Active Injury Mitigation Proposal (Sawstop)

[Wilsoncb]

I found this video and thought it was interesting information. Apparently there is some discussion by the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make Active Injury Mitigation technology mandatory on all table saws. Long video, but interesting.

 

[Gotcha6]

Haven't seen the video yet but I've read other articles earlier stating the saw manufacturers have been pushing back because they allege they could be held potentially liable for all existing saws' damages without this technology. Saw Stop said years ago they would offer licensing rights to any manufacturer wanting it - but at a price. When Bosch came out with their system, SS immediately filed infringement lawsuits. As far as I am concerned, it's a tossup issue. If I don't have it I know to be careful with my saw, but if I DID have it, would I get complacent? But then again, I have to ask myself, what kind of saw would I want my children to buy?

 

[Wiley's Woodworks]

I've heard it through the grapevine that the CPSC is going to force SawStop to license their patented and proprietary technology to any manufacturer. Rumor has it that multiple manufacturers have approached SawStop about licensing, but the price SawStop wants would price competing products well above market prices for SawStop products.

This story is starting to look like one of the three biggest lies--"I'm from the guv'mint, and I'm here to help you." If you want the safety built into a SawStop, pay the premium price. If you don't, save your money and take your chances. The guv'mint was able to mandate seat belts, safety glass windshields, and automatic door locks; all of these were optional before they were mandated. We won't be able to stop this if the health insurance industry has their way, and they are a more powerful lobby group than the woodworking industry.

Another fun twist to this power struggle playing out in a workshop near you: Part of the rumor is that currently the SawStop technology won't work off battery/DC current. Just look at the current trend of formerly 110V corded power tools now being offered in battery powered models.

 

[JNCarr]

I've heard it through the grapevine that the CPSC is going to force SawStop to license their patented and proprietary technology to any manufacturer. Rumor has it that multiple manufacturers have approached SawStop about licensing, but the price SawStop wants would price competing products well above market prices for SawStop products.

This story is starting to look like one of the three biggest lies--"I'm from the guv'mint, and I'm here to help you." If you want the safety built into a SawStop, pay the premium price. If you don't, save your money and take your chances. The guv'mint was able to mandate seat belts, safety glass windshields, and automatic door locks; all of these were optional before they were mandated. We won't be able to stop this if the health insurance industry has their way, and they are a more powerful lobby group than the woodworking industry.

Another fun twist to this power struggle playing out in a workshop near you: Part of the rumor is that currently the SawStop technology won't work off battery/DC current. Just look at the current trend of formerly 110V corded power tools now being offered in battery powered models.

The difference is the safety items for cars were not patented, but in the public domain. They have saved countless lives by being mandated.
However, as the patent holder, whether SS licenses and at what price should be up to them, not anyone else. A patent doesn't give you the right to practice your invention (somewhat ironically), it gives you the right to keep others from practicing it. It would be a serious blow to the patent system for that precept to be overturned.

 

[Westpacx3]

Life has risks, hobbies have risks and risk management is a personal issue in all avenues of life. Forcing a company to give or sell Cheaply their patent and Forcing other companies to enact that technology in their products sounds like a slippery slope that I don't want to go down.

 

[Douglas Robinson]

Sawstop's earliest patents began expiring January 2023 and continue to do so. Therefore the basic concept is probably in the public domain.

MR. Gass, the inventor, tried to get other companies interested, but they decides not to. He then tried to have the government make it mandatory. This did not happen and he then started Sawstop. BTW Festool's parent company owns Sawstop as of a few ears ago.

 

[Echd]

Life has risks, hobbies have risks and risk management is a personal issue in all avenues of life. Forcing a company to give or sell Cheaply their patent and Forcing other companies to enact that technology in their products sounds like a slippery slope that I don't want to go down.

I fully agree as a general principle, but I will make a healthy exception for Sawstop, who were successful in suing the pants off of and having competitors like the Bosch reaxx removed from the US market despite them functioning in entirely different ways. True lawfare.

And I say that as a very happy sawstop owner. It is a great saw that stands on its merits, but their commitment to safety is lower on the totem pole than their commitment to wringing every ounce of profit out of you- even when that means legal shenanigans only an attorney could appreciate, as they are far from the only manufacturer to come up with a working saw blade retraction safety.

 

[Craptastic]

Sawstop's earliest patents began expiring January 2023 and continue to do so. Therefore the basic concept is probably in the public domain.

