LumberJocks

All Replies on Final Ruling on Sawstop vs Bosch by ITC

  • Advertise with us
View Woodknack's profile

Final Ruling on Sawstop vs Bosch by ITC

by Woodknack
posted 02-06-2017 07:27 AM


1 2 next »
81 replies

81 replies so far

View robscastle's profile

robscastle

6029 posts in 2568 days


#1 posted 02-06-2017 07:31 AM

So if I was to want a Bosch REAXX here in Australia that would be OK?

-- Regards Rob

View UncannyValleyWoods's profile

UncannyValleyWoods

542 posts in 2228 days


#2 posted 02-06-2017 12:55 PM

That makes my decision to avoid purchase of a Saw Stop fairly straight forward. When profit is more important than people, we all lose.

-- “If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.” ― Lenny Bruce

View OggieOglethorpe's profile

OggieOglethorpe

1276 posts in 2474 days


#3 posted 02-06-2017 01:21 PM

That makes my decision to avoid purchase of a Saw Stop fairly straight forward. When profit is more important than people, we all lose.

I agree, if the existing brands had installed the technology in their saws 15 years ago, we’d all be better off.

But… they were good with 50 year old designs. So mean old Rich Uncle Pennybags created a company, designed and built an entirely new product, set up a distribution network, and brought it to market. Shame on him!

Loving my 6 year old SawStop ICS! ;^)

View johnstoneb's profile (online now)

johnstoneb

3100 posts in 2537 days


#4 posted 02-06-2017 01:49 PM

Originally the technology was offered to the industry. The industry didn’t even try to negotiate with Gass. After Gass lost in court and congress. He made his own company and built a better saw. Now the industry is trying to steal the technology.

-- Bruce, Boise, ID

View JRsgarage's profile

JRsgarage

363 posts in 873 days


#5 posted 02-06-2017 02:18 PM

i agree he should reap the rewards of his technology/developements but he can make so much more by licensing his technology to his competitors. just finagle a strict usage clause/guidelines, and everyone would benefit.

-- “Facts don't care about your feelings.” ..., Ben Shapiro

View dhazelton's profile

dhazelton

2837 posts in 2661 days


#6 posted 02-06-2017 02:49 PM

He should also apply the technology to band saws, circular saws and jointers.

View builtinbkyn's profile

builtinbkyn

2937 posts in 1305 days


#7 posted 02-06-2017 02:54 PM

I’m surprised by the ruling. The two systems are quite different in their mechanical implementation. Yes they both stop a saw blade from injuring the user, but in very different ways. I don’t believe use or intent of a design, is the final standard. I can’t believe Bosch’s attorneys weren’t able to get that point across in their argument.

-- Bill, Yo!......in Brooklyn & Steel City :)

View TheGreatJon's profile

TheGreatJon

348 posts in 1598 days


#8 posted 02-06-2017 03:12 PM



I m surprised by the ruling. The two systems are quite different in their mechanical implementation. Yes they both stop a saw blade from injuring the user, but in very different ways. I don t believe use or intent of a design, is the final standard. I can t believe Bosch s attorneys weren t able to get that point across in their argument.

- builtinbkyn

I’m definitely with you there. I certainly haven’t read through the entire patent, or the legal claims. However, I find it hard to believe that SawStop managed to file a patent on the entire concept of an emergency blade braking system. As a mechanical engineer, with patents, my understanding is that you can patent a means of accomplishing a task, but you cannot put a patent on the goal of the task.

SawStop and Bosch have very different means of protecting our fingers. I don’t see how there was a patent violation. I’m fully admitting that I’m probably missing something, but it seems to me that this is the same as saying Company X has to stop making helicopters because Company Y makes airplanes and their claim to air travel is being violated.

-- This is not the signature line you are looking for.

