6 ms·

Everyone isn't quite accurate; do they sell and advertise saws with this at Home Depot, Lowes, etc. where most people buy their power tools? I also think that t

by yladiz 9y ago

Everyone isn't quite accurate; do they sell and advertise saws with this at Home Depot, Lowes, etc. where most people buy their power tools? I also think that thinking this will remove consumer choice is inaccurate as well, because if this was mandatory it's not like current saw manufacturers would simply stop selling saws. My understanding is this product doesn't really change much over time, and while there might be some new features added it's essentially the same product that was created years ago. I think the patent issue is a problem but if that was removed this would be a no brainer to add. Also, you're absolutely wrong that this won't make saws safer. This will prevent people from sawing their fingers off in the off chance a finger enters the blade. That absolutely makes it safer and its disingenuous to argue otherwise.

Bartweiss 9y ago
> do they sell and advertise saws with this at Home Depot, Lowes, etc. where most people buy their power tools? Yes, they did. Both companies carried Bosch REAXX saws, which have injury detection sensors, and are advertised accordingly. ^edited to past tense because there's apparently an injunction banning US sales of REAXX. So they tried to, and the reason they don't is that the company advocating for this law won't let them. > I also think that thinking this will remove consumer choice is inaccurate as well, because if this was mandatory it's not like current saw manufacturers would simply stop selling saws First, it still removes consumer choice to massively increase the price of saws. The cheapest sensing models I can find listed are >$1,000. The cheapest table saws at Home Depot are ~$400. Tripling the price of the cheapest model is absolutely a restriction of choice, and one that's going to hurt both hobbyists and professionals. Beyond that, Bosch REAXX is currently being sued by SawStop, the same company/inventor pushing for this legal requirement. Does it restrict consumer choice if there's only one legal brand, all the others having been sued out of the market? I agree that this technology is makes saws safer. I'm not at all convinced that the safety justifies handing a single company a government monopoly on table saws.
- yladiz 9y ago
  I mean, beyond this specific issue, it does seem they were infringing on the patent, so he has a right to sue to stop it being sold or get royalties from new and previous sales. I think this tech should be mandatory in all saws, but I also think that one company shouldn't have control over the licensing and it probably shouldn't be something companies have to pay for.
  - sjs382 9y ago
    If it's mandatory, the licensing should be both compulsory and FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-descrimatory). I'd be happy if my saw had the tech.
- nsnick 9y ago
  Didn't sawstop offer to license the technology for something like 8%? It doesn't seem that unreasonable to get a license. I would agree with you if sawstop was trying to prevent anyone from selling a safety saw, but I don't think that is the case.
  - mohaine 9y ago
    8% of revenue is HUGE. It would probably be the single biggest expense for each saw. It also seems strange for that to be a percent instead of a fixed cost since the feature is the same for all models of a saw.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    8% is egregious. Margins on consumer goods after parts and production are often well under 5%. Complex durable goods are probably higher, but even so 8% completely redefines the entire market. Look at it this way: Bosch decided it was better to spend a small fortune of R&D to try to avoid the patent than to pay the license fees. And even now they haven't settled the resulting lawsuit - they'd rather fight it, because the likely outcome of the fee is not "paying up" but "scrapping the entire product line as a net loss". Also bear in mind that this technology is a major portion of the total price of a saw - up around 50% on cheaper saws. So it's going to massively increase prices, and also increase SawStop's margins. They didn't just ask for 8%, they asked for 8% while lobbying the government to increase the price they're taking margin on and ban smaller competitors. This looks like the other form of patent abuse - where instead of trolling you make a product people can't avoid and crush competitors with patent suits.
sjs382 9y ago
Currently it's just saws from SawStop (now owned by Festool, IIRC?). Bosch released a saw with similar tech (called Reaxx -- https://www.boschtools.com/us/en/more/news-and-extras/specials/reaxx_info/index.html https://www.boschtools.com/us/en/more/news-and-extras/specia...) but they were forced to stop selling it. To answer your first question, you can't buy a SawStop at Home Depot or Lowes. If this tech was mandatory, it would force other saw manufacturers to charge $200 more per saw to cover patent licensing from SawStop/Festool.
- yladiz 9y ago
  Let's say the patent issue was rendered unnecessary (maybe courts require safety tech but also require the patent to be allowed royalty free) -- how much would this add to the cost of the saws? If the patent was still valid and they had to license it, are you sure it would add $200? The tech seems simple enough that I have a hard time believing a $400-ish saw becomes $600 due to this.
  - sjs382 9y ago
    The Reaxx is comparable (almost the same saw, just without the safety component) to the saw that I use (Bosch 4000-09) and IIRC it cost $1499 before the injunction, compared to the 4000-9's $600.
    - yladiz 9y ago
      Wow, that's a 250% increase... I feel like that price is due to pricing the research into it rather than the cost of the actual product itself. Ideally if the tech becomes mandatory it won't be a significant increase.
      - sjs382 9y ago
        Ideally the price would be lower, yes. I have a suspicion that the price increase is due to BOTH a need to recoup R&D and the perceived value of the "safe" saw.
    - deleted 9y ago

