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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.)

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

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. ;~_

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

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.

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.)

krw wrote in newspqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@
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

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.

On 9/18/2015 8:59 AM, John McCoy wrote:
krw wrote in newspqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@
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.

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...

--

-Mike-

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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-

In article ,
says...

krw wrote in newspqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@
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.

On 9/18/2015 4:45 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

krw wrote in newspqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@
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?

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:45:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

krw wrote in newspqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@
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.

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 newspqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@
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".

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.

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.

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.

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 newspqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@
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.

krw wrote in
:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:45:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

krw wrote in
newspqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@ 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

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.

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

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

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".

-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-