Mother Jones talks about Table Saws

[All Thumbs]

It's fine to disagree, but you will need to cite support to explain why you think the commonly known, accepted, and experienced events are "wrong". Do you really think the NHTSA doesn't know what they did, or history was recorded incorrectly?

Very strange.

It is on you to prove they are right.

Go ahead.

[Cochese]

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.

It escapes my Google search capabilities. A patent search reveals a patent or two that Chrysler had that are well expired. However, nothing current and certainly no information that suggests Chrysler gets a cut.

Perhaps you can point us in the right direction.

[woodturner]

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.

Royalties for use of a patent can vary widely, but there is a requirement that a patent be licensed to others for a "reasonable" fee. The automakers fought with the inventor of the intermittent wiper for years before the courts finally ruled in his favor, and he was asking for $50 per car, when the cost to make the intermittent wiper was in the range of $30 per car.

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.

What Gass asked CPSC to mandate is protection on table saws - not necessarily HIS version, but a system that will protect a person if their body touches the moving saw blade. That's what Chrysler did with the airbag - got NHTSA to impose passive restraint requirements. In both cases, it just "coincidentally" happened that there were no alternative technologies, which effectively would require purchase from those vendors. However, there is nothing to stop other saw makers from developing a competing technology.

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.

That seems to all be the normal process of enforcing patents - and if one does not consistently and vigorously enforce patents, they lose the rights to them. Kind of like trademarks - with Xerox and Kleenex being two well-known examples where they lost trademarks due to insufficient defense.

In that case the cost to the user is zero (or has already been paid) - it is already on the car.

Yes, but it is in the car because a particular vendor successfully got NHTSA to mandate a requirement that could be met with their technology.

[woodturner]

It escapes my Google search capabilities.

Maybe that's why Bing is becoming so popular . Seriously, the key phrase to search is "passive restraints" - that's the phrase that includes airbags for automotive use. Just be careful to put the phrase in quotes and turns SafeSearch on, or you may see some disturbing things .

There is a good article on airbags here.

I'll have to dig a bit more to find all the Chrysler-owned patents.

Remember the "passive" seatbelts from the 1980's that were motorized? That was an attempt by other manufacturer's to work around the Chrysler patents. If you have ever been choked by one of those, it's pretty apparent why the consumers hated them and they quickly died out.

[Cochese]

Maybe that's why Bing is becoming so popular . Seriously, the key phrase to search is "passive restraints" - that's the phrase that includes airbags for automotive use. Just be careful to put the phrase in quotes and turns SafeSearch on, or you may see some disturbing things .

There is a good article on airbags here.

I'll have to dig a bit more to find all the Chrysler-owned patents.

Remember the "passive" seatbelts from the 1980's that were motorized? That was an attempt by other manufacturer's to work around the Chrysler patents. If you have ever been choked by one of those, it's pretty apparent why the consumers hated them and they quickly died out.

My information conflicts with yours. Here is an NYT with Chrysler reversing course on installing airbags (with some of the key language being Lee Iacocca being staunchly against the idea for twenty years), and them installing airbags as a way to comply with 1988 standards. Their choice was motorized restraints or airbags, and they chose airbags.

I believe the 1981 S-Class was the first to offer it as an option, and Ford had been selling cars with airbags well before Chrysler gave in, per the NYT article.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/26/bu...ted=all&src=pm

[All Thumbs]

I'll have to dig a bit more to find all the Chrysler-owned patents.

A list of patents won't prove your assertion that "...Chrysler bought the patents for the automotive air bag and got the NHTSA to mandate airbags for new cars..."

[LCHIEN]

A few comments:
THe main patent on airbags was too far ahead of its time. The tech for triggerable expanding gas sources that could inflate the bag fast enough did not exist at the time of the patent. The acceleration sensors were too expensive. These and other problems were eventually resolved to make commercially affordable and producible airbags but by that time the original patent had expired and there were no significant royalties on the original patent. I'm sure there were many follow on patents for gas sources and accelerometers that resulted, though.

As for the article mentioned, two key facts have been omitted.
1. Osario, who won the lawsuit against Ryobi, was not only using the saw w/o a guard, but also using it w/o rip fence or miter fence, e.g. he was freehanding it, a major no-no. Further he was not using a support for the saw, e.g. the saw was on unlevel ground, another no-no.
2. The article does not mention what Gass wants out of it. He wants 3 to 8% royalty on the price of the saw, plus he will be selling parts, each mechanism probably costs $85. So he will be making nearly $100 on every saw that has his invention. That's a large fraction of the cost of am inexpensive saw and a fair fraction of even a costly professional saw.

[Brian G]

I'm more inclined to expend my umbrage at the DIY and home improvement shows that have fostered a culture of unsafe practices, like:

Hometime, where it's not uncommon to see somebody cutting freehand on a tablesaw.

Any of the smash and build shows that take great glee with demolition without proper eye, head, and hearing protection.

All American Handyman, which promotes speed and slop over slow and safe. Shame on you Mike Holmes!

Any show that shows using a CMS or SCMS on the floor, hunched over.

I've sent comments to some of these shows, but never received a return message.

My "day job" involves enforcing regulations. I've done it long enough to know that you can't regulate stupid, just hope to minimize the damage.

Be smart, be deliberate, be careful, and you'll generally be safe.

