Say goodbye to table saws that cost less than $3,000
http://www.woodmagazine.com/woodwor...sdmh=dm17.441549&esrc=nwwood&email=1376225440
http://www.woodmagazine.com/woodwor...sdmh=dm17.441549&esrc=nwwood&email=1376225440
1.5 Millon tablesaw cut.
- Thread starter AmishWarlord
- Start date
- Status
Freshman Economics
increase in liability costs = investment in technologies to decrease liability
technology = other companies offer similar technology to Sawstop
initial technology (early adapters) = higher cost (Sawstop model)
increased cost = lower sales volume
lower sales volume = decrease price to avoid layoffs and cover overhead as infrastructure already exists
decreased price = $1500 sawstop or Delta, Jet... equivalent within 2 years
increase in liability costs = investment in technologies to decrease liability
technology = other companies offer similar technology to Sawstop
initial technology (early adapters) = higher cost (Sawstop model)
increased cost = lower sales volume
lower sales volume = decrease price to avoid layoffs and cover overhead as infrastructure already exists
decreased price = $1500 sawstop or Delta, Jet... equivalent within 2 years
You aren't accounting for the fact that Stephen Gass (owner/inventor of Sawstop) owns all the patents and I don't think they expire for another 6 or so years.
That's an article from over a year ago, did I miss something new?
Below is the latest from a recent PopWW Ezine. Anyone know what the CPSC decided?
"The Consumer Products Safety Commission will meet on October 5, 2011 (Today!!!) to decide whether or not to continue with an "Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (ANPR) to address table saw blade contact injuries. If the commission decides to proceed, the next step will be to accept comments from the public on this issue. Comments will be accepted online or by mail. As soon as a decision is made, we'll post the mail address, and a link to the website for comments. E-mail comments will not be accepted.
A brief report is available from CPSC at this link.
An in-depth draft report on the issue is available from CPSC at this link.
The commission is considering a performance standard that would require the adoption of "flesh detecting technology" in new table saws. This doesn't have an effect on saws used in the workplace; another government agency, OHSA has jurisdiction there. The commission considers that the frequency and cost of table saw injuries to consumers is large enough to mandate government action.
This has been a complex and volatile issue, as the adoption of a performance standard is tangled with patent and other legal issues. CPSC is prevented from adopting a rule that would give a business advantage to one company, yet it remains to be seen how that can be accomplished given the number of patents held by the company that petitioned CPSC for this rule. We could see lengthy legal battles and serious changes in the types and cost of saws that are available.
The full document is well worth reading, no matter what side of this issue you are on, and as always, you comments are welcome here."
"The Consumer Products Safety Commission will meet on October 5, 2011 (Today!!!) to decide whether or not to continue with an "Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (ANPR) to address table saw blade contact injuries. If the commission decides to proceed, the next step will be to accept comments from the public on this issue. Comments will be accepted online or by mail. As soon as a decision is made, we'll post the mail address, and a link to the website for comments. E-mail comments will not be accepted.
A brief report is available from CPSC at this link.
An in-depth draft report on the issue is available from CPSC at this link.
The commission is considering a performance standard that would require the adoption of "flesh detecting technology" in new table saws. This doesn't have an effect on saws used in the workplace; another government agency, OHSA has jurisdiction there. The commission considers that the frequency and cost of table saw injuries to consumers is large enough to mandate government action.
This has been a complex and volatile issue, as the adoption of a performance standard is tangled with patent and other legal issues. CPSC is prevented from adopting a rule that would give a business advantage to one company, yet it remains to be seen how that can be accomplished given the number of patents held by the company that petitioned CPSC for this rule. We could see lengthy legal battles and serious changes in the types and cost of saws that are available.
The full document is well worth reading, no matter what side of this issue you are on, and as always, you comments are welcome here."
yea this is the part that is new
"
Appellate court affirms verdict in $1.5 million tablesaw lawsuit
http://community.woodmagazine.com/t...-5-million-tablesaw-lawsuit/m-p/179794#M42750
I am a researcher, spent a portion of my career in business development and work closely with patent attorneys drafting patents. I think very strategic business in terms of research and development so my opinions are the research should be conducted to most benefit the shareholders.
In my opinion, patents are only as good as their claim set and there is always a way around them that works perfectly well. Patent law has undergone significant changes over the past two decades and the claims that examiners allow are normally very narrow in scope in modern patents. Any relative good scientist or engineer in this case can develop technologies that do not overlap yet accomplish the same final result.
The tool manufacturers have had no incentive to spend R&D resources in this arena as the market for conventional table saws was sufficient to meet their current operational needs and the market size for sawstop has been relatively small for the most part due to the high cost.
