3 ms·
Please cite your $10 fee narrative, only Reference [1] I can find, and this history I know of from my memory at the time the Licensing fees where not even rem
by syshum 6y ago
Please cite your $10 fee narrative, only Reference [1] I can find, and this history I know of from my memory at the time the Licensing fees where not even remotely that small
Closer to 3-8% of gross sales was what as demanded on a product that often does not have that much margin to begin with, thus the licensing of the tech would have took a hug part of the profits of each saw sale
Contract Talks ultimately broke down when the companies wanted the inventor to indemnify them from law suits if the tech failed, not over a "$10 fee" like you imply in your comment
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SawStop#Attempt_to_license,_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SawStop#Attempt_to_license,_20...
- bickfordb 6y agoI'm also surprised by this claim. SawStop table saws cost 3x the equivalent from other manufacturers. It's unfortunate the technology wasn't licensed out. It's a critical safety feature on one of the most dangerous consumer tools.
- perl4ever 6y ago"the licensing of the tech would have took a huge part of the profits of each saw sale" That seems to be assuming that consumers would not pay one penny more for the safer saw. I guess if you're afraid of people relying on it, then suing, you can't really market it. Which seems like a good argument for it being mandated by government, assuming it can be implemented in a way that works.