Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,721
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On 2/8/2017 5:22 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:40:20 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:

The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
him up


The other companies were betting against this getting off the
ground and lost, lost really big. One was about to pull the
trigger to get the license and got cold feet. I would imagine that
the cost was not too much for them but probably pulled out when
every one else looked the other way. I bet they are kicking
themselves in the butt now.

Either way the patents will run out sooner than later.


Not sure they are kicking themselves or not. Any competent company
looked at the cost for the license, cost for the extra
material/technology to build the saw, and did some kind of estimate
for potential sales and/or gains from having the SawStop on their
saws. They decided it did not make economic sense to buy the SawStop
license because the return/profit would not be enough.


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.




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.

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

  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

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?
  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default 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.


  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,640
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,053
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,053
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,053
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,053
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,053
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default 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.



  #66   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default 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.
  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default 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.


  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS

On 2/9/2017 1:06 PM, wrote:
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.


Thank you!


  #79   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,538
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw Leon[_7_] Woodworking 138 September 26th 15 09:16 PM
Bosch palm router $99 a good price? Han Woodworking 11 June 24th 11 01:06 AM
Random orbit sanders - green Bosch PEX400 vs blue Bosch GEX 125? Andy Dingley UK diy 4 January 12th 08 09:56 PM
Bosch 3915 10" SCMS good price? Fred Woodworking 7 September 15th 05 09:35 AM
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 Leonard Caillouet Electronics Repair 2 April 23rd 05 04:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"