Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so. Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism, plain and simple. If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity. If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and intellectual property, then good for they, they deserve it. If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money they earn, then you are the problem, not them. -- -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 |
#42
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/8/2017 7:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so. Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism, plain and simple. If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity. If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and intellectual property, then good for they, they deserve it. If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money they earn, then you are the problem, not them. +8,000 ;~) |
#43
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
|
#45
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:44:14 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/8/2017 3:22 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular lawsuit discussion. Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little. OK, so tell me on what grounds a person could expect to win a suit against Gass if they cut off a finger on non-Saw Stop saw? Would it go something like this: "Your honor, my client could have bought a SawStop and avoided this terrible accident, but he thinks Gass is an A-Hole and didn't want to give him any money. Surely you can see how that is the fault of Gass and that he should be held responsible for my client's injuries. " Cases have been won exactly that way. You just need the right jury. I think that one would be thrown out at the first utterance of such silliness, likely awarding Gass all costs. Jurries don't always get a say. |
#46
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:47:07 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 2/8/2017 12:04 PM, wrote: On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:39:35 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 2/7/2017 8:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote: http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power...c05c6eecb92632 Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here. Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop? IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost? Its just the absurdity if holding a grudge for a person that long. Grudge? What's a gruge got to do with it? Once a scum-sucking lawyer, always a scum-sucking lawer. There is no statute of limitations on staying clear of bottom-feeding rent-seeking scum. Do you have pictures of Gass sucking scum or is that just something you made up. Ther is an old saying, It takes one to call one. Yes, in fact we all did. He *is* a lawyer, after all. |
#47
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:49:17 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote: I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German company over SawStop an American company. Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff Where is a SawStop table saw made? SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances. I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales. After the +100%, no, 20% more wouldn't (had a chance to) change my mind. |
#48
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article uImdnUr596UJ2AbFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/7/2017 11:35 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for SawStop. Really? https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools...jss-mca/14982/ I was unaware of that model. SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable prices so the world would be a safer place. True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular lawsuit discussion. Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little. Absolutely true but with the fact that SawStop is so successful, it is obvious that the vast majority will see SS as the good guy. There are only a handful of people with issues that don't seem to be able to let things go. Those type jurors would most likely be eliminated during jury selection. Any jurors familiar with Sawstop or having any opinion concerning it would likely be eliminated during jury selection. That doesn't mean that the ones who have been selected cannot be convinced that Gass is a flaming asshole who deserves to rot in Hell. |
#49
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article q5udnSTPRuXqwwbFnZ2dnUU7-
, says... On 2/7/2017 9:05 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article a426cc09-91ce-4c80-8853-e44571ca2ad9 @googlegroups.com, says... On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote: http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power...c05c6eecb92632 Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here. Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop? IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost? You can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean you'll win. We just want something horrible to happen to Gass. Speak for yourself. The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. He "offered" them for a high price intended to enrich Gass. If you want to see how someone who actually cares about public safety handles it, look at how Daimler-Benz handled the patents on antiskid braking systems. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. I begrudge anybody who wants laws passed that have the effect of putting money in their own pockets. His patent covers the method of detection too, which REAXX used. same as a gfci... I guess Gass was smart enough to cover that. |
#50
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
@googlegroups.com, says... On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so quick to give away their City Safety technology today. I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture? When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an indpendent company in 1999. |
#51
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article ,
