Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:58:01 -0500, Leon wrote:
-MIKE- wrote: On 9/15/15 6:02 PM, Leon wrote: On 9/15/2015 3:34 PM, -MIKE- wrote: On 9/15/15 2:36 PM, Leon wrote: Looks like the SawStop competition is heating up. This is a pretty good review of the job site saw by a Bosch rep. Nice to see that the SawStop patents did not choke the competition as some thought might happen. It will be interesting to see if Bosch or others will come up with a larger more stationary saw. http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/video...le-saw/2194198 And you're back to work in 5 minutes, instead of heading out for a new blade. :-) Only if you don't have but the one blade. LOL I cringe at the thought of tripping mthe break on my Forrest Dado King set. It will be interesting to see of SawStop has a position on the blade continuing to spin after dropping vs. their set up. Wait, I'm confused. The Bosch doesn't damage the blade, right? So you flip the trigger over and you're back to work. Strictly from a safety point of view. Technically the SS has the drop down as an additional line of defense. Just as a possible example, either saw could possibly jam from a build up of debris and the blade might not drop. Then the SS might be the better setup with redundant safety. Not to mention that by moving the blade *away* from you, it keeps your hand out of the sharp bits even if your hand is being propelled into them (eg. a kickback situation). |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:15:32 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 9/16/2015 2:51 PM, Markem wrote: On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:39:53 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/16/2015 11:00 AM, -MIKE- wrote: On 9/16/15 8:43 AM, Leon wrote: dpb wrote: On 09/15/2015 6:02 PM, Leon wrote: ... I cringe at the thought of tripping mthe break on my Forrest Dado King set. ... Was a sidebar article in FWW a few months ago -- most times it appears blades can be repaired after a SS crash. I was quite surprised how little actual damage was incurred the blade in the one shown; the Al brake material is quite lot soft so it just deforms not causing all that much havoc and destruction as one imagines will be...I suspect the laundry bill will still be nearly as expensive after any event :) -- I too have heard that the brake does not necessarily damage the blade beyond repair. But considering that, new SS cartridge $80-90. And to simply sharpen a Forrest II 40 tooth blade plus shipping both ways is just shy of $50. Repairs would be on top of that. So in this example, the SS expense would be $150 minimum. Considering that, the Bosch wins hands down. But you have to consider that the Bosch only uses one line of defense to prevent you from being cut during a trigger. While both saws use the drop down feature to protect you if that feature was compromised with perhaps a build up of debris that prevented the blade from dropping below the surface the redundant brake feature might be the air bag thar assists the seat belt. Using that logic, you would have to say they are both insufficient and shouldn't be trusted to save your fingers because they neither uses *three* lines of defense to prevent you from being cut during a trigger. LOL. Yeah! But you have to start somewhere. Enter chain-mail into the mix. That will just get caught and drag your extremities into the blade. (going further out on the it could happen scale) ;) OK add seat belts and air bags to keep you from being pulled in. LOL Yes just like the rodeo cowboy in the OSHA cartoon. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:19:33 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 9/15/2015 8:08 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Looks like the SawStop competition is heating up. This is a pretty good review of the job site saw by a Bosch rep. Nice to see that the SawStop patents did not choke the competition as some thought might happen. The fat lady hasn't taken the stage. Actually she has. The saw is on the market, that is all it had to do. Not so. That's only the start of the opera (Gass now has no trouble proving damages). This has been no secret and litigation would have stopped sales until settled. That may have happened but the end result is that you can now buy this feature on both brands. That's not the way patent cases work. Gass can only sue for damages. It's difficult to prove damages until the infringing technology actually comes to market. He can then receive triple damages. http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/sawstop...lawsuit-85068/ It will be interesting to see if Bosch or others will come up with a larger more stationary saw. http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/video...le-saw/2194198 |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/16/2015 7:30 PM, krw wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:19:33 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/15/2015 8:08 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Looks like the SawStop competition is heating up. This is a pretty good review of the job site saw by a Bosch rep. Nice to see that the SawStop patents did not choke the competition as some thought might happen. The fat lady hasn't taken the stage. Actually she has. The saw is on the market, that is all it had to do. Not so. That's only the start of the opera (Gass now has no trouble proving damages). Would have already happened. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/16/2015 3:32 PM, woodchucker wrote:
On 9/16/2015 4:13 PM, Leon wrote: On 9/16/2015 1:59 PM, dpb wrote: On 9/16/2015 9:24 AM, dpb wrote: ... Was a sidebar article in FWW a few months ago -- most times it appears blades can be repaired after a SS crash. ... I think the plate might actually require straightening after. I can't imagine that the forces would not cause any deformation while happening. ... Well, yes, that's routine every time you send them one, whether it's been in a SS event or not... -- Reflattening might be routine for you but Forrest does not re-flatten or check flatness for that matter unless requested. When I send my blades in to Forrest for resharpening I give specific instructions to return to factory specs instead of do this, do that, do what ever. I also tell them to call me if repairs and resharpening will exceed $50. I think I only had to pay extra to re-flatten one time after I tilted the bevel with the zero insert in place. Forrest does not assume anything, they want explicit instructions. That's good wording. I stopped by there one day. I explained the problem I was experiencing while cutting. He looked at my carbide, said it needed sharpening. Then he brought it over to one of the guys for a quick inspection. They work in dark rooms, I assume they are using an optical comparitor. He quickly checked and said it was warped. That would explain the rough cuts. Yes sir! Next blade I buy will be a full kerf rather than a thin kerf. But that's after I get my saw stop. With a 1 hp Craftsman TS, that I mostly used thin kerf blades on, I was talked into switching to a regular kerf blade by my sharpening service, a Systematic, about 26 years ago. I never looked back. I switched to the Forrest WWII regular kerf in 1999 when I upgraded to a cabinet saw. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0500
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: It will be interesting to see if Bosch or others will come up with a larger more stationary saw. is this the same saw that was mentioned here a while ago the only bosch tool i own is a jig saw and i have had it for about a year if this reaxx is made as well as this one and with the same thoughtful design i would think it is a very good saw a cut above the other contractor saws and not a rip off |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
: On 9/16/2015 7:30 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:19:33 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/15/2015 8:08 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Looks like the SawStop competition is heating up. This is a pretty good review of the job site saw by a Bosch rep. Nice to see that the SawStop patents did not choke the competition as some thought might happen. The fat lady hasn't taken the stage. Actually she has. The saw is on the market, that is all it had to do. Not so. That's only the start of the opera (Gass now has no trouble proving damages). Would have already happened. No, krw is right here. You can't sue for infringement of patent until the infringing product is on the market. Now that Bosch's saw is on the market, and SawStop has responded by filing suit, the patent can be tested in court. That can take years to resolve. If the court thinks SawStop is likely to prevail, they can issue an injunction to prevent Bosch from selling their saw until the suit is resolved. That does not often happen, the infringement has to be pretty blatent for the court to take action before trial. John |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/17/2015 10:34 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0500 Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: It will be interesting to see if Bosch or others will come up with a larger more stationary saw. is this the same saw that was mentioned here a while ago Yes but maybe not the one you are thinking about. the only bosch tool i own is a jig saw and i have had it for about a year if this reaxx is made as well as this one and with the same thoughtful design i would think it is a very good saw a cut above the other contractor saws and not a rip off Time will tell |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/17/2015 11:08 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : On 9/16/2015 7:30 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:19:33 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/15/2015 8:08 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Looks like the SawStop competition is heating up. This is a pretty good review of the job site saw by a Bosch rep. Nice to see that the SawStop patents did not choke the competition as some thought might happen. The fat lady hasn't taken the stage. Actually she has. The saw is on the market, that is all it had to do. Not so. That's only the start of the opera (Gass now has no trouble proving damages). Would have already happened. No, krw is right here. You can't sue for infringement of patent until the infringing product is on the market. Now that Bosch's saw is on the market, and SawStop has responded by filing suit, the patent can be tested in court. Understood. But has Sawstop Responded? That can take years to resolve. If the court thinks SawStop is likely to prevail, they can issue an injunction to prevent Bosch from selling their saw until the suit is resolved. That does not often happen, the infringement has to be pretty blatent for the court to take action before trial. John Understood. I think Bosch will be fine, surely their attorneys would have researched before giving the go ahead. Either way the method of causing the blade to drop appears to be totally different. The drop is a direct result of pistons firing. SS drops as a result of the force of the blade coming to a sudden stop to trigger a release. Every saw can drop a blade, you turn the elevation wheel so dropping the blade below the surface is not a new thing. SawStop and Bosch have determined a faster way to drop the blade. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/17/2015 12:08 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : On 9/16/2015 7:30 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:19:33 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/15/2015 8:08 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Looks like the SawStop competition is heating up. This is a pretty good review of the job site saw by a Bosch rep. Nice to see that the SawStop patents did not choke the competition as some thought might happen. The fat lady hasn't taken the stage. Actually she has. The saw is on the market, that is all it had to do. Not so. That's only the start of the opera (Gass now has no trouble proving damages). Would have already happened. No, krw is right here. You can't sue for infringement of patent until the infringing product is on the market. Now that Bosch's saw is on the market, and SawStop has responded by filing suit, the patent can be tested in court. That can take years to resolve. If the court thinks SawStop is likely to prevail, they can issue an injunction to prevent Bosch from selling their saw until the suit is resolved. That does not often happen, the infringement has to be pretty blatent for the court to take action before trial. John yea, like they should have done for Palm and RIM. Rim stole the o/s from the palms for the blackberrys and then only had to pay 10 million because of the damage it would have done to RIM. That would have shut all the Blackberry's down, and I'm sure the judge had a blackberry, and didn't want to lose it.. I think it was about 2005 when that transpired. -- Jeff |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
: On 9/17/2015 11:08 AM, John McCoy wrote: No, krw is right here. You can't sue for infringement of patent until the infringing product is on the market. Now that Bosch's saw is on the market, and SawStop has responded by filing suit, the patent can be tested in court. Understood. But has Sawstop Responded? Thought they had...yeah, Google says they sued back in July. That can take years to resolve. If the court thinks SawStop is likely to prevail, they can issue an injunction to prevent Bosch from selling their saw until the suit is resolved. That does not often happen, the infringement has to be pretty blatent for the court to take action before trial. Understood. I think Bosch will be fine, surely their attorneys would have researched before giving the go ahead. Either way the method of causing the blade to drop appears to be totally different. That's the hard part about patent cases - you might think it's totally different, your lawyers (who aren't technical folk) might think it's totally different, but will a judge & jury? Patent cases are notoriously unpredictable. And, of course, there's also the possibility that Bosch is intentionally infringing, but expects SawStop to reach an agreement rather than pay to pursue a suit. That happens all the time in electronics - Apple (just as a for instance)(*) copies someone else's tech, the other party sues, then they agree that Apple can pay a chunk of money to license whatever it is. Even tho the second company wouldn't have voluntarily licensed Apple if they'd been asked, faced with a fait accompli it's cheaper to take the money than to sue. John (* actually, using Apple as the example because they do this all the time.) |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:03:25 +0000 (UTC)
John McCoy wrote: Thought they had...yeah, Google says they sued back in July. i looked at the bosch site today and clicked on buy now and there were no sellers of the reaxx either the site is not configured properly or some other glitch or there has been an injunction or are they not for sale yet |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/17/2015 3:03 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : On 9/17/2015 11:08 AM, John McCoy wrote: No, krw is right here. You can't sue for infringement of patent until the infringing product is on the market. Now that Bosch's saw is on the market, and SawStop has responded by filing suit, the patent can be tested in court. Understood. But has Sawstop Responded? Thought they had...yeah, Google says they sued back in July. Humm, maybe the saw has been for sale longer than I expected. I thought it had only been available very recently. Do you know what the result of the suite was? That can take years to resolve. If the court thinks SawStop is likely to prevail, they can issue an injunction to prevent Bosch from selling their saw until the suit is resolved. That does not often happen, the infringement has to be pretty blatent for the court to take action before trial. Understood. I think Bosch will be fine, surely their attorneys would have researched before giving the go ahead. Either way the method of causing the blade to drop appears to be totally different. That's the hard part about patent cases - you might think it's totally different, your lawyers (who aren't technical folk) might think it's totally different, but will a judge & jury? Patent cases are notoriously unpredictable. And, of course, there's also the possibility that Bosch is intentionally infringing, but expects SawStop to reach an agreement rather than pay to pursue a suit. That happens all the time in electronics - Apple (just as a for instance)(*) copies someone else's tech, the other party sues, then they agree that Apple can pay a chunk of money to license whatever it is. Even tho the second company wouldn't have voluntarily licensed Apple if they'd been asked, faced with a fait accompli it's cheaper to take the money than to sue. John (* actually, using Apple as the example because they do this all the time.) They and Samsung. ;~_ |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
: On 9/17/2015 3:03 PM, John McCoy wrote: Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : On 9/17/2015 11:08 AM, John McCoy wrote: No, krw is right here. You can't sue for infringement of patent until the infringing product is on the market. Now that Bosch's saw is on the market, and SawStop has responded by filing suit, the patent can be tested in court. Understood. But has Sawstop Responded? Thought they had...yeah, Google says they sued back in July. Humm, maybe the saw has been for sale longer than I expected. I thought it had only been available very recently. Do you know what the result of the suite was? It's only September, for heavens sake. They filed in July, there's not likely to be a result for a couple of years. At this point the lawyers probably haven't even exchanged phone numbers. John |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:04:48 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 9/16/2015 7:30 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:19:33 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/15/2015 8:08 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Looks like the SawStop competition is heating up. This is a pretty good review of the job site saw by a Bosch rep. Nice to see that the SawStop patents did not choke the competition as some thought might happen. The fat lady hasn't taken the stage. Actually she has. The saw is on the market, that is all it had to do. Not so. That's only the start of the opera (Gass now has no trouble proving damages). Would have already happened. He *can't* until the saw comes to market. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:03:25 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote: Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in m: On 9/17/2015 11:08 AM, John McCoy wrote: No, krw is right here. You can't sue for infringement of patent until the infringing product is on the market. Now that Bosch's saw is on the market, and SawStop has responded by filing suit, the patent can be tested in court. Understood. But has Sawstop Responded? Thought they had...yeah, Google says they sued back in July. That can take years to resolve. If the court thinks SawStop is likely to prevail, they can issue an injunction to prevent Bosch from selling their saw until the suit is resolved. That does not often happen, the infringement has to be pretty blatent for the court to take action before trial. Understood. I think Bosch will be fine, surely their attorneys would have researched before giving the go ahead. Either way the method of causing the blade to drop appears to be totally different. That's the hard part about patent cases - you might think it's totally different, your lawyers (who aren't technical folk) might think it's totally different, but will a judge & jury? Patent cases are notoriously unpredictable. Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye and don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome of any civil case in the US courts. And, of course, there's also the possibility that Bosch is intentionally infringing, but expects SawStop to reach an agreement rather than pay to pursue a suit. That happens all the time in electronics - Apple (just as a for instance)(*) copies someone else's tech, the other party sues, then they agree that Apple can pay a chunk of money to license whatever it is. Even tho the second company wouldn't have voluntarily licensed Apple if they'd been asked, faced with a fait accompli it's cheaper to take the money than to sue. Excellent point. It's not only cheaper but it's a bird in the hand. Given the court system, that means a lot. (* actually, using Apple as the example because they do this all the time.) |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
krw wrote in news:opqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@
4ax.com: On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:03:25 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy wrote: That's the hard part about patent cases - you might think it's totally different, your lawyers (who aren't technical folk) might think it's totally different, but will a judge & jury? Patent cases are notoriously unpredictable. Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye and don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome of any civil case in the US courts. Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely, which is possible but not too likely. John |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/17/2015 8:37 PM, krw wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:04:48 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/16/2015 7:30 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:19:33 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/15/2015 8:08 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Looks like the SawStop competition is heating up. This is a pretty good review of the job site saw by a Bosch rep. Nice to see that the SawStop patents did not choke the competition as some thought might happen. The fat lady hasn't taken the stage. Actually she has. The saw is on the market, that is all it had to do. Not so. That's only the start of the opera (Gass now has no trouble proving damages). Would have already happened. He *can't* until the saw comes to market. But I think it has come to market. And Gass being a patent attorney I would think he would be right on top of that. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully there is enough difference that Bosch continues to produce the saw. And who knows maybe Bosch made a deal with Gass, there have been stranger bed fellows. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/18/2015 8:59 AM, John McCoy wrote:
krw wrote in news:opqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@ 4ax.com: On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:03:25 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy wrote: That's the hard part about patent cases - you might think it's totally different, your lawyers (who aren't technical folk) might think it's totally different, but will a judge & jury? Patent cases are notoriously unpredictable. Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye and don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome of any civil case in the US courts. Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely, which is possible but not too likely. John Very broad because many saws predating SawStop pivoted the blade to lower it. Oddly though SawStop does not pivot the blade to lower, it goes straight up and down guided by 2 large diameter steel rods. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/18/2015 9:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
John McCoy wrote: Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely, which is possible but not too likely. That's actually what I've been thinking. I've not really dug into the patent, and I'm not sure I'm really capable of doing that properly, but I have long wondered if Gass simply went overly broad in his patent, and that it would not stand up to a test in court. I guess we'll see... FWIW what we think the patent is saying and what is determined in the courts are absolutely not necessarily going to be the same. Flip the coin. Now while Gass is a patent attorney he was never able to sell lawmakers on requiring his technology on other brands of saws. So if it is determined that this is way too important of a safety feature his patent could be over ruled by a higher entity. Probably unlikely but he might not get favorable results if he pushes too hard. The Wright brothers patent did not help them out when WWI came along, they had to share their technology with Curtis so that the US could build enough airplanes for the war. Pretty much the same thing happened with the patent of McCormic's reaper for harvesting wheat. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
: So if it is determined that this is way too important of a safety feature his patent could be over ruled by a higher entity. Probably unlikely but he might not get favorable results if he pushes too hard. No, it doesn't work like that. If a patent is deemed too essential for an industry for it to be restricted to a single owner, then the courts can require the patent holder to license it at an "equitable" rate - an example of this is cellphones, where the different brands of phones have to work together to make the system practical, so the owners of the basic 3G and 4G patents were required to license them. Now it appears that licensing is actually what Gass wants, but his idea of an "equitable" fee may not be the same as what a court would consider reasonable. John |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/18/2015 12:46 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in : So if it is determined that this is way too important of a safety feature his patent could be over ruled by a higher entity. Probably unlikely but he might not get favorable results if he pushes too hard. No, it doesn't work like that. If a patent is deemed too essential for an industry for it to be restricted to a single owner, then the courts can require the patent holder to license it at an "equitable" rate - an example of this is cellphones, where the different brands of phones have to work together to make the system practical, so the owners of the basic 3G and 4G patents were required to license them. Tomato tomaato. Essentially the patent may be deemed to not be restricted to the person that it was first awarded to. Now it appears that licensing is actually what Gass wants, but his idea of an "equitable" fee may not be the same as what a court would consider reasonable. True |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:36:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 9/17/2015 8:37 PM, krw wrote: On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:04:48 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/16/2015 7:30 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:19:33 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/15/2015 8:08 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Looks like the SawStop competition is heating up. This is a pretty good review of the job site saw by a Bosch rep. Nice to see that the SawStop patents did not choke the competition as some thought might happen. The fat lady hasn't taken the stage. Actually she has. The saw is on the market, that is all it had to do. Not so. That's only the start of the opera (Gass now has no trouble proving damages). Would have already happened. He *can't* until the saw comes to market. But I think it has come to market. And Gass being a patent attorney I would think he would be right on top of that. Exactly. The saw has hit the market and Gass has sued. Check back in two to five years and we should know the rest of the story. Until then no one knows what a mess the courts will make out of the situation. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully there is enough difference that Bosch continues to produce the saw. And who knows maybe Bosch made a deal with Gass, there have been stranger bed fellows. I think the deal is the most likely scenario but there is at most four or five years left on the basic patents. Bosch might even be trading off some (perhaps reduced by the courts) royalty payment now for a leg up on the market five years down the road. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/18/2015 1:24 PM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:36:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/17/2015 8:37 PM, krw wrote: On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:04:48 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/16/2015 7:30 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:19:33 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/15/2015 8:08 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Looks like the SawStop competition is heating up. This is a pretty good review of the job site saw by a Bosch rep. Nice to see that the SawStop patents did not choke the competition as some thought might happen. The fat lady hasn't taken the stage. Actually she has. The saw is on the market, that is all it had to do. Not so. That's only the start of the opera (Gass now has no trouble proving damages). Would have already happened. He *can't* until the saw comes to market. But I think it has come to market. And Gass being a patent attorney I would think he would be right on top of that. Exactly. The saw has hit the market and Gass has sued. Check back in two to five years and we should know the rest of the story. Until then no one knows what a mess the courts will make out of the situation. OJ, I was unaware of that. I look at a lot of trade publications, do you recall where you learned that? Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully there is enough difference that Bosch continues to produce the saw. And who knows maybe Bosch made a deal with Gass, there have been stranger bed fellows. I think the deal is the most likely scenario but there is at most four or five years left on the basic patents. Bosch might even be trading off some (perhaps reduced by the courts) royalty payment now for a leg up on the market five years down the road. Yeah I was thinking the same and just realized that the SS came to light about 15 years ago. IIRC production began about 8~10 years ago. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
krw wrote:
Exactly. The saw has hit the market and Gass has sued. Check back in two to five years and we should know the rest of the story. Until then no one knows what a mess the courts will make out of the situation. Correct. I think the deal is the most likely scenario but there is at most four or five years left on the basic patents. Bosch might even be trading off some (perhaps reduced by the courts) royalty payment now for a leg up on the market five years down the road. That very thought occurred to me. It seemed to me that Bosch and any other manufacturer could have released a saw 5 years ago, but timing is everything. -- -Mike- |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
|
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
|
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:45:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: In article , says... krw wrote in news:opqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@ 4ax.com: On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:03:25 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy wrote: That's the hard part about patent cases - you might think it's totally different, your lawyers (who aren't technical folk) might think it's totally different, but will a judge & jury? Patent cases are notoriously unpredictable. Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye and don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome of any civil case in the US courts. Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely, which is possible but not too likely. Or perhaps Bosch has discovered prior art that would invalidate the patents. Perhaps but the courtroom is an expensive place to show it off. If they really had something, they'd go to Gass and get a cheap license in trade for burying the prior art. Simply ignoring a patent is a very risky proposition. Bosch may think they can afford it, though. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 16:50:33 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 9/18/2015 4:45 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article , says... krw wrote in news:opqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@ 4ax.com: On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:03:25 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy wrote: That's the hard part about patent cases - you might think it's totally different, your lawyers (who aren't technical folk) might think it's totally different, but will a judge & jury? Patent cases are notoriously unpredictable. Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye and don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome of any civil case in the US courts. Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely, which is possible but not too likely. Or perhaps Bosch has discovered prior art that would invalidate the patents. Art? It's jargon in the IP world. ...as in "one practiced in the art (of designing table saws)". AKA "Technology". |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 14:15:44 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 9/18/2015 1:24 PM, krw wrote: On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:36:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/17/2015 8:37 PM, krw wrote: On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:04:48 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/16/2015 7:30 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:19:33 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/15/2015 8:08 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Looks like the SawStop competition is heating up. This is a pretty good review of the job site saw by a Bosch rep. Nice to see that the SawStop patents did not choke the competition as some thought might happen. The fat lady hasn't taken the stage. Actually she has. The saw is on the market, that is all it had to do. Not so. That's only the start of the opera (Gass now has no trouble proving damages). Would have already happened. He *can't* until the saw comes to market. But I think it has come to market. And Gass being a patent attorney I would think he would be right on top of that. Exactly. The saw has hit the market and Gass has sued. Check back in