[greenacres2]

On a similar vein to Denco earlier and Brian G--i will personally do my best to operate in a safe manner and continue to try to learn more about how to do so. If i could afford the SawStop (which sounds like it may be a pretty decent saw with the Stop part being an additional feature that comes with a price), i'd still observe the same practices that i use today.

That saw may stop when it hits a hot dog, but those few thousandths of a second are still going to result in some kind of damage to me. And...i like me more than anyone else does!! Even with a riving knife and anti-kickback prawls, i don't stand behind my rip cuts.

Sometimes, additional safety features can lure folks into a false sense of security. Today's firefighting gear enables us to go deeper into a fire than we should at times--we'd probably come out all right, but there is greater wisdom in not going too far in to start with. Sharp tools with more safety devices are still sharp tools.

earl

[LCHIEN]

My googling gets me this (on airbag patent history)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag

According to this article,
there were early patents in 1953 covering basic airbags technology.
They were not practical inflators until 1967. It was sold to Chrysler but other companies soon had inflators and sensors technology sold to the other auto companies. Fully electronic MEMS sensors in the 90's made them cheap and reliable crash sensors.

A US inventor Allen Breed developed cheap mechanical sensors in 1969 and then had two dozen other airbag related patents, all held by his company, Key Safety Systems.

As early as 1974 it was an expensive option for GM cars.

1984 legislation in the US mandated passive restraints by 1989 - it did not specify a technology and either motorized seatbelts or airbags would meet the rules.

in 1988-89 chrysler made airbags standard in all their cars and in a few years (1991) all the minvans and pickup trucks, too.

By the early 2000s virtually all vehicles in the US and Europe had standard airbags.

In 1997-8 dual front airbags airbags were mandated for all cars by US law

If this article is correct, then Chrysler apparently forced no legislation, they simply led the market competitively in implementation.

The technology in today's airbags was produced by third party companies and is available to all auto manufacturers.

other articles:
http://inventors.about.com/od/astart...a/air_bags.htm
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0..._invented.html

In the numerous articles I read I saw no mention of any IP (Intellectual Property i.e. patents) owners lobbying hard for requirement of a particular wording that required using their invention, it was widely accepted that automatic seatbelts could be used to meet the requirements until 1998. Certainly no mention of a IP owner testifying against the auto companies to pressure them into adopting their IP. Certainly this would be more graphics (thousands of deaths per year) when technology was available... I think it would be mentioned.

[vaking]

Most cases also involve presumption that there is a technology available that can prevent amputations and accidents. I believe this is not entirely true. Check the sawstop web site and notice that they offer several models but all their models are large saws (cabinetmaker or contractor class). They don't have a single portable model, not job-site and not bench-top. This may be because portable models are usually cheaper and adding price of a sawstop technology would be too much, or, it may be that adding this technology would simply make that saw too bulky and heavy. I don't like losing digits but I don't want hernia either. In this case - sawstop technology is not really available on portable models regardless of a price. Most cases, like Osorio, involve portable saws. Majority of saws in existence are portable saws and so far I see no evidence that Gass has a solution for those.

[woodturner]

Here is an NYT with Chrysler reversing course on installing airbags (with some of the key language being Lee Iacocca being staunchly against the idea for twenty years), and them installing airbags as a way to comply with 1988 standards. Their choice was motorized restraints or airbags, and they chose airbags.

Interesting article and a good refresher. I had kind of forgotten that Chrysler was arguing against airbags when they were ramping up the manufacturing capability, then did a quick about-face when they had airbag production facilities online.

[woodturner]

I'm more inclined to expend my umbrage at the DIY and home improvement shows that have fostered a culture of unsafe practices

What about Norm? Remember when he free hand cut a tenon on the tablesaw first season The viewer outrage over that is what prompted all the disclaimers in later shows.

Good point, though - inexperienced people who are learning do tend to emulate what they learn on TV, so I do think it is important to teach good and safe practices.

[woodturner]

Most cases also involve presumption that there is a technology available that can prevent amputations and accidents. I believe this is not entirely true.

The initial article implies there were two amputations with a SawStop, and that SawStop acknowledges that, but I haven't been able to find any details. Anyone know what that is about?

[JimD]

Woodturner,

Here is a link to a kickback injury from someone using a SawStop saw:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthre...-GORY-PICTURES

I don't think it is evidence the technology doesn't work, it might be evidence it helps SS owners get overconfident but overconfidence is certainly not limited to SS owners.

With respect to your earlier comment about enforcing patents related to Steve Gass's legal activities you are off-base. Testifying for plantiffs sueing manufacturers and trying to get new regulations or laws promoting your product are not enforcing a patent and will do little or nothing to protect it. Enforcing a patent is sending letters to people you think are infringing it and suing them if they refuse to stop. If you passively let others use technology you think infringes and then later decide to sue them, it can weaken your case. It's a whole different thing from what Mr. Gass is doing.

I remain convinced that the degree to which Mr. Gass tries to use the legal system to force sales of his product is unattactive and a bit sleazy. I am also open to the idea that others have a right to disagree. I also might buy one of his saws someday but I would prefer to get similar technology from somebody else. I admire Steve Gass for inventing this, I just wish he didn't want so much money for it which has helped manufacturers decide not to use it. Mr. Gass has a right to do this the way he is, I just wish he'd decided to price it low and make it up on volume as manufacturers came on board.

Jim