6 ms·

He also has a PhD in physics and was the person who designed and engineered the product: https://www.machinepix.com/p/machinepix-weekly-30-dr-steve-gass https:/

He also has a PhD in physics and was the person who designed and engineered the product: https://www.machinepix.com/p/machinepix-weekly-30-dr-steve-gass https://www.machinepix.com/p/machinepix-weekly-30-dr-steve-g... >Gass: I was out in my shop one day, and I looked over at my table saw, and the idea kind of came to me. I wondered if one could stop the blade fast enough if you ran your hand into it to prevent serious injury. >I started puttering around on how to stop things quickly. The simplest would have been a solenoid, but that would have been too slow and weak. I had come from RC airplanes—so I used the nose landing gear torsion spring from an RC airplane for an early experiment, that spring provided the force and I held it back with a fuse wire, a maybe 10 thou diameter fuse wire. I set up some capacitors to discharge through the wire and melt it in a few milliseconds, and I was able to generate maybe 20 lbs of force against a blade. So this isn't one of those cases of a patent attorney taking over an existing invention/company. >Gass: Now that SawStop is established, any royalties Grizzly might pay would be less than what SawStop could earn by selling the same number of saws itself, and therefore, as I have explained, a license at the present time is far more challenging because of the risk it creates to SawStop’s business. This, of course, changes should the CPSC implement a requirement for table saws to include active injury mitigation systems. Should that happen, we have said we would offer non-discriminatory licenses to all manufacturers.

luma 3y ago
Yes, he has a PhD in physics as well as being a practicing patent attorney, a skill he put to use over and over in the past 20 years. We don’t have to guess how this org will behave, we have plenty of history upon which to judge their sincerity. If they want to give the patents (note the plural there) for the benefit of mankind, they can do so. They are not doing so.
- staticautomatic 3y ago
  Ok but why would he just “give” them? Patents can cost like $20k a pop to prosecute.
  - luma 3y ago
    Because he's pushing to have the technology covered by his remaining patents to be required by law. Do you think this is OK?
    - staticautomatic 3y ago
      No, but I don’t think he should be forced to give them away for free either. That’s literally an unconstitutional “taking”
      - lazide 3y ago
        How, if he is the one pushing for them?
resolutebat 3y ago
Insightful quote: > The fundamental question came down to economics. Almost a societal economic structure question. The CPSC says table saws result in about $4B in damage annually. The market for table saws is about $200-400M. This is a product that does almost 10x in damage as the market size. There's a disconnect—these costs are borne by individuals, the medical system, workers comp—and not paid by the power tools company. Because of that, there’s not that much incentive to improve the safety of these tools. Societally if there was an opportunity to spend $5 to save $10, we’d want to do that. But in this chain there's a break in people that can make those changes and people that are affected, so it’s not done.
- skybrian 3y ago
  Yes, there's an argument that society should be willing to pay up to the amount of the damage to prevent it. It's okay as far as it goes. However, that's equivalent to saying that if a safety improvement costs $1 to manufacture and saves $10 in damage, then the supplier should get the entire profit ($9). Although, he's just asking for $5. How generous! This is a form of value-based pricing - figure out how much the customer values a thing and use that to persuade them to pay a higher price. Salespeople really like value-based pricing arguments. Some safety measures are cheap, and suppliers can be bargained down. In the presence of robust competition, they could be bargained down to near the the cost of goods. But patents can result in a monopoly, along with monopoly pricing. How much should you pay for tires? How about brakes? A vaccine? In this case, I think he deserves to get rich from coming up with the idea, but there's still a lot of room for negotiation about how rich.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  That's clearly a false analysis - the size of a commodity market is determined as much by the equilibrium cost of making the goods as it is by the demand side. The cost of banning an inexpensive but essential part of your car would be far greater than the total number of dollars changing hands every year to purchase them.
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    It's not false, it's just ignoring the additional dimensions. In the same way that the societal cost of banning cars would be much higher than the value of the car (because cars enable commuting, leisure, cargo transport etc), the societal value of table saws in creating furniture, houses, whatever is much higher than the retail price of the table saw.
nitwit005 3y ago
> So this isn't one of those cases of a patent attorney taking over an existing invention/company. That's also not what the person you're responding to was arguing.
- vinay427 3y ago
  Not the person you replied to, but reading the line below in the GP comment, I assumed the founder was exclusively a patent attorney with no product-relevant background. The GP certainly didn’t argue that, as you said, and perhaps I was alone in my confusion but characterizing someone as a “patent attorney” while leaving out relevant academic qualifications seems unclear, at best. > SawStop was started by patent attorney Steve Gass

