|
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/9/2017 9:46 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
Coming from the location of your head that is quite amusing. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/9/2017 9:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
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? I will take that as a no. You might look into that. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/9/2017 9:47 AM, 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? Oh, are in a one person ****ing contest? |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/9/2017 10:19 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
"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. No, I confess, I am responding to this, as childish as it is. Some don't understand any other way. I apologize. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/9/2017 1:13 PM, wrote:
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. I totally agree with your thoughts. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
|
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
|
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, 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. How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader? In any case... From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ge/innovations Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors). 2008 €“ City Safety "Here are some amazing statistics €“ 75% of all reported collisions take place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver behind hasnt braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great difference €“ our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver doesnt brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h." Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I said Volvo, I meant Volvo. http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ancial-results |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73
@googlegroups.com, says... On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, 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. How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader? In any case... From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ge/innovations Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors). 2008 ? City Safety "Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions take place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h." Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I said Volvo, I meant Volvo. http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ancial-results Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no difference in decisionmaking if you want to. You probably think that Ford didn't exert any control either. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:38:20 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
In article abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73 @googlegroups.com, says... On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, 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. How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader? In any case... From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ge/innovations Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors). 2008 ? City Safety "Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions take place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h." Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I said Volvo, I meant Volvo. http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ancial-results Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no difference in decisionmaking if you want to. You probably think that Ford didn't exert any control either. Your problem is that you don't get the point of my post. Moving on. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/9/2017 5:19 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:38:20 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: In article abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73 @googlegroups.com, says... On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, 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. How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader? In any case... From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ge/innovations Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors). 2008 ? City Safety "Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions take place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h." Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I said Volvo, I meant Volvo. http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ancial-results Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no difference in decisionmaking if you want to. You probably think that Ford didn't exert any control either. Your problem is that you don't get the point of my post. Moving on. It appears to escape him... |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article 9a508518-ed4e-44ed-ab22-
, says... On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:38:20 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: In article abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73 @googlegroups.com, says... On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, 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. How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader? In any case... From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ge/innovations Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors). 2008 ? City Safety "Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions take place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h." Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I said Volvo, I meant Volvo. http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ancial-results Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no difference in decisionmaking if you want to. You probably think that Ford didn't exert any control either. Your problem is that you don't get the point of my post. Moving on. I do get the point of your post, which is that the world has changed so that Volvo would not have made the same decision now that they did with regard to three point seat belts. My point is that it is not the world that has changed, it is Volvo, which has gone through two changes of ownership since the seat belt decision was made. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 13:41:18 -0600, Leon wrote:
n 2/9/2017 10:19 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: "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: C'mon people. Every time anyone even mentions Sawstop someone resurrects the brouhaha we've had several times now. Whatever your opinion, you're not changing others. Can't we just let it go? Get back to woodworking? Even a political thread would be more interesting :-). -- What if a much of a which of a wind gives the truth to summer's lie? |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 7:59:49 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
