer-to-state-table-saw-regulations?utm_source=feedburner&utm_me
dium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PopularWoodworking+ %28Popular+Woodworkin
g%29

The sawstop technology should be adopted by all TS manufacturers.

How very "liberal" of you.

Licensing fees allowing manufacture of the systems by all TS manufacturers
should be set by law to 2.5% of manufacturing costs (or another arbitrary
low number). None of the lobbying expenditures incurred by Stephen Gass or
his coconspirators should be allowed to play any role.

The Constitution forbids such "takings", but don't let that stop you.

" wrote in
news
On 11 Jul 2012 12:54:59 GMT, Han wrote:

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in
:

Blog references several LA Times articles.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wo...tors-blog/cali
fo
rnia-closer-to-state-table-saw-regulations?utm_source=feedburner&utm_
me
dium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PopularWoodworking+ %28Popular+Woodwork
in g%29

The sawstop technology should be adopted by all TS manufacturers.

How very "liberal" of you.

Licensing fees allowing manufacture of the systems by all TS
manufacturers should be set by law to 2.5% of manufacturing costs (or
another arbitrary low number). None of the lobbying expenditures
incurred by Stephen Gass or his coconspirators should be allowed to
play any role.

The Constitution forbids such "takings", but don't let that stop you.

I'm just giving my opinion. I believe that the main problem with the
sawstop technology is that Stephen Gass looked at it as a get rich quick
scheme. Of course that is fine if he can sell it to industry and
consumers of all kinds. His heavy-handed sales techniques have offended
everyone (just about), but that does not mean his invention(s) are bad,
on the contrary. Patents were invented and instituted to promote
inventions, enhance the public welfare (whatever), and give the inventor
a just reward.

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.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 11 Jul 2012 17:22:39 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 11 Jul 2012 12:54:59 GMT, Han wrote:

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in
:

Blog references several LA Times articles.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wo...tors-blog/cali
fo
rnia-closer-to-state-table-saw-regulations?utm_source=feedburner&utm_
me
dium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PopularWoodworking+ %28Popular+Woodwork
in g%29

The sawstop technology should be adopted by all TS manufacturers.

How very "liberal" of you.

Licensing fees allowing manufacture of the systems by all TS
manufacturers should be set by law to 2.5% of manufacturing costs (or
another arbitrary low number). None of the lobbying expenditures
incurred by Stephen Gass or his coconspirators should be allowed to
play any role.

The Constitution forbids such "takings", but don't let that stop you.

I'm just giving my opinion.

Of course. Your opinion never seems to take the law into account, though. "If
I were tyrant..."

I believe that the main problem with the
sawstop technology is that Stephen Gass looked at it as a get rich quick
scheme. Of course that is fine if he can sell it to industry and
consumers of all kinds. His heavy-handed sales techniques have offended
everyone (just about), but that does not mean his invention(s) are bad,
on the contrary. Patents were invented and instituted to promote
inventions, enhance the public welfare (whatever), and give the inventor
a just reward.

We agree on this part. We don't agree about the solution. I'd rather do
something that's, you know, legal (and moral).

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.

It's only a "monopoly" if government forces it to be a monopoly.

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.

That's right. You lefties think it's OK to take someone's house to give to a
shopping mall builder because they'll pay more taxes. Taking someone's IP, so
the government can meddle more, isn't a big stretch, is it?

" wrote in
:

On 11 Jul 2012 17:22:39 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 11 Jul 2012 12:54:59 GMT, Han wrote:

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in
:

Blog references several LA Times articles.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wo...ditors-blog/ca
li fo
rnia-closer-to-state-table-saw-regulations?utm_source=feedburner&ut
m_ me
dium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PopularWoodworking+ %28Popular+Woodwo
rk in g%29

The sawstop technology should be adopted by all TS manufacturers.

How very "liberal" of you.

Licensing fees allowing manufacture of the systems by all TS
manufacturers should be set by law to 2.5% of manufacturing costs
(or another arbitrary low number). None of the lobbying
expenditures incurred by Stephen Gass or his coconspirators should
be allowed to play any role.

The Constitution forbids such "takings", but don't let that stop
you.

I'm just giving my opinion.

Of course. Your opinion never seems to take the law into account,
though. "If I were tyrant..."

I agree that sometimes it seems that way. In the vein of, there ought to
be a law ...

I believe that the main problem with the
sawstop technology is that Stephen Gass looked at it as a get rich
quick scheme. Of course that is fine if he can sell it to industry
and consumers of all kinds. His heavy-handed sales techniques have
offended everyone (just about), but that does not mean his
invention(s) are bad, on the contrary. Patents were invented and
instituted to promote inventions, enhance the public welfare
(whatever), and give the inventor a just reward.

We agree on this part. We don't agree about the solution. I'd rather
do something that's, you know, legal (and moral).

But there is a solution. If Gass's patents turn out to be a de facto
monopoly, because the bills being discussed will absolutely require using
his technologies (remember?) then government or whoever should set the
maximum license fees. Or don't you remember that Gass really wants a
lot?

