5 ms·

Is it greed exactly? Wouldn't the saws just cost more? I suppose the R&D on building the components into their current products is something they don't want to

Is it greed exactly? Wouldn't the saws just cost more? I suppose the R&D on building the components into their current products is something they don't want to do, so maybe that's the greed aspect?

taneq 9y ago
I think the greed mentioned here is that SawStop is lobbying to make it mandatory for saws to use their technology while trying to stop others from bringing similar systems to market, all so that they can price-gouge a captive market. IIRC last time it was discussed here, they were trying to charge ~$100 per saw to license their tech, when the usual margin on a saw was about a quarter of that. If they just accepted a reasonable licensing fee, their tech would be ubiquitous already and they wouldn't need to try and use regulatory capture to force people to use it. Relevant quote from TFA: > CPSC Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle said she was also concerned that the rule might force companies to license technology from SawStop, which she said might create a monopoly.
- flukus 9y ago
  I wonder if they'd be happy with a kickstarter like campaign to put the patent in the public domain.
- bluejekyll 9y ago
  Thanks for putting that into better light. So it's SawStop that is asking for too high a license, they aren't getting bites at that price point, and now trying to get legislation to force other companies to pony up. Now I get the greed aspect, should have been more obvious. I was thinking in terms of component cost and not licensing cost, how naive of me... Though in this case, at least they did create something novel making the patent legit.
  - joosters 9y ago
    I don't see it as being greedy. If you invent something clever, and we have a whole patent infrastructure for protecting inventors, why wouldn't you want to get paid for people using your inventions? No-one is seriously claiming that these patents are bad, or trivial, or obvious. The patents exist, they are available for companies to license, it's just that the competitors don't want to pay for it.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      They are also prevented from inventing their own similar solutions due to prior art and broad patent. The solution in SawStop qualifies as super obvious to a person not even well versed in art. As such it should not be patentable. However making a patent invalid in the US is extremely hard.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  > I think the greed mentioned here is that SawStop is lobbying to make it mandatory for saws to use their technology I don't think they are lobbying for saws to use their technology, but rather for saws to use -a- technology to stop the saw. They just happen to have a patent on a technology with proven results that it works. The patent probably covers the sensing, the stopping of the blade, and reactive retraction system to move the blade downward quickly. Another manufacturer would have to come up with alternatives to all or more of these to implement the same safety feature; or license the tech from SawStop. Manufacturers have done the math, and have come to the conclusion that they want the profits over their customer's safety; maybe they also got input from their customers, and found that most wouldn't pay over a certain amount extra for the feature, and that amount was much lower than what R&D for a new method, or licensing SawStop would cost. So - what's going on can be looked at as either SawStop being greedy, or they really want some kind of this technology to be put on saws (and other tools could benefit likely) - whether it is their's or something else. You can't fault them, though, for pursuing a lawsuit on patent infringement, if the it is being infringed. That's the point of patents. It could be argued that this is somewhat about greed, though, because SawStop has been pursuing this with the FTC since they came to market with the tech. But I doubt that they are trying "regulatory capture" here - that would be fairly blatant, and I doubt even the current FTC would abide by that. It could turn out, though, that their tech is (so far) the only way to reliably stop a saw blade from spinning instantly. Ultimately, we'll know what the truth is when the patent runs out: If all the table saw manufacturers adopt a similar system, but charge only a little extra (but not the huge difference that SawStop does - which is likely a combination of R&D recovery, plus being a small manufacturer with different margins to recoup) - then they care about their customer's safety. I'm cynical, though - I guess I've lived too long. I expect they'll either adopt something then charge just as much or more as SawStop does currently, or they'll not do anything (but likely increase their prices anyhow).
- msie 9y ago
  Thanks, I didn't realize that. So it's greed from all sides not just the toolmakers reluctant to make their saws safer. Damn one-sided reporting.
WalterBright 9y ago
It adds $200 to the cost of a saw. You can buy sawstop saws on Amazon. The trouble as I see it is it's patented technology, and SawStop sues infringers. It would certainly be a jackpot for SawStop to get a law requiring their patented technology on every saw - look what happens to drug prices with patent monopolies. SawStop could easily impose a ruinous patent fee on competitors, and completely monopolize the saw business. Is it any wonder other saw companies oppose this law? The patents expire in 2021, that should change the game.
- pfranz 9y ago
  Yeah, I think it's fair to debate now if it's worth making mandatory, but I don't have a strong opinion either way. I think he should be able to enforce his patent for the duration and after it expires there's a stronger argument for making it mandatory.