As with the Pharma market, I predict that the first new product in this arena will be priced about 20% below sawstop and the owners of sawstop will increase their price by 20% as there is a current "loyal" consumer base. As others move into the market, the price will decrease and over a 5-10 year period, sawstop will loose their strategic advantage. The best example in Pharma is when the Eli Lilly patents for Prozac expired, this was precisely what happened, a $16 billion dollar market quickly eroded in less than 6 months due to generic competition. lilly increased their price and maintained revenues for 3-4 years despite the eroded market. Another example are the statin drugs i.e. lipitor that are used for high chloresterol. Once the mechanism was proven in the marketplace, other companies quickly identified holes in the patent space (reserach and their patents were during clinical trials of Lipitor) and they quicly came out with comparable products in the same class but different enough that they did not overlap with the Lipitor claim set. I have not searched the patent literature but I am sure the other major saw manufacturers already have their own technologies patented, prototypes ready and are awaiting this dilemma. If not they have extremely poor executive management teams. There are several Harvard Business review articles that describe these strategies in many industries.
Also note a HBR article "First to Market, First to Fail" published in the late 1990's. Second to market which in this case will most likely be Delta with a modified Unisaw is most often the ultimate winner. I hope this is not the ultimate fate of sawstop as they make an excellent product but as this unfolds it will be interesting to see how they respond to the market with their pricing situation. This will be critical.
Another alternative is that sawstop is acquired by Black & Decker that makes Delta. It is often less expensive long term to consume your competitor than to play in their sandbox (the pharma/biotech model).
In my opinion, patents are only as good as their claim set and there is always a way around them that works perfectly well. Patent law has undergone significant changes over the past two decades and the claims that examiners allow are normally very narrow in scope in modern patents. Any relative good scientist or engineer in this case can develop technologies that do not overlap yet accomplish the same final result.
The tool manufacturers have had no incentive to spend R&D resources in this arena as the market for conventional table saws was sufficient to meet their current operational needs and the market size for sawstop has been relatively small for the most part due to the high cost.
As with the Pharma market, I predict that the first new product in this arena will be priced about 20% below sawstop and the owners of sawstop will increase their price by 20% as there is a current "loyal" consumer base. As others move into the market, the price will decrease and over a 5-10 year period, sawstop will loose their strategic advantage. The best example in Pharma is when the Eli Lilly patents for Prozac expired, this was precisely what happened, a $16 billion dollar market quickly eroded in less than 6 months due to generic competition. lilly increased their price and maintained revenues for 3-4 years despite the eroded market. Another example are the statin drugs i.e. lipitor that are used for high chloresterol. Once the mechanism was proven in the marketplace, other companies quickly identified holes in the patent space (reserach and their patents were during clinical trials of Lipitor) and they quicly came out with comparable products in the same class but different enough that they did not overlap with the Lipitor claim set. I have not searched the patent literature but I am sure the other major saw manufacturers already have their own technologies patented, prototypes ready and are awaiting this dilemma. If not they have extremely poor executive management teams. There are several Harvard Business review articles that describe these strategies in many industries.
Also note a HBR article "First to Market, First to Fail" published in the late 1990's. Second to market which in this case will most likely be Delta with a modified Unisaw is most often the ultimate winner. I hope this is not the ultimate fate of sawstop as they make an excellent product but as this unfolds it will be interesting to see how they respond to the market with their pricing situation. This will be critical.
Another alternative is that sawstop is acquired by Black & Decker that makes Delta. It is often less expensive long term to consume your competitor than to play in their sandbox (the pharma/biotech model).
Stanley-Black & Decker might want to do that since they sold and no longer make Delta:
In January, 2011, Taiwan-based Chang Type Industrial Co., Ltd. purchased the Delta brand. Chang Type formed a wholly owned subsidiary, Delta Power Equipment Corp. to own the acquired assets including trademarks, designs and industrial tooling. Chang Type is moving Delta's production tooling from a Stanley Black & Decker owned facility in Jackson, Tennessee to a facility in Anderson County, SC. Bryan Whiffen is President & Chief Executive Officer and Norm MacDonald is Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer of Chang Type's Delta Power Equipment Corp. subsidiary. The new Delta company will continue to provide a complete line of professional woodworking equipment and machinery, and will continue to build the world-class Unisaw, as well as the Biesemeyer® accessories, in the United States.
These Turkeys on the CPSA board could screw up an anvil. Just check out what they've done to us who were ounce in the wood toy business. In case you wondered they put most of us out of business. Now thanks to our old friend Stephen Gass the consumer Protection folks are trying their best to protect us woodworkers from our saws. BOY! I bet when their through with saws they can as in Europe outlaw dado sets. Then they can move on to other things like hammers. Many years ago we woodworkers invented a device which keeps fingers out of saw blades. The cost is zero. It's very effective. It's called push sticks.
