5 ms·

The government is passing a law that says only company x make saws, due to various patents making it unrealistic to make your own design. They’re outlawing comp

The government is passing a law that says only company x make saws, due to various patents making it unrealistic to make your own design. They’re outlawing competition. Unless every relevant patent is opened up, this is extreme regulatory capture and is going to be a price gouging patent licensing circus after it passes

wvenable 3y ago
Yeah this needs to be met with invalidation of patents. If the government mandates something, it has to be possible without patent infringement.
- ip26 3y ago
  Commonly there would be a requirement to license the patent, rather than striking it down for the crime of being indispensable.
  - InvertedRhodium 3y ago
    If they applied FRAND requirements to it, then I could see that working. So long as it's just a license for the patent holder to extort other companies I can't support it at all.
  - avidphantasm 3y ago
    Give SawStop $10B and seize the patents under eminent domain.
- refurb 3y ago
  Jesus that would certainly kill any future innovation. “Hey if your product is so good that absolutely everyone needs to have it we’ll make sure you get no financial reward for developing it”
alphazard 3y ago
Yeah this guy gets it. Regardless of your stance on whether the government should regulate x or y, it's important to understand that the people driving this law do not care about you or your fingers. This is rent seeking; someone who makes safe saws wants to sell more of their saws, and they compete with people who sell less safe saws. They are using the legal system to benefit their own bottom line. After the real goal is established, reasons like "think of the children" or "think of the fingers" can be fabricated.
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  But what do the goals matter? The only relevant question I can see is 'are the fingers worth the rent?' To that point, a regulation requiring "if and only if" per unit licensing is available at (much) less than the worth of the fingers should be a no brainier.
  - InvertedRhodium 3y ago
    Given the relatively small market share that SawStop enjoys, you can only assume that most people feel like the fingers aren't really worth the rent.
    - thereisnospork 3y ago
      It's not really their choice to make though. (trivially, see seatbelts, smoking, airline regulations, ...). Should it be? Maybe, but that's a discussion out of scope from 'is it in society's interest to mandate inclusion of sawstop's technology, or it's equivalent?'.
      - InvertedRhodium 3y ago
        As of right now, it's 100% their choice to make. Next week, who knows?
    - lobsterthief 3y ago
      A lot of people simply can’t afford their saws though.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
x0x0 3y ago
Right in the article, it says most patents are now expired and for the final key patent that expires in 2033, the owner -- SawStop's corp parent -- has offered to donate it to the public if this rule passes. edit: if you believe different, please share. But per this article, patents do not seem to be a reason to avoid this tech. And the SawStop v1 was introduced in 2004, so it stands to reason we can now produce patent-free equivalent tech to the 2004 machine.
- dunmalg 3y ago
  Here is a link to Gass' patent portfolio: https://patents.justia.com/inventor/stephen-f-gass https://patents.justia.com/inventor/stephen-f-gass Notice that the vast majority of his patents have to do with various aspects of "active injury mitigation technology", primarily related to saws, and that the most recent one was filed in August 2021. The only patent being offered up is the original--- Patent 9,724,840--- which basically only releases a very specific, early implementation of the safety system that has since undergone 20 years of additional patent activity.
  - x0x0 3y ago
    Thanks for the link. Does any of this block competitors from selling a 2004-equivalent table saw with brake unencumbered by patents? I don't believe it can.
    - zippothrowaway 3y ago
      Yes it can. Sawstop, like a lot of other companies, abuse the patent process by filing multiple continuations with the exact same specification. They then let the patent office take its time granting some of them, and claim a 'patent term extension' due to the patent office delays. So if they filed in 2001, but one of their patents wasn't granted for over 14 years due to the patent office taking 10 years in total to respond to the many arguments over patentability, it may expire in 2031. This seems absurd, but is totally legal. Being run by a patent attorney means they (a) are ninja level at drawing these arguments out and constantly filing appeals to continue examination after a denial by a patent examiner and (b) it doesn't cost them much to do so. I'm simplifying and my numbers aren't exact, but this abuse is the problem.
smolder 3y ago
They have offered to give away the key patent... I get the sense people aren't reading the story here.
romwell 3y ago
>due to various patents making it unrealistic to make your own design Is it unrealistic, or are the companies simply not pursuing that market because it would harm their existing lines of product? >Unless every relevant patent is opened up, this is extreme regulatory capture and is going to be a price gouging patent licensing circus after it passes Personally, I'm fine with that. As per the article, an entry-level SawStop retails for $899. There's not excuse why this kind of tech isn't in every saw. The low cost of existing saws is a negative externality whose cost (cut off fingers) is borne by the society (insurance companies, healthcare, and government).