Is it greed exactly? Wouldn't the saws just cost more? I suppose the R&D on building the components into their current products is something they don't want to do, so maybe that's the greed aspect?

taneq 9y ago

I think the greed mentioned here is that SawStop is lobbying to make it mandatory for saws to use their technology while trying to stop others from bringing similar systems to market, all so that they can price-gouge a captive market. IIRC last time it was discussed here, they were trying to charge ~$100 per saw to license their tech, when the usual margin on a saw was about a quarter of that. If they just accepted a reasonable licensing fee, their tech would be ubiquitous already and they wouldn't need to try and use regulatory capture to force people to use it. Relevant quote from TFA: > CPSC Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle said she was also concerned that the rule might force companies to license technology from SawStop, which she said might create a monopoly.

flukus 9y ago
I wonder if they'd be happy with a kickstarter like campaign to put the patent in the public domain.
bluejekyll 9y ago
Thanks for putting that into better light. So it's SawStop that is asking for too high a license, they aren't getting bites at that price point, and now trying to get legislation to force other companies to pony up. Now I get the greed aspect, should have been more obvious. I was thinking in terms of component cost and not licensing cost, how naive of me... Though in this case, at least they did create something novel making the patent legit.
- joosters 9y ago
  I don't see it as being greedy. If you invent something clever, and we have a whole patent infrastructure for protecting inventors, why wouldn't you want to get paid for people using your inventions? No-one is seriously claiming that these patents are bad, or trivial, or obvious. The patents exist, they are available for companies to license, it's just that the competitors don't want to pay for it.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    They are also prevented from inventing their own similar solutions due to prior art and broad patent. The solution in SawStop qualifies as super obvious to a person not even well versed in art. As such it should not be patentable. However making a patent invalid in the US is extremely hard.
cr0sh 9y ago
> I think the greed mentioned here is that SawStop is lobbying to make it mandatory for saws to use their technology I don't think they are lobbying for saws to use their technology, but rather for saws to use -a- technology to stop the saw. They just happen to have a patent on a technology with proven results that it works. The patent probably covers the sensing, the stopping of the blade, and reactive retraction system to move the blade downward quickly. Another manufacturer would have to come up with alternatives to all or more of these to implement the same safety feature; or license the tech from SawStop. Manufacturers have done the math, and have come to the conclusion that they want the profits over their customer's safety; maybe they also got input from their customers, and found that most wouldn't pay over a certain amount extra for the feature, and that amount was much lower than what R&D for a new method, or licensing SawStop would cost. So - what's going on can be looked at as either SawStop being greedy, or they really want some kind of this technology to be put on saws (and other tools could benefit likely) - whether it is their's or something else. You can't fault them, though, for pursuing a lawsuit on patent infringement, if the it is being infringed. That's the point of patents. It could be argued that this is somewhat about greed, though, because SawStop has been pursuing this with the FTC since they came to market with the tech. But I doubt that they are trying "regulatory capture" here - that would be fairly blatant, and I doubt even the current FTC would abide by that. It could turn out, though, that their tech is (so far) the only way to reliably stop a saw blade from spinning instantly. Ultimately, we'll know what the truth is when the patent runs out: If all the table saw manufacturers adopt a similar system, but charge only a little extra (but not the huge difference that SawStop does - which is likely a combination of R&D recovery, plus being a small manufacturer with different margins to recoup) - then they care about their customer's safety. I'm cynical, though - I guess I've lived too long. I expect they'll either adopt something then charge just as much or more as SawStop does currently, or they'll not do anything (but likely increase their prices anyhow).
msie 9y ago
Thanks, I didn't realize that. So it's greed from all sides not just the toolmakers reluctant to make their saws safer. Damn one-sided reporting.

WalterBright 9y ago

It adds $200 to the cost of a saw. You can buy sawstop saws on Amazon. The trouble as I see it is it's patented technology, and SawStop sues infringers. It would certainly be a jackpot for SawStop to get a law requiring their patented technology on every saw - look what happens to drug prices with patent monopolies. SawStop could easily impose a ruinous patent fee on competitors, and completely monopolize the saw business. Is it any wonder other saw companies oppose this law? The patents expire in 2021, that should change the game.

pfranz 9y ago
Yeah, I think it's fair to debate now if it's worth making mandatory, but I don't have a strong opinion either way. I think he should be able to enforce his patent for the duration and after it expires there's a stronger argument for making it mandatory.