Mother Jones talks about Table Saws

[durango dude]

I admit - I read MJ --- and New Scientist, too.

My politics aren't anywhere near the typical MJ reader - Southwest Colorado really has its own breed.

In any event, MJ discusses the issues around product liability and SawStop.

I never knew Ryobi saws were front and center in some of the landmark litigation.

Not really surprised (big companies attract lawsuits) - just was unaware.

Here's the article link.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ety-finger-cut

[JimD]

The article is not terribly accurate - like saying riving knives are mostly on european saws and then admitting late in the article that they are required now here. But the basic content seems pretty factual. They like the inventor of the sawstop a lot more than I do but include a quote where he admits he is doing what he is doing for his own financial gain.

[cabinetman]

The article is not terribly accurate - like saying riving knives are mostly on european saws and then admitting late in the article that they are required now here. But the basic content seems pretty factual. They like the inventor of the sawstop a lot more than I do but include a quote where he admits he is doing what he is doing for his own financial gain.

What's wrong with that? I'm not averse to the saw because of the inventor. I'm guessing he spent quite a tidy sum developing the saw and getting it to market. For sure I would be interested in my own financial gain if I invented it. Besides that controversy, from what I've heard from the users and owners of the saw, it's quite good.

If it does what it claims to do, I would pay the price if I was needing a saw.

.

[All Thumbs]

If it does what it claims to do, I would pay the price if I was needing a saw.

.

If he were successful at implementing his plan, you wouldn't have a choice. Your would be FORCED to pay the price, because other options would not be available.

Lobbying for what is essentially a monopoly on a mandated safety feature is a real jerk move.

As citizens and as consumers, we should send a loud and clear message to manufacturers that try to corrupt the marketplace in an effort to line their pockets.

[capncarl]

If Benjamin Franklin had the same attitude that Gass has when he invented the famous lightning rods that is credited with saving countless buildings and lives that invention would have been kicked to the sidelines. Instead of trying to become the next Bill Gates with the proceeds of his invention he should have donated it to mankind and crafted himself an industry making a reasonable amount from the device.

[All Thumbs]

If Benjamin Franklin had the same attitude that Gass has when he invented the famous lightning rods that is credited with saving countless buildings and lives that invention would have been kicked to the sidelines. Instead of trying to become the next Bill Gates with the proceeds of his invention he should have donated it to mankind and crafted himself an industry making a reasonable amount from the device.

There is no reason for any inventor to donate anything. Just participate in the free market, as we expect everyone else to.
In the free market, SS is doing just fine. Schools and businesses can't replace their Unisaws (and other saws) fast enough.
Make a better product, sell it for a reasonable price, make your case. Just don't try to legislate its use.

[BigguyZ]

Oh No! Another SawStop thread!

I think the quote from the CPSC and SS in regards to creating a monopoly do apply, as Steve Gass continuously tries to cast himself as the savior of fingers. Not a greedy SOB who is trying to ransom the industry, rather than agreeing to a more reasonable liscencing fee that would allow them to use his system or their own.

I would think that the CPSC would be able to create the rule, but mandate the limit to the liscencing fee that Gass could charge for use of his patents. I think that's been done, when a monopoly was created. That way, they could require the technology, but keep Gass from jacking up the price of the technology.

The article is a lot of fluff, and poorly written. They say that the Whirlwind device detects blade contact- which is incorrect. It's a guard, and a lot of the article talks about how no one uses guards...

What I found interesting is that SawStop admits to 2 amputations on their saws. Was that due to the system not working when it should, or did the person disable the detection? OR- did they fall into the blade with such speed that the system wasn't fast enough? How do they not have that detail???

One note- although I hate Gass's tactics, I do agree that it's a good system, and if I was in the market for a new cabinet saw, I'd buy a SS. As much as I hate Gass, I like my fingers more.

[cabinetman]

If he were successful at implementing his plan, you wouldn't have a choice. Your would be FORCED to pay the price, because other options would not be available.

Lobbying for what is essentially a monopoly on a mandated safety feature is a real jerk move.

As citizens and as consumers, we should send a loud and clear message to manufacturers that try to corrupt the marketplace in an effort to line their pockets.

Do you have a comment on seat belts?

.

[durango dude]

guys - did not mean to start a flare up, here ----

As part of my reading, I looked up Sawstop in Wikipedia.

Looks like they've gone back and forth with Ryobi for a long time.

I admire the SS technology - but am less than enthusiastic about their monopolistic behavior.

Wondering when the patents were awarded ---- US patents expire after 20 years.

Suspect we'll see a lot more stopping technology after then.

Meanwhile - my thumb would really appreciate a SawStop jointer!

[JimD]

Invention of SawStop +++++

Pricing the use of patents abnormally high and taking no responsibility for it working ---

Trying to get it mandated so you would get a fee from every table saw purchased ----

Testifying on behalf of people who didn't use a saw correctly but still want to blame the manufacturer ------------------------------

[woodturner]

Lobbying for what is essentially a monopoly on a mandated safety feature is a real jerk move.

How is that any different than when Chrysler bought the patents for the automotive air bag and got the NHTSA to mandate airbags for new cars?

[cwsmith]

I think it is far too easy to argue both sides of the Saw Stop issue. Certainly IT is a very good invention, great technology, etc. And certainly Mr. Gass should fairly make a profit from his invention, as any one of us would do. Because it is a great safety feature, I think Mr. Gass deserves a great amount of applause for his ingenuity and deserves all the protection under patent rights that he can get.

However, I don't think this invention should be forced down our throats through legislation. My opinion of the lawsuit against Ryobi is that it is totally ridiculous and that all of the fault of that so-called "accident" should have fallen on the contractor, for he is the one who had removed the guards and placed an ignorant and inexperienced person on that tool with no training or oversight!

Ryobi can definitely be faulted for the lack of focus and enept defense legal team that had responsibility for this case. I haven't read where they called any experienced woodworker or contractor or even tool designer to state the safe operation and guards that are currently regulated for this type of tool. Instead, it was a jury without any experience in such practices and a plaintiff that brought in the "expert" witness for alternative technologies.

Adding to that of course is the need for MJ and other periodicals to find a story and make of it what they can in order to sell their media.

CWS

[capncarl]

I forcast that 100 years from now woodworkers will look back and see that SS started a saw safety revolution and the industry developed ways to work around a greedy patent lawyer. Our bickering around don't amount to a hill of beans. As I age I mellow out but my tolerance for greedy monopolys gets shorter. Say what you want about any simular subject, computers, seat belts, insurance, oil companys or table saws, it may be legal but it is not right.

[All Thumbs]

How is that any different than when Chrysler bought the patents for the automotive air bag and got the NHTSA to mandate airbags for new cars?

It is different because that never happened.

[All Thumbs]

Do you have a comment on seat belts?

.

Yeah, you should read-up on seat belts, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#History

They (three-point) were patented (for cars) in 1955, originally used in Volvo autos (figures) and weren't added to most cars until the 70's and 80's.

The fact is, whether it is seatbelts or airbags or saw stoppers, inventing the device is great. Legislating their use and giving a monopoly to the inventor, not so great.