Stephen Gass has tried everything in his attorney brain to force his technology down the throats of us woodworkers who don't want it. All while lining his pockets at our expense. Woodworkers who want Gass's Saw-Stop will buy it. We who do not won't.
We can only hope that the CPSA will be satisfied slapping a few lables on our saws and move on to screwing up another group of products.
Bill Golden:tongue2:
Stephen Gass has tried everything in his attorney brain to force his technology down the throats of us woodworkers who don't want it. All while lining his pockets at our expense. Woodworkers who want Gass's Saw-Stop will buy it. We who do not won't.
We can only hope that the CPSA will be satisfied slapping a few lables on our saws and move on to screwing up another group of products.
Bill Golden:tongue2:
Last edited by a moderator:
From the October 5th meeting - statement of Commissioner Adler
Looks to me like they have voted to move ahead with the ANPRM. Keep an eye on www.regulations.gov (Search CPSC / Table Saw / Notices) for the ANPRM or NPRM to be posted. There will be an open comment period for public comment to be gathered before the Commission takes it's next decision. I will try to keep an eye on it and let ya'll know when something comes up for public comment.
C.
Looks to me like they have voted to move ahead with the ANPRM. Keep an eye on www.regulations.gov (Search CPSC / Table Saw / Notices) for the ANPRM or NPRM to be posted. There will be an open comment period for public comment to be gathered before the Commission takes it's next decision. I will try to keep an eye on it and let ya'll know when something comes up for public comment.
C.
The Adler link above didn't work and the link I found using a CPSC search didn't work, either- I wonder if they pulled his remarks?
I'm still getting a new tab/blank page, whether I click the link or copy and paste the URL .
Finally got it to work. I think I have a problems with my Adobe Acrobat reader and Thunderbird.
In short folks, here is what Adler from the CPSC says:
"Today, I joined my fellow Commissioners in unanimously approving the Commission staff’s recommendation to publish an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for table saws.
Shortly after I joined the Commission in 2009, I saw a demonstration of a braking mechanism for table saws, called SawStop, which would stop a saw blade instantaneously upon encountering someone’s finger or hand. This led me to take a look at the injury data for table saws. The injuries associated with this product are horrific – deep lacerations to the arms and hands, broken bones and, worst of all, amputations to fingers and thumbs."
. . . . . .
"Although I find myself extremely impressed by the SawStop technology, I am not in favor of writing a standard that would result in mandating a patented technology if such a result is avoidable."
"On this point, I note that when CPSC writes product safety standards, we do not mandate a particular technology. We write performance standards and leave it to manufacturers to decide how to meet them."
I think you can see where this is going!! Stand by!!!! :saw: :saw: :saw:
My first thought regarding "other technology" was to put a braking disk on the drive end of the arbor with a fast-acting, positive stop, non (or at least minimally) destructive - mechanism.
My other thought was to design a trunnion assembly that would immediately drop the blade below the insert upon sensing skin contact. Because of the round blade, that action would move the contact point on the blade away on a vector with both vertical and horizontal components.
**** - I KNEW I should have been an engineer! :gar-La;
No matter how you slice it, a new regulation will have the effect of adding unavoidable cost to new purchase table saws.
C.
My other thought was to design a trunnion assembly that would immediately drop the blade below the insert upon sensing skin contact. Because of the round blade, that action would move the contact point on the blade away on a vector with both vertical and horizontal components.
**** - I KNEW I should have been an engineer! :gar-La;
No matter how you slice it, a new regulation will have the effect of adding unavoidable cost to new purchase table saws.
C.
Offered w/o comment: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=F41330&year=2011
After this topic, I searched some of the patents. one of the more interesting approaches was to utilize a magnetic field that is triggered from changes in conductivity (sensing technology used in sawstop technology). the advantage is that the magnets never touch the blade therefore no need for a new brake if the system triggers, just a reset. I just perused the first 50 or so patents that have issued in the past two years in this area but did not recognize a lot of the assignee's. It appears there are many applications and if the requirements are mandated, new products will quickly flood the market.
Another couple of articles worth reading:
http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SawStop
http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SawStop
Looking at the data provided SawStop has paid out $20K for 1st Qrt and $30K for 2nd Qrt 2011. This to me looks like a budgeted action. Knowing companys and budgets nothing is done without expecting a return on investment!
- Status
Premier Sponsor
Our Sponsors
LATEST FOR SALE LISTINGS
-
-
Graco 395 FinishPro air assisted airless sprayer for sale
- Started by RobH
- Replies: 1
-
-
-