MR. Gass, the inventor, tried to get other companies interested, but they decides not to. He then tried to have the government make it mandatory. This did not happen and he then started Sawstop. BTW Festool's parent company owns Sawstop as of a few ears ago.

I believe the current owner of SS is a lawyer that saw so much value in the proprietary technology that they bought the company and decided to not license it at a fair price to anyone but in a marketing move to keep their SS market share for table saws by refusing to license other manufacturers to use the tech so nobody else had it or could market it. They drove as much competing technology that did the same goal out of the market as they could. Then they actively lobbied to have the tech in every saw made so they can corner the market or garner huge profits if they ever DO decide to license it.

The Grizzly emails in the filing are quite telling on that not sharing point.

Maybe the other manufacturers missed the boat on that but mandating the use of such tech without fairly licensing it is a monopolistic practice and our regulatory agencies should not be doing or encouraging that. If SS wants to make that tech available easy and for a fair price? OK. I still have issues with government overregulation but maybe that I could see. But withholding the ability to use the tech from others and pushing to make it mandatory stinks to high heaven.

 

[tvrgeek]

Festool owns SawStop. The lawyer, Mr. Gass, was the originator of the idea and when he tried to market it, no company would so he founded SawStop. Fortunately he was a woodworker and cared about the tool, not just the feature. The suggestion was companies were afraid they would get sued for selling unsafe tools if they also sold one with a brake. Bosch tried, but of course got their pants sued off.

Fancy patent wording will pretty much extend their patents another 10 years. It is no good if a basic patent runs out if you keep filing details that actually are necessary. The pending law does include a "fair price" marketing mandate, so if it passes, SawsStop must allow licensing at some reasonable, likely court arbitrated, price. SS will likely remain the market leader. If it passes, then $200 light weight table top saws will go away, and IMHO, that would be a huge safety improvement. Unfortunately, it would lead to more accidents with DIY mounted circ saws. I do wonder if the proposed regulation has provisions for exclusion in automatic feed and enclosed tools where the operator can't get near the blade.

I do worry about third party replacement modules after the patent expires. Cheap knock-offs that may not be reliable causing more false triggers or failure to protect. Actually, life span of electronics was one of the reasons I did not buy one. I concluded having the riving knife and doing much more work on the band saw or by hand was significant enough for me. I don't understand why any underwriter would insure a business that did not use saw stops for manual fed machines.

A safety feature, I believe is required in the EU, is a blade brake for turn off. 2 or 3 seconds are enough. As I have read, quite a few injuries are caused buy clearing the work from a still spinning blade. It takes a lot of patience to wait for my Harvey to spin down. Unfortunately, unless a 3 phase motor, a brake requires electronics and some sort of spindle nut keeper so it is not cheap either. My band saw has a shoe brake, so a manual brake would be possible. The feature we did get by law was a riving knife. Lack of one, and even using the Ridgid guard/splitter was the root cause of both near misses I had that caused me to buy the Harvey. I have not had a near miss since.

Remember, you can't make something idiot proof as idiots are so clever.

 

[tri4sale]

The difference is the safety items for cars were not patented, but in the public domain. They have saved countless lives by being mandated.
However, as the patent holder, whether SS licenses and at what price should be up to them, not anyone else. A patent doesn't give you the right to practice your invention (somewhat ironically), it gives you the right to keep others from practicing it. It would be a serious blow to the patent system for that precept to be overturned.

Seat belts were patented by Volvo, but they choose to let it be open so anyone could use it.
Airbags were patented.
Antilock brakes were patented.
I'd wager all car safety items were patented at one time or another. Either patents expired, or owner opted to allow everyone to use them (society good over profits, like that would happen in todays world) or government seized patent under eminent domain (or some other legal theory) and compensates patent holder.

 

[Douglas Robinson]

FWIW I am a patent attorney.

 

[JNCarr]

Seat belts were patented by Volvo, but they choose to let it be open so anyone could use it.
Airbags were patented.
Antilock brakes were patented.
I'd wager all car safety items were patented at one time or another. Either patents expired, or owner opted to allow everyone to use them (society good over profits, like that would happen in todays world) or government seized patent under eminent domain (or some other legal theory) and compensates patent holder.

Yes you are right - I should have said they were in the public domain at the time they were mandated. As you said, Volvo pro-actively placed them into public domain. The airbag and antilock brake systems patents had expired long before they were mandated.