two to five years and we should know the rest of the story. Until then no one knows what a mess the courts will make out of the situation. OJ, I was unaware of that. I look at a lot of trade publications, do you recall where you learned that? It was posted here a couple of times but I found it in the first couple of hits searching for "SawStop Patent". I was just looking for the numbers. ;-) Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully there is enough difference that Bosch continues to produce the saw. And who knows maybe Bosch made a deal with Gass, there have been stranger bed fellows. I think the deal is the most likely scenario but there is at most four or five years left on the basic patents. Bosch might even be trading off some (perhaps reduced by the courts) royalty payment now for a leg up on the market five years down the road. Yeah I was thinking the same and just realized that the SS came to light about 15 years ago. IIRC production began about 8~10 years ago. The original patents were filed in 1999, so that makes their expiration date 2019. There are other patents but they're not very likely to be difficult to get around. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:33:45 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote: krw wrote: Exactly. The saw has hit the market and Gass has sued. Check back in two to five years and we should know the rest of the story. Until then no one knows what a mess the courts will make out of the situation. Correct. I think the deal is the most likely scenario but there is at most four or five years left on the basic patents. Bosch might even be trading off some (perhaps reduced by the courts) royalty payment now for a leg up on the market five years down the road. That very thought occurred to me. It seemed to me that Bosch and any other manufacturer could have released a saw 5 years ago, but timing is everything. It occurred to me because Bosch, unlike most others, has money to take such gambles. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/18/2015 10:06 PM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 14:15:44 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/18/2015 1:24 PM, krw wrote: On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:36:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/17/2015 8:37 PM, krw wrote: On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:04:48 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/16/2015 7:30 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:19:33 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/15/2015 8:08 PM, krw wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Looks like the SawStop competition is heating up. This is a pretty good review of the job site saw by a Bosch rep. Nice to see that the SawStop patents did not choke the competition as some thought might happen. The fat lady hasn't taken the stage. Actually she has. The saw is on the market, that is all it had to do. Not so. That's only the start of the opera (Gass now has no trouble proving damages). Would have already happened. He *can't* until the saw comes to market. But I think it has come to market. And Gass being a patent attorney I would think he would be right on top of that. Exactly. The saw has hit the market and Gass has sued. Check back in two to five years and we should know the rest of the story. Until then no one knows what a mess the courts will make out of the situation. OJ, I was unaware of that. I look at a lot of trade publications, do you recall where you learned that? It was posted here a couple of times but I found it in the first couple of hits searching for "SawStop Patent". I was just looking for the numbers. ;-) Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully there is enough difference that Bosch continues to produce the saw. And who knows maybe Bosch made a deal with Gass, there have been stranger bed fellows. I think the deal is the most likely scenario but there is at most four or five years left on the basic patents. Bosch might even be trading off some (perhaps reduced by the courts) royalty payment now for a leg up on the market five years down the road. Yeah I was thinking the same and just realized that the SS came to light about 15 years ago. IIRC production began about 8~10 years ago. The original patents were filed in 1999, so that makes their expiration date 2019. There are other patents but they're not very likely to be difficult to get around. That sounds right time wise. There are a ton of patents. There is a long list of them on a label attached to my saw. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/18/2015 10:02 PM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 16:50:33 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 9/18/2015 4:45 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article , says... krw wrote in news:opqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@ 4ax.com: On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:03:25 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy wrote: That's the hard part about patent cases - you might think it's totally different, your lawyers (who aren't technical folk) might think it's totally different, but will a judge & jury? Patent cases are notoriously unpredictable. Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye and don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome of any civil case in the US courts. Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely, which is possible but not too likely. Or perhaps Bosch has discovered prior art that would invalidate the patents. Art? It's jargon in the IP world. ...as in "one practiced in the art (of designing table saws)". AKA "Technology". Oooooh. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
krw wrote in