by yladiz 9y ago

Bartweiss 9y ago

> do they sell and advertise saws with this at Home Depot, Lowes, etc. where most people buy their power tools? Yes, they did. Both companies carried Bosch REAXX saws, which have injury detection sensors, and are advertised accordingly. ^edited to past tense because there's apparently an injunction banning US sales of REAXX. So they tried to, and the reason they don't is that the company advocating for this law won't let them. > I also think that thinking this will remove consumer choice is inaccurate as well, because if this was mandatory it's not like current saw manufacturers would simply stop selling saws First, it still removes consumer choice to massively increase the price of saws. The cheapest sensing models I can find listed are >$1,000. The cheapest table saws at Home Depot are ~$400. Tripling the price of the cheapest model is absolutely a restriction of choice, and one that's going to hurt both hobbyists and professionals. Beyond that, Bosch REAXX is currently being sued by SawStop, the same company/inventor pushing for this legal requirement. Does it restrict consumer choice if there's only one legal brand, all the others having been sued out of the market? I agree that this technology is makes saws safer. I'm not at all convinced that the safety justifies handing a single company a government monopoly on table saws.

yladiz 9y ago
I mean, beyond this specific issue, it does seem they were infringing on the patent, so he has a right to sue to stop it being sold or get royalties from new and previous sales. I think this tech should be mandatory in all saws, but I also think that one company shouldn't have control over the licensing and it probably shouldn't be something companies have to pay for.
- sjs382 9y ago
  If it's mandatory, the licensing should be both compulsory and FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-descrimatory). I'd be happy if my saw had the tech.
nsnick 9y ago
Didn't sawstop offer to license the technology for something like 8%? It doesn't seem that unreasonable to get a license. I would agree with you if sawstop was trying to prevent anyone from selling a safety saw, but I don't think that is the case.
- mohaine 9y ago
  8% of revenue is HUGE. It would probably be the single biggest expense for each saw. It also seems strange for that to be a percent instead of a fixed cost since the feature is the same for all models of a saw.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  8% is egregious. Margins on consumer goods after parts and production are often well under 5%. Complex durable goods are probably higher, but even so 8% completely redefines the entire market. Look at it this way: Bosch decided it was better to spend a small fortune of R&D to try to avoid the patent than to pay the license fees. And even now they haven't settled the resulting lawsuit - they'd rather fight it, because the likely outcome of the fee is not "paying up" but "scrapping the entire product line as a net loss". Also bear in mind that this technology is a major portion of the total price of a saw - up around 50% on cheaper saws. So it's going to massively increase prices, and also increase SawStop's margins. They didn't just ask for 8%, they asked for 8% while lobbying the government to increase the price they're taking margin on and ban smaller competitors. This looks like the other form of patent abuse - where instead of trolling you make a product people can't avoid and crush competitors with patent suits.

sjs382 9y ago

Currently it's just saws from SawStop (now owned by Festool, IIRC?). Bosch released a saw with similar tech (called Reaxx -- https://www.boschtools.com/us/en/more/news-and-extras/specials/reaxx_info/index.html https://www.boschtools.com/us/en/more/news-and-extras/specia...) but they were forced to stop selling it. To answer your first question, you can't buy a SawStop at Home Depot or Lowes. If this tech was mandatory, it would force other saw manufacturers to charge $200 more per saw to cover patent licensing from SawStop/Festool.

yladiz 9y ago
Let's say the patent issue was rendered unnecessary (maybe courts require safety tech but also require the patent to be allowed royalty free) -- how much would this add to the cost of the saws? If the patent was still valid and they had to license it, are you sure it would add $200? The tech seems simple enough that I have a hard time believing a $400-ish saw becomes $600 due to this.
- sjs382 9y ago
  The Reaxx is comparable (almost the same saw, just without the safety component) to the saw that I use (Bosch 4000-09) and IIRC it cost $1499 before the injunction, compared to the 4000-9's $600.
  - yladiz 9y ago
    Wow, that's a 250% increase... I feel like that price is due to pricing the research into it rather than the cost of the actual product itself. Ideally if the tech becomes mandatory it won't be a significant increase.
    - sjs382 9y ago
      Ideally the price would be lower, yes. I have a suspicion that the price increase is due to BOTH a need to recoup R&D and the perceived value of the "safe" saw.
  - deleted 9y ago