 

[Wilsoncb]

A safety feature, I believe is required in the EU, is a blade brake for turn off. 2 or 3 seconds are enough. As I have read, quite a few injuries are caused buy clearing the work from a still spinning blade. It takes a lot of patience to wait for my Harvey to spin down. Unfortunately, unless a 3 phase motor, a brake requires electronics and some sort of spindle nut keeper so it is not cheap either. My band saw has a shoe brake, so a manual brake would be possible. The feature we did get by law was a riving knife. Lack of one, and even using the Ridgid guard/splitter was the root cause of both near misses I had that caused me to buy the Harvey. I have not had a near miss since.

Remember, you can't make something idiot proof as idiots are so clever.

I like the blade brake idea. Seems like the bicycle disk brake the bandsaws use could work. The blade being the disk in the table saw’s case.

 

[tvrgeek]

Actually, under the proposed law the license fees for SawStop would be " fair" as determined by regulatory arbitration or courts. Not up to Festool. "Fair" does not mean cheap however.

I would not want to use the blade as the brake disk due to possible uneven heating and it would not accommodate dado blades. A disk on the motor, cable driven for flex, and a spindle lock to keep inertia from loosening the nut would work fine.

Doug, I bet you know all about the fine tuning of text and related details that can extend patents with additional patents long after one expects them to expire! Sometimes we forget how much effort and expense it takes bringing an idea to market. If you don't have a million, and an idea worth several times that, and no ability to put it into use, not much need to bother. Unique use vs prior art is the tricky bit.

If one reads How I made my first Billion by J.P. Getty, you understand there are only a few ways to make money.
A good way needs to be universal, as in everyone wants it, easy to replicate, expendable as in you need more.

Service: Easy to do once, hard to replicate. Hats off to Ray Crock.
Product: Best is easy, universal, and expendable. Getty chose gasoline. Toilet paper was already taken.
Idea: They can pay big, but very hard to replicate. Patent law is to protect the inventers efforts and expense. Does not always work. Some folks have a public service attitude, Volvo mentioned. Musk gave away a lot of the EV patents as he wants to change the world. Patents held by the U.S. Government are free for citizens, Accumulo data base for example where Google put H-Base in the public domain.

Seat belts existed long ago. Volvo came up with the 3-point.
Anti-lock brakes were used in airplanes long before cars.
The air bag was invented for cars in 1952. Original idea I don't know.

 

[Roy G]

I saw in FWW issue No. 213 there was an article about the lawsuit where a man cut up his hand badly on a Ryobi bench top tablesaw. He had removed the splitter and guard and was ripping a board without a rip fence. The decision was that the saw was defectively designed. Apparently the defendant's lawyer had seen the flesh-sensing technology on CNN and the jury thought the saw should have had it. I don't know if SawStop had made saws at the time of the trial (March 2010).

Roy G

 

[Rwe2156]

As far as releasing the technology for anyone, should KFC or Newman's Own be forced to publicize their recipes? For the patent attorney, where does intellectual property come into play?

The inventor and perfecter of a flesh sensing table saw was turned away by major manufacturers, so he started own company. Nobody has the right to boo hoo hoo about him protecting his brand.

Expecting him to destroy his own company by making if free is ludicrous and anti-capitalist.

 

[tvrgeek]

I saw in FWW issue No. 213 there was an article about the lawsuit where a man cut up his hand badly on a Ryobi bench top tablesaw. He had removed the splitter and guard and was ripping a board without a rip fence. The decision was that the saw was defectively designed. Apparently the defendant's lawyer had seen the flesh-sensing technology on CNN and the jury thought the saw should have had it. I don't know if SawStop had made saws at the time of the trial (March 2010).

Roy G

We do have an issue where abject stupidity is always someone else's fault.

 

[Douglas Robinson]

BTW: Sawstop offered TODAY to donate their patent 9,724,840 to the pulic if other manufacturers will incorporate the technology in their saws. SURPRISE the patent is expired so they are donating nothing.

 

[WriterJFP]

There are a swarm of slippery slope arguments in this issue and a long history of industry players that have found ways to extend patent protection essentially by maneuvering the change of their industry standards to maintain legalistic and financial control of that industry. Pharmaceuticals come to mind. In the big picture, it may be a choice of free market vs. government regulation. We could argue either side, but if there's one guarantee, it's that government regulation always comes with unintended consequences.

Personally, I'd rather have choice.

 

[Douglas Robinson]

Pharma patents can extend their patent terms due to FDA approval issues and related matters. Not so much for mechanical/electrical patents. For those cases it would only happen due to excessive delay(s) y the patent office.