View builtinbkyn's profile

builtinbkyn

2937 posts in 1305 days


#9 posted 02-06-2017 03:56 PM

It may have something to do with the skin sensing aspect, but again that is a concept. If the means to accomplish that is different, then I don’t see an issue. I also haven’t read thru the patents and only read the ruling posted, but the mechanics of how each achieve the goal of stopping the blade are quite different. That in and of itself – a significant improvement, is usually enough to overcome the patent. At least that’s what I was told by an attorney that filed patents for Union Carbide (family friend), when I consulted him on an idea I was working on.

-- Bill, Yo!......in Brooklyn & Steel City :)

View JayT's profile

JayT

6162 posts in 2575 days


#10 posted 02-06-2017 04:03 PM

Having not read through all the patents and ruling, either, is the “infringement” against the system that is actually in the Sawstop? I agree that the Bosch system is enough different that it shouldn’t be seen as stealing the Sawstop system. It is my understanding, however, that when Gass designed the system, he also patented pretty much any possibility he could foresee competing against Sawstop in the future to try and eliminate potential competition. It’s possible the ruling is that Bosch is infringing on a patent he holds, but isn’t actually being produced.

I’m very surprised by the ruling, too. Bosch wouldn’t have put that much time and R&D dollars into the saw if they didn’t think it was enough different to avoid the patent issue and be able to sell the saw. It’s also possible that the person administering the ruling just doesn’t understand the mechanics—they are patent law experts, not mechanical engineers, after all.

-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

View builtinbkyn's profile

builtinbkyn

2937 posts in 1305 days


#11 posted 02-06-2017 04:12 PM

I don’t believe a patent is intended to work like that – covering all the bases to prevent others from making a product. It’s intended to protect a single invention achieved in a singular manner. Variations of the design would require a patent for each.

I want to read thru more of the ruling later. Shop time now ;)

-- Bill, Yo!......in Brooklyn & Steel City :)

View JayT's profile

JayT

6162 posts in 2575 days


#12 posted 02-06-2017 04:22 PM

Variations of the design would require a patent for each.

- builtinbkyn

Yes. And it’s my understanding that is exactly what Gass did—he’s a patent attorney by trade, after all. Multiple patents to cover any possibility he could conceive of that would be able to compete with his manufactured design.

-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

View Lazyman's profile (online now)

Lazyman

3339 posts in 1751 days


#13 posted 02-06-2017 04:42 PM

You can find the complaint and list of patents here which you can then use to google the patents in the ruling.

After a quick glance, it is appears to me that the patents for this were written broadly enough to cover almost any method of implementing this, at least as currently conceived anyway (detect then stop and retract blade but only when the blade is moving). While it would be nice to have a competitor to bring the costs down (which Bosch didn’t do BTW), I cannot fault Sawstop for vigorously protecting their intellectual property. The American dream, right? As with most high tech stuff, we will just have to wait for the patent to expire or suck it up and pay the piper.

-- Nathan, TX -- Hire the lazy man. He may not do as much work but that's because he will find a better way.

View JayT's profile

JayT

6162 posts in 2575 days


#14 posted 02-06-2017 04:46 PM

Hmm, six patents on that complaint. From another site:

Not all of Sawstop’s claims proved valid. On September 9, 2016, the ALJ issued his final initial determination. They found a violation of section 337 with respect to the ’927 and ’279 patents. They found no violation of section 337 with respect to the ’712 and ’455 patents.

They’ve also terminated (closed) the investigation with respect to the ’836 and ’450 patents. SawStop’s withdrew their allegations on those patents.

So the only two patents with violations are ‘927 & ‘279. I’ll have to look those up.

-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

View JayT's profile

JayT

6162 posts in 2575 days


#15 posted 02-06-2017 04:55 PM

The ‘712 patent is the detection system. No violation. ‘455 patent is the control & testing system. No violation. The two that are found to have violations involve moving the blade below the work surface in order to mitigate injury.

That explains one potential device I had seen to get around the patents (I think from DeWalt) In that case, instead of dropping the blade, the table launched upwards on springs to move the hand out of the way and the blade didn’t move or have a brake—it spun down without power, similar to the Bosch. It was clunky and impractical, but was obviously being looked at to avoid those patents.

