7 ms·

I am all for SawStop and their invention. I am also all for the Consumer Product Safety Commission doing their fucking job and requiring this to be part of any

• jamiequint 8y ago
  > without paying SawStop any patent fees That'd be a great way to stop any future safety innovation that may benefit many people.
  • ahoy 8y ago
    It isn't benefiting many people now. Look at these prices https://www.sawstop.com/build/ https://www.sawstop.com/build/
    • mrlala 8y ago
      Yeah it's crazy, just went to their site. "Jobsite Saw" at $1299. Otherwise known as "exactly like something you can buy at home depot for $299" but without their protection. About $1000 more for their stuff.. most people can't afford that. I can barely get myself to spend the $300 on a table saw as it is.
    • edaemon 8y ago
      Their jobsite and contractor saws are expensive, but the cabinet saws are priced pretty similarly to other high quality cabinet saws (and SawStops are high quality).
    • grmarcil 8y ago
      True, they are not cheap tools, but SawStop makes high quality equipment. Their prices are a bit cheaper than Powermatic [1], and the saws compare favorably in performance-oriented reviews. SawStop isn't really a homeowner tool, but it is certainly within an accessible price range for enthusiasts, schools, and professionals. [1] https://www.toolnut.com/power-tools/saws/table-saws.html?manufacturer=Powermatic https://www.toolnut.com/power-tools/saws/table-saws.html?man...
    • jackhack 8y ago
      Sure, you'll find a premium on top of commodity tool prices to add the sawstop technology. No doubt about it. What you won't find is anyone who says "sure, I lost my finger/hand/arm to a sawblade, but look on the bright side, I saved a thousand bucks!" That $1000 difference wouldn't even cover most insurance plan deductibles for one ER visit. Not to mention specialists, surgeons, reconstructive surgery, physical therapy, etc.
    • nathantotten 8y ago
      I don't believe that is really true. Most woodworking stores pretty much only have Saw Stop in the stores. Sure, lots of people have the super cheap Dewalt's or whatever from Home Depot, but Saw Stop sells a lot of table saws. I won't use anything else.
      • semi-extrinsic 8y ago
        You literally can't buy a Saw Stop outside of the US. And even if you import one, after paying $$$ for the saw and $$ for shipping, you'd need to install a big hunking $$$ 220V-110V transformer in your shop. I've never seen one over here. The European philosophy seems to be that the Saw Stop isn't worth it, because if you get in a situation where it kicks in, it means you've done something stupid like not using a riving knife and not using a crosscut sled or other pushing device. I think also the fact that you don't get the system on other types of saws (band saw, mitre saw, circular saw, etc.) says something about the efficiacy.
        • detaro 8y ago
          SawStop has stopped all competing attempts for patent violation, so I'm not sure it not being sold elsewhere is a clear sign it's not wanted.
          • semi-extrinsic 8y ago
            AFAICT SawStop's patents (seems to primarily hinge on US patents 7,895,927 and 8,011,279) are only valid in the US. Also, when Bosch tried their "Reaxx" branded competitor, it was only launched in the US. The official reply from Bosch when people asked on their forum about bringing the Reaxx to Europe was """ There are currently no plans to bring the Reaxx to the European market simply due to differences in health and safety regulations across the two continents. """ My reading of this is that as long as people in Europe follow local H&S regulations, this technology is redundant. And they're not going to sell tools with features that enable people to disregard H&S regs.
            • 8y ago
    • dylan604 8y ago
      Ask the person with missing appendages how much money was saved by not buying the tool with the safety features.
  • Lukeas14 8y ago
    I agree that simply invalidating the patent would have serious repercussions on future safety innovation. But if we decide that it's beneficial enough to require, maybe the government could buy the patent from SawStop for a fair market value.
• hinkley 8y ago
  Someone was working on an alternative where they switch the motor to DC current, which causes the magnetic fields to stop rotating and hence the blade as well. That gets around the patent and has the potential to not require repairs after triggering. Edit: and it looks like Bosch has a cheaper system involving tech from airbag firing hardware that’s $50 per charge, that retracts the blade instead of catching it.
  • phamilton 8y ago
    The Bosch system has been banned from the US for patent infringement.
    • 0xdeadbeefbabe 8y ago
      Detecting a finger touching metal through change in electrical resistance doesn't seem novel, but the stopping mechanism does. Do I have that right?
      • vonseel 8y ago
        I've never really understood patents, but none of this seems really "novel" to me. I take it you said that backwards on purpose though as sarcasm? Applying braking technology to a blade doesn't seem like that novel of an idea compared to detecting a finger touching metal through change in electrical resistance.
        • fixvzbdjzis 8y ago
          Detecting a flesh through E&M is about 100 years old.
• Lukeas14 8y ago
  I think there's a difference between tools used by industry/hobbyists and products used by the general public. People who buy table saws are either professionals or at least have enough of an interest in woodworking to know the risks and know they need to learn safety tips. As opposed to products like cars or toasters, used by the general public who usually have no interest in how they work. At the end of the day, it's really not hard to prevent table saw injuries. Use a riving knife, don't twist the wood and you'll pretty much never get a kickback. If something does go wrong you won't get injured if you keep your body out of the way. So don't stand directly behind the saw and use a push stick (I love my GRR-Ripper) so your fingers are never close to the blade. I'd guess the majority of woodworking injuries are due to people who know these rules but break them out of laziness or rushing. Table saws also aren't the only risk in a workshop. You can injure yourself just as easily on any other type of saw, jointer, planer, etc. It doesn't make sense for the CPSC to only require SawStop tech on table saws and putting it on every other tool would put the price of woodworking out of reach for most hobbyists. From a quick Google search, 93% of table saw injuries are to the users' hands. The only actual deaths I could find were suicides. Yea it sucks to lose a finger but I'd argue that it's not the worse thing in the world. Pretty much everyone could still do their jobs minus one finger. The one exception I would make is high school woodshop classes. Based on most teenagers lack of judgement, I think it does make sense to mandate that these woodshops only use saws with this technology. I'd be surprised if most school insurance policies don't already require it.
  • nikofeyn 8y ago
    > At the end of the day, it's really not hard to prevent table saw injuries. Use a riving knife, don't twist the wood and you'll pretty much never get a kickback. isn't this just another way of saying "don't make mistakes"?
    • hoov 8y ago
      It's a little more complicated than that. Even with a riving knife, you can still get kickback if your blade isn't aligned properly -- and most cheaper saws need a tune-up before being used.
    • 8y ago
• SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  >I am all for SawStop and their invention. >requiring this to be part of any table saw sold in the US, without paying SawStop any patent fees I don't think you are for SawStop or their invention. Sorry, you don't get to cheat someone out of their work just because it's a good idea. It's pretty much the exact opposite of that.
  • vonseel 8y ago
    I do not understand patent laws. SawStop invented a thing. Does that mean nobody else can ever produce a similar thing? Ford created the first mass-production automobile. Did that stop other companies from developing their own cars with their own internal-combustion engine? I don't think so. Where do you draw the line on what is patentable and what is not? If I have designed a new pharmaceutical compound and it is patented, does that mean other companies can not synthesize their own version of the same compound and sell it under a different brand name? I suppose if we apply this logic to mechanical devices, you pretty much kill all competition for the life of the patent.
    • Zanni 8y ago
      > SawStop invented a thing. Does that mean nobody else can ever produce a similar thing? No. SawStop patents (there are many) begin expiring in 2021. > Ford created the first mass-production automobile. Did that stop other companies from developing their own cars with their own internal-combustion engine? As you say, Ford wasn't first to the ICE car game. They did have patents on the Model-T, though. >Where do you draw the line on what is patentable and what is not? https://www.legalzoom.com/knowledge/patent/topic/what-is-patentable https://www.legalzoom.com/knowledge/patent/topic/what-is-pat... > If I have designed a new pharmaceutical compound and it is patented, does that mean other companies can not synthesize their own version of the same compound and sell it under a different brand name? That is correct. > I suppose if we apply this logic to mechanical devices, you pretty much kill all competition for the life of the patent. This logic does apply to mechanical devices, but it doesn't "kill all competition" because companies can design around existing patents. If you can find another way to achieve the same effect that's not covered by the patent, then you're fine. In practice, this happens all the time.
• HeWhoLurksLate 8y ago
  Honestly, I think that this is <i>not</i> the best option- requiring some certain solution is not the best option, as it stifles innovation and there might be something better around the corner that won't even get looked at. For instance, the Bosch Reaxx saw retracts the blade down below the table as fast as possible, instead of embedding it into a chunk of metal the way that SawStops do (they both have their merits, but Reaxx is more universal, and universal safety is important- humans, in general, are more likely to mess up when they're doing something new, and standard cutting blades have been around forever, but that new Rockler kit you bought not so much.) Instead, I'll argue something similar, but different: the laws should require some level of safety, but not require any specific implementation of the feature, as long as it's safe and dependable (per legalese specifications, no doubt). However, there are many other <i>equally important</i> safety features to think about, such as (the term escapes me at the moment) inrush-detecting limiters that keep the saw from blazing to life when you plug it in [1], or saw blade covers that are actually usable and don't impede work. If you were to invent, build, and manufacture something life-changing, would you want the government to socialize it and not compensate you at all for it? Part of the problem with the SawStop was that the inventor wanted an inane amount of money for the license, so Bosch, who saw value in the feature, worked around them. Do something like mandate that all products of type X include exact part Y leads what you see in the defense industry- parts that aren't priced competitively, and might not be the best thing for the job. (Yes, I know there are holes in this analogy, and that building stuff costs money.) [0]Link to legal fight between Bosch and SawStop: https://www.protoolreviews.com/news/sawstop-vs-bosch-reaxx-lawsuit-not-yet/26066/ https://www.protoolreviews.com/news/sawstop-vs-bosch-reaxx-l... [1]AFAIK, the general mode of operation for these is to flip the switch to off when it loses power (like a GFCI, I would guess).