4 ms·

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

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.