-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

View CharlesA's profile

CharlesA

3381 posts in 2162 days


#16 posted 02-06-2017 05:10 PM

I’m no patent expert, but I do know that Bosch is a huge multinational company with access to the best lawyers that money can buy. I doubt they lost because they didn’t understand the law as well as we do.

-- "Man is the only animal which devours his own, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." ~Thomas Jefferson

View robscastle's profile

robscastle

6029 posts in 2568 days


#17 posted 02-06-2017 05:30 PM

Well it doesnt take too much brain power to realise that the legal costs and “other” expences occurred will be passed on to the now even poorer purchaser.

Read CharlesAs Thomas Jefferson quote

-- Regards Rob

View mramseyISU's profile

mramseyISU

572 posts in 1909 days


#18 posted 02-06-2017 05:34 PM



You can find the complaint and list of patents here which you can then use to google the patents in the ruling.

After a quick glance, it is appears to me that the patents for this were written broadly enough to cover almost any method of implementing this, at least as currently conceived anyway (detect then stop and retract blade but only when the blade is moving). While it would be nice to have a competitor to bring the costs down (which Bosch didn t do BTW), I cannot fault Sawstop for vigorously protecting their intellectual property. The American dream, right? As with most high tech stuff, we will just have to wait for the patent to expire or suck it up and pay the piper.

- Lazyman

I haven’t read through all of the patents (don’t currently have insomnia) but I do have a couple patents and when you’re first working on the documentation with the lawyer you have one of two options. If nobody is doing anything like it you make the claims as broad as you can to cover any possibility that somebody could come up with something similar. The other route is if there is competition you laser focus what you’re doing so when you do wind up in court (and you will) that you can try and prove you’ve found a hole in the original patents coverage.

The other thing to remember here with patent law in the US is that if you don’t defend your patent you lose it. I’m not going to vilify the people at saw stop for doing what’s required by law to protect their intellectual property.

-- Trust me I'm an engineer.

View Woodknack's profile

Woodknack

12778 posts in 2744 days


#19 posted 02-06-2017 05:52 PM



. The industry didn t even try to negotiate with Gass.
- johnstoneb

The Ryobi negotiations became part of one the lawsuits. The licensing got more expensive for every company that signed on, the tech and liabilities were unproven so the first company to jump in and take all the risk would get no exclusives and only see their fees increase. Just like Glass is entitled to compensation, so would be any company that assumed the risk of unproven tech.

-- Rick M, http://thewoodknack.blogspot.com/

View bigJohninvegas's profile

bigJohninvegas

597 posts in 1826 days


#20 posted 02-06-2017 06:18 PM



i agree he should reap the rewards of his technology/developements but he can make so much more by licensing his technology to his competitors. just finagle a strict usage clause/guidelines, and everyone would benefit.

- JRsgarage


That is what he tried to do in the 1st place. He started with the brake technology. When all the saw manufacturers turned him down, he built his own saw and marketed it as SawStop.

-- John

View bigblockyeti's profile

bigblockyeti

5692 posts in 2085 days


#21 posted 02-06-2017 06:24 PM

This is why I love my Unisaws so much!

-- "Lack of effort will result in failure with amazing predictability" - Me

View TheFridge's profile

TheFridge

10858 posts in 1850 days


#22 posted 02-06-2017 06:29 PM

Is Bosch infringing on the original patents or the ones that were modified not too many years ago right before Bosch announced their plans? I just remember reading through the brief and right before anyone started talking about the reaxx the patents were added or modified or something or another.

-- Shooting down the walls of heartache. Bang bang. I am. The warrior.

View JollyGreen67's profile

JollyGreen67

1676 posts in 3127 days


#23 posted 02-06-2017 06:32 PM

Nany, nany, boo hoo – Bosch built a better mouse trap, and now Saw Stop is declaring a mistrial and wants to take their ball and go home. Grow up !