wvenable 3y ago

Yeah this needs to be met with invalidation of patents. If the government mandates something, it has to be possible without patent infringement.

ip26 3y ago
Commonly there would be a requirement to license the patent, rather than striking it down for the crime of being indispensable.
- InvertedRhodium 3y ago
  If they applied FRAND requirements to it, then I could see that working. So long as it's just a license for the patent holder to extort other companies I can't support it at all.
- avidphantasm 3y ago
  Give SawStop $10B and seize the patents under eminent domain.
refurb 3y ago
Jesus that would certainly kill any future innovation. “Hey if your product is so good that absolutely everyone needs to have it we’ll make sure you get no financial reward for developing it”

alphazard 3y ago

Yeah this guy gets it. Regardless of your stance on whether the government should regulate x or y, it's important to understand that the people driving this law do not care about you or your fingers. This is rent seeking; someone who makes safe saws wants to sell more of their saws, and they compete with people who sell less safe saws. They are using the legal system to benefit their own bottom line. After the real goal is established, reasons like "think of the children" or "think of the fingers" can be fabricated.

thereisnospork 3y ago
But what do the goals matter? The only relevant question I can see is 'are the fingers worth the rent?' To that point, a regulation requiring "if and only if" per unit licensing is available at (much) less than the worth of the fingers should be a no brainier.
- InvertedRhodium 3y ago
  Given the relatively small market share that SawStop enjoys, you can only assume that most people feel like the fingers aren't really worth the rent.
  - thereisnospork 3y ago
    It's not really their choice to make though. (trivially, see seatbelts, smoking, airline regulations, ...). Should it be? Maybe, but that's a discussion out of scope from 'is it in society's interest to mandate inclusion of sawstop's technology, or it's equivalent?'.
    - InvertedRhodium 3y ago
      As of right now, it's 100% their choice to make. Next week, who knows?
  - lobsterthief 3y ago
    A lot of people simply can’t afford their saws though.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

x0x0 3y ago

Right in the article, it says most patents are now expired and for the final key patent that expires in 2033, the owner -- SawStop's corp parent -- has offered to donate it to the public if this rule passes. edit: if you believe different, please share. But per this article, patents do not seem to be a reason to avoid this tech. And the SawStop v1 was introduced in 2004, so it stands to reason we can now produce patent-free equivalent tech to the 2004 machine.

dunmalg 3y ago
Here is a link to Gass' patent portfolio: https://patents.justia.com/inventor/stephen-f-gass https://patents.justia.com/inventor/stephen-f-gass Notice that the vast majority of his patents have to do with various aspects of "active injury mitigation technology", primarily related to saws, and that the most recent one was filed in August 2021. The only patent being offered up is the original--- Patent 9,724,840--- which basically only releases a very specific, early implementation of the safety system that has since undergone 20 years of additional patent activity.
- x0x0 3y ago
  Thanks for the link. Does any of this block competitors from selling a 2004-equivalent table saw with brake unencumbered by patents? I don't believe it can.
  - zippothrowaway 3y ago
    Yes it can. Sawstop, like a lot of other companies, abuse the patent process by filing multiple continuations with the exact same specification. They then let the patent office take its time granting some of them, and claim a 'patent term extension' due to the patent office delays. So if they filed in 2001, but one of their patents wasn't granted for over 14 years due to the patent office taking 10 years in total to respond to the many arguments over patentability, it may expire in 2031. This seems absurd, but is totally legal. Being run by a patent attorney means they (a) are ninja level at drawing these arguments out and constantly filing appeals to continue examination after a denial by a patent examiner and (b) it doesn't cost them much to do so. I'm simplifying and my numbers aren't exact, but this abuse is the problem.

smolder 3y ago

They have offered to give away the key patent... I get the sense people aren't reading the story here.

romwell 3y ago

>due to various patents making it unrealistic to make your own design Is it unrealistic, or are the companies simply not pursuing that market because it would harm their existing lines of product? >Unless every relevant patent is opened up, this is extreme regulatory capture and is going to be a price gouging patent licensing circus after it passes Personally, I'm fine with that. As per the article, an entry-level SawStop retails for $899. There's not excuse why this kind of tech isn't in every saw. The low cost of existing saws is a negative externality whose cost (cut off fingers) is borne by the society (insurance companies, healthcare, and government).