What really happened to Osorio + Sawstop

[Slik Geek]

I am going to defend lawsuits, even borderline frivolous ones, because they get results. We see this is the medical field, where threat of lawsuits DOES spur innovation and improvement.

I am going to take a contrary position to yours... because I haven't seen this in my experience in medical product development working with a number of medical device manufacturers.

The innovation and improvement that I have witnessed has always been motivated by the hope of making profit. The threat of lawsuits has primarily resulted in companies sticking with the "tried and true" approaches because precedent protects them. In other words, I've mostly seen the threat of lawsuits resulting in the stifling of innovation.

I have seen this repeatedly - a company explores a technology, but then responds to the threat of lawsuits (suggested by their legal staff) by cancelling innovative products because of an unwillingness to assume risk.

Few companies are willing to "stick their neck out" and do something really new. Most medical development is limited to minor iterations and improvements. It is often the small start-ups that innovate because they don't have a multi-million dollar established business at risk.

I suspect that the industry was hesitant to embrace the Sawstop technology years ago because:
1) It added significant cost to the low end of the saw market - putting them at a sales disadvantage to non-equipped saws.
2) They perceived that customers might become complacent and expect that the saw would protect them from injury. "Who needs a pesky blade guard when the saw will guard me?"
3) They believed that there would be a class action lawsuit at some point from customers who had blades destroyed as a result of false detections.
4) When the sensing technology failed to fire and protect an individual, they would be sued.

When (if?) the industry announces their technology, I wouldn't be surprised that they had found a way to non-destructively stop the blade or retract the blade without braking it. The destructive aspect of the Sawstop had to be a major deal-killer for these companies.

[Black wallnut]

I am going to take a contrary position to yours... because I haven't seen this in my experience in medical product development working with a number of medical device manufacturers.

The innovation and improvement that I have witnessed has always been motivated by the hope of making profit. The threat of lawsuits has primarily resulted in companies sticking with the "tried and true" approaches because precedent protects them. In other words, I've mostly seen the threat of lawsuits resulting in the stifling of innovation.

I have seen this repeatedly - a company explores a technology, but then responds to the threat of lawsuits (suggested by their legal staff) by cancelling innovative products because of an unwillingness to assume risk.

Few companies are willing to "stick their neck out" and do something really new. Most medical development is limited to minor iterations and improvements. It is often the small start-ups that innovate because they don't have a multi-million dollar established business at risk.

I suspect that the industry was hesitant to embrace the Sawstop technology years ago because:
1) It added significant cost to the low end of the saw market - putting them at a sales disadvantage to non-equipped saws.
2) They perceived that customers might become complacent and expect that the saw would protect them from injury. "Who needs a pesky blade guard when the saw will guard me?"
3) They believed that there would be a class action lawsuit at some point from customers who had blades destroyed as a result of false detections.
4) When the sensing technology failed to fire and protect an individual, they would be sued.

When (if?) the industry announces their technology, I wouldn't be surprised that they had found a way to non-destructively stop the blade or retract the blade without braking it. The destructive aspect of the Sawstop had to be a major deal-killer for these companies.

5) They understand that if users would simply use the OEM safety devices and follow the safety instructions in the manual the incidence of injury would be nearly non existent.

6) Injuries are caused by user error not machine defects.

[LinuxRandal]

5)

6) Injuries are caused by user error not machine defects.

You need the word either some or most. Machines do have a defect rate, and the blade that was missing a tooth (even though that is a bad one) is an example. It was either here, or on another board, someone bought a WWII blade, that hadn't been finished, before it was sent out by Forrest.

NOTHING in the world is absolute, IMH experiences.

[germdoc]

Few companies are willing to "stick their neck out" and do something really new. Most medical development is limited to minor iterations and improvements. It is often the small start-ups that innovate because they don't have a multi-million dollar established business at risk.

...

2) They perceived that customers might become complacent and expect that the saw would protect them from injury. "Who needs a pesky blade guard when the saw will guard me?"

I agree with first point to some extent re' new products but not re' safety on existing products. Do lawsuits and govt. regulations push doctors to practice safe medicine and prevent injuries/infections? You bet they do! That's the reason about half of my committees exist.

Re' #2--I have yet to see the person who will willingly or nonchalantly stick his hand into a 5000-rpm blade just because there's a safety device (except for Gass, of course). Seat belts and air bags don't make people drive like idiots, safeties on rifles don't make people point guns randomly and pull the trigger, etc. Risky behavior is IMO independent of the product.