-- When I was a kid I wanted to be older . . . . . this CRAP is not what I expected ! RIP 09/08/2018

View clin's profile

clin

1027 posts in 1360 days


#24 posted 02-06-2017 06:34 PM



That makes my decision to avoid purchase of a Saw Stop fairly straight forward. When profit is more important than people, we all lose.

- UncannyValleyWoods

Every company weighs profit against safety (profit vs people). Just as all of us do it for personal reasons. For most of us, there is a safer car we could buy, but chose not to. Just about every product could be made safer in some way, but the company chooses not to do that to keep their product features and price in a range that is most profitable for them.

Why should SawStop be any different? And why hold them to a different standard?

I’ve not read their patents, but I have little doubt that they are overly broad. It seems to me the patent office has been willing to grant a lot of patents for very trivial things. I believe at one point Apple had patents on music devices and phones with round corners. As well as the drop down menus used in early iPods.

But, if SawStop has secured an overly broad patent, that’s on the Patent office not on SawStop. The goal of every patent is to write it as broad as possible. Just as some patents seem trivial, I think there’s quite a history of getting around patents by making equally trivial changes.

In the end, it is up to the patent holder to enforce their rights. The Patent office does not do this. In the end, a patent is only as good as your pockets are deep to fight for it in court. That is exactly what SawStop is doing. And apparently has prevailed to a large degree.

And, SawStop did attempt to license the technology, and as I understand it the saw companies at the time, wanted the right to make any changes they wanted to it, yet SawStop (or whatever the company was at that time), had to accept all the liability. If that was true, I can’t blame SawStop for not jumping at that, and good on them for making great saws.

In the end, just because a product or feature is a safety product, there’s no reason a company should be giving it away. By that standard, smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, air bags, power brakes, safety glasses, respirators etc., should all be available at cost from not-for-profit businesses.

-- Clin

View Underdog's profile

Underdog

1305 posts in 2400 days


#25 posted 02-06-2017 06:45 PM

Another article on the same thing by William Sampsonl:
http://tinyurl.com/h9ttwcn

-- Jim, Georgia, USA

View bigblockyeti's profile

bigblockyeti

5692 posts in 2085 days


#26 posted 02-06-2017 07:04 PM

I get profits but Gass started out greedy and accelerated from there. The whole thing reeks much like the price gouging with epipens, profits significantly over people!

-- "Lack of effort will result in failure with amazing predictability" - Me

View JADobson's profile

JADobson

1423 posts in 2475 days


#27 posted 02-06-2017 07:12 PM



Nany, nany, boo hoo – Bosch built a better mouse trap, and now Saw Stop is declaring a mistrial and wants to take their ball and go home. Grow up !

- Jimbo4

What?? No mistrial, no crying. According to the judge Bosch violated the patents building their better mousetrap, (not convinced it was better).

-- No craft is very far from the line beyond which is magic. -- Lord Dunsany — Instagram @grailwoodworks

View builtinbkyn's profile

builtinbkyn

2937 posts in 1305 days


#28 posted 02-06-2017 07:41 PM

Well it’s probably better if it works and doesn’t destroy the blade in the process. :) That in and of itself, should overcome the patent. That’s an improvement in my book. That’s generally all that is needed to overcome a patent. Well I’m sure it’s much more complicated in that, but I think that’s also a measure the courts use to make determinations.

-- Bill, Yo!......in Brooklyn & Steel City :)

View MrUnix's profile (online now)

MrUnix

7361 posts in 2563 days


#29 posted 02-06-2017 07:54 PM

Well it’s probably better if it works and doesn’t destroy the blade in the process. :)

Better because it doesn’t destroy the blade. Better because it uses replaceable .22 cal. shells to fire the mechanism instead of a compression spring. Better because the cartridges are cheaper by having two shots in them instead of a single fire cartridge. Better because you can authorize who can and who cannot use the saw via your cell phone, preventing unauthorized workers from operating it. Better because it can use blades that the Sawstop can’t, including odd sized blades, dado stacks and IIRC, even moulding head cutters. Better because you don’t have to change cartridges depending on what blade you want to use. And eventually, just like every other tool Bosch sells, once it gets into full production, the price should drop significantly below initial MSRP, and below what the Sawstop sells for.

I wouldn’t buy either one… but just on the feature set and method of operation, the Bosch wins hands down IMHO.

Cheers,
Brad

-- Brad in FL - In Dog I trust... everything else is questionable

View JADobson's profile

JADobson

1423 posts in 2475 days


#30 posted 02-06-2017 08:57 PM

Sure, better mechanism but the cabinet saw style of the saw stop is hands down better than the job site Reaxx model. I’m taking a larger view.

-- No craft is very far from the line beyond which is magic. -- Lord Dunsany — Instagram @grailwoodworks

View builtinbkyn's profile

builtinbkyn

2937 posts in 1305 days


#31 posted 02-06-2017 09:15 PM



Well it’s probably better if it works and doesn’t destroy the blade in the process. :)

Better because it doesn t destroy the blade. Better because it uses replaceable .22 cal. shells to fire the mechanism instead of a compression spring. Better because the cartridges are cheaper by having two shots in them instead of a single fire cartridge. Better because you can authorize who can and who cannot use the saw via your cell phone, preventing unauthorized workers from operating it. Better because it can use blades that the Sawstop can t, including odd sized blades, dado stacks and IIRC, even moulding head cutters. Better because you don t have to change cartridges depending on what blade you want to use. And eventually, just like every other tool Bosch sells, once it gets into full production, the price should drop significantly below initial MSRP, and below what the Sawstop sells for.

I wouldn t buy either one… but just on the feature set and method of operation, the Bosch wins hands down IMHO.

Cheers,
Brad

- MrUnix


It’s been a while since I looked at the Reaxx video so didn’t remember all the features other than it having two uses before it was spent; it can be reset and used immediately after firing and it didn’t destroy the blade. But can’t disagree with any of what you mentioned.


Sure, better mechanism but the cabinet saw style of the saw stop is hands down better than the job site Reaxx model. I m taking a larger view.

- JADobson


Certainly the cabinet saw is better in that regard, but I could see Bosch licensing the tech to cabinet saw makers. That’s where SS is worried. I don’t think if the Reaxx was going to be the only saw with the tech, they would be as concerned.

-- Bill, Yo!......in Brooklyn & Steel City :)

View BenjaminNY's profile

BenjaminNY

136 posts in 1766 days


#32 posted 02-06-2017 09:24 PM

Sawstop is a tiny American company.

Bosch is a massive corporation involved in making everything from table saws to the code that allowed Volkswagen to get around EPA emissions tests.

Greedy SawStop? Gotta be kidding me.

Good for Sawstop. Tiny company making a solid product .

View bigblockyeti's profile

bigblockyeti

5692 posts in 2085 days


#33 posted 02-06-2017 09:26 PM


I don t think if the Reaxx was going to be the only saw with the tech, they would be as concerned.

- builtinbkyn

Bingo!! Would the Samsung Galaxy exist today if it weren’t for the I-phone? Healthy competition (i.e. a little greed is a good thing), lot of greed stagnates technological evolution. The patents are too broad and cover stuff that Gass will never create, never mind refine.

-- "Lack of effort will result in failure with amazing predictability" - Me

View MrUnix's profile (online now)

MrUnix

7361 posts in 2563 days


#34 posted 02-06-2017 09:36 PM

Sure, better mechanism but the cabinet saw style of the saw stop is hands down better than the job site Reaxx model. I’m taking a larger view.

LOL – any cabinet saw will be significantly better built (“hands down”) and more robust than a job site saw… that’s a given. But keep in mind that Bosch is a member of PTI, and much of the Reaxx technology is using jointly designed PTI patents. The Reaxx is also based largely in part on the Bosch 4100 already in production, so a lot of the engineering, tooling and production has already been done (not to mention distribution), which makes it a much lower cost machine to make than doing it from scratch. It made a logical choice to use for testing the legal water. Once the legal hurdles are passed, then the rest of the PTI members would be free to implement the technology in larger saws, perhaps with some small royalties being banged around between them. AFAIK, Delta was a member of PTI, but I am not sure of its status since being sold to CTI. Maybe there will be a “UniStop” in our future :)

Cheers,
Brad

-- Brad in FL - In Dog I trust... everything else is questionable

View RobS888's profile

RobS888

2604 posts in 2209 days


#35 posted 02-06-2017 09:38 PM



I get profits but Gass started out greedy and accelerated from there. The whole thing reeks much like the price gouging with epipens, profits significantly over people!

- bigblockyeti


That is not fair at all. Epipens went from $114 for 2 in 2007, to $600 for 2 in 2016! With no alternate. Based on that the Sawstop should $11,000 for the 36 inch hybrid.

That is a spurious comparison.

-- I always suspected many gun nuts were afraid of something, just never thought popcorn was on the list.

View bigblockyeti's profile

bigblockyeti

5692 posts in 2085 days


#36 posted 02-06-2017 09:42 PM

Nah, it’s an observance of greed.

-- "Lack of effort will result in failure with amazing predictability" - Me

View CharlesA's profile

CharlesA

3381 posts in 2162 days


#37 posted 02-06-2017 09:43 PM



Nah, it s an observance of greed.

- bigblockyeti

I have no need to defend Gass, but people and companies profit of of life-saving heart valves, artificial joints, cancer treatments, heck, caskets and burial plots.

-- "Man is the only animal which devours his own, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." ~Thomas Jefferson

View Redoak49's profile

Redoak49

3928 posts in 2353 days


#38 posted 02-06-2017 09:45 PM

Anyone guess how many posts will be in this thread before it dies… over 100?

Anyway, the courts have decided and you can buy whatever saw pleases you.

View CharlesA's profile

CharlesA

3381 posts in 2162 days


#39 posted 02-06-2017 09:46 PM

But this is a new conversation with entirely new points being made compared to previous threads . . .


Anyone guess how many posts will be in this thread before it dies… over 100?

Anyway, the courts have decided and you can buy whatever saw pleases you.

- Redoak49


-- "Man is the only animal which devours his own, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." ~Thomas Jefferson

View UpstateNYdude's profile

UpstateNYdude

927 posts in 2347 days


#40 posted 02-06-2017 09:51 PM



But this is a new conversation with entirely new points being made compared to previous threads . . .

Anyone guess how many posts will be in this thread before it dies… over 100?

Anyway, the courts have decided and you can buy whatever saw pleases you.

- Redoak49

- CharlesA

Mmmmmmm sarcasm, it just never gets old :)

-- Nick, “I am always doing what I cannot do yet, in order to learn how to do it.” – Vincent Van Gogh

View RobS888's profile

RobS888

2604 posts in 2209 days


#41 posted 02-06-2017 09:55 PM



Nah, it s an observance of greed.

- bigblockyeti


I’m not seeing it, you include it with a pure greed example that isn’t even close, based on the facts. Sawstop makes a very good product that also removes can protect your fingers. That is added value, not greed.

And as mentioned no one has to buy one. Whereas with epipens or Dariprim (that went from $13/pill to $750/pill) people need them. So right there the comparison falls apart.

-- I always suspected many gun nuts were afraid of something, just never thought popcorn was on the list.

View UncannyValleyWoods's profile

UncannyValleyWoods

542 posts in 2228 days


#42 posted 02-06-2017 11:29 PM


That makes my decision to avoid purchase of a Saw Stop fairly straight forward. When profit is more important than people, we all lose.

I agree, if the existing brands had installed the technology in their saws 15 years ago, we d all be better off.

But… they were good with 50 year old designs. So mean old Rich Uncle Pennybags created a company, designed and built an entirely new product, set up a distribution network, and brought it to market. Shame on him!