: On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:45:08 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: In article , says... krw wrote in news:opqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@ 4ax.com: Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye and don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome of any civil case in the US courts. Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely, which is possible but not too likely. Or perhaps Bosch has discovered prior art that would invalidate the patents. Perhaps but the courtroom is an expensive place to show it off. If they really had something, they'd go to Gass and get a cheap license in trade for burying the prior art. Simply ignoring a patent is a very risky proposition. Bosch may think they can afford it, though. Prior art is a good point, tho. The Patent Office doesn't look for prior art any longer before issuing a patent (they haven't done for decades), so it's not uncommon for someone to find it and challenge a patent on that ground. And we don't know what conversations Bosch and SawStop may have had. Perhaps Bosch did go to them with the prior art, and Gass said "you're full of it! That wouldn't hold up in court." And so Bosch decided to find out. John |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/19/2015 12:06 AM, Leon wrote:
That sounds right time wise. There are a ton of patents. There is a long list of them on a label attached to my saw. They may have a lot of them, but they may be using quantity over quality. Some patents are easily skirted with a minor design change. There is a lot of speculation in this tread, but unless you read the patents and looked to see if Bosch is the same or different, it is meaningless. Bosch may or may not have infringed, may or may not have done it intentionally, but they probably have deep pockets too. I know of a company right now that holds a patent that is being infringed upon, has been to court, has had it upheld. He anticipates collecting tons of money, but to date has nothing but tons of lawyer bills. Some of the companies he went after are already out of business for other reasons and will never have a penny to give anyone. |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
Ed Pawlowski wrote in news:5bKdnfMmtNye8mDInZ2dnUU7-
: There is a lot of speculation in this tread, but unless you read the patents and looked to see if Bosch is the same or different, it is meaningless. It's meaningless if you have read the patents and looked at the Bosch too. As krw and I have both said (and we've both at least skimmed over the patents), what any of us thinks doesn't matter - it's what a judge and jury think, and they are impossible to predict. John |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
On 9/19/15 11:08 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote in news:5bKdnfMmtNye8mDInZ2dnUU7- : There is a lot of speculation in this tread, but unless you read the patents and looked to see if Bosch is the same or different, it is meaningless. It's meaningless if you have read the patents and looked at the Bosch too. As krw and I have both said (and we've both at least skimmed over the patents), what any of us thinks doesn't matter - it's what a judge and jury think, and they are impossible to predict. John Add to the mix the complexity of information and you quickly realize that the jury in most cases isn't comprised of the defendant's "peers." In this case you're talking about an in depth understanding of electrical and mechanical engineering about which most of the general public are severely ignorant. The same thing has happened with music copyright cases. There have been cases of blatant, outright plagiarism than anyone with a couple college courses in music could easily decipher in one listen of each song, in which the jury/judge dismissed. Then you have cases in which a good, persuasive trial attorney performed in court well enough to convince the musically illiterate that one musical artist "stole" another artist's song. In the latter, most musicians would shake their heads and say, "There are only 12 notes on a piano and only so many ways to arrange them, so if you dissect a song enough you'll soon come to the conclusion that there hasn't been an original song written in 500 years." In both examples, it usually comes down to which lawyers and witnesses the jury members trust more, rather than any real understanding of the facts in the case. -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
In article ,
says... Ed Pawlowski wrote in news:5bKdnfMmtNye8mDInZ2dnUU7- : There is a lot of speculation in this tread, but unless you read the patents and looked to see if Bosch is the same or different, it is meaningless. It's meaningless if you have read the patents and looked at the Bosch too. As krw and I have both said (and we've both at least skimmed over the patents), what any of us thinks doesn't matter - it's what a judge and jury think, and they are impossible to predict. John Or as somebody or other put it, "The law is whatever you can convince a judge that it is". |
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw
-MIKE- wrote:
Then you have cases in which a good, persuasive trial attorney performed in court well enough to convince the musically illiterate that one musical artist "stole" another artist's song. In the latter, most musicians would shake their heads and say, "There are only 12 notes on a piano and only so many ways to arrange them, so if you dissect a song enough you'll soon come to the conclusion that there hasn't been an original song written in 500 years." As evidenced by the conclusion (not a trial decision), that the Beatles ripped off Bethovan. The very same point was raised in the "discussions" that surrounded that whole thing. -- -Mike- |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter