4 ms·
This is absolutely ridiculous. If he wanted a saw with Sawstop, he should have paid the money to buy one with it! For a comparison, a Sawstop cabinet saw inte
by dlytle 17y ago
This is absolutely ridiculous. If he wanted a saw with Sawstop, he should have paid the money to buy one with it!
For a comparison, a Sawstop cabinet saw intended for home woodworkers was (as of July 09) $2900. Ryobi's MOST expensive table saw that I've seen was listed at $299.
So, the guy sued a budget tool maker for not including patented technology that's included in models 10 times more expensive than the one he (probably) purchased.
And he won.
If Ryobi loses on appeal, it's going to be a crying shame.
For a (possibly terrible) analogy, it's like someone buying a small cheap car, getting in a wreck, and then suing the car manufacturer because their car isn't as safe as the highest-end luxury cars. I wish I could say it was unbelievable, but it's clearly occured.
- wheaties 17y agoNo, the real question is why did he get money for being careless. If I put on my skates wrong as a kid, fell down and bumped by head, know what happened? My mother yelled at me for not being careful. Now, we sue the skate manufacturer.
- anigbrowl 17y agoThat's a big assumption. We don't know the circumstances of the accident.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- mnemonicsloth 17y agoI thought Sawstop and such were only expensive because tool manufacturers weren't interested in producing them in bulk. (?) If so, the jury probably balked at the business rationale: "We don't want to spend $10 million on a saftey feature that will raise the price of our saws by $50, because nobody will buy them." It's still a bad precedent, but it makes more sense.