luma 3y ago

Yes, he has a PhD in physics as well as being a practicing patent attorney, a skill he put to use over and over in the past 20 years. We don’t have to guess how this org will behave, we have plenty of history upon which to judge their sincerity. If they want to give the patents (note the plural there) for the benefit of mankind, they can do so. They are not doing so.

staticautomatic 3y ago
Ok but why would he just “give” them? Patents can cost like $20k a pop to prosecute.
- luma 3y ago
  Because he's pushing to have the technology covered by his remaining patents to be required by law. Do you think this is OK?
  - staticautomatic 3y ago
    No, but I don’t think he should be forced to give them away for free either. That’s literally an unconstitutional “taking”
    - lazide 3y ago
      How, if he is the one pushing for them?

resolutebat 3y ago

Insightful quote: > The fundamental question came down to economics. Almost a societal economic structure question. The CPSC says table saws result in about $4B in damage annually. The market for table saws is about $200-400M. This is a product that does almost 10x in damage as the market size. There's a disconnect—these costs are borne by individuals, the medical system, workers comp—and not paid by the power tools company. Because of that, there’s not that much incentive to improve the safety of these tools. Societally if there was an opportunity to spend $5 to save $10, we’d want to do that. But in this chain there's a break in people that can make those changes and people that are affected, so it’s not done.

skybrian 3y ago
Yes, there's an argument that society should be willing to pay up to the amount of the damage to prevent it. It's okay as far as it goes. However, that's equivalent to saying that if a safety improvement costs $1 to manufacture and saves $10 in damage, then the supplier should get the entire profit ($9). Although, he's just asking for $5. How generous! This is a form of value-based pricing - figure out how much the customer values a thing and use that to persuade them to pay a higher price. Salespeople really like value-based pricing arguments. Some safety measures are cheap, and suppliers can be bargained down. In the presence of robust competition, they could be bargained down to near the the cost of goods. But patents can result in a monopoly, along with monopoly pricing. How much should you pay for tires? How about brakes? A vaccine? In this case, I think he deserves to get rich from coming up with the idea, but there's still a lot of room for negotiation about how rich.
whatshisface 3y ago
That's clearly a false analysis - the size of a commodity market is determined as much by the equilibrium cost of making the goods as it is by the demand side. The cost of banning an inexpensive but essential part of your car would be far greater than the total number of dollars changing hands every year to purchase them.
- resolutebat 3y ago
  It's not false, it's just ignoring the additional dimensions. In the same way that the societal cost of banning cars would be much higher than the value of the car (because cars enable commuting, leisure, cargo transport etc), the societal value of table saws in creating furniture, houses, whatever is much higher than the retail price of the table saw.

nitwit005 3y ago

> So this isn't one of those cases of a patent attorney taking over an existing invention/company. That's also not what the person you're responding to was arguing.

vinay427 3y ago
Not the person you replied to, but reading the line below in the GP comment, I assumed the founder was exclusively a patent attorney with no product-relevant background. The GP certainly didn’t argue that, as you said, and perhaps I was alone in my confusion but characterizing someone as a “patent attorney” while leaving out relevant academic qualifications seems unclear, at best. > SawStop was started by patent attorney Steve Gass