Festool to purchase SawStop

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Regarding "flesh detecting" saw safety devices patents, I don't think there was much of a challenge to the validity of the Gass/sawstop patents. Such challenges usually deal with prior art - someone else described or patented this before he did or that it was not an improvemnt on existing tech, I did see in google search some litigation between black and decker/Bosch wit SD3 over the Gass patent.

    I see in various searches that The Gass patent is assigned to SD3 LLC which is the parent company of SawStop.LLC.
    I see that TTC, parent company of Festool bough Sawstop LLC. So its hard to tell if it inludes ownership of the patents (I'm guessing not since SD3 owns them and SD3 sold the Sawstop, but I'm sure that the purchase includes at least a permanent license to use the patent.

    Everyone should remember that Gass's litigation was to force the FTC to adopt regulations for saw to include a safety device that was worded so specifically as to require the use of a device with the Gass patent. Competitors were fighting to get more latitude in the technology or no regulation at all.

    Loring in Katy, TX USA
    If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to treat all problems as if they were nails.
    BT3 FAQ - https://www.sawdustzone.org/forum/di...sked-questions


    • #17
      The thing about the Bosch Gates litigation, is it involved (my understanding) patents, that Bosch held on its airbag stuff. (sensors, deploying, etc)
      She couldn't tell the difference between the escape pod, and the bathroom. We had to go back for her.........................Twice.


      • #18
        Originally posted by LinuxRandal View Post
        It will be interesting to see if Sawstop now comes out with a European style table saw of if one of those sliding table add ones, start being marketed with it. It is also interesting to me, that no mention of the patents being sold, so I expect Gass can entirely focus on the litigation side of his business, and now would have a defense in any "reasonable patent licensing" arguments.
        Historically litigation has been an incredibly poor business model. Take SCO under the leadership of Darl McBride. He crashed that company trying it litigation methodology while trying to sue a much larger Corporation IBM on admittedly much weaker grounds and then Gass would have. The principal is more or less the same though.
        Please like and subscribe to my YouTube channel. Please check out and subscribe to my Workshop Blog.