Loving my 6 year old SawStop ICS! ;^)

- OggieOglethorpe

How many false positives have you had in those six years? How many times have you had to reset / replace the mechanism? I’m genuinely curious.

-- “If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.” ― Lenny Bruce

View OggieOglethorpe's profile

OggieOglethorpe

1276 posts in 2474 days


#43 posted 02-07-2017 12:48 AM

How many false positives have you had in those six years?

Zero

How many times have you had to reset / replace the mechanism? I’m genuinely curious.

Once. Recently, in December 2016, I slipped with a piece of prefinished maple plywood while dadoing cabinet sides and my thumb triggered the brake. I didn’t need a band-aid, the Forrest Dado King needed two teeth replaced.

Up until December, oddly enough the saw’s sixth birthday, I still had the original blade and dado cartridges from the original purchase. I’ve cut plenty of pressure treated and wet wood as favors for friends without forgetting to bypass.

I’ve been at this 25 years without a serious accident.

What convinced me to sell my y2k General 650, was personally using three local examples of the ICS installed in a local fine woodworking school for adults. Since ~ 2007, they’ve had a total of three firings, all real. Two by flesh, including a well-known pro who also teaches, makes DVD’s distributed by a major tool maker, and writes books and articles for major magazines. The third was student running an aluminum miter gauge into the blade while holding the other end.

View OggieOglethorpe's profile

OggieOglethorpe

1276 posts in 2474 days


#44 posted 02-07-2017 01:01 AM

Sawstop is a tiny American company.

Bosch is a massive corporation involved in making everything from table saws to the code that allowed Volkswagen to get around EPA emissions tests.

Greedy SawStop? Gotta be kidding me.

Good for Sawstop. Tiny company making a solid product .

I think you’re absolutely dead-on…

Sawstop is tiny, privately held company that essentially makes one product in several versions. Bosch is a worldwide conglomerate making everything from tools, to auto parts, to home appliances, to electronics… and most all of it quite well. I like all the Bosch items I own, including my washing machine.

I’ll bet Bosch Corporations’s legal department alone has more lawyers, not even including support staff, than SawStop has total employees, and an annual budget that’s more than SawStop’s annual sales. The fact that the founder of SawStop is an attorney is a complete joke in that light.

View tyvekboy's profile

tyvekboy

1894 posts in 3377 days


#45 posted 02-07-2017 02:11 AM

I’m really disappointed in the ITC’s ruling.

I thought Gass originally developed his saw-stopping technology because he was “so concerned with the safety and health of woodworkers”. Being a lawyer, of course he would write a BROAD patent to cover all bases leaving no room for competition. That’s a lawyer for you. Back to his concern for safety. I guess that’s no long the main concern. Profits is the main concern.

I’ve seen the Bosch saw and I think it’s better than the Saw-Stop in the fact that it doesn’t destroy the blade(s) in the process of safety. If I’m correct, you don’t need a different brake for a dado blade ( I may be wrong) with the Bosch system.

In the name of safety, can Saw-Stop really stand up to the competition in that arena and win? We’ll never know unless the ITC changes it’s position.

-- Tyvekboy -- Marietta, GA ………….. one can never be too organized

View bdresch's profile

bdresch

152 posts in 1972 days


#46 posted 02-09-2017 01:01 AM

I’m wondering how many people that constantly whine about “Greedy” SawStop have ever actually created any IP themselves, put their own money at risk to start a company, or done any of the other things that are only made possible by living in this great free innovation protecting country. As someone who has personally been on SawStops side of one of these cases I know that the innovations that this country is known for can only be sustained by our patent system. There sure seem to be a lot of patent “experts” on this board that spout off about how “overly broad” certain patents are. I wonder how many times they have ponied up the many thousands of dollars it takes to obtain and then protect a patent. Especially against a foreign or even domestic company with essentially unlimited funds. You all should be glad you live in the most innovation friendly country in the world and stick to things you actually have a working knowledge about like wood working.

View TarHeelz's profile

TarHeelz

65 posts in 2445 days


#47 posted 02-09-2017 02:29 AM


That makes my decision to avoid purchase of a Saw Stop fairly straight forward. When profit is more important than people, we all lose.

I agree, if the existing brands had installed the technology in their saws 15 years ago, we d all be better off.

But… they were good with 50 year old designs. So mean old Rich Uncle Pennybags created a company, designed and built an entirely new product, set up a distribution network, and brought it to market. Shame on him!

Loving my 6 year old SawStop ICS! ;^)

- OggieOglethorpe

How many false positives have you had in those six years? How many times have you had to reset / replace the mechanism? I m genuinely curious.

- UncannyValleyWoods

I’m still at zero as well. Original cartridges still going a little over four years later.

Closest I came to setting it off was when I overlooked a screw in a jig in line with the blade that I had added to my cross cut sled. Noticed it a second before sliding the sled forward. (I don’t know that this would count as a false positive – just user error.)

-- Tar Heelz, Durham, NC USA

View Rayne's profile

Rayne

1197 posts in 1904 days


#48 posted 02-09-2017 03:31 AM


Sawstop is a tiny American company.

Bosch is a massive corporation involved in making everything from table saws to the code that allowed Volkswagen to get around EPA emissions tests.

Greedy SawStop? Gotta be kidding me.

Good for Sawstop. Tiny company making a solid product .

I think you re absolutely dead-on…

Sawstop is tiny, privately held company that essentially makes one product in several versions. Bosch is a worldwide conglomerate making everything from tools, to auto parts, to home appliances, to electronics… and most all of it quite well. I like all the Bosch items I own, including my washing machine.

I ll bet Bosch Corporations s legal department alone has more lawyers, not even including support staff, than SawStop has total employees, and an annual budget that s more than SawStop s annual sales. The fact that the founder of SawStop is an attorney is a complete joke in that light.

- OggieOglethorpe

I completely agree. Gass is not a patent troll (yet). He’s using every bit of his patents to make a great product as a small company. I wish I could buy one, but I’m not there yet. I think all this hate for Sawstop’s patents is just blown out of proportion. I think we’d all be an a** if we had that patent and big corps were trying to steal it. He was willing to license it, but the big companies didn’t bite as someone else mentioned. That’s my 2 cents.

View OggieOglethorpe's profile

OggieOglethorpe

1276 posts in 2474 days


#49 posted 02-09-2017 02:42 PM

Closest I came to setting it off was when I overlooked a screw in a jig in line with the blade that I had added to my cross cut sled.

Screws and nails will only set it off if it also makes contact with you or the table’s metal surface at the same time as blade contact.

Try this demonstration to see for yourself:

- With the saw powered on, displaying a green indicator, and the blade NOT TURNING, touch the blade with your hand and notice the indications on the control unit LED’s. You’ll see flashing red, indicating an activation would have taken place if the blade were spinning. All should return to normal a few seconds after you remove your hand.

- Next, after allowing the indicators to return to normal, place a metal object like a screw or coin, on the floor of your crosscut sled across the kerf, and slide the sled foreward until contact is made between the object and stationary blade. The indicator should remain green, indicating that an activation would not have taken place if the blade were spinning.

This is the same way we test questionable material before cutting, to decide if brake bypass is necessary. Simply touch it to the stationary blade with the CPU in a normal state.

View bonesbr549's profile

bonesbr549

1581 posts in 3431 days


#50 posted 02-09-2017 04:21 PM

I just wonder if you invented something and a big corp Giant copied your idea and did not even offer too compensate you how you would feel.

Robert Kernes invented the intermitten wiper and GM stole the idea. He had to fight to get what was rightfully his

I know if I’d invented a cool idea and someone was going to try to F me over, I’d fight too!

-- Sooner or later Liberals run out of other people's money.

Have your say...

You must be signed in to reply.

1 2 next »
81 replies


DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

HomeRefurbers.com