4 ms·

According to a recent Stumpy Nubs video, Saw Stop isn't the villain they've been made out to be (or at least has changed their tune substantially). TLDR; They'

According to a recent Stumpy Nubs video, Saw Stop isn't the villain they've been made out to be (or at least has changed their tune substantially). TLDR; They've offered not to defend their patent (or whatever the patent mumbo jumbo is) if the legislation goes through. Stumpy Nubs on the subject: https://youtu.be/nxKkuDduYLk?si=c0GchB2hc3g0OtG4 https://youtu.be/nxKkuDduYLk?si=c0GchB2hc3g0OtG4 The recent CPSC hearing where many of the revelations came out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyJGE2Vyid0&t=0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyJGE2Vyid0&t=0s

poulsbohemian 2y ago
I think they sold out to a European firm a few years ago - I stopped paying attention to this space a few years ago, so like I said in my OP - could be the playing field has changed, and perhaps the current owner of this IP is in a different place.
luma 2y ago
Stumpy Nubs is a fine woodworker and a great YouTuber, but he, unlike the CEO of SawStop, is not a patent attorney. Over and over in his video he glosses over serious problems with the Saw Stop proposal and presumes goodwill on behalf of SawStop. That goodwill is not warranted, nothing about Glass' or SawStop's behavior suggests that they're doing anything other than trying to force people to license their product by way of regulation. If they want to claim they are giving the license away, then do the whole patent portfolio (required for a functioning system), not just one of them. They've already sued their competitors to keep similar products off of the market and there is zero reason for us, the regulators, or the competition to trust this organization.
- meowface 2y ago
  >Stumpy Nubs is a fine woodworker and a great YouTuber, but he, unlike the CEO of SawStop, is not a patent attorney. Gass also has a PhD in physics and was the person who designed and engineered the product. >If they want to claim they are giving the license away, then do the whole patent portfolio (required for a functioning system), not just one of them. They want to stay in business. If they give away all of the intellectual property of their entire system, it's likely that they wouldn't be able to for very long.
  - munk-a 2y ago
    If they want to require this technology for every device on the market they need to allow other manufacturers to compete in producing it - there is likely a middle ground where only some of their patents would need to be relinquished for competitors to build a product that uses a different specific method but SawStop has an awful lot of patents and has been incredibly litigious in a bad faith manner before.
    - BoiledCabbage 2y ago
      > in a bad faith manner before. In a bath faith manner? What's bad faith about it? Enforcing a patent you own isn't bad faith. That's the point of a patent.
      - Brian_K_White 2y ago
        This question itself has all the hallmarks of bad faith. Maybe it's not, but it exhibits all the qualities, so... You can't claim to desire safety for all while preventing anyone else from increasing safety. The Bosch system was totally different, sounds superior on several fronts, and SS were only able to stop it by dint of technicalities and plain flaws in the US patent and legal system that allows frankly absurd arguments to win, and most pointedly, SS were willing to do exactly that. Not because Bosch stole anything from them, not because Bosch were sonehow harming users by doing the SS system but not as well as official SS, not because of any justifiable reason except that they physically could. There is no way to justify SS actions.
      - luma 2y ago
        Arguing that your technology should be required by law, while offering a performative release of one patent (which is absolutely not enough to cover a working implementation), is the dictionary definition of bad faith. You don't have to go any further than the linked article for evidence of how this guy has acted throughout his entire career.
        BoiledCabbage 2y ago

poulsbohemian 2y ago

I think they sold out to a European firm a few years ago - I stopped paying attention to this space a few years ago, so like I said in my OP - could be the playing field has changed, and perhaps the current owner of this IP is in a different place.

luma 2y ago

Stumpy Nubs is a fine woodworker and a great YouTuber, but he, unlike the CEO of SawStop, is not a patent attorney. Over and over in his video he glosses over serious problems with the Saw Stop proposal and presumes goodwill on behalf of SawStop. That goodwill is not warranted, nothing about Glass' or SawStop's behavior suggests that they're doing anything other than trying to force people to license their product by way of regulation. If they want to claim they are giving the license away, then do the whole patent portfolio (required for a functioning system), not just one of them. They've already sued their competitors to keep similar products off of the market and there is zero reason for us, the regulators, or the competition to trust this organization.

meowface 2y ago
>Stumpy Nubs is a fine woodworker and a great YouTuber, but he, unlike the CEO of SawStop, is not a patent attorney. Gass also has a PhD in physics and was the person who designed and engineered the product. >If they want to claim they are giving the license away, then do the whole patent portfolio (required for a functioning system), not just one of them. They want to stay in business. If they give away all of the intellectual property of their entire system, it's likely that they wouldn't be able to for very long.
- munk-a 2y ago
  If they want to require this technology for every device on the market they need to allow other manufacturers to compete in producing it - there is likely a middle ground where only some of their patents would need to be relinquished for competitors to build a product that uses a different specific method but SawStop has an awful lot of patents and has been incredibly litigious in a bad faith manner before.
  - BoiledCabbage 2y ago
    > in a bad faith manner before. In a bath faith manner? What's bad faith about it? Enforcing a patent you own isn't bad faith. That's the point of a patent.
    - Brian_K_White 2y ago
      This question itself has all the hallmarks of bad faith. Maybe it's not, but it exhibits all the qualities, so... You can't claim to desire safety for all while preventing anyone else from increasing safety. The Bosch system was totally different, sounds superior on several fronts, and SS were only able to stop it by dint of technicalities and plain flaws in the US patent and legal system that allows frankly absurd arguments to win, and most pointedly, SS were willing to do exactly that. Not because Bosch stole anything from them, not because Bosch were sonehow harming users by doing the SS system but not as well as official SS, not because of any justifiable reason except that they physically could. There is no way to justify SS actions.
    - luma 2y ago
      Arguing that your technology should be required by law, while offering a performative release of one patent (which is absolutely not enough to cover a working implementation), is the dictionary definition of bad faith. You don't have to go any further than the linked article for evidence of how this guy has acted throughout his entire career.
      - BoiledCabbage 2y ago