says... On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so. Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism, plain and simple. If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity. If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and intellectual property, then good for they, they deserve it. If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money they earn, then you are the problem, not them. The problem isn't that he wants to make a profit, it's that he pretends that he's an altruist and that he was forced to it only after all the evil businessmen spurned his offer to separate them from their capital. |
#52
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:37:32 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: In article , says... On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so. Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism, plain and simple. If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity. If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and intellectual property, then good for they, they deserve it. If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money they earn, then you are the problem, not them. The problem isn't that he wants to make a profit, it's that he pretends that he's an altruist and that he was forced to it only after all the evil businessmen spurned his offer to separate them from their capital. Don't forget his back room dealings with the FTC. |
#53
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article q5udnSfPRuWIwgbFnZ2dnUU7-
, says... On 2/7/2017 9:39 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/7/2017 9:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote: http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power...c05c6eecb92632 Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here. Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop? IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost? Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for SawStop. Wrong , sawstop makes a jobsite saw. SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable prices so the world would be a safer place. So you don't like the capitalistic system? He offered the license.. no one took it. He patented it like normal inventors do, now you don't like that. GET REAL I'm fine with capitalism. I'm not fine with some asshole saying "I'm out to save fingers, that's all I care about" and then showing that all he really cares about is lining his own pockets. It's called hypocrisy. |
#54
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
|
#55
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so. Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism, plain and simple. If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity. If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it. If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money they earn, then you are the problem, not them. Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls. |
#56
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote: On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so. Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism, plain and simple. If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity. If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it. If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money they earn, then you are the problem, not them. Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls. Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal. That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it - on ANY saw they produced |
#57
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
J. Clarke wrote:
In article uImdnUr596UJ2AbFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/7/2017 11:35 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for SawStop. Really? https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools...jss-mca/14982/ I was unaware of that model. SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable prices so the world would be a safer place. True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular lawsuit discussion. Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little. Absolutely true but with the fact that SawStop is so successful, it is obvious that the vast majority will see SS as the good guy. There are only a handful of people with issues that don't seem to be able to let things go. Those type jurors would most likely be eliminated during jury selection. Any jurors familiar with Sawstop or having any opinion concerning it would likely be eliminated during jury selection. That doesn't mean that the ones who have been selected cannot be convinced that Gass is a flaming asshole who deserves to rot in Hell. Have you thought about getting therapy? |
#58
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
J. Clarke wrote:
In article q5udnSfPRuWIwgbFnZ2dnUU7- , says... On 2/7/2017 9:39 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/7/2017 9:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote: http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power...c05c6eecb92632 Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here. Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop? IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost? Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for SawStop. Wrong , sawstop makes a jobsite saw. SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable prices so the world would be a safer place. So you don't like the capitalistic system? He offered the license.. no one took it. He patented it like normal inventors do, now you don't like that. GET REAL I'm fine with capitalism. I'm not fine with some asshole saying "I'm out to save fingers, that's all I care about" and then showing that all he really cares about is lining his own pockets. It's called hypocrisy. Have you looked in the mirror lately, to see why people treat you like an ass hole? |
#59
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
J. Clarke wrote:
In article DcGdnYJ3FedvAgbFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 12:04 PM, wrote: On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:39:35 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 2/7/2017 8:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote: http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power...c05c6eecb92632 Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here. Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop? IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost? Its just the absurdity if holding a grudge for a person that long. Grudge? What's a gruge got to do with it? Once a scum-sucking lawyer, always a scum-sucking lawer. There is no statute of limitations on staying clear of bottom-feeding rent-seeking scum. Do you have pictures of Gass sucking scum or is that just something you made up. Ther is an old saying, It takes one to call one. The default with lawyers is scum-sucking. Do you have evidence that he is different from other lawyers? Life must really be hard for you at times. |
#60
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
J. Clarke wrote:
In article q5udnSTPRuXqwwbFnZ2dnUU7- , says... On 2/7/2017 9:05 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article a426cc09-91ce-4c80-8853-e44571ca2ad9 @googlegroups.com, says... On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote: http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power...c05c6eecb92632 Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here. Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop? IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost? You can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean you'll win. We just want something horrible to happen to Gass. Speak for yourself. The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. He "offered" them for a high price intended to enrich Gass. If you want to see how someone who actually cares about public safety handles it, look at how Daimler-Benz handled the patents on antiskid braking systems. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. I begrudge anybody who wants laws passed that have the effect of putting money in their own Oh boo hoo. |
#61
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:47:07 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 2/8/2017 12:04 PM, wrote: On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:39:35 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 2/7/2017 8:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote: http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power...c05c6eecb92632 Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here. Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop? IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost? Its just the absurdity if holding a grudge for a person that long. Grudge? What's a gruge got to do with it? Once a scum-sucking lawyer, always a scum-sucking lawer. There is no statute of limitations on staying clear of bottom-feeding rent-seeking scum. Do you have pictures of Gass sucking scum or is that just something you made up. Ther is an old saying, It takes one to call one. Yes, in fact we all did. He *is* a lawyer, after all. Could you share ? |
#62
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/8/2017 8:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44 @googlegroups.com, says... On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so quick to give away their City Safety technology today. I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture? When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an indpendent company in 1999. And what does that have to do with anything. |
#63
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says... On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so. Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism, plain and simple. If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity. If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and intellectual property, then good for they, they deserve it. If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money they earn, then you are the problem, not them. The problem isn't that he wants to make a profit, it's that he pretends that he's an altruist and that he was forced to it only after all the evil businessmen spurned his offer to separate them from their capital. I can see how YOU would think that way, given your strange temperament. |
#64
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote: On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so. Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism, plain and simple. If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity. If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it. If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money they earn, then you are the problem, not them. Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls. Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal. That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it - on ANY saw they produced Yeah, I would pay 3% in a heart beat. Do you have a link to that specific information? I always thought that the offer was probably fair in so much that they or another company almost went forward. I really think that they decided to not be the only ones and that this would all blow over and not happen. |
#65
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/8/2017 8:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article DcGdnb13FefpPQbFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote: I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German company over SawStop an American company. Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff Where is a SawStop table saw made? SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances. I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales. But will it be 20 percent? The 20 percent is for _Mexico_. It might be more for China. I have no idea, I though you had all the answers. |
#66
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote: On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so. Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism, plain and simple. If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity. If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it. If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money they earn, then you are the problem, not them. Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls. Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal. That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it - on ANY saw they produced And thinking about that a bit more, If there is indeed documentation that Ryobi was on board and balked at 3% I can see how the attorneys would have used that information against them when they lost that big suit over they flooring guy that cut his finger off. Ryobi was probably projected as the company that did not want to spend a few dollars for the safety of their customers. And yes a few dollars, 3% of cost to be able to add a very nice selling feature with no R&D for that feature is cheap. |
#67
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article 384812291.508340867.772248.lcb11211-
, lcb11211 @swbell.net says... J. Clarke wrote: In article uImdnUr596UJ2AbFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/7/2017 11:35 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for SawStop. Really? https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools...jss-mca/14982/ I was unaware of that model. SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable prices so the world would be a safer place. True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular lawsuit discussion. Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little. Absolutely true but with the fact that SawStop is so successful, it is obvious that the vast majority will see SS as the good guy. There are only a handful of people with issues that don't seem to be able to let things go. Those type jurors would most likely be eliminated during jury selection. Any jurors familiar with Sawstop or having any opinion concerning it would likely be eliminated during jury selection. That doesn't mean that the ones who have been selected cannot be convinced that Gass is a flaming asshole who deserves to rot in Hell. Have you thought about getting therapy? Have you thought of having your cranio-rectal inversion corrected? |
#68
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article I6WdnS3nNaZo6gHFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 8:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44 @googlegroups.com, says... On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so quick to give away their City Safety technology today. I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture? When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an indpendent company in 1999. And what does that have to do with anything. Since you were discussing the likely behavior of a nonexistent company it has quite a lot to do woth anything. |
#69
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article
1466913720.508341000.279817.lcb11211- , lcb11211 @swbell.net says... J. Clarke wrote: In article q5udnSfPRuWIwgbFnZ2dnUU7- , says... On 2/7/2017 9:39 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/7/2017 9:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote: http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power...c05c6eecb92632 Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here. Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop? IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost? Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for SawStop. Wrong , sawstop makes a jobsite saw. SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable prices so the world would be a safer place. So you don't like the capitalistic system? He offered the license.. no one took it. He patented it like normal inventors do, now you don't like that. GET REAL I'm fine with capitalism. I'm not fine with some asshole saying "I'm out to save fingers, that's all I care about" and then showing that all he really cares about is lining his own pockets. It's called hypocrisy. Have you looked in the mirror lately, to see why people treat you like an ass hole? Coming from the location of your head that is quite amusing. |
#70
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article JeGdnfvPOcBH5AHFnZ2dnUU7-Q-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 8:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article DcGdnb13FefpPQbFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote: I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German company over SawStop an American company. Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff Where is a SawStop table saw made? SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances. I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales. But will it be 20 percent? The 20 percent is for _Mexico_. It might be more for China. I have no idea, I though you had all the answers. Geezus, Leon, can't you even come up with a decent FLAME? |
#71
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article JeGdnfjPOcDF5AHFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM, wrote: On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote: On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so. Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism, plain and simple. If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity. If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it. If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money they earn, then you are the problem, not them. Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls. Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal. That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it - on ANY saw they produced Yeah, I would pay 3% in a heart beat. Do you have a link to that specific information? I always thought that the offer was probably fair in so much that they or another company almost went forward. I really think that they decided to not be the only ones and that this would all blow over and not happen. 3 percent growing to 8 percent if the rest of the industry goes along. Most businesses shoot for 20 percent profit so an 8 percent royalty is HUGE. |
#72
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
|
#73
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
"J. Clarke" writes:
In article JeGdnfvPOcBH5AHFnZ2dnUU7-Q- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 8:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article DcGdnb13FefpPQbFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote: I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German company over SawStop an American company. Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff Where is a SawStop table saw made? SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances. I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales. But will it be 20 percent? The 20 percent is for _Mexico_. It might be more for China. I have no idea, I though you had all the answers. Geezus, Leon, can't you even come up with a decent FLAME? Could it be possible that someone other than Leon usurped his newsgroup identity? The posts weren't typical of his normal style. In any case, one need not respond. |
#74
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
J. Clarke wrote:
In article JeGdnfvPOcBH5AHFnZ2dnUU7-Q- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 8:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article DcGdnb13FefpPQbFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote: I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German company over SawStop an American company. Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff Where is a SawStop table saw made? SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances. I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales. But will it be 20 percent? The 20 percent is for _Mexico_. It might be more for China. I have no idea, I though you had all the answers. Geezus, Leon, can't you even come up with a decent FLAME? Go over to the moulding thread where we are concerned, instead, with using (stealing?) a coach-makers radial filister! ; ) |
#75
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:14:40 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
Hear you go Leon, and anyone else interested: Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal. That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it - on ANY saw they produced Yeah, I would pay 3% in a heart beat. Do you have a link to that specific information? I always thought that the offer was probably fair in so much that they or another company almost went forward. I really think that they decided to not be the only ones and that this would all blow over and not happen. From FairWarning.org: Negotiations were held with several companies. Talks with Ryobi advanced farthest, then collapsed under mysterious circumstances. A leading manufacturer and supplier to Home Depot, Ryobi is based in Anderson, S.C., and is a subsidiary of Techtronics, Inc. of Hong Kong. In January, 2002, Ryobi sent SawStop a signed licensing agreement. It called for Ryobi to investigate SawStop’s feasibility, and to incorporate it in Ryobi saws within 18 months if it proved feasible. SawStop would get a royalty equal to 3 percent of the wholesale cost of each saw, with the fee rising as high as 8 percent should the technology be widely adopted. Gass said a small typo led him to return the contract to Ryobi’s general counsel, who Gass said told him he would immediately fix the mistake and mail the contract back. Days turned into weeks, then months. Gass said he got repeated assurances that Ryobi wanted to proceed, but the contract never came back. Years later, in the trial of a lawsuit against Ryobi, a company lawyer explained it this way: “Ryobi decided that it did not want to go forward with this project,” he said. Ryobi was going through a corporate acquisition, the SawStop deal took “a back seat”, and “eventually Ryobi lost interest.” Robert Bugos, the former general counsel Gass said had strung him along, put it another way in a deposition. “There was negotiation back and forth,” Bugos said. “Our position was always that SawStop was asking too much.” From WikiPedia, very similar: In January 2002, SawStop appeared to come close to a licensing agreement with Ryobi, who agreed to terms that involved no up-front fee and a 3% royalty based on the wholesale price of all saws sold with SawStop's technology; the royalty would grow to 8% if most of the industry also licensed the technology.[1] According to Gass, when a typographical error in the contract had not been resolved after six months of effort by Gass to get Ryobi to sign the proposed deal, Gass gave up on the effort in mid-2002.[1] Some subsequent licensing negotiations were deadlocked when the manufacturers insisted that Gass should "indemnify them against any lawsuit if SawStop malfunctioned", something Gass wouldn't agree to since he would not be manufacturing the saws."[1] The failure to license it to Ryobi or another manufacturer prompted SawStop to start its own company; over two years later, the company's first saw was produced by a Taiwanese manufacturing plant in November 2004; by 2005 SawStop had grown to "eight people out of a two-story barn Gass built himself."[1] From "Fine Woodworking" Nov 29, 2011: In October, Gass demonstrated a SawStop prototype for Ryobi representatives in Anderson, S.C. He also gave Ryobi a prototype to test. Gass wasn’t interested in selling the technology to just one company. Instead, he was looking for a larger sales opportunity and to change the industry for the better, he said. “We did not want to see it on just one brand of saws,” he said, “and so we were unwilling to give an exclusive license to any one company. It was our feeling that this technology, like air bags or something like that, should be on every saw.” In 2001, Gass sent the CPSC a prototype of the SawStop. After testing it, the CPSC awarded SawStop the Chairman’s Commendation for product safety. While negotiations with Ryobi went on, Gass said he pitched his product to other tablesaw manufacturers. To entice as many as he could, he asked for what he considered a low 3% royalty at first, to help offset the additional costs of incorporating the technology. That royalty would increase if more tablesaw makers adopted SawStop (when market share reached 25% the royalty would go to 5%; 75% share would increase the royalty to 8%). To avoid litigation, manufacturers believed they would have to equip every saw in their lines with the new technology, a process that would require redesigning the saws and retooling the factories where they’re made. And yet Gass’s invention hadn’t yet been proven to work in the real world. It was a tough decision. In 2002, SawStop and Ryobi came close to a licensing agreement. However, the deal was never closed, and people involved in the negotiations differ as to why. According to witnesses who testified in a recent legal case (Osorio vs. One World Technologies, Inc.), Ryobi chose to work with other members of the PTI on a joint venture to design a flesh-sensing alternative to SawStop, as well as a better guard system. David Peot, former director of advanced technology for Ryobi, testified that such cooperation among PTI members was unprecedented. “The people who belong to the Power Tool Institute are very fierce competitors. Never in my 30, 35 years of working with [them] had I ever been exposed to something where they said ‘let’s get together and develop something.’ ” After the Ryobi deal fell through and with no responses from other tablesaw makers, Gass and his partners decided to develop their own brand. While they were working with designers on a saw, Gass and his partners petitioned the CPSC in 2003 to do something about the large number of tablesaw accidents that were occurring yearly. They told the CPSC that “current table saws pose an unacceptable risk of severe injury because they are inherently dangerous and lack an adequate safety system to protect users from accidental contact with the blade.” They asked the CPSC “to require performance standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw.” In essence they were asking for a mandatory ruling that would require all tablesaws to have some sort of flesh-sensing technology and blade-stopping device. In 2004, SawStop rolled out its first model, a cabinet saw. Then, in the spring of 2005, an accident on a Lexington, Mass., job site cracked open the floodgates on the tablesaw safety debate and its legal fallout. |
#76
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/9/2017 9:45 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article I6WdnS3nNaZo6gHFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 8:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44 @googlegroups.com, says... On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so quick to give away their City Safety technology today. I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture? When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an indpendent company in 1999. And what does that have to do with anything. Since you were discussing the likely behavior of a nonexistent company it has quite a lot to do woth anything. Are you saying that SawStop does not exist? I made no comments about Volvo. Try to keep up, Life might be easier for you. |
#77
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/9/2017 9:52 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article JeGdnfjPOcDF5AHFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM, wrote: On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote: On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so. Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism, plain and simple. If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity. If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it. If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money they earn, then you are the problem, not them. Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls. Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal. That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it - on ANY saw they produced Yeah, I would pay 3% in a heart beat. Do you have a link to that specific information? I always thought that the offer was probably fair in so much that they or another company almost went forward. I really think that they decided to not be the only ones and that this would all blow over and not happen. 3 percent growing to 8 percent if the rest of the industry goes along. Most businesses shoot for 20 percent profit so an 8 percent royalty is HUGE. Bla bla bla, you are just making things up now. You have no facts. |
#78
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
|
#79
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 09:08:31 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM, wrote: On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote: On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote: The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up on it. I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem. Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a starving homeless person for only $30. http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878 It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so. Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism, plain and simple. If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity. If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it. If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money they earn, then you are the problem, not them. Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls. Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal. That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it - on ANY saw they produced And thinking about that a bit more, If there is indeed documentation that Ryobi was on board and balked at 3% I can see how the attorneys would have used that information against them when they lost that big suit over they flooring guy that cut his finger off. Ryobi was probably projected as the company that did not want to spend a few dollars for the safety of their customers. And yes a few dollars, 3% of cost to be able to add a very nice selling feature with no R&D for that feature is cheap. Cheap??? At 3%, Glass was GIVING the technology away, figuring to make a bit of money on the volume. The only reason it didn't fly was because he was a lawyer, and he stressed the liability and litigation issues over the intrensic safety of the device. When companies like Ryobi were scared they would have to use the technology on EVERY saw they built, I suspect their lawyers and accountants decided it was safer NOT to have the technology in their "bag of tricks" The American litigatious legal situation and corporate greed (on the part of Ryobi, not SawStop) killed the deal, in my opinion. |
#80
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 7:44:46 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
Well you are close to correct. Any competent company would look into all of this prior to starting the process. They would not have been close to committing had the figures not already been considered. Close to committing? What does that mean? Where did that information come from? There are only two outcomes in the negotiating process. Deal done. Or no deal. Black or white. No gray. SawStop is a going concern now. But no one knows how much money the company is making. Actually most manufactures and retail sales stores know exactly how many are being sold. That is where I got my information. All manufacturers and retail outlets report all sales of every saw to an authority that aggregates the data and makes it available to the public for analysis? Or do manufacturers report total dollars of woodworking type equipment. And retailers report total dollars of revenue. Why would Jet/Powermatic give the volume and dollars and models of table saw sales to Delta and General and SawStop? Who makes them give this detailed business information? Total number of SawStops sold and total of all table saws sold. New and used. Only New are being compared. No manufacturer sells used equipment that Prices of new equipment will affect sales of used equipment. Sales of used equipment affect demand for new equipment. They are all interrelated. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw | Woodworking | |||
Bosch palm router $99 a good price? | Woodworking | |||
Random orbit sanders - green Bosch PEX400 vs blue Bosch GEX 125? | UK diy | |||
Bosch 3915 10" SCMS good price? | Woodworking | |||
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Electronics Repair |