Poll on SawStop

[LCHIEN]

My early analysis of results

the poll is a few days old but the participation has been heavy with 160 votes so far.
The percentages have not changed much over the last two days so I think the results are going to be representative of the end result even though there's still 10 days left to run.

I have these observations:
1. ownership of the Gass- SawStop saws is low at around 2% Not very popular here among what I would say is a group of enthusastic saw users.
2. personal dislike of Gass's tactics runs about 25% of you - enough to make you avoid the saw.
3. The main reason given - 70% - for not owning one now is the cost, followed by 50% saying they're not ready to change saws, which may be the same thing... that you don't see an advantage to upgrading - i.e. paying more for the saw, since you're happy with the one you have and the relative price difference of trading up would make it an upgrade to get that one safety feature.
4. running around 13% the reason that the saw stop doesn't offer some feature you like in your present saw, I think that often translates to the relative portableness of a saw like the BT3x

5. apparently we think the SawStops are capable saws, very few percent indicated they didn't like the features of the SawStops.

6. other reasons, mostly fear it will false trigger (14%) or will be more dangerous because it will make them more complacent (10%)

7. A small group, around 7%, think it just won't happen to them, I'm assuming most of these people think they are careful and/or don't use the saw much, lowering their risk for injury.

8. only 5% indicated they thought it would fail to work when activated, so there's a pretty good confidence in its ability to trigger the brake and retractor on encountering a finger or hot dog.

The numbers add to up to more than 100%, because respondents could check more than one reason.

[JimD]

I guess I didn't follow instructions very well. I said I object to a lawyer overpricing access to his invention and then participating as an "expert witness" arguing that all table saw manufacturers should overpay for his device so that individuals are better protected from their mistakes. These lawsuits are a significant drain on our economy and an example of our country's weak morals. My only power tool injury was on a biscuit joiner that was poorly designed (it is a skill with no high friction surface or pins to prevent it from jumping sideways). It was also poorly used by me (the piece was too small putting my hand too close to the blade). I do not know what the guy in Boston was doing wrong but I'm confident there was something. Probably multiple things.

I should have also checked I am not ready for a new saw and the SawStop seems overpriced to me.

If the inventor was really interested in other people's safety he would establish a reasonable royalty - like 1% or less. This fee is for nothing more than access to the patent. The manufacturer still has to build the device and also is taking the risk that it works. Where is a manufacturer if he puts a SawStop on and somebody still is hurt? Does the inventor bear those costs, I strongly suspect this lawyer has throughly disclaimed any responsbility. I would also think that the SawStop comes with every bit as many warnings as any other table saw - so the inventor has a defense if he gets sued.

Jim

[dkerfoot]

This whole conversation has made me reflect on a key difference between the US and Europe. In Europe, the government tends to see its job as protecting people from themselves. In the US it is the courts that tends to take that role via litigation.

So, who do you want running your life, politicians or trial lawyers?

[Old Lurker]

So, who do you want running your life, politicians or trial lawyers?

Preferably neither.

[BigguyZ]

I must admit that I've gone back and forth on this topic. I really can't begrudge the man for doing everything he can to make a profit. Innovation is driven by the ability to profit. That's why the US has been a leader in innovation. There's more profit in it. That's just the way it is.

So, an innovation like this, which I do believe is a good technology that CAN and SHOULD be adopted for as many tools as possible, would probably never have been brought about unless there was a profit motive. I mean just look at the design of saws over the last few hundred years. Certainly there have been improvements, but the basic design hasn't changed much for a long time. I wouldn't say all old models were flawed though. But I would say that there's been few improvements in the safety devices that have been added. The magnetic switch and the riving knife are about all I can think of.

However, what I DO object to is the litigation side of things. This scattershot approach of lawsuits and the idea that the failure to design a saw that incorporates a proprietary technology that isn't mandated is silly.

[Stytooner]

So, who do you want running your life, politicians or trial lawyers?

Is that my only choices?

[LinuxRandal]

Married people WARNING!

So, who do you want running your life, politicians or trial lawyers?

Is that my only choices?

No, you can have a wife and have the mix of the two!

[Stytooner]

There is really no right answer, is there?

[tommyt654]

From another website, Somethings to consider,..,Some factoids:

(1) Stephen Gass is a Patent Attorney by trade, with a PhD in physics.

(2) The original patent was filed in 2000. U.S. Patents filed after June 8, 1995 expire 20 years from the date of filing. However it is often the practice of a company to file numerous patents as a defensive policy to surround the original intellectual property with expanded protection. This makes copying or using the intellectual property prohibitively difficult, often long after the original patent has expired.

Now, the intellectual property is protected by a long list of patents: SawStop’s products are manufactured and sold under license to one or more of the following U.S. patents: 6813983, 6826988, 6857345, 6877410, 6880440, 6920814, 6945148, 6945149, 6957601, 6994004, 6997090, 7000514, 7024975, 7055417, 7077039, 7098800, 7100483,7137326, 7171879, 7197969, 7210383, 7225712, 7228772, 7231856, 7284467, 7290472, 7308843, 7347131, 7350444, 7350445, 7353737, 7357056, 7359174, 7377199, 7421315Taiwan patent 143466, Australian patent 785422, China Patent ZL00816099.6, and India patent 212026. Additional U.S. and foreign patents pending.

(3) He is asking an 8% royalty for use of his technology (if it is adopted by the majority of the industry). This is 8% of the wholesale price of the tool (not the retail price).

(4) In addition to the cost, there are other issues related to the SawStop technology.

First, use of the technology does not eliminate the risk of seriously bodily harm associated with table saws. Depending on the accident scenario and type of blade used, consumers could still receive a serious injury. Manufacturers using the technology could open themselves to additional litigation because consumers mistakenly believe that table saws are now "safe" or that manufacturers are making a safety guarantee.

Second, the technology is susceptible to "false positives" - especially when cutting conductive metal or damp, wet, or pressure-treated wood. This could include inadvertent contact with a conductive metal surface like the side of a fence. False positives are expensive for the end-user because they require the replacement (or repair) of the saw blade ($50+?) as well as the brake cartridge ($70-90), in addition to lost labor hours.

(5) Gass refuses to indemnify saw manufacturers for any malfunction of the SawStop technology.


(A) I still think he is a great inventor and it is a great technology. In the right environment (like a commercial shop with controlled work flow) I think it would be a no-brainer to want to install it. I think this whole thing would be a non-issue if he asked for a lower royalty OR provided indemnification as part of the 8% royalty fee. But what do I know

Edited by bonsainut (03/23/10 06:03 PM)

Post Extras:

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | (show all)

[crokett]

I was at Woodcraft yesterday. It was a bit slow, so the guy took me back to the classroom where they have a SawStop. I joked about has anybody ever tested it, and he said they occasionally do the hot dog demonstration. I learned one thing I did not know - you have to be touching the hot dog. If you use a piece of wood to push it through, you can cut hot dogs all day long. I also got to turn it on and make a few cuts. It is a very nicely engineered machine. I just don't see one in my future any time soon.

[Bill Anderson]

the poll is a few days old but the participation has been heavy with 160 votes so far.
The percentages have not changed much over the last two days so I think the results are going to be representative of the end result even though there's still 10 days left to run.

I have these observations:
1. ownership of the Gass- SawStop saws is low at around 2% Not very popular here among what I would say is a group of enthusastic saw users.

I doubt that it is a good representation. Regarding point #1, I doubt many of SawStop owners will take the time to participate in this poll. I own one, and didn't take part in the poll. But I just could not resist responding to point #1 in this most scientific poll.

I have to laugh when one of these polls/threads pop up. It still amazes me that so many people still can't see/understand the following:

1. The major saw manufacturers were trying to shut Steve Gass down, and make him go away. He HAD (emphasis not screaming) to seek government/legislation avenues to get the major saw companies away from his throat. He did what he had to do to survive.

2. His invention has saved numerous finger amputations, or maybe worse. Ask those people if he is a scum sucking leach, as many of you suggest, or a brilliant inventor, to whom they are very grateful.

3. That the major saw companies could have opted to license his technology, and installed it on their own brand of saw. But those companies chose not to, even at such a small cost of an additional $150-$300. Those are the companies/people, which you should be upset with (really pissed at, actually), certainly not Gass.

4. That most here, cannot grasp the legal concept of negligence. No, I am not an attorney, but it remains a very simple concept to grasp.


Did anyone see the movie Tucker, or read about the man and his innovations? The major auto companies used their Washington D.C. influence to eventually shut the Tucker car company down. Tucker's competition even used the argument that Tucker was admitting that his cars were inherently unsafe, by innovating and installing seatbelts in his cars. He was investigated by the U.S. government, and prosecuted by a U.S. Attorney (*the attorney was later convicted on 17 charges of bribery). The competition eventually shut Tucker down, via trumped up allegations of stock fraud. Tucker was acquitted of the charges, but his company could not recover from the trial.

Tucker Automobiles were the first to feature seat/saftey belts, shatterproof windshields, and padded dashboards, which are all safety features, that are now mandated/required by the U.S. government, along with many other safety features; and of which I am extremely glad and grateful.

Gass enlisted the assistance of the U.S. government, and its laws, to protect himself, and his company/invention, from the ruthless companies which were trying to shut him down, and make him go away. If they could have succeeded in shutting SawStop, they could have ultimately bought his invention for pennies, and made millions off of his technology (yes, the other companies are in it for a profit too!). It's the other companies that you should be pissed at. Not Gass! He did what he had to do to survive! It is rare when the little guy actually makes it, when the giants are trying to shut him down. I am glad that he, and his technology survived!

Okay, I am finished. I cannot believe I actually took the time to type this response. Let the flaming begin, that's okay.

Regards and Respect.

Bill

[billwmeyer]

Bill,

You bring an interesting side to this post. Out of curiosity and not animosity, how were the other companies trying to shut him down. My understanding is that he did not start out to compete with the other companies, but to sell them his technology. Are there any articles or other sources that I can research this aspect? How did you come by this information? Again, I am not putting you down, I only want to try to see more about this side of the issue that I had not heard about before.

Bill

[Bill Anderson]

Bill,

You bring an interesting side to this post. Out of curiosity and not animosity, how were the other companies trying to shut him down. My understanding is that he did not start out to compete with the other companies, but to sell them his technology. Are there any articles or other sources that I can research this aspect? How did you come by this information? Again, I am not putting you down, I only want to try to see more about this side of the issue that I had not heard about before.

Bill

No offense taken Bill. Before I purchased my SawStop, I was reading all the threads that stated that Steve Gass used the government to mandate his technology, and that people didn't want to have this technology "shoved down their throats" by government.

A large number resented Gass doing so, and they would never buy one of his saws as a result. I too, didn't like what I was reading about Gass' tactics. So I started reading everything I could find on the internet about his SawStop. I have had my SawStop for about 4 years, and it took me almost a year to decide to order one. So for specific sources or citations of specific websites where I found the information, I can't provide those. But I am sure if you Google, or Bing, you can find it all.

I used Googl, and other search engines, and learned how Gass offered his technology to various companies, some of the companies were interested but only if they would be given exclusive rights to the technology. Gass refused, according to what I read, he stated that all companies should be able to offer the SawStop technology to the people using tablesaw, other people claim it was out of greed. Maybe both, I don't know for sure. But if it was greed, then why didn't he just sell the patent license, get paid a nice royalty, and sit back and collect the proceeds? I cannot even begin to imagine the work, stress, and aggravation that it took to bring this technology to market, let alone completely engineering from the ground up, a new tablesaw, and then working out manufacturing and shipping. There is no way I would have even want to deal with all of that.

From my memory, and like I said the info is still out there you just have to dig around the web, the major companies that produced tablesaws turned down his offer b/c they would not be given exclusive rights. In a nutshell, the major tablesaw manufacturers banded together (there is an association that the tool makers belong to, but now cannot remember what it is called)and through THEIR attorneys (again for emphasis not yelling) attempted, through various legal means, to make Gass and his SawStop technology go away, before it became common knowledge. I don't think they ever imagined that Gass would/could take this technology to market by himself. But he did exactly that.

Gass was up against a wall, when he lobbied the government safety commission regarding the safety innovations of his saw, and the safety issues/injuries of tablesaws in general. This was a legal method that he used to take a stand against the major tool makers, which was trying to keep him from bringing his technology to market. I believe that many people have a misplaced hatred for Gass. On the contrary, this is a case of where the little guy fought back against the corporate giants, and is still standing his ground. And as far as greed goes, he deserves to make a profit. Look at the enormous risk that he has taken. He is a smart man, with more determination and dedication than most have, including myself.

I spent many hours researching and reading a lot about Gass and what he went through to bring this technology to market. I held the same sentiment as many have, but after reading the details, and not taking the situation at face value, I have a more educated view, and am glad Gass persisted and was able to stay afloat.

Anyone out there that has been treated unfairly, or wronged by a company/corporate giant, should be able to understand what Gass went through. I am surprised that so many are willing to condemn this man, so easily, when he stood up for himself, and his invention, in the face of corporate giants. That takes guts! Take the time to look, the info is out there.

Regards, Bill

[tommyt654]

Well here,s an update for all to see.,.., http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/...ar+Woodworking)

[tommyt654]

As I have stated before , Just a bunch of greedy lawyers and an alien trying to get rich and Gass trying to promote his cause!