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.

It's only a "monopoly" if government forces it to be a monopoly.

But if CA or the Consumer protection whatever issue rules or laws that
require the technology, then "government forces it to be a monopoly".

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.

That's right. You lefties think it's OK to take someone's house to
give to a shopping mall builder because they'll pay more taxes.
Taking someone's IP, so the government can meddle more, isn't a big
stretch, is it?

I didn't think the CT case was a very good one, and there are likely many
more. Sometimes though, eminent domain is good. I'm sure you can find
examples ...
As for Gass's inventions, I'm sure that they'll eventually will come up
with a way to remunerate him. After all, he is a lawyer ...

As for "taking IP", most companies take their employees' IP very easily
and fast. Just read the rules of employment. You have to have very good
records to show that your invention was yours, derived at home, outside
working hours, if you don't want "them" to take it. I believe that the
"Auto-Analyzer" invention was such a case.

And yes, I am of the opinion that an inventor should be rewarded for
his/her efforts. Just not that it should be an exorbitant reward, thanks
to lawyering, lobbying, and prescribing (with great emphasis on
exorbitant - generous is enough).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 11 Jul 2012 17:41:55 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 11 Jul 2012 17:22:39 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 11 Jul 2012 12:54:59 GMT, Han wrote:

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in
:

Blog references several LA Times articles.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wo...ditors-blog/ca
li fo
rnia-closer-to-state-table-saw-regulations?utm_source=feedburner&ut
m_ me
dium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PopularWoodworking+ %28Popular+Woodwo
rk in g%29

The sawstop technology should be adopted by all TS manufacturers.

How very "liberal" of you.

Licensing fees allowing manufacture of the systems by all TS
manufacturers should be set by law to 2.5% of manufacturing costs
(or another arbitrary low number). None of the lobbying
expenditures incurred by Stephen Gass or his coconspirators should
be allowed to play any role.

The Constitution forbids such "takings", but don't let that stop
you.

I'm just giving my opinion.

Of course. Your opinion never seems to take the law into account,
though. "If I were tyrant..."

I agree that sometimes it seems that way. In the vein of, there ought to
be a law ...

It often happens when the "unintended consequences" aren't taken into account.
Bad things happen when one falls into the "just do something" mode. Usually,
doing nothing is a better solution.

I believe that the main problem with the
sawstop technology is that Stephen Gass looked at it as a get rich
quick scheme. Of course that is fine if he can sell it to industry
and consumers of all kinds. His heavy-handed sales techniques have
offended everyone (just about), but that does not mean his
invention(s) are bad, on the contrary. Patents were invented and
instituted to promote inventions, enhance the public welfare
(whatever), and give the inventor a just reward.

We agree on this part. We don't agree about the solution. I'd rather
do something that's, you know, legal (and moral).

But there is a solution. If Gass's patents turn out to be a de facto
monopoly, because the bills being discussed will absolutely require using
his technologies (remember?) then government or whoever should set the
maximum license fees. Or don't you remember that Gass really wants a
lot?

No, the solution is for government to tell him to pound salt. He'll then drop
the licensing fees to something more reasonable. ...or not and leave money on
the table (saw).

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.

It's only a "monopoly" if government forces it to be a monopoly.

But if CA or the Consumer protection whatever issue rules or laws that
require the technology, then "government forces it to be a monopoly".

Well, there's the *real* problem that needs fixing!

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.

That's right. You lefties think it's OK to take someone's house to
give to a shopping mall builder because they'll pay more taxes.
Taking someone's IP, so the government can meddle more, isn't a big
stretch, is it?

I didn't think the CT case was a very good one, and there are likely many
more. Sometimes though, eminent domain is good. I'm sure you can find
examples ...

There are *many* that the Kelo decision let loose. ...and you want to widen
the chasm even further.

As for Gass's inventions, I'm sure that they'll eventually will come up
with a way to remunerate him. After all, he is a lawyer ...

"They"? Who's "they"? Why don't *we* let his invention stand on its own?
Sure, I'd like to have a SawStop but I wasn't willing to pay 2x for it. A
couple hundred, most probably. $2000? Not happening.

As for "taking IP", most companies take their employees' IP very easily
and fast. Just read the rules of employment. You have to have very good
records to show that your invention was yours, derived at home, outside
working hours, if you don't want "them" to take it. I believe that the
"Auto-Analyzer" invention was such a case.

They didn't *TAKE* anything. It's a contract, willingly entered into. There
is a *big* difference!

And yes, I am of the opinion that an inventor should be rewarded for
his/her efforts. Just not that it should be an exorbitant reward, thanks
to lawyering, lobbying, and prescribing (with great emphasis on
exorbitant - generous is enough).

Who decides what's "exorbitant"? You? I haven't paid Gass a dime, and won't.

" wrote in
:

On 11 Jul 2012 17:41:55 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 11 Jul 2012 17:22:39 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 11 Jul 2012 12:54:59 GMT, Han wrote:

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in
:

Blog references several LA Times articles.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wo.../editors-blog/
ca li fo
rnia-closer-to-state-table-saw-regulations?utm_source=feedburner&
ut m_ me
dium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PopularWoodworking+ %28Popular+Wood
wo rk in g%29

The sawstop technology should be adopted by all TS manufacturers.

How very "liberal" of you.

Licensing fees allowing manufacture of the systems by all TS
manufacturers should be set by law to 2.5% of manufacturing costs
(or another arbitrary low number). None of the lobbying
expenditures incurred by Stephen Gass or his coconspirators should
be allowed to play any role.

The Constitution forbids such "takings", but don't let that stop
you.

I'm just giving my opinion.

Of course. Your opinion never seems to take the law into account,
though. "If I were tyrant..."

I agree that sometimes it seems that way. In the vein of, there ought
to be a law ...

It often happens when the "unintended consequences" aren't taken into
account. Bad things happen when one falls into the "just do something"
mode. Usually, doing nothing is a better solution.

Indeed, sometimes doing nothing is the best solution.

I believe that the main problem with the
sawstop technology is that Stephen Gass looked at it as a get rich
quick scheme. Of course that is fine if he can sell it to industry
and consumers of all kinds. His heavy-handed sales techniques have
offended everyone (just about), but that does not mean his
invention(s) are bad, on the contrary. Patents were invented and
instituted to promote inventions, enhance the public welfare
(whatever), and give the inventor a just reward.

We agree on this part. We don't agree about the solution. I'd
rather do something that's, you know, legal (and moral).

But there is a solution. If Gass's patents turn out to be a de facto
monopoly, because the bills being discussed will absolutely require
using his technologies (remember?) then government or whoever should
set the maximum license fees. Or don't you remember that Gass really
wants a lot?

No, the solution is for government to tell him to pound salt. He'll
then drop the licensing fees to something more reasonable. ...or not
and leave money on the table (saw).

I don't know what the best course of action is. There are too many
tablesaws in use by people who don't know how to handle them (I got
lessons by my Craftsman what NOT to do. but it could have come out worse,
and I had good insurance). For those people it would be good to have
something like sawstop technology. While I don't really think that there
ought to be laws imposing the Gass patents on all consumers, the approach
of encouraging similar technology seems justifiable. But then we get
into the problem of encouraging a de facto monopoly, and I would
definitely be against that.

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.

It's only a "monopoly" if government forces it to be a monopoly.

But if CA or the Consumer protection whatever issue rules or laws that
require the technology, then "government forces it to be a monopoly".

Well, there's the *real* problem that needs fixing!

I'd call it a conundrum if you would like to prevent the injuries but
don't like Gass's prices.

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.

That's right. You lefties think it's OK to take someone's house to
give to a shopping mall builder because they'll pay more taxes.
Taking someone's IP, so the government can meddle more, isn't a big
stretch, is it?

I didn't think the CT case was a very good one, and there are likely
many more. Sometimes though, eminent domain is good. I'm sure you
can find examples ...

There are *many* that the Kelo decision let loose. ...and you want to
widen the chasm even further.

?? What chasm am I widening?? The Kelo decision has to regarded as an
aberration. Especially after "they" decided not to do the project they
initially proposed.

As for Gass's inventions, I'm sure that they'll eventually will come
up with a way to remunerate him. After all, he is a lawyer ...

"They"? Who's "they"? Why don't *we* let his invention stand on its
own? Sure, I'd like to have a SawStop but I wasn't willing to pay 2x
for it. A couple hundred, most probably. $2000? Not happening.

When (as may seem likely) the CA or Fed authorities mandate Gass-like
technology, the license fees will need to be established.
My TS is still OK. But if I were to buy a new one, I think SS is in the
running. I'd have to price it carefully, though. Not anytime soon ...

As for "taking IP", most companies take their employees' IP very
easily and fast. Just read the rules of employment. You have to have
very good records to show that your invention was yours, derived at
home, outside working hours, if you don't want "them" to take it. I
believe that the "Auto-Analyzer" invention was such a case.

They didn't *TAKE* anything. It's a contract, willingly entered into.
There is a *big* difference!

If Joe working for Big Gadgets in the daytime makes something in the off-
hours that he is then marketing as a viable competitor for Big Gadgets'
product line, then I assume that Big Gadgets will want the rights. In
the case of what became Auto-Analyzer, Big Gadgets was NOT successful.

And yes, I am of the opinion that an inventor should be rewarded for
his/her efforts. Just not that it should be an exorbitant reward,
thanks to lawyering, lobbying, and prescribing (with great emphasis on
exorbitant - generous is enough).

Who decides what's "exorbitant"? You? I haven't paid Gass a dime,
and won't.

I'm sure lawyers will determine that.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 11 Jul 2012 20:01:58 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 11 Jul 2012 17:41:55 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 11 Jul 2012 17:22:39 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 11 Jul 2012 12:54:59 GMT, Han wrote:

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in
:

Blog references several LA Times articles.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wo.../editors-blog/
ca li fo
rnia-closer-to-state-table-saw-regulations?utm_source=feedburner&
ut m_ me
dium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PopularWoodworking+ %28Popular+Wood
wo rk in g%29

The sawstop technology should be adopted by all TS manufacturers.

How very "liberal" of you.

Licensing fees allowing manufacture of the systems by all TS
manufacturers should be set by law to 2.5% of manufacturing costs
(or another arbitrary low number). None of the lobbying
expenditures incurred by Stephen Gass or his coconspirators should
be allowed to play any role.

The Constitution forbids such "takings", but don't let that stop
you.

I'm just giving my opinion.

Of course. Your opinion never seems to take the law into account,
though. "If I were tyrant..."

I agree that sometimes it seems that way. In the vein of, there ought
to be a law ...

It often happens when the "unintended consequences" aren't taken into
account. Bad things happen when one falls into the "just do something"
mode. Usually, doing nothing is a better solution.

Indeed, sometimes doing nothing is the best solution.

I believe that the main problem with the
sawstop technology is that Stephen Gass looked at it as a get rich
quick scheme. Of course that is fine if he can sell it to industry
and consumers of all kinds. His heavy-handed sales techniques have
offended everyone (just about), but that does not mean his
invention(s) are bad, on the contrary. Patents were invented and
instituted to promote inventions, enhance the public welfare
(whatever), and give the inventor a just reward.

We agree on this part. We don't agree about the solution. I'd
rather do something that's, you know, legal (and moral).

But there is a solution. If Gass's patents turn out to be a de facto
monopoly, because the bills being discussed will absolutely require
using his technologies (remember?) then government or whoever should
set the maximum license fees. Or don't you remember that Gass really
wants a lot?

No, the solution is for government to tell him to pound salt. He'll
then drop the licensing fees to something more reasonable. ...or not
and leave money on the table (saw).

I don't know what the best course of action is. There are too many
tablesaws in use by people who don't know how to handle them (I got
lessons by my Craftsman what NOT to do. but it could have come out worse,
and I had good insurance). For those people it would be good to have
something like sawstop technology. While I don't really think that there
ought to be laws imposing the Gass patents on all consumers, the approach
of encouraging similar technology seems justifiable. But then we get
into the problem of encouraging a de facto monopoly, and I would
definitely be against that.

It's not in *my* job description to make you "safe". It shouldn't be
Congress', either. Deal with it yourself.

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.

It's only a "monopoly" if government forces it to be a monopoly.

But if CA or the Consumer protection whatever issue rules or laws that
require the technology, then "government forces it to be a monopoly".

Well, there's the *real* problem that needs fixing!

I'd call it a conundrum if you would like to prevent the injuries but
don't like Gass's prices.

No, the real problem is that government is sticking its big fat nose in my
life. Let me decide what Gass' invention is worth.

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.

That's right. You lefties think it's OK to take someone's house to
give to a shopping mall builder because they'll pay more taxes.
Taking someone's IP, so the government can meddle more, isn't a big
stretch, is it?

I didn't think the CT case was a very good one, and there are likely
many more. Sometimes though, eminent domain is good. I'm sure you
can find examples ...

There are *many* that the Kelo decision let loose. ...and you want to
widen the chasm even further.

?? What chasm am I widening?? The Kelo decision has to regarded as an
aberration. Especially after "they" decided not to do the project they
initially proposed.

It's *NOT* an aberration. It's the law of the land, and has been used *many*
times to steal land from people since. ...and you want to use it to steal
Gass' IP.

As for Gass's inventions, I'm sure that they'll eventually will come
up with a way to remunerate him. After all, he is a lawyer ...

"They"? Who's "they"? Why don't *we* let his invention stand on its
own? Sure, I'd like to have a SawStop but I wasn't willing to pay 2x
for it. A couple hundred, most probably. $2000? Not happening.

When (as may seem likely) the CA or Fed authorities mandate Gass-like
technology, the license fees will need to be established.

A "taking".

My TS is still OK. But if I were to buy a new one, I think SS is in the
running. I'd have to price it carefully, though. Not anytime soon ...

I bought mine three years ago. I didn't buy SS because it wasn't worth the 2x
price. If I bought today, given the same choices, I'd *certainly* not put
money in Gass' pocket. I don't deal with scum.

As for "taking IP", most companies take their employees' IP very
easily and fast. Just read the rules of employment. You have to have
very good records to show that your invention was yours, derived at
home, outside working hours, if you don't want "them" to take it. I
believe that the "Auto-Analyzer" invention was such a case.

They didn't *TAKE* anything. It's a contract, willingly entered into.
There is a *big* difference!

If Joe working for Big Gadgets in the daytime makes something in the off-
hours that he is then marketing as a viable competitor for Big Gadgets'
product line, then I assume that Big Gadgets will want the rights. In
the case of what became Auto-Analyzer, Big Gadgets was NOT successful.

If Joe signed the contract, it's a contract. It really is that simple.

