3 ms·

> The other companies said hell no. We have the market. The other manufacturers would have had to immediately stop selling and possible have pulled all the oth

• epistasis 5y ago
  What is the basis for this claim? It doesn't sound particularly plausible compared to other safety features, such as car airbags, which are not offered across all products in a brand.
• imglorp 5y ago
  I'm not convinced about that legal theory. There's another precedent in motorcycle ABS: unlike cars, not all bikes have it yet, so you can buy a Ninja both with and without ABS. The feature is even more decisively important for bikes than cars because it keeps them upright and stable under hard braking, so it's not just stopping distance. It adds several hundred to the price. Or maybe you're right and we'll see an "admission of defect" suit sometime soon.
• cbozeman 5y ago
  This is nonsense. Saws that chop off fingers aren't defective - the user is. It's a simple argument to make. Saw Y doesn't have safety features and you use it at your own risk of injury. Saw X will stop cutting the moment it detects a body part. You also use it at your own risk of injury.
• Johnny555 5y ago
  For liability reasons, you can't sell a line of saws that chop off fingers next to a line that doesn't. You're basically admitting the former is defective. I'd think the opposite is true - you can't sell a $250 saw that won't cut someone's finger off next to a $200 saw and expect it to sell. No one thinks it'll happen to them... otherwise Saw-stop's own line of saws would dominate the market. Some people will pay the premium, but I'd bet that most will not.