-
-
The issue is simple for me: I'd love to have a SS, but just can't afford it in this current economy. (I know, emergency surgery costs more). So, I keep my BT3100 tuned up, and I keep my eyes open and I think about what I'm doing when using the saw. In the end, I'm the one responsible for my safety.
For many of us, I think this is the best we can do until these types of saws are more affordable.*****Measure twice, cut once.....rats, back to the lumber yard.*****Comment
-
Patents have a limited life span (20 years, if I recall correctly).
One day, the SS technology will be main stream ---- I think you'll start to see licensed use of the SS patents within 5 years.Comment
-
I have to wonder where his head is at when it comes to the long term. The same people who would voluntarily pay more for the technology will bristle at the thought of being forced into it. Humans don't like to be ordered around.
I have thought about making my next saw upgrade a Sawstop, because I've certainly come around on my opinion of the product. That's a choice that I'll make, though. I would also like to legally be able to have my current saw fund that purchase, something that would not be possible if the CPSC mandates for the inclusion of the technology.Comment
-
What are you saying "never happened", NHTSA mandating airbags or Chrysler buying the patents? Both did actually happen and are easily verified. There is some good information on the web if you want to better understand the issue. Chrysler still gets a royalty from every airbag produced and still owns the patents.Last edited by woodturner; 05-16-2013, 02:44 PM.--------------------------------------------------
Electrical Engineer by day, Woodworker by nightComment
-
If there were multiple suppliers of this safety device, then I wouldn't be as adverse to the government mandating it. When it clearly will benefit one person, it doesn't seem right. It seems Mr. Gass is asking for 3-8% of the price of a table saw if you want to use his patents. That seems excessive to me based upon what I read of typical royalties. Especially since he wants no liability for his invention not working. The manufacturers estimate it will add $100 to the cost of the saw. That seems like a lot but I would probably pay it if I was sure it had a very high probability of working. I've seen the demonstrations but I keep tools a long time and it might be 10 years after I purchase the saw when I need the sawstop to work. Will it?
My issues are not with Mr. Gass wanting to make money off his invention. That is only fair. It is the amount he thinks is appropriate + his attempts to get it mandated through legislative action + his attempts to punish manufacturers who don't license his patents through lawsuits that bother me. It is legal but it also seems very pushy.
I always wear my seat belt if I am doing more than moving a car on the driveway. But in the state I live, mandatory seat belt laws where a big deal. I think that's dumb but that is the way it is. In that case the cost to the user is zero (or has already been paid) - it is already on the car. The impact to the user is a tiny bit of time. We all pay for persons who do not wear a belt if they get in a wreck due to higher premiums. They get hurt worse so we pay more. So I want there to be a mandatory seat belt law. But I don't get how me cutting myself on my table saw affects everybody else. Seems like it should be my decision.
JimComment
-
--------------------------------------------------
Electrical Engineer by day, Woodworker by nightComment
-
Colleagues - I'm afraid this conversation has worn out its welcome.
Back to woodworking -------Comment
Comment