And yes, I am of the opinion that an inventor should be rewarded for
his/her efforts. Just not that it should be an exorbitant reward,
thanks to lawyering, lobbying, and prescribing (with great emphasis on
exorbitant - generous is enough).

Who decides what's "exorbitant"? You? I haven't paid Gass a dime,
and won't.

I'm sure lawyers will determine that.

Maybe having public policy in lawyer's hands is a comforting thought to you
but it certainly gives me the willies.

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;..."

wrote in message
...
On 11 Jul 2012 20:01:58 GMT, Han wrote:


It's not in *my* job description to make you "safe". It shouldn't be
Congress', either. Deal with it yourself.


Some will... most wouldn't due to the up front cost for something that they
don't think THEY need. Remember, everyone is above average and
invulnerable... just ask them!

Some have a change of heart. For example, a friend of mine, a well known
professional who teaches, writes for FWW and does DVDs for them, got nicked
a few months ago when something slipped on a saw in a shop not his own.
Though having been a professional for decades, and this being his first
incident of it's kind, he decided to get a Saw Stop to replace his existing
saw. His existing saw was a pretty good one in terms of safety (relatively
new with a riving knife) but after the experience he felt justified in the
change.

Free choice should remain the standard with a healthy dose of instruction
thrown in. I also keep in mind that if something feels unsafe it probably
is!

John

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:39:17 -0400, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On 11 Jul 2012 20:01:58 GMT, Han wrote:


It's not in *my* job description to make you "safe". It shouldn't be
Congress', either. Deal with it yourself.


Some will... most wouldn't due to the up front cost for something that they
don't think THEY need. Remember, everyone is above average and
invulnerable... just ask them!

Yes, but that's why we have this thing called "liberty". *You* choose what's
good for you. It's not so good when you decide for your neighbor.

Some have a change of heart. For example, a friend of mine, a well known
professional who teaches, writes for FWW and does DVDs for them, got nicked
a few months ago when something slipped on a saw in a shop not his own.
Though having been a professional for decades, and this being his first
incident of it's kind, he decided to get a Saw Stop to replace his existing
saw. His existing saw was a pretty good one in terms of safety (relatively
new with a riving knife) but after the experience he felt justified in the
change.

Good for him.

Free choice should remain the standard with a healthy dose of instruction
thrown in. I also keep in mind that if something feels unsafe it probably
is!

Absolutely agree. I haven't use my RAS in a couple of decades. I got to
feeling unsafe when ripping with it. I've since bought a table saw and now
have space for both, so will probably set it up for crosscutting. OTOH,
nothing in this world is perfectly safe. We should stop pretending we can
make it so. ...or should even try.

Han wrote:

Who decides what's "exorbitant"? You? I haven't paid Gass a dime,
and won't.

I'm sure lawyers will determine that.

Which will be better than relying on your own personal opinion of what is
appropriate. On this particular matter Han, you scare me.

--

-Mike-

"John Grossbohlin" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 11 Jul 2012 20:01:58 GMT, Han wrote:


It's not in *my* job description to make you "safe". It shouldn't be
Congress', either. Deal with it yourself.


Some will... most wouldn't due to the up front cost for something that
they don't think THEY need. Remember, everyone is above average and
invulnerable... just ask them!

Some have a change of heart. For example, a friend of mine, a well known
professional who teaches, writes for FWW and does DVDs for them, got
nicked a few months ago when something slipped on a saw in a shop not his
own. Though having been a professional for decades, and this being his
first incident of it's kind, he decided to get a Saw Stop to replace his
existing saw. His existing saw was a pretty good one in terms of safety
(relatively new with a riving knife) but after the experience he felt
justified in the change.

Free choice should remain the standard with a healthy dose of instruction
thrown in. I also keep in mind that if something feels unsafe it probably is!

There, but for the grace of the woodworking gods, go most of us.

Well put...

--
www.ewoodshop.com

On 11 Jul 2012 17:41:55 GMT, Han wrote:
But there is a solution. If Gass's patents turn out to be a de facto
monopoly, because the bills being discussed will absolutely require using
his technologies (remember?) then government or whoever should set the
maximum license fees. Or don't you remember that Gass really wants a
lot?

Such an act would play absolute havoc with the capitalist ideals of
the US nation. For all the screaming that people do about Gass trying
to get his invention mandated, the shrieking of the capitalists so
affected by such an act by government setting a maximum price would be
deafening.

Can you spell PRECIDENT!

Dave writes:
On 11 Jul 2012 17:41:55 GMT, Han wrote:
But there is a solution. If Gass's patents turn out to be a de facto
monopoly, because the bills being discussed will absolutely require using
his technologies (remember?) then government or whoever should set the
maximum license fees. Or don't you remember that Gass really wants a
lot?

Such an act would play absolute havoc with the capitalist ideals of
the US nation. For all the screaming that people do about Gass trying
to get his invention mandated, the shrieking of the capitalists so
affected by such an act by government setting a maximum price would be
deafening.

Can you spell PRECIDENT!

Yes, it is spelled precedent.

The government of the United States has a long history of setting
prices (called price controls) in the past. For example, President
Nixon imposed price controls on August 15, 1971 finally ending in
1973.

:-)

"Dave" wrote

Can you spell PRECIDENT!

No, I can not. Neither my dictionary nor spell checker think that is a
word.

The spellings gods are unhappy with you.

I assume you mean Precedent.

I looked up precident, The dictionary never heard of this word.

I am not a net nanny or a a compulsive spell guy. But when people start
talking about spelling on the net, it is some sort of instant karma. Don't
understand it, it just happens to me, you and others. (I corrected two
spelling errors in this message.) ;-)

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:08:58 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
I assume you mean Precedent.

On 12 Jul 2012 00:06:34 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
Yes, it is spelled precedent.

Perhaps the real *precedent* here is that you two spelling nerds need
to go out and get real lives.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Who decides what's "exorbitant"? You? I haven't paid Gass a dime,
and won't.

I'm sure lawyers will determine that.

Which will be better than relying on your own personal opinion of what
is appropriate. On this particular matter Han, you scare me.

OK, let me clarify my reasoning.
Whether we like it or not, I believe that we are going to get sawstop
technology pushed on us by the safety people, thanks to Gass's lobbying
and his patent expertise. I hope to be wrong, and that it will remain a
matter of free choice, but I fear the nanny state(s)/feds will indeed
force the stuff on us.
If that happens, licensing fees need to be established in a monopoly
situation. I am pretty sure that some hi-faluting negotiating on those
fees will occur and that lawyers will take a large part in that, since it
is a question of licensing patents and determining what is a fair fee.
Previously I was throwing numbers in the ring for what I thought might be
reasonable fees. But I am not a lawyer, have no experience whatsoever
with patents, and dislike Gass rather strongly for his strongarm tactics.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"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?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/11/2012 7:23 PM, Dave wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:08:58 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
I assume you mean Precedent.

On 12 Jul 2012 00:06:34 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
Yes, it is spelled precedent.

Perhaps the real *precedent* here is that you two spelling nerds need
to go out and get real lives.

Hmmm ...

You really are in a lousy mood today, more so than normal. Pax

Where have I heard that before?

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

On 12 Jul 2012 01:04:51 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Who decides what's "exorbitant"? You? I haven't paid Gass a dime,
and won't.

I'm sure lawyers will determine that.

Which will be better than relying on your own personal opinion of what
is appropriate. On this particular matter Han, you scare me.

OK, let me clarify my reasoning.
Whether we like it or not, I believe that we are going to get sawstop
technology pushed on us by the safety people, thanks to Gass's lobbying
and his patent expertise. I hope to be wrong, and that it will remain a
matter of free choice, but I fear the nanny state(s)/feds will indeed
force the stuff on us.
If that happens, licensing fees need to be established in a monopoly
situation. I am pretty sure that some hi-faluting negotiating on those
fees will occur and that lawyers will take a large part in that, since it
is a question of licensing patents and determining what is a fair fee.
Previously I was throwing numbers in the ring for what I thought might be
reasonable fees. But I am not a lawyer, have no experience whatsoever
with patents, and dislike Gass rather strongly for his strongarm tactics.

If the government does require SS, what makes you think there will be any
negotiations? Gass wins, takes his marbles and everyone else goes home.
He and his lobbyists have grins on their faces.

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

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.

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.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:26:40 -0500, Swingman wrote:
Hmmm ...

You really are in a lousy mood today, more so than normal. Pax

Where have I heard that before?

Hey! You go find your own criticisms instead of filching mine.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

On 12 Jul 2012 01:04:51 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Who decides what's "exorbitant"? You? I haven't paid Gass a dime,
and won't.

I'm sure lawyers will determine that.

Which will be better than relying on your own personal opinion of what
is appropriate. On this particular matter Han, you scare me.

OK, let me clarify my reasoning.
Whether we like it or not, I believe that we are going to get sawstop
technology pushed on us by the safety people, thanks to Gass's lobbying
and his patent expertise. I hope to be wrong, and that it will remain a
matter of free choice, but I fear the nanny state(s)/feds will indeed
force the stuff on us.
If that happens, licensing fees need to be established in a monopoly
situation. I am pretty sure that some hi-faluting negotiating on those
fees will occur and that lawyers will take a large part in that, since it
is a question of licensing patents and determining what is a fair fee.
Previously I was throwing numbers in the ring for what I thought might be
reasonable fees. But I am not a lawyer, have no experience whatsoever
with patents, and dislike Gass rather strongly for his strongarm tactics.

+1

--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

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?

This scares the hell out of me. When that was written fine. Now all
I can say is follow the money. If I tried to explain who controls the
money I would affend to many people. I'll just say look at the global
banking system and who runs it.

Mike M

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Who decides what's "exorbitant"? You? I haven't paid Gass a dime,
and won't.

I'm sure lawyers will determine that.

Which will be better than relying on your own personal opinion of
what is appropriate. On this particular matter Han, you scare me.

OK, let me clarify my reasoning.
Whether we like it or not, I believe that we are going to get sawstop
technology pushed on us by the safety people, thanks to Gass's
lobbying and his patent expertise. I hope to be wrong, and that it
will remain a matter of free choice, but I fear the nanny
state(s)/feds will indeed force the stuff on us.
If that happens, licensing fees need to be established in a monopoly
situation. I am pretty sure that some hi-faluting negotiating on
those fees will occur and that lawyers will take a large part in
that, since it is a question of licensing patents and determining
what is a fair fee. Previously I was throwing numbers in the ring for
what I thought might be reasonable fees. But I am not a lawyer, have
no experience whatsoever with patents, and dislike Gass rather
strongly for his strongarm tactics.

I understand your point that far - mine was that it's scarey for any
individual to be the arbitar of what another should make as profit, or to be
able to charge. What you call a few bucks may be very different from what I
call a few bucks. Just the concept of a few bucks is rather presumptuous.
I say let the market decide. If prices skyrocket because of royalties to
Gass, and sales plummet, then changes will be made. It takes a while for
markets to self-level, but the generally do in the end.

We are in fierce agreement on the point of the governement getting too
involved in this matter in the first place. This whole issue would be moot
if CSPA simply does not decided definitively upon Gass' technology, and
instead refers to it or like technologies.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Who decides what's "exorbitant"? You? I haven't paid Gass a
dime, and won't.

I'm sure lawyers will determine that.

Which will be better than relying on your own personal opinion of
what is appropriate. On this particular matter Han, you scare me.

OK, let me clarify my reasoning.
Whether we like it or not, I believe that we are going to get sawstop
technology pushed on us by the safety people, thanks to Gass's
lobbying and his patent expertise. I hope to be wrong, and that it
will remain a matter of free choice, but I fear the nanny
state(s)/feds will indeed force the stuff on us.
If that happens, licensing fees need to be established in a monopoly
situation. I am pretty sure that some hi-faluting negotiating on
those fees will occur and that lawyers will take a large part in
that, since it is a question of licensing patents and determining
what is a fair fee. Previously I was throwing numbers in the ring for
what I thought might be reasonable fees. But I am not a lawyer, have
no experience whatsoever with patents, and dislike Gass rather
strongly for his strongarm tactics.

I understand your point that far - mine was that it's scarey for any
individual to be the arbitar of what another should make as profit, or
to be able to charge. What you call a few bucks may be very different
from what I call a few bucks. Just the concept of a few bucks is
rather presumptuous. I say let the market decide. If prices skyrocket
because of royalties to Gass, and sales plummet, then changes will be
made. It takes a while for markets to self-level, but the generally
do in the end.

We are in fierce agreement on the point of the governement getting too
involved in this matter in the first place. This whole issue would be
moot if CSPA simply does not decided definitively upon Gass'
technology, and instead refers to it or like technologies.

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).

The Consumer Product Safety Commission www.cpsc.gov/ ... "is charged
with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death
from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's
jurisdiction." So the question now is whether table saws fall in that
category, and likely they (being bureaucrats sensing a big job at hand -
pun intended) will take that challenge.

As I said IF and WHEN the CPSC gets a rule effective, TS manufacturers
might have to get patent licenses. This is a reference to one answer to
the question that then arises (How can I determine the right licensing
fees for our product? What is the formula??):
http://tinyurl.com/c5v45mz or
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-.../intellectual-
property/LAW_COR_IPP/219676-642480

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 licensor.

And so on and so forth.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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.

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 ...

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

On 12 Jul 2012 11:33:03 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Who decides what's "exorbitant"? You? I haven't paid Gass a
dime, and won't.

I'm sure lawyers will determine that.

Which will be better than relying on your own personal opinion of
what is appropriate. On this particular matter Han, you scare me.

OK, let me clarify my reasoning.
Whether we like it or not, I believe that we are going to get sawstop
technology pushed on us by the safety people, thanks to Gass's
lobbying and his patent expertise. I hope to be wrong, and that it
will remain a matter of free choice, but I fear the nanny
state(s)/feds will indeed force the stuff on us.
If that happens, licensing fees need to be established in a monopoly
situation. I am pretty sure that some hi-faluting negotiating on
those fees will occur and that lawyers will take a large part in
that, since it is a question of licensing patents and determining
what is a fair fee. Previously I was throwing numbers in the ring for
what I thought might be reasonable fees. But I am not a lawyer, have
no experience whatsoever with patents, and dislike Gass rather
strongly for his strongarm tactics.

I understand your point that far - mine was that it's scarey for any
individual to be the arbitar of what another should make as profit, or
to be able to charge. What you call a few bucks may be very different
from what I call a few bucks. Just the concept of a few bucks is
rather presumptuous. I say let the market decide. If prices skyrocket
because of royalties to Gass, and sales plummet, then changes will be
made. It takes a while for markets to self-level, but the generally
do in the end.

We are in fierce agreement on the point of the governement getting too
involved in this matter in the first place. This whole issue would be
moot if CSPA simply does not decided definitively upon Gass'
technology, and instead refers to it or like technologies.

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).

The Consumer Product Safety Commission www.cpsc.gov/ ... "is charged
with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death
from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's
jurisdiction." So the question now is whether table saws fall in that
category, and likely they (being bureaucrats sensing a big job at hand -
pun intended) will take that challenge.

As I said IF and WHEN the CPSC gets a rule effective, TS manufacturers
might have to get patent licenses. This is a reference to one answer to
the question that then arises (How can I determine the right licensing
fees for our product? What is the formula??):
http://tinyurl.com/c5v45mz or
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-.../intellectual-
property/LAW_COR_IPP/219676-642480

First answer is a whole lot more sensible: 3-10% for 1-3 years.

My favorite is a minimal licensing fee and set small amount per unit.
For tablesaurs, I'd think $10k for licensing and a buck or two per saw
would double his (and his fellow conspirees') millionaire status in a
few years.


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 licensor.

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.

--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 07:44:54 -0500, Swingman wrote:

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).

Yes, he was a witness against Ryobi in the lawsuit, Han.
Page 3 of the appeal decision (another bad judgment, IMO)
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1824P-01A.pdf
"Osorio largely relied on the testimony of his witness, Dr. Stephen
Gass, inventor of "SawStop," a"


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 ...

Precisely.

When Gass had a chance to be a hero (AND make millions off it), he
will be remembered only as a @#$%^&* lawyer by future generations.
Typical and very sad. I can only hope that review by an appeals judge
brings out the probable vengeance angle by him against Ryobi after
they failed to complete the licensing agreement.

--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen

Larry Jaques wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012 11:33:03 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Who decides what's "exorbitant"? You? I haven't paid Gass a
dime, and won't.

I'm sure lawyers will determine that.

Which will be better than relying on your own personal opinion of
what is appropriate. On this particular matter Han, you scare me.

OK, let me clarify my reasoning.
Whether we like it or not, I believe that we are going to get sawstop
technology pushed on us by the safety people, thanks to Gass's
lobbying and his patent expertise. I hope to be wrong, and that it
will remain a matter of free choice, but I fear the nanny
state(s)/feds will indeed force the stuff on us.
If that happens, licensing fees need to be established in a monopoly
situation. I am pretty sure that some hi-faluting negotiating on
those fees will occur and that lawyers will take a large part in
that, since it is a question of licensing patents and determining
what is a fair fee. Previously I was throwing numbers in the ring for
what I thought might be reasonable fees. But I am not a lawyer, have
no experience whatsoever with patents, and dislike Gass rather
strongly for his strongarm tactics.

I understand your point that far - mine was that it's scarey for any
individual to be the arbitar of what another should make as profit, or
to be able to charge. What you call a few bucks may be very different
from what I call a few bucks. Just the concept of a few bucks is
rather presumptuous. I say let the market decide. If prices skyrocket
because of royalties to Gass, and sales plummet, then changes will be
made. It takes a while for markets to self-level, but the generally
do in the end.

We are in fierce agreement on the point of the governement getting too
involved in this matter in the first place. This whole issue would be
moot if CSPA simply does not decided definitively upon Gass'
technology, and instead refers to it or like technologies.

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).

The Consumer Product Safety Commission www.cpsc.gov/ ... "is charged
with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death
from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's
jurisdiction." So the question now is whether table saws fall in that
category, and likely they (being bureaucrats sensing a big job at hand -
pun intended) will take that challenge.

As I said IF and WHEN the CPSC gets a rule effective, TS manufacturers
might have to get patent licenses. This is a reference to one answer to
the question that then arises (How can I determine the right licensing
fees for our product? What is the formula??):
http://tinyurl.com/c5v45mz or
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-.../intellectual-
property/LAW_COR_IPP/219676-642480

First answer is a whole lot more sensible: 3-10% for 1-3 years.

My favorite is a minimal licensing fee and set small amount per unit.
For tablesaurs, I'd think $10k for licensing and a buck or two per saw
would double his (and his fellow conspirees') millionaire status in a
few years.

Gosh, considering the large size of and the relatively small number of
the players in the saw making game, that doesn't seem fair to Gass. --
and I'm far from being a Gass-fan!




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 licensor.

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.

--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen

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 ...

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

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.

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).

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:26:12 -0400, Bill wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012 11:33:03 GMT, Han wrote:

My favorite is a minimal licensing fee and set small amount per unit.
For tablesaurs, I'd think $10k for licensing and a buck or two per saw
would double his (and his fellow conspirees') millionaire status in a
few years.

Gosh, considering the large size of and the relatively small number of
the players in the saw making game, that doesn't seem fair to Gass. --
and I'm far from being a Gass-fan!

With annual sales at 800,000, that's $800k-$1.6 million, or up to $16M
a decade. PLUS licensing fees to hundreds of companies. Not fair?
Plus he'd have had global love and respect v. the global contempt he
has now. It's a no-brainer to anyone but a lawyer.

--
[Television is] the triumph of machine over people.
-- Fred Allen