And the plot thickens - RE: Sawstop vs. Bosch

[AllanD]

Certainly not my area of expertise and I don't have time to read the actual patents. I love Bosch tools, I think competition is a good thing, I think Bosch's system is an improvement, I think more choices are certainly good but having a skin sensing invention involving electrical potential sounds like a pretty unique idea. If Sawstop has a patent for the skin sensing technology I wouldn't care how they actually stopped the blade and I would have to side with Sawstop if I was a judge.

 

[Gotcha6]

"This litigation will likely take years. It may last longer than SawStop's patents. Only time will tell."

That's usually the way of it in these things. Ask the heirs of Philo Farnsworth........
Nonetheless, it is good to see the industry at least attempting to address the issue of safety. I'm sure we all saw the article about the Cleveland County tree company that was fined when a teenage worker was killed in their wood chipper. Training is paramount, but most machines can - and should - be made safer to operate.
It's good to always remember one thing about woodworking tools - they ain't vegetarians.........

 

[JimD]

I like the Woodworkers Journal article, thanks for posting it. It seems balanced to me and had the point of view of both sides.

As has been stated, patent law is quite complicated. SawStop not only has to demonstrate that their patents were violated, but also that the patents themselves are valid. Bosch can attack either of these claims. If Bosch demonstrates that there is "prior art", for instance, making SawStops claim of initial invention invalid the patent gets thrown out. But until we see their position, which I think they are wise to not try in the press, it's hard to know who will prevail. But Bosch is a much bigger company than SawStop with considerable experience in patents. So I am optimistic they will be able to secure the right to sell their product. But we will see.

I do not want to be critical of Gass asserting his patents. But I think trying to block importation and asserting his claims in the press are very agressive. Press releases asserting your position that the other guy is wrong is pretty "in your face". I prefer the way Bosch is dealing with it - but that is just a style point.

 

[Pop Golden]

​If you are not aware Gass is a patent attorney. He has used every scheme in the book to push his techonology and block anyone who comes up with another idea. He has also tried to use OSHA and now the CPSA to force other manufacturers to buy his techonology. Having sold the product and read SawStop ads for years Gass is not about safety he's all about money.

Pop

 

[ehpoole]

Just a friendly reminder to everyone, let us not rehash the well worn arguments for and against the creator of SawStop and the legal cases and maneuvers concerning such as there is nothing good to come from such here as it just starts to divide everyone into camps for and against one another. Over the years such has become a lot like arguing one religion over another and leads nowhere productive. Rather, let us limit this to discussion on Bosch's new technology and technical comparisons of the competing alternatives such as that afforded by SawStop.

I suspect many of us can appreciate the ingenuity of the SawStop and some of the contributions of the technology even if we may also deplore much of the behind the scenes legal wranglings and manipulations by the creator of the technology. Let us separate out the devisiveness concerning the founder to focus just on the discussion and comparison of these, and other competing, technologies to improve shop safety.

Everyone's cooperation on this is greatly appreciated as I would really like to keep this thread open to continued discussion on the technology and merits of this new entry in enhancing shop safety as options and alternatives are a great thing to have as they give us choices that did not previously exist.

 

[tri4sale]

From a safety standpoint, this type of technology should be mandatory on equipment with blades. Especially larger equipment where you can loose a limb or a life. From a business standpoint, all it takes is one injury or death prevented and the extra cost of the technology has more than paid for itself. Hopefully Bosch design is different enough to survive challenges and they get it on the market and license it to others.

 

[Douglas Robinson]

I would say that the plaintiff has the strongest case with regard to the 8,191,450 patent. Claim 1 reads as follows:

1. A woodworking machine having a cutting region for cutting workpieces, comprising: a movable cutting tool for cutting workpieces in the cutting region; a detection system adapted to detect a dangerous condition between a person and the cutting tool; and a reaction system associated with the detection system and the cutting tool, where the reaction system is configured to pivot the cutting tool at least partially away from the cutting region upon detection of the dangerous condition by the detection system.

This case is before the International Trade Commission (ITC) where trials generally proceed much quicker than regular courts. The "judgement" here, if plaintiff is successful, could be an injunction preventing Bosch from importing the REAXX into the US.

Bosch could of course appeal such a ruling, but the injunction would most likely stand until a decision on appeal is rendered.

(I am a patent attorney, but the foregoing is based on very limited facts)

 

[chris_goris]

From a safety standpoint, this type of technology should be mandatory on equipment with blades. Especially larger equipment where you can loose a limb or a life. From a business standpoint, all it takes is one injury or death prevented and the extra cost of the technology has more than paid for itself. Hopefully Bosch design is different enough to survive challenges and they get it on the market and license it to others.

Unfortunately, from a physics standpoint, thats not possible for many woodworking machines.

 

[ashley_phil]

IIRC when this issue first came up, other manufacturers were reluctant to purchase licensing for the technology for fear that it would imply their saws as is were not safe and it would open up a big can of worms for litigation. Let's all hope common sense prevails for the benefit of future (and present) woodworkers out there. I will not advocate here that all saws should have this feature, but I will support the option of more choices for the consumer/user.

this is my recollection as well. i was pretty involved in the industry when sawstop brought the first saws in. other dealers an manufacturers were laughing at the notion that people would pay such a premium for a novelty.

i had an opportunity to get exclusive rights to sell them online for the first few years, but was shot down by the owner of my company because he didn't want to be associated with a 'novelty' saw.

it cost me $ 7500 to keep my thumb back in '05. i don't see these saws as that expensive after that and a new blade and cartridge seem down right cheap.

 

[Gofor]

From a safety standpoint, this type of technology should be mandatory on equipment with blades. Especially larger equipment where you can loose a limb or a life. From a business standpoint, all it takes is one injury or death prevented and the extra cost of the technology has more than paid for itself. Hopefully Bosch design is different enough to survive challenges and they get it on the market and license it to others.

As a private user, I most definitely disagree with your first sentence, for economical and personal liberty reasons.

Go

 

[Gotcha6]

As a private user, I most definitely disagree with your first sentence, for economical and personal liberty reasons.

Go

And herein lies the controversy. If I, as a consumer, elect to purchase a tool without this type of feature, and I injure myself, who pays for my injury? Usually my insurance company. If I, as an employer, expose my employee to such a hazard, where is MY liability? Likewise, if I choose to not use either a seat belt in my car or a helmet on a motorcycle, who pays? I would think insurance companies would be proactive about eliminating unnecessary exposures of this sort to reduce their claims. The day may come when the insurance companies want to know about all of our activities to better assess who we are as a customer. It's a simple matter of risk management. But this negates the personal liberties we all share. Along with those liberties come the responsibility of being accountable for our actions. Seat belts & helmets not only protect us from ourselves, they protect us from the other idiots on the road. Yes, the personal decision to use or not use this technology should be of choice, but one should weigh ALL the costs when doing so and accept the risks they incur from their decision.
JMTCW