In article 9a508518-ed4e-44ed-ab22- , says... On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:38:20 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: In article abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73 @googlegroups.com, says... On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, 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. How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader? In any case... From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ge/innovations Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors). 2008 ? City Safety "Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions take place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h." Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I said Volvo, I meant Volvo. http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/...ancial-results Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no difference in decisionmaking if you want to. You probably think that Ford didn't exert any control either. Your problem is that you don't get the point of my post. Moving on. I do get the point of your post, which is that the world has changed so that Volvo would not have made the same decision now that they did with regard to three point seat belts. My point is that it is not the world that has changed, it is Volvo, which has gone through two changes of ownership since the seat belt decision was made. Close, but no cigar. Nice try. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:52:15 -0500, "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. But a 3 or 8 percent royalty translates to 100% profit. At one time, IBM made $1B/yr on their patents. It was all profit (and in many years, the *only* profit). |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, wrote: The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking. Not sure what "rent-seeking" means. noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business" adjective 1. engaging in or involving the manipulation of public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "rent-seeking lobbyists" I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate. Can you influence interest rates? GDP? Trade deficits? Government deficits or surplus? I suppose you can influence demand with advertising. And influence supply with the government laws to outlaw all competitor products from being sold. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, wrote: The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking. Not sure what "rent-seeking" means. noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business" adjective I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate. Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/9/2017 7:11 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 13:41:18 -0600, Leon wrote: n 2/9/2017 10:19 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: "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: C'mon people. Every time anyone even mentions Sawstop someone resurrects the brouhaha we've had several times now. Whatever your opinion, you're not changing others. Can't we just let it go? Get back to woodworking? Even a political thread would be more interesting :-). ;~) |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, wrote: The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking. Not sure what "rent-seeking" means. noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business" adjective I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate. Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition. Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or business owner, CEO ect. What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have an on going advantage? Insurance companies. All Energy providing companies. TV entertainment providers. Communication providers. The automobile industry. The building industry. The food industry. The medical industry... The entertainment industry The recycling industry. And the list goes on. Mr. Gass is no different except he is the little guy that has come up with a great product and is successful. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, wrote: The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking. Not sure what "rent-seeking" means. noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business" adjective I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate. Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition. Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or business owner, CEO ect. What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have an on going advantage? Insurance companies. All Energy providing companies. TV entertainment providers. Communication providers. The automobile industry. The building industry. The food industry. The medical industry... The entertainment industry The recycling industry. So which of these have succesfully lobbied for "If you purchase something of this kind it _must_ have this expensive feature"? If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of those, it would be the airbag industry. Mr. Gass is no different except he is the little guy that has come up with a great product and is successful. And he would have been more successful if he had just made his product and sold it without all the legal shenanigans before he started making it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop product not because of any concerns about the Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in that asshole's pocket. I'm sure there are others who feel the same. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:44:24 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, wrote: The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking. Not sure what "rent-seeking" means. noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business" adjective I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate. Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition. Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or business owner, CEO ect. What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have an on going advantage? Insurance companies. All Energy providing companies. TV entertainment providers. Communication providers. The automobile industry. The building industry. The food industry. The medical industry... The entertainment industry The recycling industry. So which of these have succesfully lobbied for "If you purchase something of this kind it _must_ have this expensive feature"? "that only I have a government-enforced monopoly on making." If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of those, it would be the airbag industry. Nope. No government enforced monopoly there. Mr. Gass is no different except he is the little guy that has come up with a great product and is successful. And he would have been more successful if he had just made his product and sold it without all the legal shenanigans before he started making it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop product not because of any concerns about the Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in that asshole's pocket. I'm sure there are others who feel the same. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, wrote: The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking. Not sure what "rent-seeking" means. noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business" adjective I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate. Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition. Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or business owner, CEO ect. What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have an on going advantage? Insurance companies. All Energy providing companies. TV entertainment providers. Communication providers. The automobile industry. The building industry. The food industry. The medical industry... The entertainment industry The recycling industry. So which of these have succesfully lobbied for "If you purchase something of this kind it _must_ have this expensive feature"? Think about it. Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance? That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental in getting that law. TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one choice. No other cable providers can compete. If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of those, it would be the airbag industry. The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on new vehicles. Mr. Gass is no different except he is the little guy that has come up with a great product and is successful. And he would have been more successful if he had just made his product and sold it without all the legal shenanigans before he started making it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop product not because of any concerns about the Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in that asshole's pocket. That is your choice. An emotional one but all the same, your choice. I'm sure there are others who feel the same. Yes there are. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 4:52:54 AM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition. I am not sure that can be done. Legal issues. Government laws can require safety devices. Airbags and seatbelts in cars being an example. But I doubt the law can require a specific patented device be installed. With airbags and seatbelts, the patents had long expired and the devices were actually in use and production before the law took effect requiring them to be installed in all cars. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:38:36 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote: In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, wrote: The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking. Not sure what "rent-seeking" means. noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business" adjective I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate. Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition. Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or business owner, CEO ect. What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have an on going advantage? Insurance companies. All Energy providing companies. TV entertainment providers. Communication providers. The automobile industry. The building industry. The food industry. The medical industry... The entertainment industry The recycling industry. So which of these have succesfully lobbied for "If you purchase something of this kind it _must_ have this expensive feature"? Think about it. Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance? That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental in getting that law. TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one choice. No other cable providers can compete. If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of those, it would be the airbag industry. The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on new vehicles. As well as stability control, lane guideance, TPMS systems, and (already) ABS. Mr. Gass is no different except he is the little guy that has come up with a great product and is successful. And he would have been more successful if he had just made his product and sold it without all the legal shenanigans before he started making it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop product not because of any concerns about the Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in that asshole's pocket. That is your choice. An emotional one but all the same, your choice. I'm sure there are others who feel the same. Yes there are. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article FsadnSr3peg7ZwDFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote: In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, wrote: The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking. Not sure what "rent-seeking" means. noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business" adjective I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate. Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition. Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or business owner, CEO ect. What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have an on going advantage? Insurance companies. All Energy providing companies. TV entertainment providers. Communication providers. The automobile industry. The building industry. The food industry. The medical industry... The entertainment industry The recycling industry. So which of these have succesfully lobbied for "If you purchase something of this kind it _must_ have this expensive feature"? Think about it. Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance? That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental in getting that law. However it is not part of the car. And if you do not drive on public roads then you do not need it. TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one choice. No other cable providers can compete. Around here there's Cox and Frontier, both provide television by wire using different technologies. DirecTV and Dish provide two other options. However you are not required by law to buy any safety device in order to have cable. If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of those, it would be the airbag industry. The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on new vehicles. _SOME_body seems to have missed all of the lobbying and all of the workarounds that were tried by what you claim to be "the automotive industry" before they finally accepted that airbags were the only way to comply with the law. Follow the money on airbags and it goes to Breed Technology, which held the patent on the triggering mechanism at the time that airbags were mandated. Mr. Gass is no different except he is the little guy that has come up with a great product and is successful. And he would have been more successful if he had just made his product and sold it without all the legal shenanigans before he started making it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop product not because of any concerns about the Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in that asshole's pocket. That is your choice. An emotional one but all the same, your choice. And the choice of others who if Gass had not behaved like a greedy jackass and then lied about his motivations might have been sales instead. I'm sure there are others who feel the same. Yes there are. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article 3nas9chblki4a89kreqtr795ls9s480169@
4ax.com, says... On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:38:36 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote: In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, wrote: The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking. Not sure what "rent-seeking" means. noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business" adjective I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate. Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition. Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or business owner, CEO ect. What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have an on going advantage? Insurance companies. All Energy providing companies. TV entertainment providers. Communication providers. The automobile industry. The building industry. The food industry. The medical industry... The entertainment industry The recycling industry. So which of these have succesfully lobbied for "If you purchase something of this kind it _must_ have this expensive feature"? Think about it. Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance? That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental in getting that law. TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one choice. No other cable providers can compete. If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of those, it would be the airbag industry. The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on new vehicles. As well as stability control, lane guideance, TPMS systems, and (already) ABS. I don't know about the others, but ABS is an example of a company that could have profited instead trying to save lives. Mercedes-Benz held the critical patents for ABS as we know it, and chose to license them free of charge to any other auto maker who wanted to implement the technology. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:48:01 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: In article 3nas9chblki4a89kreqtr795ls9s480169@ 4ax.com, says... On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:38:36 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote: In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, wrote: The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking. Not sure what "rent-seeking" means. noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business" adjective I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate. Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition. Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or business owner, CEO ect. What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have an on going advantage? Insurance companies. All Energy providing companies. TV entertainment providers. Communication providers. The automobile industry. The building industry. The food industry. The medical industry... The entertainment industry The recycling industry. So which of these have succesfully lobbied for "If you purchase something of this kind it _must_ have this expensive feature"? Think about it. Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance? That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental in getting that law. TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one choice. No other cable providers can compete. If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of those, it would be the airbag industry. The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on new vehicles. As well as stability control, lane guideance, TPMS systems, and (already) ABS. I don't know about the others, but ABS is an example of a company that could have profited instead trying to save lives. Mercedes-Benz held the critical patents for ABS as we know it, and chose to license them free of charge to any other auto maker who wanted to implement the technology. Maxeret installed ABS on 1966 JensenFF. In 1958 the Royal Enfield Super Meteor had alnti-lock brakes, I believe the early silver Shadow Rolls (and some Bentleys had a type of antilock brake where brake boost was generated by a pump driven by the driveshaft. The faster it went, the more braking pressure was available, and at low speeds the boost was reduced. NOt 100% sure, but from stories I heard. At any rate, they would out-brake a Ferrari or Porche and stop dead straight, hands off, without flatspotting tires. The story I was told was 3 rich white South Africans were sittinf in a diner along the Garden Route back in the late sixties or early seventies and they got talking about their cars The one guy was bragging about his Fararri 365 GT and how fast it was and how it handled. The other guy was singing the praises of his Porsche 911T while the third guy just sat their listening and nodding his head. They asked him "so what do YOU drive - and he said "a Roller" and they all laughed.. He said it's not as quick as your sports cars, and it's heavier, but you REALLY need to go for a ride to appreciate it. They went out, he fired it up and took it down a nice long straight section of highway up to 115mph, then said :hang on". He took his hands off the wheel and stood on the brakes. When it came to a stop he started counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, and at five a cloud of blue tire smoke passed them. IMPRESSIVE. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:32:27 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 4:52:54 AM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote: Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition. I am not sure that can be done. Legal issues. Government laws can require safety devices. Airbags and seatbelts in cars being an example. But I doubt the law can require a specific patented device be installed. With airbags and seatbelts, the patents had long expired and the devices were actually in use and production before the law took effect requiring them to be installed in all cars. Exactly what's going to stop them. The fact is that it doesn't even take a law. The FTC could ban saws without Gass' device, all by themselves. ...and that's exactly what they tried to do. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/10/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article FsadnSr3peg7ZwDFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote: In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, wrote: The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking. Not sure what "rent-seeking" means. noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business" adjective I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate. Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition. Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or business owner, CEO ect. What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have an on going advantage? Insurance companies. All Energy providing companies. TV entertainment providers. Communication providers. The automobile industry. The building industry. The food industry. The medical industry... The entertainment industry The recycling industry. So which of these have succesfully lobbied for "If you purchase something of this kind it _must_ have this expensive feature"? Think about it. Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance? That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental in getting that law. However it is not part of the car. And if you do not drive on public roads then you do not need it. What is not a part of the car? Insurance? No kidding. I indicated that if you drive a car you have to buy liability insurance, An example that I listed as one of the type businesses that benefited from lobbying the government for minatory compliance. TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one choice. No other cable providers can compete. Around here there's Cox and Frontier, both provide television by wire using different technologies. DirecTV and Dish provide two other options. Direct and Dish are not cable providers, they are satellite dish providers. Regardless in Houston TX you have no choice of cable providers. and again it is not because of a lack of another cable company wanting to be here, because the only cable company has government protected rights to be the only provider. However you are not required by law to buy any safety device in order to have cable. You have really missed the point ...... Get some one to explain it to you. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article j21t9c9akr3mm17d41af768fdearp96og1@
4ax.com, says... On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:48:01 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote: In article 3nas9chblki4a89kreqtr795ls9s480169@ 4ax.com, says... On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:38:36 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote: In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, wrote: The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking. Not sure what "rent-seeking" means. noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business" adjective I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate. Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition. Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or business owner, CEO ect. What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have an on going advantage? Insurance companies. All Energy providing companies. TV entertainment providers. Communication providers. The automobile industry. The building industry. The food industry. The medical industry... The entertainment industry The recycling industry. So which of these have succesfully lobbied for "If you purchase something of this kind it _must_ have this expensive feature"? Think about it. Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance? That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental in getting that law. TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one choice. No other cable providers can compete. If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of those, it would be the airbag industry. The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on new vehicles. As well as stability control, lane guideance, TPMS systems, and (already) ABS. I don't know about the others, but ABS is an example of a company that could have profited instead trying to save lives. Mercedes-Benz held the critical patents for ABS as we know it, and chose to license them free of charge to any other auto maker who wanted to implement the technology. Maxeret installed ABS on 1966 JensenFF. In 1958 the Royal Enfield Super Meteor had alnti-lock brakes, I believe the early silver Shadow Rolls (and some Bentleys had a type of antilock brake where brake boost was generated by a pump driven by the driveshaft. The faster it went, the more braking pressure was available, and at low speeds the boost was reduced. NOt 100% sure, but from stories I heard. At any rate, they would out-brake a Ferrari or Porche and stop dead straight, hands off, without flatspotting tires. The story I was told was 3 rich white South Africans were sittinf in a diner along the Garden Route back in the late sixties or early seventies and they got talking about their cars The one guy was bragging about his Fararri 365 GT and how fast it was and how it handled. The other guy was singing the praises of his Porsche 911T while the third guy just sat their listening and nodding his head. They asked him "so what do YOU drive - and he said "a Roller" and they all laughed.. He said it's not as quick as your sports cars, and it's heavier, but you REALLY need to go for a ride to appreciate it. They went out, he fired it up and took it down a nice long straight section of highway up to 115mph, then said :hang on". He took his hands off the wheel and stood on the brakes. When it came to a stop he started counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, and at five a cloud of blue tire smoke passed them. IMPRESSIVE. Yes, child, I know that antiskid existed before Daimler-Benz patented their electronic control system. I have sitting in the driveway right now a 1976 Lincoln with antiskid. However it did not become widely available or popular and there is a reason for that. Antiskid systems using hydaulic logic are not reliable without expert maintenance--they were OK for aircraft, and for Rollers, and for novelty items like the Jensen. But put them on a Volkswagen maintained by your garden variety Hippy and they will fairly quickly die the death. What made them practical was the development of a reliable and effective electronic control system. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
In article M_OdnRoTtKJHBwPFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/10/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article FsadnSr3peg7ZwDFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote: In article P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, wrote: The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking. Not sure what "rent-seeking" means. noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business" adjective I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate. Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition. Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or business owner, CEO ect. What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have an on going advantage? Insurance companies. All Energy providing companies. TV entertainment providers. Communication providers. The automobile industry. The building industry. The food industry. The medical industry... The entertainment industry The recycling industry. So which of these have succesfully lobbied for "If you purchase something of this kind it _must_ have this expensive feature"? Think about it. Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance? That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental in getting that law. However it is not part of the car. And if you do not drive on public roads then you do not need it. What is not a part of the car? Insurance? No kidding. I indicated that if you drive a car you have to buy liability insurance, An example that I listed as one of the type businesses that benefited from lobbying the government for minatory compliance. Since we were talking about mandating the installation of a sole-source proprietary component on all devices of a given type, your example is irrelevant. TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one choice. No other cable providers can compete. Around here there's Cox and Frontier, both provide television by wire using different technologies. DirecTV and Dish provide two other options. Direct and Dish are not cable providers, they are satellite dish providers. Regardless in Houston TX you have no choice of cable providers. and again it is not because of a lack of another cable company wanting to be here, because the only cable company has government protected rights to be the only provider. However you are not required by law to buy any safety device in order to have cable. You have really missed the point ...... Get some one to explain it to you. Your point is that you want to be patted on the head and told what a smart boy you are for coming up with a bunch of red herrings and straw men that are irrelevant to the point. So, pat pat what a smart boy you are Leon. Feel better? |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 06:29:19 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: Yes, child, I know that antiskid existed before Daimler-Benz patented their electronic control system. I have sitting in the driveway right now a 1976 Lincoln with antiskid. However it did not become widely available or popular and there is a reason for that. Antiskid systems using hydaulic logic are not reliable without expert maintenance--they were OK for aircraft, and for Rollers, and for novelty items like the Jensen. But put them on a Volkswagen maintained by your garden variety Hippy and they will fairly quickly die the death. What made them practical was the development of a reliable and effective electronic control system. Which even today is beyond the average garden variety hippy. (and not terribly reliable either) Just google "abs problems". I've had sensors fail. I've had reluctor wheels split and spin, split and jam, and split and fall off. I've had them rust, and I've had them fill with crud between the teeth - all rendering them inneffective. I've had wires break and connections corrode.. I've had to replace very expensive wheel bearing assemblies because the sensor built into them failed. I've had the actuators fail in Myriad different modes, including a piston unwinding right off the actuator screw, activators seizing, and pump motors (in the activator) burning out. Activator failures are very hard to diagnose - in many of the cases no warning lights came on - the ABS just stopped working -often along with one half of the braking system. On the one with the spun off system I could even bleed the brakes, but could never get any pressure - to the point a leaky line didn't even show up untill the activator was replaced.. I've had them so sensitive that replacing a damaged tire with a new one after about 10,000km threw the system into a fit, and in much of our winter driving conditions it is virtually impossible to stop with quite a few vehicles with ABS (particularly with OEM wide tires installed - (even all season or snow tires). All ABS does in those situations is make sure you hit what you hit square on. Benz basically put their patent "into the public domain" because they knew there were so many ways to re-engineer the system to get around their patent that they would spend millions ineffectively trying to defend the patent - due in part to the prior state of the science which rendered the patent almost undefendable. It had all been done, in one way or another, by someone else before them. Their releasing the patent just made it a lot simpler for everyone else yto move ahead without worrying about patent infringement suites like the old Selden Patent fiasco. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
|
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your comparison doesn't hold water. Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can mandate insurance and/or safety devices. Can anyone give an example of a law that required using a patented, licensed device? This question still stands. Does anyone have an example of a government mandated device that was still under license and restricted? ABS, airbags, seatbelts were all public property free to everyone when they were mandated. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
|
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/11/2017 12:57 PM, wrote: On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, wrote: Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your comparison doesn't hold water. Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can mandate insurance and/or safety devices. I see it as a right. Your insurance company could say they wouldn't accept liability associated with it. There are no laws governing how I use it, no requirements or registration to buy one. I can use it for personal pleasure or as a tool to earn a living. Show me the government mandates. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/11/2017 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/11/2017 12:57 PM, wrote: On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, wrote: Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your comparison doesn't hold water. Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can mandate insurance and/or safety devices. I see it as a right. Your insurance company could say they wouldn't accept liability associated with it So? They haven't. I do know our carrier for Workmen's Comp is asking customers to buy a SawStop or equal but have not stopped insuring. That is anecdotal as we don't have saws at work. Still a right. |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/11/2017 1:48 PM, Bill wrote: Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/11/2017 12:57 PM, wrote: On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, wrote: Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your comparison doesn't hold water. Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can mandate insurance and/or safety devices. I see it as a right. Your insurance company could say they wouldn't accept liability associated with it So? They haven't. I do know our carrier for Workmen's Comp is asking customers to buy a SawStop or equal but have not stopped insuring. That is anecdotal as we don't have saws at work. Still a right Some say smoking is a "right". But if they charge $10 a pack, hasn't the right been taken away from you? |
Not looking good for the Bosch Reaxx TS
On 2/11/2017 2:47 PM, Bill wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/11/2017 1:48 PM, Bill wrote: Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 2/11/2017 12:57 PM, wrote: On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, wrote: Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your comparison doesn't hold water. Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can mandate insurance and/or safety devices. I see it as a right. Your insurance company could say they wouldn't accept liability associated with it So? They haven't. I do know our carrier for Workmen's Comp is asking customers to buy a SawStop or equal but have not stopped insuring. That is anecdotal as we don't have saws at work. Still a right Some say smoking is a "right". But if they charge $10 a pack, hasn't the right been taken away from you? No, just made more expensive. I gave it up 40+ years ago. You can grow your own tobacco if you want. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter