Funny the document discusses all kinds of incidents from table saws
then ends up focusing on Saw Stop which addresses only contact with
blade accidents. Wot a surprise!
This may be a good thing but no surprise that a particular manufacturer
is driving it.
------------
"Mike Paulsen" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
address table saw blade contact injuries.
September 14, 2011
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:52:08 -0500, "ChairMan" <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:11:34 -0500, "ChairMan" <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't
>>>>> use a TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>>>>
>>>> I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's
>>>> not
>>>> plugged in, is it still a table saw?
>>>
>>>depends on what your definition of is is<g>
>>
>> Wait a minute! The Bill is on the wrong duck, here.
>
>that's what Monica said<g>
Well, something like that...
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:05:48 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"tiredofspam" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>Funny how artists have copyrights for 50 years or more... and patent
>holders for drugs ... very short time.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>A copyright expires 70 years after the holders death. A bit excessive, I
>think.
What about corporate logos? Shouldn't a corporation be allowed to keep it's
face to the world?
On Sep 29, 12:17=A0am, Mike Paulsen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>
> September 14, 2011
>
> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
Here's an interesting comment thread on the topic from some months
back:
http://thewoodwhisperer.com/a-sawstop-killer/
Some interesting tidbits in the comments, such as anecdotal 'evidence'
of the big tool companies working together to develop a SawStop
alternative, expired prior patents that would fulfill the anticipated
performance requirements, etc.
I'm betting the performance requirements pass, major changes are made,
and SawStop is out of business in 10 years. Hubris, and all that.
R
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:34:04 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/28/2011 11:17 PM, Mike Paulsen wrote:
>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>
>> September 14, 2011
>>
>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>
>A rebuttal to Mr Gass by the PTI issued today 10/18 ... if you're going
>to argue either way, you still need to read it:
>
>
>http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/industry/pti-sawstop-table-saw-safety
>
>Interesting section, copied here:
>
>Stephen Gass, a patent attorney, has filed more than 120 U.S. patent
>applications, and has over 70 issued U.S. patents which pertain to the
>SawStop technology.
>
><quote>
>
>Stephen Gass told the U.S. government that it should assume that no
>manufacturer will be able to introduce injury mitigation technology that
>does not infringe on his patents.
>
>After the PTI-JV technology became known, SawStop amended one of their
>then-pending patent applications to purportedly cover any table saw that
>retracts the blade rapidly within 14 milliseconds using any retraction
>technique after detecting contact. This patent application which was
>subsequently allowed by the U.S. Patent Office, is arguably not limited
>to SawStop's blade brake technology for retracting the blade, but rather
>is designed to cover any retraction technique, hindering the development
>of alternative blade retraction technologies and blocking competing
>inventors from using their own inventions.
>
></quote>
I believe the only remedy is to allow the gummint to mandate SS use,
build a knock off on a saw, sell it, let Gass sue you, file an
anti-trust suit against the monopoly, and have the patent seized by
the gummint, nullifying the infringement. Then everyone is happy,
fingers are safe, and saws aren't priced out of reach.
The only one to lose this time is the frackin' speaking weasel!
For a change. <wink>
--
Good ideas alter the power balance in relationships, that is why
good ideas are always initially resisted. Good ideas come with a
heavy burden. Which is why so few people have them. So few people
can handle it.
-- Hugh Macleod
[email protected] wrote:
>
> How about that bicycle in your garage? Skis? Is your garage messy?
> Is your lawn as smooth as a putting green? <good grief>
Depends on where you play. Where my league plays - yes my lawn is as smooth
as their greens. Of course...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:40:49 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice
>>>>> hardware, crap company.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their
>>>> advantage to leverage everything they can to command market share.
>>>> Most of the discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw
>>>> Stop should be doing something more "nobel". Hell - they're about
>>>> making money. God bless them for going for it in what ever way
>>>> they can do it. Don't understand why anyone would call them a crap
>>>> company.
>>>
>>> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
>>
>> I guess it's all in what one considers unethical.
>
> Inventing a widget, getting the government to require said widget, and
> refusing to sell said widget freely, is unethical to most normal
> minds. Yes, Gass makes the Snidely Whiplash list. Nope, not going
> to happen.
Well - they did try to sell it long before they went the route of the
government approach.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike Paulsen <[email protected]> wrote:
>advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>address table saw blade contact injuries.
>
>September 14, 2011
>
>http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
Supposed to have been considered September 21.
Googling "UNITED STATES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION September
21, 2011 saw", gives me links to an agenda (VolXXXVIII No.50) which
says it will be considered October 5. Also links to webcasts of the
meetings. A very slow, limited internet connection keeps me from
investigating those links. Anybody willing to find out what did/did
not happen 9/21?
Probably will never matter to me since I have a perfectly good JET,
but I am curious...
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:58:41 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/29/2011 12:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>>>>> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>>>>
>>>>> September 14, 2011
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>>>>
>>>> "A. Background
>>>> On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
>>>> (petitioners) requested that we require performance standards for a system
>>>> to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
>>>> Obama's re-election campaign.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
>>> many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
>>> are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really needs
>>> government control?
>>
>> FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of government's
>> damned business.
>
>I agree. But what surprises me is that health care providers haven't
>tried to make it their business. Someone who uses sharp tools is
>probably more likely to be cut by one than someone who doesn't own any.
> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use
>a TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
How about that bicycle in your garage? Skis? Is your garage messy? Is your
lawn as smooth as a putting green? <good grief>
Han wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike
>>>> Paulsen<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements
>>>>> to address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>>>>
>>>>> September 14, 2011
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>>>>
>>>> "A. Background
>>>> On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James
>>>> Fulmer, et al. (petitioners) requested that we require
>>>> performance standards for a system to reduce or prevent
>>>> injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has
>>>> contributed to Obama's re-election campaign.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder
>>> how many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there
>>> actually are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the
>>> country really needs government control?
>>
>> FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of
>> government's damned business.
>
> They require ground fault interruptors, really good grounding and a
> host of other safety-related things. Why not this? I agree, it
> looks like it should be personal option, but I'd like to get a
> discount on my medical insurance for having a sawstop ... (Which I
> don't have (yet))
Well... if we're going to legislate these things to protect us from
everything that could hurt us, then why not legislate menopausal and
post-menopausal wives? Hell - a lot more harm comes from them than from
table saws...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>
>> September 14, 2011
>>
>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>
> "A. Background
> On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
> (petitioners) requested that we require performance standards for a system
> to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."
>
> I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
> Obama's re-election campaign.
>
I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really needs
government control?
Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't use a
>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>
> I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's not
> plugged in, is it still a table saw?
>
I used to store my table saw not plugged in and rolled it out to the
driveway to do work. It is just as heavy as always, just as large, and
still looks and feels like a saw. So, yes, plugged in or not it's still a
table saw.
I cut my finger on a brand new saw blade while opening the package. Is
that a table-saw related injury (it very well could have been for
installation on the CMS)?
Puckdropper
"tiredofspam" <nospam.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I don't understand.
> Gass offered it to companies, they didn't want it.
> He creates his own... typical American ingenuity and open market.
Good man!
> Now you want him to give it away for free?
Only if it's imposed upon the public by some government fiat
> He tried selling the license to these companies and they balked.
Which should be their right.
> I applaud his effort. Very American....
True. there does seem to be more government interference in our freedoms
lately.
> You must prefer the socialist or communist countries KRW...
> Either that or your brains are scrambled.... That kickback hit you in the
> head?
I would pay the going price for the device if it came with a guarantee that
if the device triggered accidentally, that is without human touch, the
company would restore my saw to its original condition.....free of charge.
Max
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:28:25 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/29/2011 11:58 AM, Bill wrote:
>
>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use a
>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>
>I'm among those in the "table saw" accident statistics.
>
>Mine wasn't plugged in, nor did it have a blade mounted, but the ER
>classed it, for insurance purposes, as a "table saw injury".
That's like all those gang member "firearm fatalities" and suicide
"firearm fatalities" the PTBs like to spout. Effemall!
--
Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:22:05 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 9/29/2011 1:44 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this particular one.
>>
>> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware, crap
>> company.
>
>I'd have to call that a classi case of cutting off your nose to spite
>your face.
Maybe. I don't buy electronics off the back of a truck, either.
>In my situation, "I" come first regardless of who makes it. I'm not
>going to get hung up on a detail if I will be protected.
Not sure how this applies here.
[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
>>> crap company.
>>
>> I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage
>> to leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
>> discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be
>> doing something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money.
>> God bless them for going for it in what ever way they can do it.
>> Don't understand why anyone would call them a crap company.
>
> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
I guess it's all in what one considers unethical.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sep 29, 9:28=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen <[email protected]> wr=
ote:
> >advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
> >address table saw blade contact injuries.
>
> >September 14, 2011
>
> >http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>
> =A0 "A. Background
> =A0 On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et =
al.
> =A0 ( petitioners ) requested that we require performance standards for a=
system
> =A0 to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table =
saw."
>
> I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed =
to
> Obama's re-election campaign. =A0
Billions.
That's not how it works. The guy has a new and improved mouse trap,
he's a lawyer and he knows how to work the system.
If you or I came up with a new and improved mouse trap that's related
to safety, has potentially many millions in sales, and we stuck with
it for many years, we could have our own legislation, too. ;)
R
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen <[email protected]> wrote:
>advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>address table saw blade contact injuries.
>
>September 14, 2011
>
>http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
"A. Background
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
(petitioners) requested that we require performance standards for a system
to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."
I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
Obama's re-election campaign.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 5:29 pm, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>>
>> >>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
>> >>> particular one.
>>
>> >> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
>> >> crap company.
>>
>> >I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage to
>> >leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
>> >discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be doing
>> >something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God bless them
>> >for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't understand why
>> >anyone would call them a crap company.
>
>It comes from confusion about what a company is supposed to do. A CEO
>that is a pitbull is the same as a lawyer that's a pitbull - you're
>better off with them on your side.
>
>When the big tool manufacturer's were approached with the SawStop,
>they basically told the guy to take a leap because they didn't want to
>pay up front. He didn't take no for an answer and now they'll just
>pay another way.
>
>This is business, the American way as much as Superman is, and I'm
>surprised that someone that believes in free trade would want someone
>to give away their patent and not profit from their invention. If you
>want a saint, start digging up some bones.
>
>> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
>
>Because someone doesn't share your ethics, doesn't make them
>unethical. SawStop is in business to make money. The owner/inventor
>knows his product will save digits. If he knew that the saw wasn't
>any safer, that would be unethical. If he knew it wasn't any safer
>and profited from it, that would be fraud.
Wrong. Ethics (a set of moral principles) are personal. SawStop is
unethical, period.
>All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And
>forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
>dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
>requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
>liberties! ;)
There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 18:49:50 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Oct 1, 12:50 am, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Sep 30, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >Because someone doesn't share your ethics, doesn't make them
>> >> >> >> >unethical. SawStop is in business to make money. The owner/inventor
>> >> >> >> >knows his product will save digits. If he knew that the saw wasn't
>> >> >> >> >any safer, that would be unethical. If he knew it wasn't any safer
>> >> >> >> >and profited from it, that would be fraud.
>>
>> >> >> >> Wrong. Ethics (a set of moral principles) are personal. SawStop is
>> >> >> >> unethical, period.
>>
>> >Not everyone thinks as you do. Not everyone has such rigid "ethics"
>> >that they'd have a problem buying a better product because of a
>> >perceived (and at this point totally imaginary) injustice.
>>
>> Not everyone understands simple math. <what a dumbass>
>
>It is the mark of the mind untrained to take its own processes as
>valid for all men, and its own judgments for absolute truth.
>- Aleister Crowley
Which instantly reminded me of Ozzy.
Mr. Crowley Lyrics
Artist(Band):Ozzy Osbourne
Mr. Crowley, what went down in your head
(Oh) Mr. Crowley, did you talk to the dead
Your lifestyle to me seems so tragic
With the thrill of it all
You fooled all the people with magic
(Yeah)You waited on Satan's call
Mr. Charming, did you think you were pure
Mr. Alarming, in nocturnal rapport
Uncovering things that were sacred, manifest on this earth
(Oh)Conceived in the eye of a secret
Yeah, they scattered the afterbirth
Solo
Mr. Crowley, won't you ride my white horse?
Mr. Crowley, it's symbolic of course
Approaching a time that is classic
I hear that maidens call
Approaching a time that is drastic
Standing with their backs to the wall
(Solo)
Was it polemically sent?
I wanna know what you meant
I wanna know
I wanna know what you meant, yeah!
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
On 9/29/2011 6:42 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:30:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>>> down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget
>>> about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions,
>>> GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a
>>> government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;)
>>
>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>
> I wonder how many prospective woodworkers will abandon the hobby when
> they find their first tablesaw is going to cost them $1500-$3000?
>
Zero, zip, nada. No no one will abandon the hobby. How many people
quit buying houses when grounded wiring was required. How many people
quit buying cars when air bags were required. If you have to abandon a
hobby because a piece of equipment doubles in price your financial
prioritizes should be reconsidered.
In article <f3882d1a-2c3f-4ce2-b7ef-4550e9b1e0a1
@h34g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Sep 29, 7:30 pm, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On Sep 29, 5:29 pm, "[email protected]"
> > ><[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >[email protected] wrote:
> > >> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> >>> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > >> >>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
> >
> > >> >>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
> > >> >>> particular one.
> >
> > >> >> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
> > >> >> crap company.
> >
> > >> >I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage to
> > >> >leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
> > >> >discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be doing
> > >> >something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God bless them
> > >> >for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't understand why
> > >> >anyone would call them a crap company.
> >
> > >It comes from confusion about what a company is supposed to do. A CEO
> > >that is a pitbull is the same as a lawyer that's a pitbull - you're
> > >better off with them on your side.
> >
> > >When the big tool manufacturer's were approached with the SawStop,
> > >they basically told the guy to take a leap because they didn't want to
> > >pay up front. He didn't take no for an answer and now they'll just
> > >pay another way.
> >
> > >This is business, the American way as much as Superman is, and I'm
> > >surprised that someone that believes in free trade would want someone
> > >to give away their patent and not profit from their invention. If you
> > >want a saint, start digging up some bones.
> >
> > >> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
> >
> > >Because someone doesn't share your ethics, doesn't make them
> > >unethical. SawStop is in business to make money. The owner/inventor
> > >knows his product will save digits. If he knew that the saw wasn't
> > >any safer, that would be unethical. If he knew it wasn't any safer
> > >and profited from it, that would be fraud.
> >
> > Wrong. Ethics (a set of moral principles) are personal. SawStop is
> > unethical, period.
>
> Is a gun unethical? That's a...wait for it...loaded question.
>
> > >All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
> > >down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And
> > >forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
> > >dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
> > >requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
> > >liberties! ;)
> >
> > There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>
> Where does it say there's going to be a monopoly?
If Sawstop holds the patent and that technology is mandated, there's a
monopoly.
We need legislation to the effect that any person or business that
wishes to lobby Congress or any government agency to mandate the
installation of devices for which they hold the patent must first place
that patent in the public domain.
Not gonna happen, instead we're just gonna keep taking it up the butt,
but it _should_.
> OSHA, Workman's Comp, UFPL, NFPA, DOT, FAA, have all mandated what you
> and I can and can't do.
Do any of them mandate that if you are going to buy a tool of a given
kind it _must_ contain expensive technology licensed from a company that
has lobbied the government to implement such a requirement?
> I don't see the point in getting worked up about something that is a
> well-engineered and proven safety device. I'll save my righteous
> indignation for the crap stuff that is dangerous.
>
> There will be no shortage of used machines on the market to satisfy
> your woodworking needs for many years to come - old iron doesn't die.
>
> R
In article <[email protected]>, tiredofspam
says...
>
> You truly are an ASS.
You might try actually addressing his argument.
>
> On 9/29/2011 7:30 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 29, 5:29 pm, "[email protected]"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
> >>>
> >>>>>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
> >>>>>> particular one.
> >>>
> >>>>> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
> >>>>> crap company.
> >>>
> >>>> I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage to
> >>>> leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
> >>>> discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be doing
> >>>> something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God bless them
> >>>> for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't understand why
> >>>> anyone would call them a crap company.
> >>
> >> It comes from confusion about what a company is supposed to do. A CEO
> >> that is a pitbull is the same as a lawyer that's a pitbull - you're
> >> better off with them on your side.
> >>
> >> When the big tool manufacturer's were approached with the SawStop,
> >> they basically told the guy to take a leap because they didn't want to
> >> pay up front. He didn't take no for an answer and now they'll just
> >> pay another way.
> >>
> >> This is business, the American way as much as Superman is, and I'm
> >> surprised that someone that believes in free trade would want someone
> >> to give away their patent and not profit from their invention. If you
> >> want a saint, start digging up some bones.
> >>
> >>> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
> >>
> >> Because someone doesn't share your ethics, doesn't make them
> >> unethical. SawStop is in business to make money. The owner/inventor
> >> knows his product will save digits. If he knew that the saw wasn't
> >> any safer, that would be unethical. If he knew it wasn't any safer
> >> and profited from it, that would be fraud.
> >
> > Wrong. Ethics (a set of moral principles) are personal. SawStop is
> > unethical, period.
> >
> >> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
> >> down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And
> >> forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
> >> dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
> >> requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
> >> liberties! ;)
> >
> > There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
> >> down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And
> >> forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
> >> dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
> >> requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
> >> liberties! ;)
> >
> > There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>
> There's no proposed government monopoly for saws either. True, there's only
> one product on the market that will stop a saw blade before it does damage.
> But that doesn't mean others won't come along.
When they do get back to us.
> Not too many years ago, the federal government, in its infinite wisdom, and
> acting in a beneficent and loving manner for all the public, regardless of
> race, gender, or hair-length, mandated that washing machine tubs stop their
> spin cycle in five seconds or so any time the door was opened. Countless
> children (well, maybe two) are alive today because of this ruling.
So did this require patented technology available from only one source?
> So it might be with saws.
Find, mandate the thing but take the guy's patents away from him.
> In fact, if such a ruling comes into force, it might spell the end for
> SawStop! Not wanting to pay the exorbitant fees demanded by SawStop,
> manufacturers will beaver their way to a non-infringing alternative.
What alternative would that be?
> This
> new technique may end up costing the saw manufacturer fifty-cents per
> machine and double-dribble SawStop into oblivion.
Uh huh, right, they're going to instantly invent this new technology the
moment a new regulation is enacted.
You could make the same argument about air bags. But guess what, we got
air bags.
You truly are an ASS.
On 9/29/2011 7:30 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 29, 5:29 pm, "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>>>
>>>>>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
>>>>>> particular one.
>>>
>>>>> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
>>>>> crap company.
>>>
>>>> I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage to
>>>> leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
>>>> discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be doing
>>>> something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God bless them
>>>> for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't understand why
>>>> anyone would call them a crap company.
>>
>> It comes from confusion about what a company is supposed to do. A CEO
>> that is a pitbull is the same as a lawyer that's a pitbull - you're
>> better off with them on your side.
>>
>> When the big tool manufacturer's were approached with the SawStop,
>> they basically told the guy to take a leap because they didn't want to
>> pay up front. He didn't take no for an answer and now they'll just
>> pay another way.
>>
>> This is business, the American way as much as Superman is, and I'm
>> surprised that someone that believes in free trade would want someone
>> to give away their patent and not profit from their invention. If you
>> want a saint, start digging up some bones.
>>
>>> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
>>
>> Because someone doesn't share your ethics, doesn't make them
>> unethical. SawStop is in business to make money. The owner/inventor
>> knows his product will save digits. If he knew that the saw wasn't
>> any safer, that would be unethical. If he knew it wasn't any safer
>> and profited from it, that would be fraud.
>
> Wrong. Ethics (a set of moral principles) are personal. SawStop is
> unethical, period.
>
>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>> down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And
>> forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
>> dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
>> requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
>> liberties! ;)
>
> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
On Sep 29, 7:42=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:30:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> >>All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
> >>down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. =A0And forg=
et
> >>about houses! =A0CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions,
> >>GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a
> >>government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! =A0;)
>
> > There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>
> I wonder how many prospective woodworkers will abandon the hobby when
> they find their first tablesaw is going to cost them $1500-$3000?
Wouldn't the price come down once all tool manufacturer's were
manufacturing either licensed SawStop or competing technology? And
there's always used.
The real issue is what is going to happen to other spinning-blade
tools. Once that 10" CMS touches flesh, and the device is triggered,
where's that blade going to go hide?
Soon enough all the Norm-ites will be coming over to the Neander-
side! ;)
R
On Sep 29, 7:30=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> w=
rote:
> >On Sep 29, 5:29 pm, "[email protected]"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> >>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>
> >> >>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
> >> >>> particular one.
>
> >> >> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
> >> >> crap company.
>
> >> >I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage to
> >> >leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
> >> >discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be do=
ing
> >> >something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God bless =
them
> >> >for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't understand wh=
y
> >> >anyone would call them a crap company.
>
> >It comes from confusion about what a company is supposed to do. =A0A CEO
> >that is a pitbull is the same as a lawyer that's a pitbull - you're
> >better off with them on your side.
>
> >When the big tool manufacturer's were approached with the SawStop,
> >they basically told the guy to take a leap because they didn't want to
> >pay up front. =A0He didn't take no for an answer and now they'll just
> >pay another way.
>
> >This is business, the American way as much as Superman is, and I'm
> >surprised that someone that believes in free trade would want someone
> >to give away their patent and not profit from their invention. =A0If you
> >want a saint, start digging up some bones.
>
> >> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
>
> >Because someone doesn't share your ethics, doesn't make them
> >unethical. =A0SawStop is in business to make money. =A0The owner/invento=
r
> >knows his product will save digits. =A0If he knew that the saw wasn't
> >any safer, that would be unethical. =A0If he knew it wasn't any safer
> >and profited from it, that would be fraud.
>
> Wrong. =A0Ethics (a set of moral principles) are personal. =A0SawStop is
> unethical, period.
Is a gun unethical? That's a...wait for it...loaded question.
> >All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
> >down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. =A0And
> >forget about houses! =A0CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
> >dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
> >requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
> >liberties! =A0;)
>
> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
Where does it say there's going to be a monopoly?
OSHA, Workman's Comp, UFPL, NFPA, DOT, FAA, have all mandated what you
and I can and can't do.
I don't see the point in getting worked up about something that is a
well-engineered and proven safety device. I'll save my righteous
indignation for the crap stuff that is dangerous.
There will be no shortage of used machines on the market to satisfy
your woodworking needs for many years to come - old iron doesn't die.
R
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:30:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>>down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget
>>about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions,
>>GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a
>>government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;)
>
> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
I wonder how many prospective woodworkers will abandon the hobby when
they find their first tablesaw is going to cost them $1500-$3000?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:30:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>>> down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget
>>> about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions,
>>> GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a
>>> government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;)
>>
>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>
> I wonder how many prospective woodworkers will abandon the hobby when
> they find their first tablesaw is going to cost them $1500-$3000?
If they can get passed the cost of "proper" DC, they can probably deal
with that. Steer they away from the woodturning accessories.
[email protected] wrote:
>
>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>> down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And
>> forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
>> dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
>> requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
>> liberties! ;)
>
> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
There's no proposed government monopoly for saws either. True, there's only
one product on the market that will stop a saw blade before it does damage.
But that doesn't mean others won't come along.
Not too many years ago, the federal government, in its infinite wisdom, and
acting in a beneficent and loving manner for all the public, regardless of
race, gender, or hair-length, mandated that washing machine tubs stop their
spin cycle in five seconds or so any time the door was opened. Countless
children (well, maybe two) are alive today because of this ruling.
So it might be with saws.
In fact, if such a ruling comes into force, it might spell the end for
SawStop! Not wanting to pay the exorbitant fees demanded by SawStop,
manufacturers will beaver their way to a non-infringing alternative. This
new technique may end up costing the saw manufacturer fifty-cents per
machine and double-dribble SawStop into oblivion.
On Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:56:00 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop?
>
> I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters.
The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight
to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing
bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). They're seeing
thousands per year of amputations.
If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and non-discriminatory'
terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per replacement cartridge) the
commission MIGHT institute requirements that only the
Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme
outcome I'd believe. Congress doesn't have much to say at
this point, of course; CPSC is INDEPENDENT of Congress.
On 10/8/2011 12:35 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> On Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:56:00 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop?
>>
>> I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters.
>
> The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight
> to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing
> bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). They're seeing
> thousands per year of amputations.
>
> If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and non-discriminatory'
> terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per replacement cartridge) the
> commission MIGHT institute requirements that only the
> Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme
> outcome I'd believe. Congress doesn't have much to say at
> this point, of course; CPSC is INDEPENDENT of Congress.
Do you really believe that even in mass production that the prices you
suggested would be of a dependable quality?
From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand
knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the
additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00.
If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it
is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and
prevents you from being badly injured.
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:43:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:18:07 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>wrote:
>
>>On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>> That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
>>>>> asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
>>>>> technologies.
>>>>
>>>> I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
>>>> had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.
>>>
>>> If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
>>> lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
>>> of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
>>> be illuminating.
>>
>>I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
>>boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
>>usual.
>>
>>FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
>>like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
>>car purchase in most cases.
>
>Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
>that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
>that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
>to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
>manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
>plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.
It adds that $355 to the *COST* of the saw, not the price. There *is* a
difference.
>I'd call a $1k licensing fee plus a buck or three on each saw a fair
>price. He'd make millions the very first year. After all, he seems to
>be trying to pose as an altruist in all of this mess.
Even ten times that. ...or make it optional, and see how few are bought.
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:18:07 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
>>>> asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
>>>> technologies.
>>>
>>> I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
>>> had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.
>>
>> If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
>> lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
>> of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
>> be illuminating.
>
>I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
>boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
>usual.
>
>FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
>like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
>car purchase in most cases.
Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.
I'd call a $1k licensing fee plus a buck or three on each saw a fair
price. He'd make millions the very first year. After all, he seems to
be trying to pose as an altruist in all of this mess.
--
Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself.
-- Thomas Jefferson
On 10/10/2011 9:39 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 8:53 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 10/10/2011 8:43 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
>>> that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
>>> that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
>>> to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
>>> manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
>>> plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.
>>
>> Agreed ... very damn few manufacturers of this type equipment, with the
>> regulations and "social engineering" they already have to deal with via
>> government mandate just to do business, have a _margin_ that will
>> withstand an 8% hit on each product + mandated parts.
>>
>
>
> Well if they try to absorb the cost and not pass it on to the consumer
> they certainly will have problems.
Do the math on C-Less's post above ... would you, shopping for a new
table saw, buy the Unisaw for almost $3600 (the estimated cost with the
technology) versus SawStop's $3300?
Remember, Gass' saw does not have to pay the license fee since he owns
the patent.
Now, just who is it that has the opportunity to stifle competition with
an unfair advantage should the technology become mandated?
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 10/10/2011 12:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:43:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:18:07 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
> >>>>>> That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
> >>>>>> asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
> >>>>>> technologies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
> >>>>> had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.
> >>>>
> >>>> If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
> >>>> lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
> >>>> of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
> >>>> be illuminating.
> >>>
> >>> I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
> >>> boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
> >>> usual.
> >>>
> >>> FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
> >>> like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
> >>> car purchase in most cases.
> >>
> >> Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
> >> that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
> >> that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
> >> to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
> >> manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
> >> plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.
> >
> > It adds that $355 to the *COST* of the saw, not the price. There *is* a
> > difference.
>
> Reread most of my comments, I understand cost and sale. You will
> perhaps notice that the early on proposed added cost would be a
> percentage of the sale, 8% and some change. Extended to todays prices
> the figure tossed in the air was that the fee would be in the $350
> range. I more than once said that I would have no problem with paying
> in the $500 range and that amount being a bargain.
>
> Every bit of this is speculation. You never initially offer a product
> to a possible customer at rock bottom prices, it is way to hard to
> increase that price during negotiations. It is much easier to negotiate
> your price down than up when trying to close a deal.
And yet he didn't negotiate it down, when they wouldn't pay the 8
percent he took his ball and went home.
> Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that
> was what the actual amount would have been.
Why would he propose less when they are being required by the government
to license it?
Do you know this guy personally? Is that why you're defending him so
vehemently?
On 10/10/2011 8:43 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
> that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
> that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
> to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
> manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
> plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.
Agreed ... very damn few manufacturers of this type equipment, with the
regulations and "social engineering" they already have to deal with via
government mandate just to do business, have a _margin_ that will
withstand an 8% hit on each product + mandated parts.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 10/10/2011 8:53 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 8:43 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
>> that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
>> that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
>> to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
>> manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
>> plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.
>
> Agreed ... very damn few manufacturers of this type equipment, with the
> regulations and "social engineering" they already have to deal with via
> government mandate just to do business, have a _margin_ that will
> withstand an 8% hit on each product + mandated parts.
>
Well if they try to absorb the cost and not pass it on to the consumer
they certainly will have problems.
On 10/10/2011 8:43 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:18:07 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>> That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
>>>>> asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
>>>>> technologies.
>>>>
>>>> I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
>>>> had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.
>>>
>>> If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
>>> lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
>>> of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
>>> be illuminating.
>>
>> I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
>> boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
>> usual.
>>
>> FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
>> like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
>> car purchase in most cases.
>
> Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
> that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw.
Is that all???? I had not yet done the math. I have spent more than
that on TS accessories, I would consider $500 a bargain on most any
priced saw but I am not one to buy low end crap to begin with. Hell I
spent double that on a Festool track saw, so nop, I do not consider $355
extra for that feature to be any thing to debate, It's a no brainer for me.
You think
> that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
> to get for his invention?
I and apparently many others do, his saw which sells for more that the
prices you mentioned above are selling like hot cakes. I would think
that a Delta, Jet, or Powermatic with the $500~$600 "optino" would
increase sales for those manufacturers. They would basically have a
competitive product to offer and most likely be less expensive or
equally priced. Yes the option will increase the cost of a TS but so
does buying a better blade than the one that came on your TS.
I call it highway robbery. If all saw
> manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
> plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.
Initially but cars with air bags and seat belts have replaced all those
with out.
>
> I'd call a $1k licensing fee plus a buck or three on each saw a fair
> price. He'd make millions the very first year. After all, he seems to
> be trying to pose as an altruist in all of this mess.
You have never run a business have you? You seem to be clueless about
the cost of R&D. Gass had a real risk of loss in his investment, he
should not be penalized for taking that risk and succeeding.
Life is not always fai,r some people invest and are rewarded. Some
people take no risks and loose out on the opportunity to be rewarded.
This is the society we live in like it or not. When life you deals you
lemmons.....
And to once again sum up my position on the whole matter, I don't look
fondly at the reported ways Gass has been painted nrt do I look fondly
at the ways it has been reported about other manufacturers refusing to
offer a safer saw when they had the opportunity. I do know that
competition brings prices down and right now the SawStop has no
competition in the category that it is in. I truly believe that if
other manufacturers offer the same technology their sales will go up.
But if it makes yo feel better many others did not believe the SawStop
would ever come to market and Sawstop had to start with nothing and
build a customer base.
On 10/10/2011 12:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:43:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:18:07 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>>> That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
>>>>>> asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
>>>>>> technologies.
>>>>>
>>>>> I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
>>>>> had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.
>>>>
>>>> If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
>>>> lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
>>>> of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
>>>> be illuminating.
>>>
>>> I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
>>> boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
>>> usual.
>>>
>>> FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
>>> like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
>>> car purchase in most cases.
>>
>> Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
>> that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
>> that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
>> to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
>> manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
>> plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.
>
> It adds that $355 to the *COST* of the saw, not the price. There *is* a
> difference.
Reread most of my comments, I understand cost and sale. You will
perhaps notice that the early on proposed added cost would be a
percentage of the sale, 8% and some change. Extended to todays prices
the figure tossed in the air was that the fee would be in the $350
range. I more than once said that I would have no problem with paying
in the $500 range and that amount being a bargain.
Every bit of this is speculation. You never initially offer a product
to a possible customer at rock bottom prices, it is way to hard to
increase that price during negotiations. It is much easier to negotiate
your price down than up when trying to close a deal.
Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that
was what the actual amount would have been.
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Oct 2, 6:52 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >No, a determined law firm can massage the system for a decade at significant
>> >cost. It then comes down to who has the greater staying power.
>>
>> But ITS NOT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE TO DO SO.
>
>It is the mark of the mind untrained to take its own processes as
>valid for all men, and its own judgments for absolute truth.
>- Aleister Crowley
>
>I do believe old Aleister just said you were full of crap. :)~
>
>I've made my prediction already. Let's hear yours.
>Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop?
I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters.
>Will Stanley Black & Decker, with a market cap of $8.5 billion, rollover and ask for
>Vaseline because of a paltry ten or fifteen million in lawyer's fees?
If #1 is wrong, they'll have no choice.
>Will Bosch baulk, will Makita make tracks, will Festool...okay, let's
>just keep Festool out of this one. Tune in tomorrow, same crazy
>batshit channel, same crazy batshit time!
If it's that crazy, you'll be there.
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
>>> That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices
>>> Gass is asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
>>> technologies.
>>
>> I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
>> had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.
>
> If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
> lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
> of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
> be illuminating.
Could be Larry - but why not post a link? Too much of this thread has been
based on unsubstantiated bullshit and a good link would serve this thread
well.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 10/10/2011 12:30 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:39:09 -0700, Larry Jaques
>> If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
>> lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
>> of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
>> be illuminating.
>
> Because they were too cheap and figured they could all collectively
> freeze him out. Now, it's going to cost them more. If even *one*
> tablesaw manufacturer had paid the price and contracted the sawstop
> technology exclusively, they'd own the market. Now, it's too late.
I can see it now, SawStop will be blamed for not forcing the license
early on, to the companies that will fail.
A problem with most businesses is that they want to blame their short
sightedness on some one else.
On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
>>> That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
>>> asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
>>> technologies.
>>
>> I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
>> had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.
>
> If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
> lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
> of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
> be illuminating.
I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
usual.
FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
car purchase in most cases.
>
> --
> Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself.
> -- Thomas Jefferson
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:10:53 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Is that true? Universally? Gass is, by all evidence, a very good patent
>> attorney. I wouldn't expect him to miss this little detail.
>
>No, of course not. But it does happen, just not very often
Gass is obviously betting that it's not going to happen. I'm (obviously) on
the other side and don't like the bet, particularly with the regulation-happy
crew now running Washington.
> The only ones I am recalling right now were Automobile safety patents.
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:39:09 -0700, Larry Jaques
>If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
>lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
>of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
>be illuminating.
Because they were too cheap and figured they could all collectively
freeze him out. Now, it's going to cost them more. If even *one*
tablesaw manufacturer had paid the price and contracted the sawstop
technology exclusively, they'd own the market. Now, it's too late.
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
>> That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
>> asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
>> technologies.
>
>I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
>had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.
If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
be illuminating.
--
Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself.
-- Thomas Jefferson
On Sep 29, 5:29=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>
> >>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
> >>> particular one.
>
> >> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. =A0Nice hardware,
> >> crap company.
>
> >I disagree. =A0they are a for profit company. =A0It's to their advantage=
to
> >leverage everything they can to command market share. =A0Most of the
> >discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be doing
> >something more "nobel". =A0Hell - they're about making money. =A0God ble=
ss them
> >for going for it in what ever way they can do it. =A0Don't understand wh=
y
> >anyone would call them a crap company.
It comes from confusion about what a company is supposed to do. A CEO
that is a pitbull is the same as a lawyer that's a pitbull - you're
better off with them on your side.
When the big tool manufacturer's were approached with the SawStop,
they basically told the guy to take a leap because they didn't want to
pay up front. He didn't take no for an answer and now they'll just
pay another way.
This is business, the American way as much as Superman is, and I'm
surprised that someone that believes in free trade would want someone
to give away their patent and not profit from their invention. If you
want a saint, start digging up some bones.
> Wrong! =A0I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
Because someone doesn't share your ethics, doesn't make them
unethical. SawStop is in business to make money. The owner/inventor
knows his product will save digits. If he knew that the saw wasn't
any safer, that would be unethical. If he knew it wasn't any safer
and profited from it, that would be fraud.
All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And
forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
liberties! ;)
R
On Oct 2, 6:52=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >No, a determined law firm can massage the system for a decade at signifi=
cant
> >cost. It then comes down to who has the greater staying power.
>
> But ITS NOT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE TO DO SO.
=93It is the mark of the mind untrained to take its own processes as
valid for all men, and its own judgments for absolute truth.=94
- Aleister Crowley
I do believe old Aleister just said you were full of crap. :)~
I've made my prediction already. Let's hear yours.
Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop? Will Stanley Black &
Decker, with a market cap of $8.5 billion, rollover and ask for
Vaseline because of a paltry ten or fifteen million in lawyer's fees?
Will Bosch baulk, will Makita make tracks, will Festool...okay, let's
just keep Festool out of this one. Tune in tomorrow, same crazy
batshit channel, same crazy batshit time!
R
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:55:04 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> Now it may be that Ryoibi, DeWalt, et all do not have the $35
>>> billion in CASH that Microsoft has, but they damned sure have more
>>> moola than SawStop. The table-saw cartel, really, can litigate
>>> SawStop to death if they choose that tactic. For example, by
>>> claiming patent infringement on the part of SawStop ("We control the
>>> patent on all things that go round-and-round...").
>>
>> Um, "things that go round-and-round" have, demonstrably, been around
>> more than 20 years. If, by some accident of history that there was a
>> patent, it would have expired sometime last week.
>>
>
>So what?
So you're "what if", isn't.
>That won't stop the filing of lawsuits in every possible
>jurisdiction.
No, but that will just bleed them dry, with no possible gain.
>Then there are the interrogatories, depositions,
>counter-filings, witnesses, travel, rescheduling, writs and paper filling
>several wheelbarrows, and notary publics without number. That's even BEFORE
>they bring in the patent filings from Patagonia that must be adjudicated
>under the Panama Intellectual Property Act.
That might work drawing out a finding by the courts, but it does *nothing* in
this case because the patent is *assumed*valid* until found otherwise. It
might be in SawStop's interest to draw out a trial, if there were a chance
they'd lose. It would never be in the challenger's interest.
>Look at the recent health care law: At least a dozen lawsuits have been
>filed in federal courts, so we're not even talking about something that has
>to bubble up through a state court system. The Supreme Court will probably
>hear the combined cases right after the new year with a decision expected in
>the spring of 2012. This contention has been fast-tracked by everybody and
>it's still going to take TWO YEARS to get it settled!
What's that strawman wearing?
>No, a determined law firm can massage the system for a decade at significant
>cost. It then comes down to who has the greater staying power.
But ITS NOT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE TO DO SO.
"tiredofspam" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Funny how artists have copyrights for 50 years or more... and patent
holders for drugs ... very short time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A copyright expires 70 years after the holders death. A bit excessive, I
think.
On 29 Sep 2011 16:52:38 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike
>>>> Paulsen<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements
>>>>> to address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>>>>
>>>>> September 14, 2011
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>>>>
>>>> "A. Background
>>>> On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer,
>>>> et al. (petitioners) requested that we require performance
>>>> standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact
>>>> with the blade of a table saw."
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has
>>>> contributed to Obama's re-election campaign.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
>>>many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
>>>are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really
>>>needs government control?
>>
>> FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of
>> government's damned business.
>
>They require ground fault interruptors, really good grounding and a host
>of other safety-related things. Why not this? I agree, it looks like it
>should be personal option, but I'd like to get a discount on my medical
>insurance for having a sawstop ... (Which I don't have (yet))
The federal government does no such thing! If you find an insurance carrier
that gives a discount for a SawStop, or for that matter a flat roof, who
cares?! Your choice and theirs.
I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
didn't
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 07:57:36 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:31:33 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been
>>>>> legislated down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers,
>>>>> airbags. And forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors,
>>>>> standardized stair dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole
>>>>> electrical panel requirement is a government-let plot to separate
>>>>> people from their liberties! ;)
>>>>
>>>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>>>
>>> There's no proposed government monopoly for saws either. True,
>>> there's only one product on the market that will stop a saw blade
>>> before it does damage. \
>>
>> Yes, that "law" (rule) would IN FACT make it a monopoly on the entire
>> industry.
>>
>>> But that doesn't mean others won't come along.
>>
>> Have you read the patent? Do, before you comment further.
>>
>>> Not too many years ago, the federal government, in its infinite
>>> wisdom, and acting in a beneficent and loving manner for all the
>>> public, regardless of race, gender, or hair-length, mandated that
>>> washing machine tubs stop their spin cycle in five seconds or so any
>>> time the door was opened. Countless children (well, maybe two) are
>>> alive today because of this ruling.
>>
>> I know, the table saw ban "is for the children".
>>
>>> So it might be with saws.
>>
>> ...and you don't see a problem?
>>
>>> In fact, if such a ruling comes into force, it might spell the end
>>> for SawStop! Not wanting to pay the exorbitant fees demanded by
>>> SawStop, manufacturers will beaver their way to a non-infringing
>>> alternative. This new technique may end up costing the saw
>>> manufacturer fifty-cents per machine and double-dribble SawStop into
>>> oblivion.
>>>
>>
>> Read the patent.
>
>You raise a good point, but patents can be litigated out of existence. The
>ten or so saw manufacturers have, combined, access to more patent attorneys
>than the owner of SawStop has friends on Facebook.
Can be, if you have MILLION$ to gamble. This one is particularly air-tight.
No one with a brain would challenge it.
>While that's going on, there's money to be made.
No, there really isn't.
>As soon as SawStop is mandated, one can stock up on entry-level table saws,
>at, say, $90 each, while they're still available. A year or so down the
>road, when entry-level table saws have disappeared from the market or sell
>for $500 each, you can sell those hoarded saws on Craigslist for whatever
>the market will bear.
>
Why would anyone sell them for $90?
Do light bulbs, instead.
On 10/8/2011 7:02 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> For the cost of the monies lost to Solyndra,
>
> That thing stinks to high heaven, and I hope we'll get to the bottom of
> the episode's wrongdoings. It reminds me of the stuff the farmeres
> spayed over their fields at summer's end, near where I grew up (Usually
> about 100-200 yards from home). The "stuff" was what was left in the
> pits below the cows, filled with excrement etc. That smell was
> something!!
>
>> and literally thousands of
>> other examples of frivolous, 'bridges to nowhere' spending of taxpayers
>> money, the government, instead of a mandate, would do well to make Gass
>> an offer he couldn't refuse and put the patent in the public domain.
>
> I wish that could work, but I think it'll take a Warren Buffett to do
> that. At least, I haven't heard of the goverment doing anything like
> that.
>
>> The resultant technological _innovation_ coming from just that one
>> action would go a long way to really making table saw usage much safer
>> for everyone at a reasonable price.
>
> Gass did us all a favor by inventing something useful. In true
> capitalist fashion, he thought he should instantaneously become a
> millionaire. Of course, OTOH, the manufacturers of tablesaws didn't want
> to be bothered with something like this. Now, it appears, and this is
> IMPORTANT, that only hobbyists who aren't subject to OSHA regulations are
> stupid enough (like me) to not follow safety rules and regulations and
> get injured. Read the CPSC report, it is quite instructive!
>
>> Those who espouse "social cost" as a justification, over individual
>> responsibility, should have no problem with that.
>
> I'm fora certain amount of forcing people to be responsible for their own
> safety/good. Seatbelts are a good example of how things should be done.
> Now the problem is how to give Gass his due rewards for his invention
> without all consumers being extorted like he is now trying to do.
>
Apparently Gass is doing quite well and his product is very appealing to
those that realize the idea that their safety is indeed worth a little
more. His products are top notch and IMHO well with in reason price
wise. I don't think all consumers are being extorted. Had a great
number of consumers not thought the product was worth while or worth the
price he his business would not be introducing as many new models as it is.
On Oct 12, 10:39 am, Ralph E Lindberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> One of the things that Gass forgets is an action the Government can take
> on Patents that relate to public safety. They seize the Patent(s) in
> question and allow any firm to compete.
>
> Yes, the owner of the Patent(s) is compensated, but certainly not to the
> level Gass is certainly dreaming of.
The Universe giveth with one hand and bitchslappeth with the other.
I seriously doubt that Gass has forgotten the possibility of such an
action by the government. It's a win-win situation for him, except in
a popularity newsgroup contest. Either way he's going to make a
boatload of money, and it's just a question of how big of a boat he'll
need.
R
On 10/12/2011 9:39 AM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Thanks. Interesting article, but short of some the pertinent facts; the real
>> cost. It's clear that it's greater than $100 and less than $1000. Maybe.
>>
> I actually discussed this with the owner of one of the major importers
> and the licensing cost for the saw-stop (plus the device) was much
> closer to the 1000 dollar cost
>
>
>> Interestingly, the article talks about emotions overwhelming facts, then
>> throws out this clunker; "If CPSC adopts a rule in the next year, it might
>> well be referred to as The Patent Attorney's Relief Act of 2012".
>
> One of the things that Gass forgets is an action the Government can take
> on Patents that relate to public safety. They seize the Patent(s) in
> question and allow any firm to compete.
>
> Yes, the owner of the Patent(s) is compensated, but certainly not to the
> level Gass is certainly dreaming of.
>
Hummmmmm sounds like imminent domain laws. While it would not be fair
for the government to say this guy is going to get rich exclusively
because of a new law, would it be fair to simply take some ones hard
work away for the good of all?
On 10/13/2011 6:58 AM, Leon wrote:
> Hummmmmm sounds like imminent domain laws. While it would not be fair
> for the government to say this guy is going to get rich exclusively
> because of a new law, would it be fair to simply take some ones hard
> work away for the good of all?
No more egregious than drafting them and sending them to die "for their
country".
Many have ... let's get some perspective on the situation.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:55:37 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 10/11/2011 11:27 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Evidently not. ;-)
>>
>>> Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that
>>> was what the actual amount would have been.
>>
>> Sure. Again, the number I heard was $800 addend to the price.
>
>http://www.popularwoodworking.com/article/cpsc-table-saw-rules-emotion-vs-numbers
I can see the guy applying for all sorts of patents, but who in the
hell _granted_ him 78 _related_ patents on the SS in such short time?
UFR! It's nearly impossible for a normal human to get one patent OKed
in that time, with wait time to just -review- the application several
years behind now, the last I heard.
--
Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself.
-- Thomas Jefferson
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:55:37 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 10/11/2011 11:27 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Evidently not. ;-)
>>
>>> Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that
>>> was what the actual amount would have been.
>>
>> Sure. Again, the number I heard was $800 addend to the price.
>
>http://www.popularwoodworking.com/article/cpsc-table-saw-rules-emotion-vs-numbers
Thanks. Interesting article, but short of some the pertinent facts; the real
cost. It's clear that it's greater than $100 and less than $1000. Maybe.
Interestingly, the article talks about emotions overwhelming facts, then
throws out this clunker; "If CPSC adopts a rule in the next year, it might
well be referred to as The Patent Attorney's Relief Act of 2012".
In article <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Interesting article, but short of some the pertinent facts; the real
> cost. It's clear that it's greater than $100 and less than $1000. Maybe.
>
I actually discussed this with the owner of one of the major importers
and the licensing cost for the saw-stop (plus the device) was much
closer to the 1000 dollar cost
> Interestingly, the article talks about emotions overwhelming facts, then
> throws out this clunker; "If CPSC adopts a rule in the next year, it might
> well be referred to as The Patent Attorney's Relief Act of 2012".
One of the things that Gass forgets is an action the Government can take
on Patents that relate to public safety. They seize the Patent(s) in
question and allow any firm to compete.
Yes, the owner of the Patent(s) is compensated, but certainly not to the
level Gass is certainly dreaming of.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:47:51 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 10/11/2011 11:27 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/10/2011 12:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:43:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:18:07 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
>>>>>>>>> asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
>>>>>>>>> technologies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
>>>>>>>> had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
>>>>>>> lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
>>>>>>> of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
>>>>>>> be illuminating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
>>>>>> boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
>>>>>> usual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
>>>>>> like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
>>>>>> car purchase in most cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
>>>>> that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
>>>>> that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
>>>>> to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
>>>>> manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
>>>>> plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.
>>>>
>>>> It adds that $355 to the *COST* of the saw, not the price. There *is* a
>>>> difference.
>>>
>>> Reread most of my comments, I understand cost and sale. You will
>>> perhaps notice that the early on proposed added cost would be a
>>> percentage of the sale, 8% and some change. Extended to todays prices
>>> the figure tossed in the air was that the fee would be in the $350
>>> range. I more than once said that I would have no problem with paying
>>> in the $500 range and that amount being a bargain.
>>
>> Are you saying that the margin, top to bottom, of a table saw is ~40%? I'd
>> think it would be higher than that. The dealer's end of it, alone, I would
>> expect to be at least a third of that (that's pretty small).
>
>Well here I am responding again.. ;~)
>
>No, you mentioned 40%.
Your numbers:
"the figure tossed in the air was that the fee would be in the $350"
"I would have no problem with paying in the $500"
$500/$350 = 1.42 == 42% margin
I expect it to be closer the earlier stated $850 to the $1000 quoted in
Swing's article.
>Knowing however how retail items are priced I
>believe that if a dealer is making 40% on a big ticket item he would be
>living in a dream come true retail world. I suspect that the GP on a
>typical high dollar saw is in the 10~15% range.
That's what I said. Your numbers indicate ~40% top-to-bottom margin. That's
not very big, even with only 15% to the dealer (likely pretty close).
>It's the small items
>that have a large GP margin. Take the Rockler clamps to mount a
>sacrificial fence to you rip fence. I was told that the store cost on
>those pair of clamps is around 40 cents per pair and they retail in the
>$15-$20 range.
Sure, but we're talking the END-TO-END margin; the dealer's and the
manufacturer's (and any middle men). 40% seems low.
> That is not say however that the dealer may make a large purchase
>deal where he gets a discount from unit cost pricing. In many cases the
>dealer/retailer will pass "that" discount on to the consumer as a sale
>price, move more units, and still maintain his normal GP margin.
>
If there were such a discount, it would imply that there is an even bigger
margin somewhere to tap into.
On Oct 8, 7:45=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/8/2011 3:48 PM, Nova wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> > wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> =A0From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand
> >> knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the
> >> additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00.
>
> >> If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if =
it
> >> is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and
> >> prevents you from being badly injured.
>
> > =A0From what I've read, based on the Gass's proposed cost to Bosch, the
> > cost to a manufacturer would be $150 - $200 plus an 8% licensing fee
> > on the total wholesale price of the saw. =A0In the case of my saw it
> > would add $300 - $350.
>
> For the cost of the monies lost to Solyndra, and literally thousands of
> other examples of frivolous, 'bridges to nowhere' spending of taxpayers
> money, the government, instead of a mandate, would do well to make Gass
> an offer he couldn't refuse and put the patent in the public domain.
>
> The resultant technological _innovation_ coming from just that one
> action would go a long way to really making table saw usage much safer
> for everyone at a reasonable price.
>
> Those who espouse "social cost" as a justification, over individual
> responsibility, should have no problem with that.
That's a very good idea. Has anything like that ever been done
before?
R
In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 10/8/2011 7:02 PM, Han wrote:
> > Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> For the cost of the monies lost to Solyndra,
> >
> > That thing stinks to high heaven, and I hope we'll get to the bottom of
> > the episode's wrongdoings. It reminds me of the stuff the farmeres
> > spayed over their fields at summer's end, near where I grew up (Usually
> > about 100-200 yards from home). The "stuff" was what was left in the
> > pits below the cows, filled with excrement etc. That smell was
> > something!!
> >
> >> and literally thousands of
> >> other examples of frivolous, 'bridges to nowhere' spending of taxpayers
> >> money, the government, instead of a mandate, would do well to make Gass
> >> an offer he couldn't refuse and put the patent in the public domain.
> >
> > I wish that could work, but I think it'll take a Warren Buffett to do
> > that. At least, I haven't heard of the goverment doing anything like
> > that.
> >
> >> The resultant technological _innovation_ coming from just that one
> >> action would go a long way to really making table saw usage much safer
> >> for everyone at a reasonable price.
> >
> > Gass did us all a favor by inventing something useful. In true
> > capitalist fashion, he thought he should instantaneously become a
> > millionaire. Of course, OTOH, the manufacturers of tablesaws didn't want
> > to be bothered with something like this. Now, it appears, and this is
> > IMPORTANT, that only hobbyists who aren't subject to OSHA regulations are
> > stupid enough (like me) to not follow safety rules and regulations and
> > get injured. Read the CPSC report, it is quite instructive!
> >
> >> Those who espouse "social cost" as a justification, over individual
> >> responsibility, should have no problem with that.
> >
> > I'm fora certain amount of forcing people to be responsible for their own
> > safety/good. Seatbelts are a good example of how things should be done.
> > Now the problem is how to give Gass his due rewards for his invention
> > without all consumers being extorted like he is now trying to do.
> >
> Apparently Gass is doing quite well and his product is very appealing to
> those that realize the idea that their safety is indeed worth a little
> more. His products are top notch and IMHO well with in reason price
> wise. I don't think all consumers are being extorted. Had a great
> number of consumers not thought the product was worth while or worth the
> price he his business would not be introducing as many new models as it is.
You're missing the point. If the market perceives his product as such
incredible value, why is he not content to just let the free market
provide him dominance? The problem is that he wants the government to
force his competition to buy his product.
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> For the cost of the monies lost to Solyndra,
That thing stinks to high heaven, and I hope we'll get to the bottom of
the episode's wrongdoings. It reminds me of the stuff the farmeres
spayed over their fields at summer's end, near where I grew up (Usually
about 100-200 yards from home). The "stuff" was what was left in the
pits below the cows, filled with excrement etc. That smell was
something!!
> and literally thousands of
> other examples of frivolous, 'bridges to nowhere' spending of taxpayers
> money, the government, instead of a mandate, would do well to make Gass
> an offer he couldn't refuse and put the patent in the public domain.
I wish that could work, but I think it'll take a Warren Buffett to do
that. At least, I haven't heard of the goverment doing anything like
that.
> The resultant technological _innovation_ coming from just that one
> action would go a long way to really making table saw usage much safer
> for everyone at a reasonable price.
Gass did us all a favor by inventing something useful. In true
capitalist fashion, he thought he should instantaneously become a
millionaire. Of course, OTOH, the manufacturers of tablesaws didn't want
to be bothered with something like this. Now, it appears, and this is
IMPORTANT, that only hobbyists who aren't subject to OSHA regulations are
stupid enough (like me) to not follow safety rules and regulations and
get injured. Read the CPSC report, it is quite instructive!
> Those who espouse "social cost" as a justification, over individual
> responsibility, should have no problem with that.
I'm fora certain amount of forcing people to be responsible for their own
safety/good. Seatbelts are a good example of how things should be done.
Now the problem is how to give Gass his due rewards for his invention
without all consumers being extorted like he is now trying to do.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 10/8/2011 7:02 PM, Han wrote:
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>
>>> and literally thousands of
>>> other examples of frivolous, 'bridges to nowhere' spending of
>>> taxpayers money, the government, instead of a mandate, would do well
>>> to make Gass an offer he couldn't refuse and put the patent in the
>>> public domain.
>>
>> I wish that could work, but I think it'll take a Warren Buffett to do
>> that. At least, I haven't heard of the goverment doing anything like
>> that.
>
> The government has indeed bought patents that deal with military
> technology.
Military technologies are different from things only (sic) affecting
single proprietors and hobbyists none of whom deal with OSHA.
> As far as putting it in the public domain, nothing difficult about it:
>
> "If an inventor has an issued patent, there are several ways to
> release it to the public domain (other than simply letting it expire).
> First, he can fail to pay the maintenance fee the next time it is due,
> about every four years. Alternatively he can file a terminal
> disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 for a reasonable fee. The regulations
> explicitly say that the "patentee may disclaim or dedicate to the
> public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the
> patent granted. Such disclaimer is binding upon the grantee and its
> successors or assigns."
As I said, someone like Warren Buffett should make Gass an offer he
couldn't refuse.
> If a clowngress critter can orchestrate mandating that you buy private
> insurance, surely the bar is low enough for even a clown to leap this
> concept in a single bound.
LOL
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 10/8/2011 7:02 PM, Han wrote:
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> For the cost of the monies lost to Solyndra,
>>
>> That thing stinks to high heaven, and I hope we'll get to the bottom
>> of the episode's wrongdoings. It reminds me of the stuff the
>> farmeres spayed over their fields at summer's end, near where I grew
>> up (Usually about 100-200 yards from home). The "stuff" was what was
>> left in the pits below the cows, filled with excrement etc. That
>> smell was something!!
>>
>>> and literally thousands of
>>> other examples of frivolous, 'bridges to nowhere' spending of
>>> taxpayers money, the government, instead of a mandate, would do well
>>> to make Gass an offer he couldn't refuse and put the patent in the
>>> public domain.
>>
>> I wish that could work, but I think it'll take a Warren Buffett to do
>> that. At least, I haven't heard of the goverment doing anything like
>> that.
>>
>>> The resultant technological _innovation_ coming from just that one
>>> action would go a long way to really making table saw usage much
>>> safer for everyone at a reasonable price.
>>
>> Gass did us all a favor by inventing something useful. In true
>> capitalist fashion, he thought he should instantaneously become a
>> millionaire. Of course, OTOH, the manufacturers of tablesaws didn't
>> want to be bothered with something like this. Now, it appears, and
>> this is IMPORTANT, that only hobbyists who aren't subject to OSHA
>> regulations are stupid enough (like me) to not follow safety rules
>> and regulations and get injured. Read the CPSC report, it is quite
>> instructive!
>>
>>> Those who espouse "social cost" as a justification, over individual
>>> responsibility, should have no problem with that.
>>
>> I'm fora certain amount of forcing people to be responsible for their
>> own safety/good. Seatbelts are a good example of how things should
>> be done. Now the problem is how to give Gass his due rewards for his
>> invention without all consumers being extorted like he is now trying
>> to do.
>>
> Apparently Gass is doing quite well and his product is very appealing
> to those that realize the idea that their safety is indeed worth a
> little more. His products are top notch and IMHO well with in reason
> price wise. I don't think all consumers are being extorted. Had a
> great number of consumers not thought the product was worth while or
> worth the price he his business would not be introducing as many new
> models as it is.
That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
technologies.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:20:19 -0700, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:55:37 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 10/11/2011 11:27 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Evidently not. ;-)
>>>
>>>> Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that
>>>> was what the actual amount would have been.
>>>
>>> Sure. Again, the number I heard was $800 addend to the price.
>>
>>http://www.popularwoodworking.com/article/cpsc-table-saw-rules-emotion-vs-numbers
>
>I can see the guy applying for all sorts of patents, but who in the
>hell _granted_ him 78 _related_ patents on the SS in such short time?
>UFR! It's nearly impossible for a normal human to get one patent OKed
>in that time, with wait time to just -review- the application several
>years behind now, the last I heard.
Over a decade? It depends on the area of the patent but my experience has
been in the three-year range. Some have been longer if they were split or
combined with others. ...and that was with "outside council". Note that he
is his own patent lawyer.
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 10/8/2011 12:35 PM, whit3rd wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:56:00 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop?
>>>
>>> I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters.
>>
>> The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight
>> to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing
>> bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). They're seeing
>> thousands per year of amputations.
>>
>> If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and non-discriminatory'
>> terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per replacement cartridge) the
>> commission MIGHT institute requirements that only the
>> Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme
>> outcome I'd believe. Congress doesn't have much to say at
>> this point, of course; CPSC is INDEPENDENT of Congress.
>
>
>Do you really believe that even in mass production that the prices you
>suggested would be of a dependable quality?
He's talking about the LICENSE fee, not the mechanism price.
> From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand
>knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the
>additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00.
No one is talking about the cost of the hardware.
>If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it
>is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and
>prevents you from being badly injured.
It's *NOT* $100. There are all sorts of dangerous things in this world. Can't
protect everyone from all of them. It's a cost/benefit trade-off.
On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 10/8/2011 7:02 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> For the cost of the monies lost to Solyndra,
>>>
>>> That thing stinks to high heaven, and I hope we'll get to the bottom
>>> of the episode's wrongdoings. It reminds me of the stuff the
>>> farmeres spayed over their fields at summer's end, near where I grew
>>> up (Usually about 100-200 yards from home). The "stuff" was what was
>>> left in the pits below the cows, filled with excrement etc. That
>>> smell was something!!
>>>
>>>> and literally thousands of
>>>> other examples of frivolous, 'bridges to nowhere' spending of
>>>> taxpayers money, the government, instead of a mandate, would do well
>>>> to make Gass an offer he couldn't refuse and put the patent in the
>>>> public domain.
>>>
>>> I wish that could work, but I think it'll take a Warren Buffett to do
>>> that. At least, I haven't heard of the goverment doing anything like
>>> that.
>>>
>>>> The resultant technological _innovation_ coming from just that one
>>>> action would go a long way to really making table saw usage much
>>>> safer for everyone at a reasonable price.
>>>
>>> Gass did us all a favor by inventing something useful. In true
>>> capitalist fashion, he thought he should instantaneously become a
>>> millionaire. Of course, OTOH, the manufacturers of tablesaws didn't
>>> want to be bothered with something like this. Now, it appears, and
>>> this is IMPORTANT, that only hobbyists who aren't subject to OSHA
>>> regulations are stupid enough (like me) to not follow safety rules
>>> and regulations and get injured. Read the CPSC report, it is quite
>>> instructive!
>>>
>>>> Those who espouse "social cost" as a justification, over individual
>>>> responsibility, should have no problem with that.
>>>
>>> I'm fora certain amount of forcing people to be responsible for their
>>> own safety/good. Seatbelts are a good example of how things should
>>> be done. Now the problem is how to give Gass his due rewards for his
>>> invention without all consumers being extorted like he is now trying
>>> to do.
>>>
>> Apparently Gass is doing quite well and his product is very appealing
>> to those that realize the idea that their safety is indeed worth a
>> little more. His products are top notch and IMHO well with in reason
>> price wise. I don't think all consumers are being extorted. Had a
>> great number of consumers not thought the product was worth while or
>> worth the price he his business would not be introducing as many new
>> models as it is.
>
> That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
> asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
> technologies.
>
I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line. You can't
please every body. Some one is always going to be left behind,.
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:39:10 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Thanks. Interesting article, but short of some the pertinent facts; the real
>> cost. It's clear that it's greater than $100 and less than $1000. Maybe.
>>
>I actually discussed this with the owner of one of the major importers
>and the licensing cost for the saw-stop (plus the device) was much
>closer to the 1000 dollar cost
Licensing cost or uplift to the consumer? If the former, it prices competing
saws right out of existence. The result of the latter isn't much different.
>> Interestingly, the article talks about emotions overwhelming facts, then
>> throws out this clunker; "If CPSC adopts a rule in the next year, it might
>> well be referred to as The Patent Attorney's Relief Act of 2012".
>
>One of the things that Gass forgets is an action the Government can take
>on Patents that relate to public safety. They seize the Patent(s) in
>question and allow any firm to compete.
>
>Yes, the owner of the Patent(s) is compensated, but certainly not to the
>level Gass is certainly dreaming of.
Is that true? Universally? Gass is, by all evidence, a very good patent
attorney. I wouldn't expect him to miss this little detail.
In article <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Is that true? Universally? Gass is, by all evidence, a very good patent
> attorney. I wouldn't expect him to miss this little detail.
No, of course not. But it does happen, just not very often
The only ones I am recalling right now were Automobile safety patents.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv
On 10/8/2011 7:02 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>> and literally thousands of
>> other examples of frivolous, 'bridges to nowhere' spending of taxpayers
>> money, the government, instead of a mandate, would do well to make Gass
>> an offer he couldn't refuse and put the patent in the public domain.
>
> I wish that could work, but I think it'll take a Warren Buffett to do
> that. At least, I haven't heard of the goverment doing anything like
> that.
The government has indeed bought patents that deal with military technology.
As far as putting it in the public domain, nothing difficult about it:
"If an inventor has an issued patent, there are several ways to release
it to the public domain (other than simply letting it expire). First, he
can fail to pay the maintenance fee the next time it is due, about every
four years. Alternatively he can file a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR
1.321 for a reasonable fee. The regulations explicitly say that the
"patentee may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any
terminal part of the term, of the patent granted. Such disclaimer is
binding upon the grantee and its successors or assigns."
If a clowngress critter can orchestrate mandating that you buy private
insurance, surely the bar is low enough for even a clown to leap this
concept in a single bound.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 00:02:01 +0000, Han wrote:
>> For the cost of the monies lost to Solyndra,
>
> That thing stinks to high heaven, and I hope we'll get to the bottom of
> the episode's wrongdoings. It reminds me of the stuff the farmeres
> spayed over their fields at summer's end, near where I grew up (Usually
> about 100-200 yards from home). The "stuff" was what was left in the
> pits below the cows, filled with excrement etc. That smell was
> something!!
That was definitely a risky investment, but it's insignificant compared
to what's being wasted by the military and their contractors on a daily
basis.
It's just something for the opposition to scream about. Like this was
the only administration to ever throw away money on a failing idea?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 10/9/2011 12:28 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> You're missing the point. If the market perceives his product as such
> incredible value, why is he not content to just let the free market
> provide him dominance? The problem is that he wants the government to
> force his competition to buy his product.
Finally someone understands free market capitalism vs government
controlled socialism.
--
Jack
Got Change: Supply and Demand ======> Command and Control!
http://jbstein.com
On 10/8/2011 2:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2011 12:35 PM, whit3rd wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:56:00 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters.
>>>
>>> The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight
>>> to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing
>>> bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). They're seeing
>>> thousands per year of amputations.
>>>
>>> If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and non-discriminatory'
>>> terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per replacement cartridge) the
>>> commission MIGHT institute requirements that only the
>>> Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme
>>> outcome I'd believe. Congress doesn't have much to say at
>>> this point, of course; CPSC is INDEPENDENT of Congress.
>>
>>
>> Do you really believe that even in mass production that the prices you
>> suggested would be of a dependable quality?
>
> He's talking about the LICENSE fee, not the mechanism price.
>
>> From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand
>> knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the
>> additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00.
>
> No one is talking about the cost of the hardware.
>
>> If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it
>> is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and
>> prevents you from being badly injured.
>
> It's *NOT* $100. There are all sorts of dangerous things in this world. Can't
> protect everyone from all of them. It's a cost/benefit trade-off.
Yeah apparently it is maybe half that amount.
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
<snip>
>
> From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand
>knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the
>additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00.
>
>If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it
>is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and
>prevents you from being badly injured.
From what I've read, based on the Gass's proposed cost to Bosch, the
cost to a manufacturer would be $150 - $200 plus an 8% licensing fee
on the total wholesale price of the saw. In the case of my saw it
would add $300 - $350.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:27:14 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 10/10/2011 8:43 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:18:07 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>>> That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
>>>>>> asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
>>>>>> technologies.
>>>>>
>>>>> I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
>>>>> had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.
>>>>
>>>> If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
>>>> lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
>>>> of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
>>>> be illuminating.
>>>
>>> I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
>>> boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
>>> usual.
>>>
>>> FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
>>> like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
>>> car purchase in most cases.
>>
>> Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
>> that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw.
>
>Is that all???? I had not yet done the math. I have spent more than
>that on TS accessories, I would consider $500 a bargain on most any
>priced saw but I am not one to buy low end crap to begin with. Hell I
>spent double that on a Festool track saw, so nop, I do not consider $355
>extra for that feature to be any thing to debate, It's a no brainer for me.
All? That's an adder to the cost of manufacture, not to the price. You had
the choice of the purchase of the TS accessory, yet you don't want to allow
the choice of SS technology.
> You think
>> that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
>> to get for his invention?
>
>I and apparently many others do, his saw which sells for more that the
>prices you mentioned above are selling like hot cakes. I would think
>that a Delta, Jet, or Powermatic with the $500~$600 "optino" would
>increase sales for those manufacturers. They would basically have a
>competitive product to offer and most likely be less expensive or
>equally priced. Yes the option will increase the cost of a TS but so
>does buying a better blade than the one that came on your TS.
Great. Choice is wonderful. Why do you want to take it away from others?
> I call it highway robbery. If all saw
>> manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
>> plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.
>
>Initially but cars with air bags and seat belts have replaced all those
>with out.
>
>
>>
>> I'd call a $1k licensing fee plus a buck or three on each saw a fair
>> price. He'd make millions the very first year. After all, he seems to
>> be trying to pose as an altruist in all of this mess.
>
>You have never run a business have you? You seem to be clueless about
>the cost of R&D. Gass had a real risk of loss in his investment, he
>should not be penalized for taking that risk and succeeding.
You seem clueless about the difference between cost and price. <shrug>
>Life is not always fai,r some people invest and are rewarded. Some
>people take no risks and loose out on the opportunity to be rewarded.
>
>This is the society we live in like it or not. When life you deals you
>lemmons.....
>
>And to once again sum up my position on the whole matter, I don't look
>fondly at the reported ways Gass has been painted nrt do I look fondly
>at the ways it has been reported about other manufacturers refusing to
>offer a safer saw when they had the opportunity. I do know that
>competition brings prices down and right now the SawStop has no
>competition in the category that it is in. I truly believe that if
>other manufacturers offer the same technology their sales will go up.
>
>But if it makes yo feel better many others did not believe the SawStop
>would ever come to market and Sawstop had to start with nothing and
>build a customer base.
Great! ...if it stopped there. No one is saying that SawStop shouldn't
exist.
On 10/8/2011 3:48 PM, Nova wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand
>> knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the
>> additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00.
>>
>> If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it
>> is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and
>> prevents you from being badly injured.
>
> From what I've read, based on the Gass's proposed cost to Bosch, the
> cost to a manufacturer would be $150 - $200 plus an 8% licensing fee
> on the total wholesale price of the saw. In the case of my saw it
> would add $300 - $350.
For the cost of the monies lost to Solyndra, and literally thousands of
other examples of frivolous, 'bridges to nowhere' spending of taxpayers
money, the government, instead of a mandate, would do well to make Gass
an offer he couldn't refuse and put the patent in the public domain.
The resultant technological _innovation_ coming from just that one
action would go a long way to really making table saw usage much safer
for everyone at a reasonable price.
Those who espouse "social cost" as a justification, over individual
responsibility, should have no problem with that.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 10/11/2011 11:27 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2011 12:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:43:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:18:07 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>>>>> That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
>>>>>>>> asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
>>>>>>>> technologies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
>>>>>>> had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
>>>>>> lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
>>>>>> of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
>>>>>> be illuminating.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
>>>>> boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
>>>>> usual.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
>>>>> like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
>>>>> car purchase in most cases.
>>>>
>>>> Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
>>>> that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
>>>> that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
>>>> to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
>>>> manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
>>>> plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.
>>>
>>> It adds that $355 to the *COST* of the saw, not the price. There *is* a
>>> difference.
>>
>> Reread most of my comments, I understand cost and sale. You will
>> perhaps notice that the early on proposed added cost would be a
>> percentage of the sale, 8% and some change. Extended to todays prices
>> the figure tossed in the air was that the fee would be in the $350
>> range. I more than once said that I would have no problem with paying
>> in the $500 range and that amount being a bargain.
>
> Are you saying that the margin, top to bottom, of a table saw is ~40%? I'd
> think it would be higher than that. The dealer's end of it, alone, I would
> expect to be at least a third of that (that's pretty small).
Well here I am responding again.. ;~)
No, you mentioned 40%. Knowing however how retail items are priced I
believe that if a dealer is making 40% on a big ticket item he would be
living in a dream come true retail world. I suspect that the GP on a
typical high dollar saw is in the 10~15% range. It's the small items
that have a large GP margin. Take the Rockler clamps to mount a
sacrificial fence to you rip fence. I was told that the store cost on
those pair of clamps is around 40 cents per pair and they retail in the
$15-$20 range.
That is not say however that the dealer may make a large purchase
deal where he gets a discount from unit cost pricing. In many cases the
dealer/retailer will pass "that" discount on to the consumer as a sale
price, move more units, and still maintain his normal GP margin.
>
>> Every bit of this is speculation. You never initially offer a product
>> to a possible customer at rock bottom prices, it is way to hard to
>> increase that price during negotiations. It is much easier to negotiate
>> your price down than up when trying to close a deal.
>
> Evidently not. ;-)
>
>> Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that
>> was what the actual amount would have been.
>
> Sure. Again, the number I heard was $800 addend to the price.
On 10/11/2011 11:27 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>
> Evidently not. ;-)
>
>> Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that
>> was what the actual amount would have been.
>
> Sure. Again, the number I heard was $800 addend to the price.
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/article/cpsc-table-saw-rules-emotion-vs-numbers
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:10 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 10/10/2011 12:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:43:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:18:07 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/9/2011 5:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/9/2011 7:24 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>>>> That's true, Leon, but I was referring to the rather high prices Gass is
>>>>>>> asking from manufacturers of other saws for their use of his
>>>>>>> technologies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I recall the prices and at the time I would have jumped at the chance
>>>>>> had I been a manufacturer. The price was not out of line.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that were so, why didn't every manufacturer jump on it at once and
>>>>> lower the price even more? Perhaps you should read someone's history
>>>>> of the company other than Gass', though they're hard to find. It may
>>>>> be illuminating.
>>>>
>>>> I would say because the domestic manufacturers operated like a good old
>>>> boys club. Lets not change things up, we will be fine doing business as
>>>> usual.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW 8% of the license and $50~$100 additional cost for the parts seems
>>>> like a nice option to offer. Less than adding leather seats to your new
>>>> car purchase in most cases.
>>>
>>> Huh? That's 8% of the -sale- price, dude. On your $3199 Unisaw,
>>> that'd be $255.92 plus $100 for the part, or $355 per saw. You think
>>> that's a fair price for a self-professed crusader to end saw injuries
>>> to get for his invention? I call it highway robbery. If all saw
>>> manufacturers suddenly added that price to their saws, sales would
>>> plummet immediately, with people buying used saws instead.
>>
>> It adds that $355 to the *COST* of the saw, not the price. There *is* a
>> difference.
>
>Reread most of my comments, I understand cost and sale. You will
>perhaps notice that the early on proposed added cost would be a
>percentage of the sale, 8% and some change. Extended to todays prices
>the figure tossed in the air was that the fee would be in the $350
>range. I more than once said that I would have no problem with paying
>in the $500 range and that amount being a bargain.
Are you saying that the margin, top to bottom, of a table saw is ~40%? I'd
think it would be higher than that. The dealer's end of it, alone, I would
expect to be at least a third of that (that's pretty small).
>Every bit of this is speculation. You never initially offer a product
>to a possible customer at rock bottom prices, it is way to hard to
>increase that price during negotiations. It is much easier to negotiate
>your price down than up when trying to close a deal.
Evidently not. ;-)
>Anyway the 8% proposed amount was years ago. Who actually knows if that
>was what the actual amount would have been.
Sure. Again, the number I heard was $800 addend to the price.
On 10/8/2011 7:55 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 10/8/2011 7:02 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>>
>>>> and literally thousands of
>>>> other examples of frivolous, 'bridges to nowhere' spending of
>>>> taxpayers money, the government, instead of a mandate, would do well
>>>> to make Gass an offer he couldn't refuse and put the patent in the
>>>> public domain.
>>>
>>> I wish that could work, but I think it'll take a Warren Buffett to do
>>> that. At least, I haven't heard of the goverment doing anything like
>>> that.
>>
>> The government has indeed bought patents that deal with military
>> technology.
>
> Military technologies are different from things only (sic) affecting
> single proprietors and hobbyists none of whom deal with OSHA.
Your question addressed the possibility/mechanism, not the purpose.
It is possible, it has been done, and there is NO reason why it can't be
done.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> You raise a good point, but patents can be litigated out of
>> existence. The ten or so saw manufacturers have, combined, access to
>> more patent attorneys than the owner of SawStop has friends on
>> Facebook.
>
> Can be, if you have MILLION$ to gamble. This one is particularly
> air-tight. No one with a brain would challenge it.
Heh! Ever heard the expression "Time is money"? Back in the day, Control
Data and the anti-trust division of the Justice Department, sued IBM. IBM
had more lawyers on the case than the DOJ had lawyers in the entire
anti-trust division! IBM dragged the case out for a little over TEN years.
Throwing money at the suit was just another cost of doing business. In other
words, IBM was making more money than the suit was costing them.
A similar tactic has been recently employed by Microsoft.
Now it may be that Ryoibi, DeWalt, et all do not have the $35 billion in
CASH that Microsoft has, but they damned sure have more moola than SawStop.
The table-saw cartel, really, can litigate SawStop to death if they choose
that tactic. For example, by claiming patent infringement on the part of
SawStop ("We control the patent on all things that go round-and-round...").
>
>> While that's going on, there's money to be made.
>
> No, there really isn't.
>
>> As soon as SawStop is mandated, one can stock up on entry-level
>> table saws, at, say, $90 each, while they're still available. A year
>> or so down the road, when entry-level table saws have disappeared
>> from the market or sell for $500 each, you can sell those hoarded
>> saws on Craigslist for whatever the market will bear.
>>
>
> Why would anyone sell them for $90?
>
> Do light bulbs, instead.
That's what I paid for my Ryobi about two years ago. As for lightbulbs, I
figure there are already too many people in the lightbulb hoarding business.
On Oct 16, 1:09=A0pm, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 10:46 AM, RicodJour wrote:
>
> > But that's not even an =A0issue since you're not in the market for a ne=
w saw
> > and probably won't
> > be for, what, ten or fifteen years? =A0Saws last a long time - at least
> > good ones do. =A0If your old one dies, buy a new motor.
>
> My saw was built around 1954, I've been using it since 1970, and it has
> not injured me yet, and it has no safety equipment on it... none. =A0I
> expect it will last me the rest of my woodworking life, and yes, as I
> age, I might be at higher risk, and probably should get one of his saws,
> but so far, no.
Waiting until after the accident to put on your seatbelt makes
_perfect_ sense. I'm sure your reflexes and eyesight are improving
with age. Me? I'm not so lucky.
> > The only reason you'd have to have a new saw is for the new features.
> > Like safety features...unless they've figured out a new way to spin a
> > blade.
>
> True enough, and I have looked at saw stop and perhaps would buy one if
> I were in the market. =A0I just don't want him, and the government to
> force me to buy one because they DEEM it necessary. =A0In fact, now that =
I
> know what he is up too, and he's a freaking lawyer to boot, I'll likely
> continue letting it all hang out with my current saw.
You were never entertaining any other option.
> You're the one complaining that the government needs to change the rules
> to force you to do something I guess your too fucking dumb to do on your
> own. =A0I'm happy with my current ability to buy what saw I want, and liv=
e
> on the edge IF I so choose.
And you're already doing that and have no intention to change. So
where's the rub?
You will not be forced to buy a safer saw, and you won't be hurt
unless ...ummm, you're hurt. Time and age are taking care of reducing
your options just fine on their own. If you want to help kick the
ball downhill, that's fine by me.
We're all getting older. The world leaves us behind. That's how it
works and how it's _supposed_ to work. Getting worked up about it
doesn't slow it down.
R
On Oct 12, 2:26 pm, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> My choice is to reject greedy business for attempting to get government
> force free individuals to buy his product and make him filthy stinking
> rich via government mandate rather than consumer demand.
Which part bothers you - that he's trying to make money from his
invention, or that's he going through the current legal channels to do
it?
He's playing by the rules and you don't like the rules. Eh, life is
tough. There's another of those annoying mantras for you.
He wants to make money from the fruits of his labors. Where's the
fault in that?
Those are the only two issues here.
Bitching about the existing rules is pointless. There are people that
bitch that they're only allowed one wife. I see no difference in your
contention. Different opinions and both sides have firm convictions
and Truth on their side. Big surprise.
A guy that's working hard to make a buck, and being dead straight
between the eyes about it, is not only refreshing it's exemplary. He
could have set up a shell corporation and done all sorts of things
where he'd still be raking in the bucks and not have to stand up as
the antagonist/protagonist, but he's coming at you straight on. He's
going to drag you kicking and screaming into the future.
What are you going to do about it? Right. Bitch on a newsgroup.
That'll help.
R
On Oct 8, 10:42=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> On a $399 DeWally or $349 Jet worksite saw, that's a ONE HUNDRED
> PERCENT increase in the cost. =A0On a $219 Crapsman table saw, it's
> closer to a 150% increase.
>
> ( Prices from http://www.toolseeker.com/WdWkMac/TableSaw.htm)
What percentage of cost do you think seatbelts, safety glass, side
impact barriers, crumple zones, air bags, impact testing, etc., etc.
add to the price of a car?
Gass is far from stupid. When was the last time you checked out their
web site? Have you seen their "Report A Save"? This is what it says:
"You may be eligible for a free cartridge. If you send us your
activated cartridge and we determine through our diagnostic processes
that contact with skin triggered the activation, we=92ll send you a new
cartridge free of charge."
Superb marketing and very simple.
So people have some choices.
Buy a saw now so you won't have to worry about the new regulations.
Buy a used saw after the regulations come out.
Buy a Sawstop.
Buy whatever the other tool manufacturers come up with that satisfies
the new requirements.
The first three give people plenty of choice, and then it's just a
question of determining your own risk/reward solution.
The last one is only a major problem for the competing tool
manufacturers.
R
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:26:05 -0500, "[email protected]"
>The US is not a democracy (thankfully). If 51% of the people decided to kill
>everyone with Dutch ancestry, are you OK with that?
Hey Han, I have a Taliban wardrobe and convincing fake ID I can sell
you if Americans of Dutch ancestry are voted out of the US . :)
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:51:05 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.
>
>It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
>your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort. Do you
>actually believe that all the surgery and rehabilitation you'd go
>through for cutting off a finger would be covered entirely by the fees
>you'd pay? Society funds the bulk of your screwups whether you believe
>it or not.
With that "logic" any manner of evil can be justified.
Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:26:05 -0500, "[email protected]"
>>The US is not a democracy (thankfully). If 51% of the people decided
>>to kill everyone with Dutch ancestry, are you OK with that?
>
> Hey Han, I have a Taliban wardrobe and convincing fake ID I can sell
> you if Americans of Dutch ancestry are voted out of the US . :)
Thanks, Dave. I'm too upstanding a citizen to worry, really, but so
thought the German Jews once upon a time. But this is not really a subject
to kid about. The whole idea of modern democracies and also of our
republic is that we will not capriciously discriminate against portions of
our population, or so I would hope. The deliberative nature of the US
Senate was supposed to take care of that if the House didn't.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Oct 17, 2:04 am, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> All that shows is that you're too stupid to realize and/or too
> arrogant to admit that society usually ends up paying if you screw up.
I think that could probably be extrapolated to life in general, and
expanded slightly to become a life code.
It's that no man is an island thing. The thinking runs in a circle,
which indicates completeness, and allows for the unanswerable.
In the beginning everybody needs people (wipe their butt, open doors,
get them to school, pay their bills), as they grow and their
'independence' grows they become less reliant on other people for the
basic things. Continued growth and continued thought leads to more
capabilities and this is where the road divides.
Some people think that increasing capabilities and reduced reliance
will continue until they can do everything, know everything and
theoretically this will culminate in having little to no need for
other people. These other people are for the most part viewed as
being in their way.
People that took the other road still increase their capabilities but
realize that there will always be people that can do more than they
can, know more than they do (if not individually on a particular
subject, certainly collectively on all subjects), and that these other
people can help or hinder them. Anybody can help or hinder them.
At the end everybody needs people (wipe their butt, open doors, get
them to the doctors, pay their bills). And we're right back where we
started.
I guess that choice of viewpoint will indicate whether people feel
they are part of society or society is in their way.
R
I thought that young people had more problems than old people, and I
hoped I could last until I was older so I wouldn't have all those
problems. Then I looked around and saw that everybody who looked young
had young problems and that everybody who looked old had old problems.
The "old" problems to me looked easier to take than the "young"
problems. So I decided to go gray so nobody would know now old I was
and I would look younger to them than how old they thought I was. I
would gain a lot by going gray: (1) I would have old problems, which
were easier to take than young problems, (2) everyone would be
impressed by how young I looked, and (3) I would be relieved of the
responsibility of acting young=97I could occasionally lapse into
eccentricity or senility and no one would think anything of it because
of my gray hair. When you've got gray hair, every move you make seems
"young" and "spry," instead of just being normally active. It's like
you're getting a new talent. So I dyed my hair gray when I was about
twenty-three or twenty-four.
- Andy Warhol
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 13:09:57 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm happy with my current ability to buy what saw I want, and live
>on the edge IF I so choose.
All that shows is that you're too stupid to realize and/or too
arrogant to admit that society usually ends up paying if you screw up.
On Oct 14, 9:39 am, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 11:54 PM, RicodJour wrote:
>
> > Which part bothers you - that he's trying to make money from his
> > invention, or that's he going through the current legal channels to do
> > it?
>
> That he is trying to change the law to force me to buy his product
> rather than let the free market decide.
There is no such thing as a free market. He is working within our
current market. If your main objection is not about a saw but about
the current composition of our government, maybe posting on
alt.US.government.get.out.of.the.way would be more appropriate.
> > He's playing by the rules and you don't like the rules.
>
> He is trying to change the rules. Right now the rules are I can buy a
> saw w/o his him getting a dime.
And your alternative? Keep the rules where they are and never change
them? Does that include your wishes for rule changes that would
create a truly free market (as if that is possible)?
> > Eh, life is tough. There's another of those annoying mantras for you.
>
> Annoys you perhaps.
>
> > He wants to make money from the fruits of his labors. Where's the
> > fault in that?
>
> He trying to get government to force me to support his drive for riches.
Okay. Go get the government to stop him.
> > Those are the only two issues here.
>
> Only one issue I see, and that is this dick trying to force me to make
> him even richer than he is. Typical fucking lawyer.
>
> > Bitching about the existing rules is pointless.
>
> I'm not the one bitching about the existing rules.
You are being disingenuous. Of course you are. The existing rules
allow someone to petition the CPSC for the existing rules to be
changed. I have no issue with that as I think it's necessary to have
that capability.
> > There are people that bitch that they're only allowed one wife. I see no
> > difference in your contention.
>
> You're goofy, I think one wife is more than enough. Forcing me to have
> more than one wife would be more like what you find "exemplary"
Or punitive. ;)
> > Different opinions and both sides have firm convictions
> > and Truth on their side. Big surprise.
>
> Life's a bitch, eh?
>
> > A guy that's working hard to make a buck, and being dead straight
> > between the eyes about it, is not only refreshing it's exemplary.
>
> Nothing exemplary about someone trying to change the rules so I am
> forced to make him rich.
Please. You won't be forced - buy a used saw. But that's not even an
issue since you're not in the market for a new saw and probably won't
be for, what, ten or fifteen years? Saws last a long time - at least
good ones do. If your old one dies, buy a new motor.
The only reason you'd have to have a new saw is for the new features.
Like safety features...unless they've figured out a new way to spin a
blade.
If you're worried about the homeowner type of saw, the biggest part of
the market, there will be a phase in period regardless of what the new
rules say. Buy whatever you want during that time to protect yourself
from that "$1000 cost bump" that Chicken Little is yelling about.
BTW, if Gass can't come up with a working homeowner type SawStop
during the CPSC's decision making phase that doesn't destroy the saw
entirely, then your worst fears will never come to pass. Regardless
of what the other manufacturers do or don't do in response.
New safety mechanisms are coming and the price of saws will be going
up (regardless of what happens with the CPSC). You can't stop
progress. Oops - another mantra!
> > What are you going to do about it? Right. Bitch on a newsgroup.
> > That'll help.
>
> I'm here to talk about stuff with my fellow woodworkers. Whether it
> "helps" or not is not much of an issue.
>
> Who are you, Don Quixote?
Fellow woodworkers...? Do you mean woodworkers or woodworkers that
agree with you about everything? I'm in the former category.
I don't see the point in harping on something (that may or may not
happen the way you envision it at some unknown point in the future) ad
nauseum without doing something about it. For instance, have you
weighed in with the CPSC and told them about your grievances?
If I'm Don Quixote, you're Sancho Panza - endlessly complaining.
R
On 10/13/2011 1:09 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote:
>> Jack<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
>>> are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
>>> business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
>>> want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
>>> will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
>>> hack making decisions for me.
>>
>> You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what
>> should
>> be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
>> struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...
>>
>
> You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing
> what you wanted, do you?
And what if the person you voted for didn't get elected?
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Gass is a patent lawyer--you think he doesn't have it sewn up so tight
> that any "alternative" will violate his patents?
And that just pisses you off, doesn't it?
>
> He only deserves to be paid for it if he's not the one asking that it
> be mandated. If the government, without his ever asking for it,
> mandated it then he'd deserve compensation, but he's clearly trying
> to get it mandated in order to enrich himself and that behavior
> should be discouraged.
>
Funny that you feel you should be the arbitar of what should be and what
should not be. There are laws in this country and he is within the law.
But - you feel you have the right to decide what he should do, should be
compensated for, and how that all should work. I'm quite glad that you are
not the king.
>> The guy developed something new that works, patented it, set his
>> price and tried to license it, got shot down, persevered, started
>> manufacturing them himself, and is now going through the proper
>> channels to improve saw safety (though he does seem to believe he has
>> a lock on any and all attempts at an alternative system). If by
>> chance he happens to make the odd million or twenty for his largesse,
>> well, that's not his fault!
>
> It is his fault when he's clearly intending to profit from the
> regulation he's demanding.
And you are simply jealous.
>
>> If that's not an American success story I don't know what is.
>
> An "American success story" would involve his company becoming
> dominant in the market buy building a product that clearly
> represented better value than the competition, not getting the
> government to mandate that the competition buy his product.
>
He's already in the process of doing that but you just won't let yourself
see it.
>
>> Gass is that same type, except he's a patent lawyer and a PHD. I
>> have no knowledge of what the guy is like personally, but from his
>> actions I'm guessing he's part pitbull and maybe a little short on
>> the warm and fuzzies. But the guy's no dummy and it will probably
>> cost the tool manufacturer's more in the long run to have shot him
>> down.
>
> Personally I want to see him totally destroyed.
And what a fool you are. You don't know squat about the guy and you post
something like this? Sorry - that's a pityful statement.
>
> In any case, if you do not like what I have to say there is something
> called a "killfile", although you google types wouldn't know about
> things like that.
So... you are free to exercise your free speach, but others are not if they
contradict you? Or at least that they will be put down by you? You really
need to practice what you preach.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Oct 11, 12:16 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > It is his fault when he's clearly intending to profit from the
> > regulation he's demanding.
>
> And you are simply jealous.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
-- H.G. Wells
I'm on an H. G. Wells quote kick. ;)
R
On 10/9/2011 7:29 AM, Han wrote:
<snip>
> the competition should pay. The task of government is (apparently) to
> protect us from ourselves, for single proprietors and hobbyists, that is.
> OSHA does it for general commerce.
It boils down to the fact that life has inherent risks and whether you
want to live in a society that shares those risks; or a society that
attempts to eliminate those risks through the elimination of personal
freedoms and individual discretion.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 10/14/2011 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 1:09 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Jack<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
>>>> are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
>>>> business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
>>>> want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
>>>> will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
>>>> hack making decisions for me.
>>>
>>> You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what
>>> should
>>> be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
>>> struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...
>>>
>>
>> You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing
>> what you wanted, do you?
>
> And what if the person you voted for didn't get elected?
Moot point! Nothing good happen regardless. Voting these days makes
the population feel like they have a choice.
In article <2033ae57-46cf-4738-a594-64881a1626a8
@d18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Oct 8, 10:42 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > On a $399 DeWally or $349 Jet worksite saw, that's a ONE HUNDRED
> > PERCENT increase in the cost. On a $219 Crapsman table saw, it's
> > closer to a 150% increase.
> >
> > ( Prices from http://www.toolseeker.com/WdWkMac/TableSaw.htm)
>
> What percentage of cost do you think seatbelts, safety glass, side
> impact barriers, crumple zones, air bags, impact testing, etc., etc.
> add to the price of a car?
>
> Gass is far from stupid. When was the last time you checked out their
> web site? Have you seen their "Report A Save"? This is what it says:
> "You may be eligible for a free cartridge. If you send us your
> activated cartridge and we determine through our diagnostic processes
> that contact with skin triggered the activation, we?ll send you a new
> cartridge free of charge."
> Superb marketing and very simple.
>
> So people have some choices.
> Buy a saw now so you won't have to worry about the new regulations.
> Buy a used saw after the regulations come out.
> Buy a Sawstop.
> Buy whatever the other tool manufacturers come up with that satisfies
> the new requirements.
>
> The first three give people plenty of choice, and then it's just a
> question of determining your own risk/reward solution.
>
> The last one is only a major problem for the competing tool
> manufacturers.
Elect a Congress that will take the asshole's patents away from him if
he continues to insist that the government force other businesses to
license them.
In other parts of the world "constitution" has to do with healthy shit!
Only in the USA!
--------------
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Yes, in the US it's called the Constitution.
On 10/14/2011 6:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:24:59 -0600, Just Wondering<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 10/13/2011 1:09 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote:
>>>> Jack<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
>>>>> are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
>>>>> business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
>>>>> want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
>>>>> will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
>>>>> hack making decisions for me.
>>>>
>>>> You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what
>>>> should
>>>> be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
>>>> struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing
>>> what you wanted, do you?
>>
>> And what if the person you voted for didn't get elected?
>
> You try harder. Maybe volunteer next time.
You miss my point. If I voted for someone who didn't get elected, the
statement that I decided through my voting what should be done is a
false statement.
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:24:59 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 10/13/2011 1:09 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Jack<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
>>>> are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
>>>> business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
>>>> want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
>>>> will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
>>>> hack making decisions for me.
>>>
>>> You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what
>>> should
>>> be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
>>> struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...
>>>
>>
>> You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing
>> what you wanted, do you?
>
>And what if the person you voted for didn't get elected?
You try harder. Maybe volunteer next time.
On 10/17/2011 1:56 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:31:14 -0400, Jack<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.
>
>> So, you think motorcycles should be banned, and everyone riding in a car
>> should be forced to wear a NASCAR approved crash helmet, and so on and
>> so forth?
>
> Don't put words in my mouth.
OK, let me put YOUR words back in:
"It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort."
So my question is, do you think motorcycles should be banned, NASCAR
approved Crash helmet required and so on and so forth? What if one
wishes to climb a mountain, or go snow skiing, water skiing, and a
million other things people choose to do that puts them at greater risk,
"costs the rest of society time, money and effort".
No, I think if you're going to make
> assinine statements like "I don't want protected from myself", then
> you'd better be prepared to assume all financial responsibility. Since
> that's an impossibility, as usual, what you have to say counts for
> shit.
Same goes for you if you want to ride a motorcycle or refuse to wear a
NASCAR approved crash helmet in a car.
Of course, you are too freaking stupid to see the point.
I have to ask myself, why am I debating with an idiot?
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 13 Oct 2011 21:45:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thanks, Dave. I'm too upstanding a citizen to worry, really, but so
>thought the German Jews once upon a time. But this is not really a subject
>to kid about.
I have to agree. After winding up in my wheelchair some years ago,
I've been truly shocked to experience the occasional discrimination
from from friends and family, not to mention strangers. Sources that I
would previously have thought impossible. And yet, the few incidents
of descrimination I've experienced are nothing compared to some
segments of our society. It leads me to have very little respect for
much of the human race.
On 13 Oct 2011 21:49:41 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> The US is not a democracy (thankfully). If 51% of the people decided
>> to kill everyone with Dutch ancestry, are you OK with that?
>
>Modern democracies and republics are supposed to have checks and balances
>against such ridiculous ideas.
Yes, in the US it's called the Constitution. The point being, that just
because 51% of the people are "for" something, doesn't mean it should be. The
tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
>Our congress is supposed to not let a mob
>majority call the shots, although it sometimes seems that both right and
>left want to resort to that. Not my idea of an effective and prospering
>society. But sometimes it is very difficult to get a consensus among
>people with disparate ideas and philosophies, and things go awry as they
>seem to be doing now, unfortunately.
You confuse "consensus" with "right".
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:31:14 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.
>So, you think motorcycles should be banned, and everyone riding in a car
>should be forced to wear a NASCAR approved crash helmet, and so on and
>so forth?
Don't put words in my mouth. No, I think if you're going to make
assinine statements like "I don't want protected from myself", then
you'd better be prepared to assume all financial responsibility. Since
that's an impossibility, as usual, what you have to say counts for
shit.
In article <ea311077-257b-4041-adc5-
[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Oct 9, 12:37 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Elect a Congress that will take the asshole's patents away from him if
> > he continues to insist that the government force other businesses to
> > license them.
>
> He's _insisting_ that the CPSC grant him a de facto monopoly? They're
> free to say no. You're projecting superhuman powers onto this Gass
> guy. I wonder if he can fly backwards around the Earth and reverse
> time?
And he'll keep on lobbying until eventually they say yes. This isn't
the first time he's tried this approach you know, and it's clear that
he won't give up until either he gets his way or somebody takes his ball
away from him and sends him home.
> I'd like to elect a Congress that would take away your right to post
> on Usenet.
It is unlikely that the courts would find that Congress has that power.
> That makes just as much sense. The guy is doing nothing outside his
> rights, yet you want government to intervene and _take_ something away
> from him. There was a mention of the government buying his patent
> from him, which makes way more sense.
No, I want government to place a condition on giving him his way. If he
wants to lobby for forcing people to license his patents then the
conditions should be that he's not allowed to profit from the
regulation.
> In any event there are mechanisms in place for dealing with monopolies
> and anti-trust regulations. Oh, wait, those aren't free market
> mechanisms so they must be bad things. ;)
So you're saying that you're fine if the government gives him his
regulation then takes his company away from him under the antitrust act?
If so then we're pretty close to the same page.
In article <ad4a2440-4a14-42a1-ad5e-e15f289641c7
@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Oct 9, 10:44 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <ea311077-257b-4041-adc5-
> > [email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 9, 12:37 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Elect a Congress that will take the asshole's patents away from him if
> > > > he continues to insist that the government force other businesses to
> > > > license them.
> >
> > > He's _insisting_ that the CPSC grant him a de facto monopoly? They're
> > > free to say no. You're projecting superhuman powers onto this Gass
> > > guy. I wonder if he can fly backwards around the Earth and reverse
> > > time?
> >
> > And he'll keep on lobbying until eventually they say yes. This isn't
> > the first time he's tried this approach you know, and it's clear that
> > he won't give up until either he gets his way or somebody takes his ball
> > away from him and sends him home.
> >
> > > I'd like to elect a Congress that would take away your right to post
> > > on Usenet.
> >
> > It is unlikely that the courts would find that Congress has that power.
> >
> > > That makes just as much sense. The guy is doing nothing outside his
> > > rights, yet you want government to intervene and _take_ something away
> > > from him. There was a mention of the government buying his patent
> > > from him, which makes way more sense.
> >
> > No, I want government to place a condition on giving him his way. If he
> > wants to lobby for forcing people to license his patents then the
> > conditions should be that he's not allowed to profit from the
> > regulation.
>
> All the CPSC has to do is adopt the new safety regulations and place a
> compliance date that is well into the future. What, five years? That
> should give the lawyers and development teams time to duke it out and
> come up with alternatives.
Yeah, like it gave the automakers time to come up with alternatives to
airbags.
Gass is a patent lawyer--you think he doesn't have it sewn up so tight
that any "alternative" will violate his patents?
> That's similar to what the FDA did with BPA. When the BPA reports
> first came out the FDA went on record saying that was NO problem with
> BPA...and then a while later said OOPS! The intervening time gave
> manufacturers time to retool and get rid of inventory.
Not analogous--in the one case they were removing a substance, not
adding a patented device.
> > > In any event there are mechanisms in place for dealing with monopolies
> > > and anti-trust regulations. Oh, wait, those aren't free market
> > > mechanisms so they must be bad things. ;)
> >
> > So you're saying that you're fine if the government gives him his
> > regulation then takes his company away from him under the antitrust act?
> >
> > If so then we're pretty close to the same page.
>
> Pretty close. I didn't say take the patent away. The guy deserves to
> be paid for his work and invention. A forced arbitration would be a
> start. A lump sum payment, amortized and paid back by the licenses
> over five or ten years would make sense.
He only deserves to be paid for it if he's not the one asking that it be
mandated. If the government, without his ever asking for it, mandated
it then he'd deserve compensation, but he's clearly trying to get it
mandated in order to enrich himself and that behavior should be
discouraged.
> The guy developed something new that works, patented it, set his price
> and tried to license it, got shot down, persevered, started
> manufacturing them himself, and is now going through the proper
> channels to improve saw safety (though he does seem to believe he has
> a lock on any and all attempts at an alternative system). If by
> chance he happens to make the odd million or twenty for his largesse,
> well, that's not his fault!
It is his fault when he's clearly intending to profit from the
regulation he's demanding.
> If that's not an American success story I don't know what is.
An "American success story" would involve his company becoming dominant
in the market buy building a product that clearly represented better
value than the competition, not getting the government to mandate that
the competition buy his product.
> Remember the Workmate guy? He dabbled in workbenches and was always
> tinkering. Had his shop make some magnesium prototypes, and tried to
> sell the patent outright to the major tool manufacturers for $50K.
> Free and clear - $50K...and he got shot down. Started manufacturing
> them himself and last I knew he'd made enough money to buy his own
> island.
And he never once lobbied the government to mandate that anyone license
his technology.
> Gass is that same type, except he's a patent lawyer and a PHD. I have
> no knowledge of what the guy is like personally, but from his actions
> I'm guessing he's part pitbull and maybe a little short on the warm
> and fuzzies. But the guy's no dummy and it will probably cost the
> tool manufacturer's more in the long run to have shot him down.
Personally I want to see him totally destroyed.
> I'm still going to look into electing a Congress that will take your
> Usenet posting rights away. I'll be doing it for the children. ;)
Go for it. You'll also have to elect a 2/3 majority in both houses and
majorities in 3/4 of the state legislatures, otherwise you'll be
enacting a bill of attainder and will be running afoul of the First
Amendment.
There is no right to profit from government regulation for which one has
lobbied, but there is a right to free speech.
In any case, if you do not like what I have to say there is something
called a "killfile", although you google types wouldn't know about
things like that.
In article <1bc1b2f2-2593-40c0-8cf5-0ee8a1285fa8
@e4g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Oct 12, 2:26 pm, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > My choice is to reject greedy business for attempting to get government
> > force free individuals to buy his product and make him filthy stinking
> > rich via government mandate rather than consumer demand.
>
> Which part bothers you - that he's trying to make money from his
> invention, or that's he going through the current legal channels to do
> it?
>
> He's playing by the rules and you don't like the rules. Eh, life is
> tough. There's another of those annoying mantras for you.
No, he's trying to get the rules changed in a manner that puts loads of
money in his pocket.
> He wants to make money from the fruits of his labors. Where's the
> fault in that?
He's making money from the fruits of his labors. He's now trying to get
the government to force others to give him money against their will.
> Those are the only two issues here.
>
> Bitching about the existing rules is pointless.
That would be Gass who is bitching about "the existing rules".
> There are people that
> bitch that they're only allowed one wife. I see no difference in your
> contention. Different opinions and both sides have firm convictions
> and Truth on their side. Big surprise.
The existing rule is that Sawstop is not required on all table saws. He
wants the rule to be changed so that Sawstop _is_ required. If he wants
to change the rules then fair play says that he should be denied any
benefit from the rule change.
> A guy that's working hard to make a buck, and being dead straight
> between the eyes about it, is not only refreshing it's exemplary. He
> could have set up a shell corporation and done all sorts of things
> where he'd still be raking in the bucks and not have to stand up as
> the antagonist/protagonist, but he's coming at you straight on. He's
> going to drag you kicking and screaming into the future.
Yeah, like Stalin did Russia.
> What are you going to do about it? Right. Bitch on a newsgroup.
> That'll help.
>
> R
On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote:
> Jack<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
>> are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
>> business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
>> want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
>> will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
>> hack making decisions for me.
>
> You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what should
> be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
> struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...
>
You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing
what you wanted, do you?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Elect a Congress that will take the asshole's patents away from him if
> he continues to insist that the government force other businesses to
> license them.
Clarke, that's a non-starter. Gass has patents. The purpose of patents is
to provide exclusivity for a set period of time to allow the patent holder
to profit from his invention(s). The lawyers will fight about the prices
the competition should pay. The task of government is (apparently) to
protect us from ourselves, for single proprietors and hobbyists, that is.
OSHA does it for general commerce.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>On 10/15/2011 2:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> < clipped >
>> The presidency is an exception, but
>> aside from declaring war (a controversial topic itself), the president has little
>> direct power - he cannot pass laws, only suggest them[*].
>
>1. The President cannot declare war. The Constitution grants that
>power to Congress. As commander in chief, the President can order troop
>movements. But he can't simply go out and order the military to commit
>acts of war without Congressional support.
I should have said "aside from making war". The war powers act has
never been settled.
Institutional inertia rules in Washington, and is for the most part
independent of the party in control. Endless faceless bureaucrats.
scott
On Oct 18, 12:50=A0pm, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I may be an asshole, but at least I don't quote myself then argue with
> what I said...
What?! Do I detect a glimmer of enlightenment...? :)~
R
On 10/15/2011 12:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:51:37 -0600, Just Wondering<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 10/14/2011 6:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:24:59 -0600, Just Wondering<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/13/2011 1:09 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>>> Jack<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
>>>>>>> are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
>>>>>>> business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
>>>>>>> want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
>>>>>>> will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
>>>>>>> hack making decisions for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
>>>>>> struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing
>>>>> what you wanted, do you?
>>>>
>>>> And what if the person you voted for didn't get elected?
>>>
>>> You try harder. Maybe volunteer next time.
>>
>> You miss my point. If I voted for someone who didn't get elected, the
>> statement that I decided through my voting what should be done is a
>> false statement.
>
> No, I missed nothing. Because the person you voted for lost does not mean
> that you weren't part of the decision process. Your logic is faulty. However,
> if you're always on the losing side, you're a kook.
>
But your comment wasn't that I was "part of the decision process." You
said that I decided through my voting what should be done. The former
statement may be true, the latter statement clearly is not.
On 10/15/2011 2:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
< clipped >
> The presidency is an exception, but
> aside from declaring war (a controversial topic itself), the president has little
> direct power - he cannot pass laws, only suggest them[*].
1. The President cannot declare war. The Constitution grants that
power to Congress. As commander in chief, the President can order troop
movements. But he can't simply go out and order the military to commit
acts of war without Congressional support.
2. You are correct that the President can only suggest laws, not pass
them. However:
3. His veto power means that, unless a bill's proponents can muster 2/3
of Congress to support the bill, they have to pay more attention to what
the President wants than they have to pay to you or me, who also have
the power to suggest laws.
4. A great deal of business at the federal level is done by
administrative agencies. Most of them fall within the executive branch
of government, which means that at the operational level they report to
and therefore take their orders from the President, not Congress. As
long as what the President orders does not violate federal law, he has
the authority to control those agencies.
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:51:37 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 10/14/2011 6:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:24:59 -0600, Just Wondering<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/13/2011 1:09 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>> Jack<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
>>>>>> are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
>>>>>> business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
>>>>>> want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
>>>>>> will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
>>>>>> hack making decisions for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what
>>>>> should
>>>>> be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
>>>>> struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing
>>>> what you wanted, do you?
>>>
>>> And what if the person you voted for didn't get elected?
>>
>> You try harder. Maybe volunteer next time.
>
>You miss my point. If I voted for someone who didn't get elected, the
>statement that I decided through my voting what should be done is a
>false statement.
No, I missed nothing. Because the person you voted for lost does not mean
that you weren't part of the decision process. Your logic is faulty. However,
if you're always on the losing side, you're a kook.
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:31:55 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>
>Insurance pays for all that, and my insurance company doesn't even want
>to know if I have a saw let alone whether it's a Sawstop.
>
That will change in the future for Workman's Comp insurance. Our
carrier is very interested in Saw Stop and is recommending their
clients change to them. .
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
>On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:51:37 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 10/14/2011 6:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:24:59 -0600, Just Wondering<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/13/2011 1:09 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2011 1:12 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>>> Jack<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
>>>>>>> are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
>>>>>>> business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
>>>>>>> want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
>>>>>>> will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
>>>>>>> hack making decisions for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
>>>>>> struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't really believe that the person that you voted for is doing
>>>>> what you wanted, do you?
>>>>
>>>> And what if the person you voted for didn't get elected?
>>>
>>> You try harder. Maybe volunteer next time.
>>
>>You miss my point. If I voted for someone who didn't get elected, the
>>statement that I decided through my voting what should be done is a
>>false statement.
>
>No, I missed nothing. Because the person you voted for lost does not mean
>that you weren't part of the decision process. Your logic is faulty. However,
>if you're always on the losing side, you're a kook.
>
You are both kooks. This is a representational democracy. Your non-presidential
vote allows you and your neighbors to select another neighbor to represent your
neighborhood (district). This works on every level from local municipal, through
county, state and federal elected offices. The presidency is an exception, but
aside from declaring war (a controversial topic itself), the president has little
direct power - he cannot pass laws, only suggest them[*].
Since no neighborhood consists of people who think things should be done the
exact same way, the elected representitive is (but they don't) required to
consider _all_ his or her constituents when representing them before the
body politic. Too often, however, elected representatives (particularly
republicans[**], lately), believe that they represent the _party_, not their
neighborhood, leading to the kind of corrosive politics that we are currently
experiencing.
The stones said it best. "You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need".
scott
[*] Contrary to popular political rhetoric, executive orders are very limited
in scope and applicability, and may only apply to areas of responsibility
delegated to the executive branch by congress (who can always revoke the
delegation - checks and balances, dontchanknow).
[**] Quoting McConnell: "My goal for the next three years it to make sure that
the president isn't elected to a second term". This was televised. What
happened to the half of Kentucky that the Senator is supposed to be
representing? Over half his fellow citizens voted for the President.
Suck it up Senator and do your damn job. Fucking politicians.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:31:55 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>
> >
> >Insurance pays for all that, and my insurance company doesn't even want
> >to know if I have a saw let alone whether it's a Sawstop.
> >
>
>
> That will change in the future for Workman's Comp insurance. Our
> carrier is very interested in Saw Stop and is recommending their
> clients change to them. .
I don't get workmen's comp. If I am injured my medical insurance that I
pay for out of my own pocket pays for it. They had a long questionnaire
about my habits and activities. There was nothing on it about power
tools of any kind.
On 10/18/2011 1:26 AM, Dave wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>> "It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
>> your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort."
This is your stupid ass quote, are you really so dumb you quote yourself
then argue with me about it?
> You're competely missing the point. *EVERYTHING* in life has risk
> attached to it, I don't argue that fact and you can't get around it.
I'm not trying to get around it, in fact, that's pretty much my point.
> It's the fact that you so blatently demand the right to hurt yourself
> while at the same time completely dismiss the cost to society that's
> the problem.
You also dismiss those very costs to society if you don't wear NASCAR
approved crash helmet when riding in a car, or dismiss the cost to
society resulting from needlessly riding around on motorcycles, or
climbing mountains, skydiving and a million other risky needless
activities. When I was dumb enough to ride a murdercycle, dismissing
the risk to myself, and the cost to society, I was glad government
didn't stop me. When I decided the risk was too high, I quit.
Government was not involved, just how I like it.
> Many, many devices such as seat belts, helmets, even work boots have
> saved society incalculable amounts of money.
So, you do wear a NASCAR approved crash helmet when in a car, and refuse
to ride a motorcycle because of the needless risks to society?
> You *refuse* to take into
> consideration that your right to hurt yourself also has a profound
> cost and effect to society.
Nope, I think society is willing to take those risks, considering I'm
not required to wear a crash helmet in a car, can go snow skiing for
kicks, can go rock climbing on a whim, ride a bike for laughs, and even
use my table saw w/o a saw stop contraption attached to it, just like my
father did for 25 years, my brother and I have for 50 years each, all
w/o a single injury, or cost to anyone.
> Yup, you have every right to hurt yourself as you will. You just
> happen to be an asshole for insisting on it.
I may be an asshole, but at least I don't quote myself then argue with
what I said...
--
Jack
Got Change: Individual Freedom =======> Government Control!
http://jbstein.com
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:48:08 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>"It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
>your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort."
You're competely missing the point. *EVERYTHING* in life has risk
attached to it, I don't argue that fact and you can't get around it.
It's the fact that you so blatently demand the right to hurt yourself
while at the same time completely dismiss the cost to society that's
the problem.
Many, many devices such as seat belts, helmets, even work boots have
saved society incalculable amounts of money. You *refuse* to take into
consideration that your right to hurt yourself also has a profound
cost and effect to society.
Yup, you have every right to hurt yourself as you will. You just
happen to be an asshole for insisting on it.
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 10/9/2011 7:29 AM, Han wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> the competition should pay. The task of government is (apparently)
>> to protect us from ourselves, for single proprietors and hobbyists,
>> that is. OSHA does it for general commerce.
>
> It boils down to the fact that life has inherent risks and whether you
> want to live in a society that shares those risks; or a society that
> attempts to eliminate those risks through the elimination of personal
> freedoms and individual discretion.
Balance is a good thing ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 10/9/2011 10:21 AM, Han wrote:
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 10/9/2011 7:29 AM, Han wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> the competition should pay. The task of government is (apparently)
>>>> to protect us from ourselves, for single proprietors and hobbyists,
>>>> that is. OSHA does it for general commerce.
>>>
>>> It boils down to the fact that life has inherent risks and whether
>>> you want to live in a society that shares those risks; or a society
>>> that attempts to eliminate those risks through the elimination of
>>> personal freedoms and individual discretion.
>>
>> Balance is a good thing ...
>
> There is no "balance". Once government begins to ignore personal
> freedom and the constitutional protections to the individual, the
> "balance" goes out the window. You will eventually be mandated to buy
> the "right tool" and only the "right tool" and from the properly
> "licensed" seller at the properly mandated price.
Of course there is a balance. You can't buy a car these days without
airbags and antipollution equipment. We as a society have deemed it
necessary, while in the late 50's my Dad had a car that 2 people could
lift the front of, and move it in a parking place. It had a
water-cooled 4-cylinder engine in the rear, and it was easy to change
spark plugs, points, whatever. Now a similar car in performance would
weigh twice as much, use 3 times the gasoline, and cost 5 times as much
in inflation-adjusted money.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
> are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
> business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
> want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
> will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
> hack making decisions for me.
You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what should
be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Oct 9, 10:44=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <ea311077-257b-4041-adc5-
> [email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 12:37 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Elect a Congress that will take the asshole's patents away from him i=
f
> > > he continues to insist that the government force other businesses to
> > > license them.
>
> > He's _insisting_ that the CPSC grant him a de facto monopoly? =A0They'r=
e
> > free to say no. =A0You're projecting superhuman powers onto this Gass
> > guy. =A0I wonder if he can fly backwards around the Earth and reverse
> > time?
>
> And he'll keep on lobbying until eventually they say yes. =A0This isn't
> the first time he's tried this approach you know, and it's clear that =A0
> he won't give up until either he gets his way or somebody takes his ball
> away from him and sends him home.
>
> > I'd like to elect a Congress that would take away your right to post
> > on Usenet.
>
> It is unlikely that the courts would find that Congress has that power.
>
> > That makes just as much sense. =A0The guy is doing nothing outside his
> > rights, yet you want government to intervene and _take_ something away
> > from him. =A0There was a mention of the government buying his patent
> > from him, which makes way more sense.
>
> No, I want government to place a condition on giving him his way. =A0If h=
e
> wants to lobby for forcing people to license his patents then the
> conditions should be that he's not allowed to profit from the
> regulation.
All the CPSC has to do is adopt the new safety regulations and place a
compliance date that is well into the future. What, five years? That
should give the lawyers and development teams time to duke it out and
come up with alternatives.
That's similar to what the FDA did with BPA. When the BPA reports
first came out the FDA went on record saying that was NO problem with
BPA...and then a while later said OOPS! The intervening time gave
manufacturers time to retool and get rid of inventory.
> > In any event there are mechanisms in place for dealing with monopolies
> > and anti-trust regulations. =A0Oh, wait, those aren't free market
> > mechanisms so they must be bad things. =A0;)
>
> So you're saying that you're fine if the government gives him his
> regulation then takes his company away from him under the antitrust act?
>
> If so then we're pretty close to the same page.
Pretty close. I didn't say take the patent away. The guy deserves to
be paid for his work and invention. A forced arbitration would be a
start. A lump sum payment, amortized and paid back by the licenses
over five or ten years would make sense.
The guy developed something new that works, patented it, set his price
and tried to license it, got shot down, persevered, started
manufacturing them himself, and is now going through the proper
channels to improve saw safety (though he does seem to believe he has
a lock on any and all attempts at an alternative system). If by
chance he happens to make the odd million or twenty for his largesse,
well, that's not his fault!
If that's not an American success story I don't know what is.
Remember the Workmate guy? He dabbled in workbenches and was always
tinkering. Had his shop make some magnesium prototypes, and tried to
sell the patent outright to the major tool manufacturers for $50K.
Free and clear - $50K...and he got shot down. Started manufacturing
them himself and last I knew he'd made enough money to buy his own
island.
Gass is that same type, except he's a patent lawyer and a PHD. I have
no knowledge of what the guy is like personally, but from his actions
I'm guessing he's part pitbull and maybe a little short on the warm
and fuzzies. But the guy's no dummy and it will probably cost the
tool manufacturer's more in the long run to have shot him down.
I'm still going to look into electing a Congress that will take your
Usenet posting rights away. I'll be doing it for the children. ;)
R
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:07:29 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:35:48 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>> If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and non-discriminatory'
>>> terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per replacement cartridge) the
>>> commission MIGHT institute requirements that only the
>>> Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme
>>> outcome I'd believe.
>>
>> That's the reasonable path but it's not going to happen.
>>
>
>Reasonable? Because you have a bug up your butt about this guy, you deem it
>*reasonable* to constrain a business to sell at a loss? Your use of the
>word reasonable is nothing short of unreasonable.
If it's going to be mandated by law, you bet! You, OTOH, think the government
should give him an unlimited monopoly. THAT is unreasonable.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:07:29 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:35:48 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>> If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and
>>>> non-discriminatory' terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per
>>>> replacement cartridge) the commission MIGHT institute requirements
>>>> that only the
>>>> Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme
>>>> outcome I'd believe.
>>>
>>> That's the reasonable path but it's not going to happen.
>>>
>>
>> Reasonable? Because you have a bug up your butt about this guy, you
>> deem it *reasonable* to constrain a business to sell at a loss?
>> Your use of the word reasonable is nothing short of unreasonable.
>
> If it's going to be mandated by law, you bet! You, OTOH, think the
> government should give him an unlimited monopoly. THAT is
> unreasonable.
You, on the other hand are a complete fool by presuming what I believe. Sad
for you...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 10/8/2011 9:42 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:48:17 -0400, Nova<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand
>>> knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the
>>> additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00.
>>>
>>> If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it
>>> is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and
>>> prevents you from being badly injured.
>>
>> From what I've read, based on the Gass's proposed cost to Bosch, the
>> cost to a manufacturer would be $150 - $200 plus an 8% licensing fee
>> on the total wholesale price of the saw. In the case of my saw it
>> would add $300 - $350.
>
> On a $399 DeWally or $349 Jet worksite saw, that's a ONE HUNDRED
> PERCENT increase in the cost. On a $219 Crapsman table saw, it's
> closer to a 150% increase.
>
> ( Prices from http://www.toolseeker.com/WdWkMac/TableSaw.htm )
>
SO WHAT. Have you quit buying gasoline lately since it has increased in
cost more than that since the SawStop has come to market. When you work
with CHEAP equipment adding a quality component IS going to raise the
cost and significantly. Not so much on a $3000 Unisaw.
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 15:40:57 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Oct 8, 2:07 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2011, whit3rd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight
>> >to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing
>> >bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). They're seeing
>> >thousands per year of amputations.
>>
>> Life is dangerous. Your point?
>
>Saying "life is dangerous" is a mantra for people that don't have a
>better argument. You're trying to convince people that an improvement
>in safety is not really an improvement.
Dodge noted. Life *is* dangerous. The government isn't your nanny.
>Do you have GFIs in your house? Wear a seatbelt in your car? Why?
>Life is dangerous. What a dumb thing to say.
Do you have any idea what cost/benefit analysis is about?
>There are people on this newsgroup who have had power tool accidents,
>and you're basically saying "Fuck You" to them - and this without
>having any knowledge about what happened in the accident(s).
What a pile of steaming crap.
>Your major issue is, what?
The cost and benefit of making an unethical asshole rich, by government
mandate. Freedom, if you can understand that.
>your "ethical" objection to a _business_
>doing whatever it can to sell its product? Gee, now there's a
>surprise. Which would you prefer - a company that uses whatever means
>it can to get a safety device into widespread use, or a company that
>uses whatever means it can to get more money in its pockets with a
>shoddy, dangerous device?
...and then you continue, putting words in my mouth. Nice argument tactic.
>You'd do business differently? Great - go do it. Get the law
>changed, eliminate or change the patent process, write a letter to the
>CPSC, start your own business that has your "ethics".
What a clueless pile of tripe.
>I think you have a major moral failing in that your "ethics" - and
>that's clearly not the issue here - are not ethical. You exhibit no
>compassion. A lack of compassion is antithetical to ethical behavior.
Complete hyperventilating bullshit.
>Brush up on a term before you start bandying it about.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Clueless.
On Oct 9, 12:37=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Elect a Congress that will take the asshole's patents away from him if
> he continues to insist that the government force other businesses to
> license them.
He's _insisting_ that the CPSC grant him a de facto monopoly? They're
free to say no. You're projecting superhuman powers onto this Gass
guy. I wonder if he can fly backwards around the Earth and reverse
time?
I'd like to elect a Congress that would take away your right to post
on Usenet.
That makes just as much sense. The guy is doing nothing outside his
rights, yet you want government to intervene and _take_ something away
from him. There was a mention of the government buying his patent
from him, which makes way more sense.
In any event there are mechanisms in place for dealing with monopolies
and anti-trust regulations. Oh, wait, those aren't free market
mechanisms so they must be bad things. ;)
R
On 10/9/2011 10:21 AM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 10/9/2011 7:29 AM, Han wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> the competition should pay. The task of government is (apparently)
>>> to protect us from ourselves, for single proprietors and hobbyists,
>>> that is. OSHA does it for general commerce.
>>
>> It boils down to the fact that life has inherent risks and whether you
>> want to live in a society that shares those risks; or a society that
>> attempts to eliminate those risks through the elimination of personal
>> freedoms and individual discretion.
>
> Balance is a good thing ...
There is no "balance". Once government begins to ignore personal
freedom and the constitutional protections to the individual, the
"balance" goes out the window. You will eventually be mandated to buy
the "right tool" and only the "right tool" and from the properly
"licensed" seller at the properly mandated price.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 10/12/2011 2:47 PM, Han wrote:
> Jack<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 10/9/2011 10:21 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 10/9/2011 7:29 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> the competition should pay. The task of government is (apparently)
>>>>> to protect us from ourselves, for single proprietors and hobbyists,
>>>>> that is. OSHA does it for general commerce.
>>>>
>>>> It boils down to the fact that life has inherent risks and whether
>>>> you want to live in a society that shares those risks; or a society
>>>> that attempts to eliminate those risks through the elimination of
>>>> personal freedoms and individual discretion.
>>>
>>> Balance is a good thing ...
>>
>> There is no "balance". Once government begins to ignore personal
>> freedom and the constitutional protections to the individual, the
>> "balance" goes out the window. You will eventually be mandated to buy
>> the "right tool" and only the "right tool" and from the properly
>> "licensed" seller at the properly mandated price.
>
> Of course there is a balance. You can't buy a car these days without
> airbags and antipollution equipment. We as a society have deemed it
> necessary, while in the late 50's my Dad had a car that 2 people could
> lift the front of, and move it in a parking place. It had a
> water-cooled 4-cylinder engine in the rear, and it was easy to change
> spark plugs, points, whatever. Now a similar car in performance would
> weigh twice as much, use 3 times the gasoline, and cost 5 times as much
> in inflation-adjusted money.
You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
hack making decisions for me.
--
Jack
Got Change: Individual Freedom =======> Government Control!
http://jbstein.com
On 10/13/2011 2:12 PM, Han wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>> You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
>> are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
>> business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
>> want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
>> will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
>> hack making decisions for me.
>
> You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what should
> be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
> struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...
>
The congressman I voted for last election is doing what I want (so far.)
The congressman I didn't vote for last time didn't do what I wanted. I
helped vote him out.
The Senator I didn't vote for is not doing what I want, I'll try to
vote him out next time around.
The president I didn't vote for is not doing what I want, I'll try to
vote him out next time around. Right now, it's 2 against one, hopefully
that will continue change for the better.
Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 10/13/2011 11:54 PM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2:26 pm, Jack<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> My choice is to reject greedy business for attempting to get government
>> force free individuals to buy his product and make him filthy stinking
>> rich via government mandate rather than consumer demand.
>
> Which part bothers you - that he's trying to make money from his
> invention, or that's he going through the current legal channels to do
> it?
That he is trying to change the law to force me to buy his product
rather than let the free market decide.
> He's playing by the rules and you don't like the rules.
He is trying to change the rules. Right now the rules are I can buy a
saw w/o his him getting a dime.
Eh, life is tough. There's another of those annoying mantras for you.
Annoys you perhaps.
> He wants to make money from the fruits of his labors. Where's the
> fault in that?
He trying to get government to force me to support his drive for riches.
> Those are the only two issues here.
Only one issue I see, and that is this dick trying to force me to make
him even richer than he is. Typical fucking lawyer.
> Bitching about the existing rules is pointless.
I'm not the one bitching about the existing rules.
> There are people that bitch that they're only allowed one wife. I see no difference in your
> contention.
You're goofy, I think one wife is more than enough. Forcing me to have
more than one wife would be more like what you find "exemplary"
> Different opinions and both sides have firm convictions
> and Truth on their side. Big surprise.
Life's a bitch, eh?
> A guy that's working hard to make a buck, and being dead straight
> between the eyes about it, is not only refreshing it's exemplary.
Nothing exemplary about someone trying to change the rules so I am
forced to make him rich.
> What are you going to do about it? Right. Bitch on a newsgroup.
> That'll help.
I'm here to talk about stuff with my fellow woodworkers. Whether it
"helps" or not is not much of an issue.
Who are you, Don Quixote?
--
Jack
Ninety-nine percent of all lawyers give the rest a bad name
http://jbstein.com
On 10/14/2011 10:46 AM, RicodJour wrote:
>>> Which part bothers you - that he's trying to make money from his
>>> invention, or that's he going through the current legal channels to do
>>> it?
>>
>> That he is trying to change the law to force me to buy his product
>> rather than let the free market decide.
> There is no such thing as a free market. He is working within our
> current market.
Good, then I don't need worry about a new law forcing me to buy his product.
If your main objection is not about a saw but about
> the current composition of our government, maybe posting on
> alt.US.government.get.out.of.the.way would be more appropriate.
Might be but since the subject is about the government considering
forcing me and my fellow woodworkers to buy something because THEY deem
it necessary rather than WE deem it necessary, I think I'll post about
it right here, along with everyone else that is interested.
>>> He's playing by the rules and you don't like the rules.
>>
>> He is trying to change the rules. Right now the rules are I can buy a
>> saw w/o his him getting a dime.
> And your alternative?
My alternative is to let me buy a new saw w/o the government forcing me
to make him rich.
> Keep the rules where they are and never change
> them? Does that include your wishes for rule changes that would
> create a truly free market (as if that is possible)?
Try to stay focused.
>>> Bitching about the existing rules is pointless.
>>
>> I'm not the one bitching about the existing rules.
>
> You are being disingenuous.
Nope, the current rules allow me to buy a saw w/o his product anywhere
in sight. Nothing disingenuous about it, I'm quite happy with my
choices now.
Of course you are. The existing rules
> allow someone to petition the CPSC for the existing rules to be
> changed. I have no issue with that as I think it's necessary to have
> that capability.
Perhaps it's you that should roll over to
alt.US.government.get.out.of.the.way
A guy that's working hard to make a buck, and being dead straight
>>> between the eyes about it, is not only refreshing it's exemplary.
>>
>> Nothing exemplary about someone trying to change the rules so I am
>> forced to make him rich.
>
> Please. You won't be forced - buy a used saw.
Please, you are being stupid.
> But that's not even an issue since you're not in the market for a new saw and probably won't
> be for, what, ten or fifteen years? Saws last a long time - at least
> good ones do. If your old one dies, buy a new motor.
My saw was built around 1954, I've been using it since 1970, and it has
not injured me yet, and it has no safety equipment on it... none. I
expect it will last me the rest of my woodworking life, and yes, as I
age, I might be at higher risk, and probably should get one of his saws,
but so far, no.
> The only reason you'd have to have a new saw is for the new features.
> Like safety features...unless they've figured out a new way to spin a
> blade.
True enough, and I have looked at saw stop and perhaps would buy one if
I were in the market. I just don't want him, and the government to
force me to buy one because they DEEM it necessary. In fact, now that I
know what he is up too, and he's a freaking lawyer to boot, I'll likely
continue letting it all hang out with my current saw.
> If you're worried about the homeowner type of saw, the biggest part of
> the market, there will be a phase in period regardless of what the new
> rules say. Buy whatever you want during that time to protect yourself
> from that "$1000 cost bump" that Chicken Little is yelling about.
I don't relish the government telling me what I need, period.
> New safety mechanisms are coming and the price of saws will be going
> up (regardless of what happens with the CPSC). You can't stop
> progress. Oops - another mantra!
I'm not against progress, I'm against government control of my life.
>>> What are you going to do about it? Right. Bitch on a newsgroup.
>>> That'll help.
>> I'm here to talk about stuff with my fellow woodworkers. Whether it
>> "helps" or not is not much of an issue.
>>
>> Who are you, Don Quixote?
>
> Fellow woodworkers...? Do you mean woodworkers or woodworkers that
> agree with you about everything? I'm in the former category.
I meant what I said.
> I don't see the point in harping on something (that may or may not
> happen the way you envision it at some unknown point in the future) ad
> nauseum without doing something about it.
You're a fucking idiot. There are a zillion posts on this topic, I made
two posts and you come up with this BS. Everyone is entitled to their
opinion, if you can't handle opposing views, I suggest using your hands
as pillows.
> For instance, have you
> weighed in with the CPSC and told them about your grievances?
Nope, should I?
> If I'm Don Quixote, you're Sancho Panza - endlessly complaining.
You're the one complaining that the government needs to change the rules
to force you to do something I guess your too fucking dumb to do on your
own. I'm happy with my current ability to buy what saw I want, and live
on the edge IF I so choose.
--
Jack
Ninety-nine percent of all lawyers give the rest a bad name.
http://jbstein.com
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:48:17 -0400, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand
>>knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the
>>additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00.
>>
>>If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it
>>is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and
>>prevents you from being badly injured.
>
>From what I've read, based on the Gass's proposed cost to Bosch, the
>cost to a manufacturer would be $150 - $200 plus an 8% licensing fee
>on the total wholesale price of the saw. In the case of my saw it
>would add $300 - $350.
On a $399 DeWally or $349 Jet worksite saw, that's a ONE HUNDRED
PERCENT increase in the cost. On a $219 Crapsman table saw, it's
closer to a 150% increase.
( Prices from http://www.toolseeker.com/WdWkMac/TableSaw.htm )
--
The most decisive actions of our life - I mean those that are most
likely to decide the whole course of our future - are, more often
than not, unconsidered.
-- Andre Gide
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.
It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort. Do you
actually believe that all the surgery and rehabilitation you'd go
through for cutting off a finger would be covered entirely by the fees
you'd pay? Society funds the bulk of your screwups whether you believe
it or not.
In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 10/14/2011 8:51 AM, Dave wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0400, Jack<[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.
> >
> > It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
> > your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort. Do you
> > actually believe that all the surgery and rehabilitation you'd go
> > through for cutting off a finger would be covered entirely by the fees
> > you'd pay? Society funds the bulk of your screwups whether you believe
> > it or not.
>
> Wink!
Insurance pays for all that, and my insurance company doesn't even want
to know if I have a saw let alone whether it's a Sawstop.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The US is not a democracy (thankfully). If 51% of the people decided
> to kill everyone with Dutch ancestry, are you OK with that?
Modern democracies and republics are supposed to have checks and balances
against such ridiculous ideas. Our congress is supposed to not let a mob
majority call the shots, although it sometimes seems that both right and
left want to resort to that. Not my idea of an effective and prospering
society. But sometimes it is very difficult to get a consensus among
people with disparate ideas and philosophies, and things go awry as they
seem to be doing now, unfortunately.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Josepi wrote:
> SURPRISE!!!
>
> You didn't disclose you were using a dangerous piece of equipment
> listed in our secret document found in bluhblahbalh.
> Full disclosure is the responsibility of the insured and therefore:
>
> Your claim is null and void.
>
Spoken like the fully uninformed asshole that you are. Keep it up...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
SURPRISE!!!
You didn't disclose you were using a dangerous piece of equipment listed in
our secret document found in bluhblahbalh.
Full disclosure is the responsibility of the insured and therefore:
Your claim is null and void.
---------------
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 10/14/2011 8:51 AM, Dave wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0400, Jack<[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.
> >
> > It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
> > your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort. Do you
> > actually believe that all the surgery and rehabilitation you'd go
> > through for cutting off a finger would be covered entirely by the fees
> > you'd pay? Society funds the bulk of your screwups whether you believe
> > it or not.
>
> Wink!
Insurance pays for all that, and my insurance company doesn't even want
to know if I have a saw let alone whether it's a Sawstop.
On 10/14/2011 9:51 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0400, Jack<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.
>
> It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
> your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort. Do you
> actually believe that all the surgery and rehabilitation you'd go
> through for cutting off a finger would be covered entirely by the fees
> you'd pay? Society funds the bulk of your screwups whether you believe
> it or not.
So, you think motorcycles should be banned, and everyone riding in a car
should be forced to wear a NASCAR approved crash helmet, and so on and
so forth?
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0400, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 10/13/2011 2:12 PM, Han wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>
>>> You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
>>> are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
>>> business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
>>> want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
>>> will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
>>> hack making decisions for me.
>>
>> You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what should
>> be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
>> struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...
>>
>
>The congressman I voted for last election is doing what I want (so far.)
> The congressman I didn't vote for last time didn't do what I wanted. I
>helped vote him out.
My Congressman is invisible.
> The Senator I didn't vote for is not doing what I want, I'll try to
>vote him out next time around.
One of my Senators is on the top of the heap, the other is invisible. The
only time I've seen him is on billboards (guess it's better than the post
office). Tried to vote him out last time but incumbency has its perks.
>The president I didn't vote for is not doing what I want, I'll try to
>vote him out next time around. Right now, it's 2 against one, hopefully
>that will continue change for the better.
Indeed.
>Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.
+1
On 13 Oct 2011 18:12:43 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> You are assuming none of this would have happened w/o government. You
>> are simply wrong. People are capable of making their own decisions and
>> business is capable of determining how to give the individual what they
>> want. Right now, if I want saw stop I can buy it. With "balance", I
>> will not have that choice. The LAST thing I want is some government
>> hack making decisions for me.
>
>You and I have decided through our voting for congresscritters what should
>be done (lobbyists play no role, right?). Therefore the balance has been
>struck. Of course you can appeal to the SCOTUS ...
The US is not a democracy (thankfully). If 51% of the people decided to kill
everyone with Dutch ancestry, are you OK with that?
On 10/14/2011 8:51 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0400, Jack<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Regardless, I don't want protected from myself, period.
>
> It's not 'protected from yourself' that matters. It's the fact that
> your screwups cost the rest of society time, money and effort. Do you
> actually believe that all the surgery and rehabilitation you'd go
> through for cutting off a finger would be covered entirely by the fees
> you'd pay? Society funds the bulk of your screwups whether you believe
> it or not.
Wink!
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:11:34 -0400, tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>Funny how the Unisaw price was 1200 about 10 years ago.
I paid $1600 eighteen months ago (3HP, LT, 52" Biesemeyer,...). Seems about
right for inflation.
>Now it's approaching what $3000...
Different animal. The X5 is still available for around $2000.
>I would rather buy the better made
>Saw Stop... My delta products have not been up to par... My bandsaw
>(American Made) was a disaster. I applaud Saw Stop for a good product,
>safe... And when I can, I will buy the 3hp unit... It's nice.
Isn't choice a great thing? Too bad you don't see others' choices as being
valid.
<...>
On 9/29/2011 5:55 PM, Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 9/29/2011 11:58 AM, Bill wrote:
>>
>>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use a
>>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>>
>> I'm among those in the "table saw" accident statistics.
>>
>> Mine wasn't plugged in, nor did it have a blade mounted, but the ER
>> classed it, for insurance purposes, as a "table saw injury".
>>
>
> You are still using it, are you not?
>
> And Leon's got the SS I think. He hasn't converted you?
Nope, have not got it yet. If I ever buy again it will be a SawStop.
On 9/29/2011 5:57 PM, Bill wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't use a
>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>
> I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's not
> plugged in, is it still a table saw?
>
Thinking about your significant other, ask the same question and ponder
if you are still a man. ;~)
On 9/29/2011 5:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:25:26 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 9/29/2011 4:30 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:28:25 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/29/2011 11:58 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use a
>>>>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>>>>
>>>> I'm among those in the "table saw" accident statistics.
>>>>
>>>> Mine wasn't plugged in, nor did it have a blade mounted, but the ER
>>>> classed it, for insurance purposes, as a "table saw injury".
>>>
>>> Does a splinter off the cut wood count?
>>
>> Only if you are dumb enough to go to the ER for that splinter to be
>> removed. ;~)
>
> OTOH, if the splinter was that bad.... ;-)
>
> I thought of that after I pressed<SEND>.
LOL got caught up in the heat of the moment did you? Been there done
that. ;~)
tiredofspam wrote:
(snip)
> Patent holders for Saw Stop... well according to you .... they should be
> made to give it away...
>
> Look, I can't stand these idiot CEO's who make a fortune for destroying
> companies, but this is a guy who made his company, and now employs many
> people...
>
> It's his patent, he did everything to offer the technology to companies
> for a price (NOT FREE)... Why shouldn't he have made money doing it.
Well, to quote Mr. Gass himself:
Steve says his motivation to get the SawStop out on the U.S. market is
because "I don't want to go to a trade show five years from now and have
some kid come up to me with his mangled hand and ask 'Why didn't you try
harder?"'
That was in Woodworker's Journal, Vol 27, #6, December 2003.
His product is on the market, and anyone who _wants_ to buy it and can
_afford_ to buy it can buy it. If he wants to see it more widely
adopted, he can license it at whatever price it takes to get the amount
of market penetration which will allow him to sleep at night. It's been
8 years and he's still alive, so I can only assume that he's sleeping at
night. He's obviously not overly concerned about the children at this point.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>
> September 14, 2011
>
> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
Looks like Sawstop is still at it. Somebody needs to shoot that loon
and his lawyers and burn the place to the ground.
If he wants to sell saws fine. If he wants to make it law that
everybody buy his product, he needs to be taken down.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>
> September 14, 2011
>
> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
Did you notice that the docket number has been removed? So no way to
protest it in a meaningful fashion.
In article <[email protected]>, tiredofspam
says...
>
> I don't understand.
> Gass offered it to companies, they didn't want it.
> He creates his own... typical American ingenuity and open market.
> Now you want him to give it away for free?
Yep. He can't have it both ways. Either he sells it and makes a profit
or he gets it legally mandated in which case he should not be allowed to
profit from the mandate.
> He tried selling the license to these companies and they balked.
> I applaud his effort. Very American....
> You must prefer the socialist or communist countries KRW...
> Either that or your brains are scrambled.... That kickback hit you in
> the head?
It's the socialist or communist countries that dictate what must be
manufactured.
> On 9/29/2011 5:52 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:40:49 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
> >>>>> crap company.
> >>>>
> >>>> I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage
> >>>> to leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
> >>>> discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be
> >>>> doing something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money.
> >>>> God bless them for going for it in what ever way they can do it.
> >>>> Don't understand why anyone would call them a crap company.
> >>>
> >>> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
> >>
> >> I guess it's all in what one considers unethical.
> >
> > Inventing a widget, getting the government to require said widget, and
> > refusing to sell said widget freely, is unethical to most normal minds. Yes,
> > Gass makes the Snidely Whiplash list. Nope, not going to happen.
In article <[email protected]>, tiredofspam
says...
>
> So the drug companies should give up their patents, because it's for the
> greater good, and the only medication that can solve the problem.
> And the price is high because it took years to develop and years to go
> through clinical.... HMMMMMM...
Yep. If the government as a result of lobbying by the patentholder says
that every drug made MUST incorporate one of those patents then the
patentholder should not be allowed to profit from the mandate.
> Funny how artists have copyrights for 50 years or more... and patent
> holders for drugs ... very short time.
>
> Patent holders for Saw Stop... well according to you .... they should be
> made to give it away...
No, they should be made to stop lobbying to have it mandated on all
saws. Since they won't do that, invalidating the patent would be a
suitable punishment.
> Look, I can't stand these idiot CEO's who make a fortune for destroying
> companies, but this is a guy who made his company, and now employs many
> people...
And now he wants to get a share of everybody else's company handed to
him by the government.
> It's his patent, he did everything to offer the technology to companies
> for a price (NOT FREE)... Why shouldn't he have made money doing it.
He's welcome to make money. He's not welcome to get the government to
force other companies to buy his product.
> Every tool you buy the manufacturer is there not to give it away, but to
> make money... hand over fist.... Sometimes ripping you off...
>
> This is not a rip off... And you should be supporting this American
> Entrepreneur. He is making a better product at a more reasonable price
> than the competition.
If he was content to do that he would be fine. He's not.
>
> Stop your bellyaching.
Nope.
>
>
> On 9/29/2011 7:54 PM, Artemus wrote:
> > "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Artemus wrote:
> >>
> >>> At the very least any new law mandating "xyz" should include
> >>> mandatory provisions which invalidate all patents, copyrights, etc
> >>> relating to "xyz". This would be for the greater good and in
> >>> the public interest.
> >>
> >> Why in the world would you suggest such a thing as that? I could see it if
> >> you had suggested that the wording of any legislation should be loose enough
> >> to specify alternatives, and not be so specific as to mandate one particular
> >> solution, but to suggest invalidating patents, copyrights, etc. does not
> >> even make sense. I heartily disagree that it would be in the greater good
> >> of the public interest, and even further argue that the public interest is
> >> not sufficient cause for that type of behavior.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >
> > Replace "xyz" in my statement with "Sawstop" for the perfect example.
> > Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Any company attempting to use the
> > legislative process to gain a monopoly in the market under the auspices
> > of "for the public good" isn't good. Ergo they should have to relinquish
> > their patent(s) via the same legislation. Let them compete in the market
> > on an even footing.
> > Art
> >
> >
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> "tiredofspam" <nospam.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > So the drug companies should give up their patents, because it's for the
> > greater good, and the only medication that can solve the problem.
> > And the price is high because it took years to develop and years to go
> > through clinical.... HMMMMMM...
> >
> > Funny how artists have copyrights for 50 years or more... and patent
> > holders for drugs ... very short time.
> >
> > Patent holders for Saw Stop... well according to you .... they should be
> > made to give it away...
> >
> > Look, I can't stand these idiot CEO's who make a fortune for destroying
> > companies, but this is a guy who made his company, and now employs many
> > people...
> >
> > It's his patent, he did everything to offer the technology to companies
> > for a price (NOT FREE)... Why shouldn't he have made money doing it.
> >
> > Every tool you buy the manufacturer is there not to give it away, but to
> > make money... hand over fist.... Sometimes ripping you off...
> >
> > This is not a rip off... And you should be supporting this American
> > Entrepreneur. He is making a better product at a more reasonable price
> > than the competition.
> >
> > Stop your bellyaching.
> >
> >
> You really don't get it do you? The drug companies and artists aren't
> trying to get legislation passed to give them a monopoly. They are using
> patent and copyright protection as it is intended.
>
> The sawstop patent holders did indeed try to license their patent, but
> the outrageous price they wanted got them nowhere. So they designed
> and are selling their own saw. That should have been the end of the story,
> but their greed is overpowering. So they continued to try to legislate
> their way to monopoly and fame & fortune. That is not the American way.
>
> I don't suppose you had a problem with Enron either did you?
I'd like to see legislation to the effect that the first time a
patentholder's representative asks a congressman to support legislation
that mandates the use of the patented product, the patent is instantly
and permanently invalidated and the patentholder is required to refund
all royalties ever paid by anybody for use of that patent.
If it's really a better solution the market will pick it up. If not
then to Hell with it.
In article <[email protected]>, tiredofspam
says...
>
> Wow, what a misinformed person.
> So the drug companies haven't lobbied for mandatory drugs.
If you think they have, give an example.
> Hmmmm. Pampaloma virus....
Learn to spell. It's not "mandatory" anywhere except in Texas and there
are multiple sources for the vaccine.
> How many injections are your kids required to get.
None. Unless they are enrrolled in public school. But again the
vaccines are not sole-source like Sawstop.
> Most all of that was mandated, not by involuntary... but by pushes by
> the drug lobbies.
What does that sentence even mean?
> You are very nieve to think this isn't a normal requirement.
It is?
> The auto companies have been forced to add stuff that someone came up with.
Like what?
> Usually they wind up developing their own version so they don't have to pay.
Then it wasn't patented.
> But very misguided. Our system is not as free and open as you think.
Which justifies making it less so how?
> But for the most part, it is better than most other restrictive systems.
Which doesn't mean that it should not be fixed.
> But it is getting to the point where they are stiffling competition with
> govt regs.
And you're advocating doing more of it.
> Some states prevent competition by the laws they have.
> In a couple of states you can't open a business unless you prove there
> is a need for it. Since you can't open it, it makes it difficult to show
> the need. The feds have a law that prevents that law, but it still
> exists anyway in some states.
Which is relevant to Sawstop how?
> I was reading about a state that allowed an association to require that
> the association must decide whether someone can open a business in that
> state (same type as the association). Basically no new business is
> allowed to protect the existing association members.
What state would that be?
> So grow up. Get real.
> Gass didn't do anything that most other companies wouldn't try to do if
> they could.
And this should be encouraged because?
> On 9/29/2011 9:59 PM, Artemus wrote:
> > "tiredofspam"<nospam.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> So the drug companies should give up their patents, because it's for the
> >> greater good, and the only medication that can solve the problem.
> >> And the price is high because it took years to develop and years to go
> >> through clinical.... HMMMMMM...
> >>
> >> Funny how artists have copyrights for 50 years or more... and patent
> >> holders for drugs ... very short time.
> >>
> >> Patent holders for Saw Stop... well according to you .... they should be
> >> made to give it away...
> >>
> >> Look, I can't stand these idiot CEO's who make a fortune for destroying
> >> companies, but this is a guy who made his company, and now employs many
> >> people...
> >>
> >> It's his patent, he did everything to offer the technology to companies
> >> for a price (NOT FREE)... Why shouldn't he have made money doing it.
> >>
> >> Every tool you buy the manufacturer is there not to give it away, but to
> >> make money... hand over fist.... Sometimes ripping you off...
> >>
> >> This is not a rip off... And you should be supporting this American
> >> Entrepreneur. He is making a better product at a more reasonable price
> >> than the competition.
> >>
> >> Stop your bellyaching.
> >>
> >>
> > You really don't get it do you? The drug companies and artists aren't
> > trying to get legislation passed to give them a monopoly. They are using
> > patent and copyright protection as it is intended.
> >
> > The sawstop patent holders did indeed try to license their patent, but
> > the outrageous price they wanted got them nowhere. So they designed
> > and are selling their own saw. That should have been the end of the story,
> > but their greed is overpowering. So they continued to try to legislate
> > their way to monopoly and fame& fortune. That is not the American way.
> >
> > I don't suppose you had a problem with Enron either did you?
> > Art
> >
> >
I don't understand.
Gass offered it to companies, they didn't want it.
He creates his own... typical American ingenuity and open market.
Now you want him to give it away for free?
He tried selling the license to these companies and they balked.
I applaud his effort. Very American....
You must prefer the socialist or communist countries KRW...
Either that or your brains are scrambled.... That kickback hit you in
the head?
On 9/29/2011 5:52 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:40:49 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
>>>>> crap company.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage
>>>> to leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
>>>> discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be
>>>> doing something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money.
>>>> God bless them for going for it in what ever way they can do it.
>>>> Don't understand why anyone would call them a crap company.
>>>
>>> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
>>
>> I guess it's all in what one considers unethical.
>
> Inventing a widget, getting the government to require said widget, and
> refusing to sell said widget freely, is unethical to most normal minds. Yes,
> Gass makes the Snidely Whiplash list. Nope, not going to happen.
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:40:49 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice
>>>>>> hardware, crap company.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their
>>>>> advantage to leverage everything they can to command market
>>>>> share.
>>>>> Most of the discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw
>>>>> Stop should be doing something more "nobel". Hell - they're
>>>>> about
>>>>> making money. God bless them for going for it in what ever way
>>>>> they can do it. Don't understand why anyone would call them a
>>>>> crap
>>>>> company.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
>>>
>>> I guess it's all in what one considers unethical.
>>
>> Inventing a widget, getting the government to require said widget,
>> and refusing to sell said widget freely, is unethical to most normal
>> minds. Yes, Gass makes the Snidely Whiplash list. Nope, not going
>> to happen.
>
> Well - they did try to sell it long before they went the route of the
> government approach.
gvnmt has no business in my choice of tools, period.
Ridiculous and moronic logic.
Why wasn't he born a hundred years earlier? He is responsible for thousands
and thousands of table saw accidents, especially children, by being born too
late. He should be in jail. (sarc)
----------------
"Mike Paulsen" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Well, to quote Mr. Gass himself:
Steve says his motivation to get the SawStop out on the U.S. market is
because "I don't want to go to a trade show five years from now and have
some kid come up to me with his mangled hand and ask 'Why didn't you try
harder?"'
That was in Woodworker's Journal, Vol 27, #6, December 2003.
His product is on the market, and anyone who _wants_ to buy it and can
_afford_ to buy it can buy it. If he wants to see it more widely
adopted, he can license it at whatever price it takes to get the amount
of market penetration which will allow him to sleep at night. It's been
8 years and he's still alive, so I can only assume that he's sleeping at
night. He's obviously not overly concerned about the children at this point.
On 9/29/2011 4:30 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:28:25 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/29/2011 11:58 AM, Bill wrote:
>>
>>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use a
>>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>>
>> I'm among those in the "table saw" accident statistics.
>>
>> Mine wasn't plugged in, nor did it have a blade mounted, but the ER
>> classed it, for insurance purposes, as a "table saw injury".
>
> Does a splinter off the cut wood count?
Only if you are dumb enough to go to the ER for that splinter to be
removed. ;~)
On 9/29/2011 1:44 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>>>
>>
>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this particular one.
>
> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware, crap
> company.
I'd have to call that a classi case of cutting off your nose to spite
your face.
In my situation, "I" come first regardless of who makes it. I'm not
going to get hung up on a detail if I will be protected.
On 9/29/2011 9:05 PM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "tiredofspam" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Funny how artists have copyrights for 50 years or more... and patent
> holders for drugs ... very short time.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A copyright expires 70 years after the holders death. A bit excessive, I
> think.
The "public domain" has been robbed by corporate greed, compliments of
bought and paid for congressman.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/ewoodshop
CW wrote:
> "tiredofspam" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Funny how artists have copyrights for 50 years or more... and patent
> holders for drugs ... very short time.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A copyright expires 70 years after the holders death. A bit
> excessive, I think.
Think "Micky Mouse" and Walt Disney for this.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike
>>> Paulsen<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements
>>>> to address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>>>
>>>> September 14, 2011
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>>>
>>> "A. Background
>>> On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer,
>>> et al. (petitioners) requested that we require performance
>>> standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact
>>> with the blade of a table saw."
>>>
>>> I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has
>>> contributed to Obama's re-election campaign.
>>>
>>
>>I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
>>many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
>>are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really
>>needs government control?
>
> FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of
> government's damned business.
They require ground fault interruptors, really good grounding and a host
of other safety-related things. Why not this? I agree, it looks like it
should be personal option, but I'd like to get a discount on my medical
insurance for having a sawstop ... (Which I don't have (yet))
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:00:52 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:30:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>>>> down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget
>>>> about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions,
>>>> GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a
>>>> government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;)
>>>
>>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>>
>> I wonder how many prospective woodworkers will abandon the hobby when
>> they find their first tablesaw is going to cost them $1500-$3000?
>
>If they can get passed the cost of "proper" DC, they can probably deal
>with that. Steer they away from the woodturning accessories.
I'm surprised they haven't banned ungrounded DC hose yet, either.
<snort>
--
Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:53:15 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 9/29/2011 6:42 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:30:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>>>> down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget
>>>> about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions,
>>>> GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a
>>>> government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;)
>>>
>>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>>
>> I wonder how many prospective woodworkers will abandon the hobby when
>> they find their first tablesaw is going to cost them $1500-$3000?
>>
>
>Zero, zip, nada. No no one will abandon the hobby. How many people
>quit buying houses when grounded wiring was required. How many people
>quit buying cars when air bags were required. If you have to abandon a
>hobby because a piece of equipment doubles in price your financial
>prioritizes should be reconsidered.
I certainly wouldn't have bought a $3500 table saw. ...at least for a long
time. There were alternatives, though. In the doomsday scenario there would
be none.
On Sep 29, 9:14=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:57:40 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> w=
rote:
> >On Sep 29, 7:30 pm, "[email protected]"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]=
> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 29, 5:29 pm, "[email protected]"
> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>
> >> >> >>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
> >> >> >>> particular one.
>
> >> >> >> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardwar=
e,
> >> >> >> crap company.
>
> >> >> >I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage=
to
> >> >> >leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
> >> >> >discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be=
doing
> >> >> >something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God ble=
ss them
> >> >> >for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't understand=
why
> >> >> >anyone would call them a crap company.
>
> >> >It comes from confusion about what a company is supposed to do. A CEO
> >> >that is a pitbull is the same as a lawyer that's a pitbull - you're
> >> >better off with them on your side.
>
> >> >When the big tool manufacturer's were approached with the SawStop,
> >> >they basically told the guy to take a leap because they didn't want t=
o
> >> >pay up front. He didn't take no for an answer and now they'll just
> >> >pay another way.
>
> >> >This is business, the American way as much as Superman is, and I'm
> >> >surprised that someone that believes in free trade would want someone
> >> >to give away their patent and not profit from their invention. If you
> >> >want a saint, start digging up some bones.
>
> >> >> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
>
> >> >Because someone doesn't share your ethics, doesn't make them
> >> >unethical. SawStop is in business to make money. The owner/inventor
> >> >knows his product will save digits. If he knew that the saw wasn't
> >> >any safer, that would be unethical. If he knew it wasn't any safer
> >> >and profited from it, that would be fraud.
>
> >> Wrong. Ethics (a set of moral principles) are personal. SawStop is
> >> unethical, period.
>
> >Is a gun unethical? =A0That's a...wait for it...loaded question.
>
> A gun isn't, no. =A0An inanimate object obviously can't be assigned ethic=
s.
> Owning a gun is considered to be unethical by many.
>
> >> >All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
> >> >down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And
> >> >forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
> >> >dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
> >> >requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
> >> >liberties! ;)
>
> >> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>
> >Where does it say there's going to be a monopoly?
>
> Have you heard of "patents"?
Yes, they used to make shoes out of that leather.
Do you believe that the SawStop is the only possible solution to
improving tablesaw safety? I think you're undervaluing people's
ingenuity when money is on the line.
> >OSHA, Workman's Comp, UFPL, NFPA, DOT, FAA, have all mandated what you
> >and I can and can't do.
>
> No, they certainly haven't. =A0They haven't mandated that I buy any produ=
ct nor
> banned all competing products.
And at this point they certainly haven't mandated the SawStop or
banned any competing products. There is no _law_ yet. You are
getting a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions about how the actual
law will read.
> >I don't see the point in getting worked up about something that is a
> >well-engineered and proven safety device. =A0I'll save my righteous
> >indignation for the crap stuff that is dangerous.
>
> You don't get worked up about legalized monopolies? =A0
I don't know - point one out.
> >There will be no shortage of used machines on the market to satisfy
> >your woodworking needs for many years to come - old iron doesn't die.
>
> So, there is no need to make *any* more table saws?
Strawman argument.
I would not have a problem buying a SawStop, or old iron if the price
was right. You would have no problem buying old iron. That's three
saws bought by two people - that's a 50% increase in sales!
R
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:53:15 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>>On 9/29/2011 6:42 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:30:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been
>>>>> legislated down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers,
>>>>> airbags. And forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors,
>>>>> standardized stair dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole
>>>>> electrical panel requirement is a government-let plot to separate
>>>>> people from their liberties! ;)
>>>>
>>>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>>>
>>> I wonder how many prospective woodworkers will abandon the hobby
>>> when they find their first tablesaw is going to cost them
>>> $1500-$3000?
>>>
>>
>>Zero, zip, nada. No no one will abandon the hobby. How many people
>>quit buying houses when grounded wiring was required. How many people
>>quit buying cars when air bags were required. If you have to abandon
>>a hobby because a piece of equipment doubles in price your financial
>>prioritizes should be reconsidered.
>
> I certainly wouldn't have bought a $3500 table saw. ...at least for a
> long time. There were alternatives, though. In the doomsday scenario
> there would be none.
The language in any bill can't specify the brand of saw, nor the exact
mechanism by which injuries are to be prevented. Seems to me that the
whirlwind is an inferior, but viable alternative
<http://www.whirlwindtool.com/>. So is a well-designed circular saw and
support system (regular circular saw, Festool system, or other
plungesaw). It's all what you want to or can spend.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:57:40 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 7:30 pm, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Sep 29, 5:29 pm, "[email protected]"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>>
>> >> >>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
>> >> >>> particular one.
>>
>> >> >> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
>> >> >> crap company.
>>
>> >> >I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage to
>> >> >leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
>> >> >discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be doing
>> >> >something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God bless them
>> >> >for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't understand why
>> >> >anyone would call them a crap company.
>>
>> >It comes from confusion about what a company is supposed to do. A CEO
>> >that is a pitbull is the same as a lawyer that's a pitbull - you're
>> >better off with them on your side.
>>
>> >When the big tool manufacturer's were approached with the SawStop,
>> >they basically told the guy to take a leap because they didn't want to
>> >pay up front. He didn't take no for an answer and now they'll just
>> >pay another way.
>>
>> >This is business, the American way as much as Superman is, and I'm
>> >surprised that someone that believes in free trade would want someone
>> >to give away their patent and not profit from their invention. If you
>> >want a saint, start digging up some bones.
>>
>> >> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
>>
>> >Because someone doesn't share your ethics, doesn't make them
>> >unethical. SawStop is in business to make money. The owner/inventor
>> >knows his product will save digits. If he knew that the saw wasn't
>> >any safer, that would be unethical. If he knew it wasn't any safer
>> >and profited from it, that would be fraud.
>>
>> Wrong. Ethics (a set of moral principles) are personal. SawStop is
>> unethical, period.
>
>Is a gun unethical? That's a...wait for it...loaded question.
A gun isn't, no. An inanimate object obviously can't be assigned ethics.
Owning a gun is considered to be unethical by many.
>> >All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>> >down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And
>> >forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
>> >dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
>> >requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
>> >liberties! ;)
>>
>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>
>Where does it say there's going to be a monopoly?
Have you heard of "patents"?
>OSHA, Workman's Comp, UFPL, NFPA, DOT, FAA, have all mandated what you
>and I can and can't do.
No, they certainly haven't. They haven't mandated that I buy any product nor
banned all competing products.
>I don't see the point in getting worked up about something that is a
>well-engineered and proven safety device. I'll save my righteous
>indignation for the crap stuff that is dangerous.
You don't get worked up about legalized monopolies?
>There will be no shortage of used machines on the market to satisfy
>your woodworking needs for many years to come - old iron doesn't die.
So, there is no need to make *any* more table saws?
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:01:50 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 7:42 pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:30:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>> >>All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>> >>down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget
>> >>about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions,
>> >>GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a
>> >>government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;)
>>
>> > There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>>
>> I wonder how many prospective woodworkers will abandon the hobby when
>> they find their first tablesaw is going to cost them $1500-$3000?
>
>Wouldn't the price come down once all tool manufacturer's were
>manufacturing either licensed SawStop or competing technology? And
>there's always used.
No. Why would SawStop cut others any slack?
>The real issue is what is going to happen to other spinning-blade
>tools. Once that 10" CMS touches flesh, and the device is triggered,
>where's that blade going to go hide?
Too dangerous. Ban 'em!
>Soon enough all the Norm-ites will be coming over to the Neander-
>side! ;)
Not going to happen.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:53:15 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 9/29/2011 6:42 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:30:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>>>> down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget
>>>> about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions,
>>>> GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a
>>>> government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;)
>>>
>>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>>
>> I wonder how many prospective woodworkers will abandon the hobby when
>> they find their first tablesaw is going to cost them $1500-$3000?
>>
>
>Zero, zip, nada. No no one will abandon the hobby.
Please provide a link to the future statistics which support that wild
and crazyass statement, sir. ;)
>How many people
>quit buying houses when grounded wiring was required. How many people
>quit buying cars when air bags were required.
If old tools aren't grandfathered in, there will be plenty of used
tools to go around. That would likely happen for years before they ban
the use of regular saws. <sigh>
>If you have to abandon a
>hobby because a piece of equipment doubles in price your financial
>prioritizes should be reconsidered.
Huh? Not everyone sells their hobby output, Leon.
--
Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
Mike Paulsen <[email protected]> wrote in news:YjSgq.181$8c4.60
@newsfe18.iad:
> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>
> September 14, 2011
>
> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
Right now (Saturday Oct 1, ~8AM EDT):
Committee meeting Oct 5:
http://www.cpsc.gov/calendar.html, top portion:
Commission Meeting
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m.
Hearing Room 420
Open to the Public
Matter to be Considered
Decisional Matter: Table Saws Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 9/28/2011 11:17 PM, Mike Paulsen wrote:
> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>
> September 14, 2011
>
> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
A rebuttal to Mr Gass by the PTI issued today 10/18 ... if you're going
to argue either way, you still need to read it:
http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/industry/pti-sawstop-table-saw-safety
Interesting section, copied here:
Stephen Gass, a patent attorney, has filed more than 120 U.S. patent
applications, and has over 70 issued U.S. patents which pertain to the
SawStop technology.
<quote>
Stephen Gass told the U.S. government that it should assume that no
manufacturer will be able to introduce injury mitigation technology that
does not infringe on his patents.
After the PTI-JV technology became known, SawStop amended one of their
then-pending patent applications to purportedly cover any table saw that
retracts the blade rapidly within 14 milliseconds using any retraction
technique after detecting contact. This patent application which was
subsequently allowed by the U.S. Patent Office, is arguably not limited
to SawStop's blade brake technology for retracting the blade, but rather
is designed to cover any retraction technique, hindering the development
of alternative blade retraction technologies and blocking competing
inventors from using their own inventions.
</quote>
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
tiredofspam wrote:
> Wow, what a misinformed person.
> So the drug companies haven't lobbied for mandatory drugs.
> Hmmmm. Pampaloma virus....
> How many injections are your kids required to get.
> Most all of that was mandated, not by involuntary... but by pushes by
> the drug lobbies.
No drug company ever lobbied for mandatory vaccinations for measles,
whooping cough, polio, diphtheria, and a few other diseases. There are many
companies that provide these vaccines - the competition exists.
>
> But very misguided. Our system is not as free and open as you think.
> But for the most part, it is better than most other restrictive
> systems. But it is getting to the point where they are stiffling
> competition with govt regs. Some states prevent competition by the
> laws they have.
Yep.
>
> So grow up. Get real.
> Gass didn't do anything that most other companies wouldn't try to do
> if they could.
Any company CAN lobby. Whether it's worth their effort is another question.
In the case of government backed loans for green energy, for example, the
best way to lobby is to be a political donor.
<[email protected]> wrote
> The federal government does no such thing! If you find an insurance
> carrier
> that gives a discount for a SawStop, or for that matter a flat roof, who
> cares?! Your choice and theirs.
>
> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
> didn't
>
Our workman's comp carrier is strongly recommending them. I don't know if
they discount rates though, since we have no saws at work.
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> I'd like to see legislation to the effect that the first time a
> patentholder's representative asks a congressman to support
> legislation that mandates the use of the patented product, the patent
> is instantly and permanently invalidated and the patentholder is
> required to refund all royalties ever paid by anybody for use of that
> patent.
>
> If it's really a better solution the market will pick it up. If not
> then to Hell with it.
Your two statements above are so assinine that it's painful to read them.
Read them backwards - if it's really a better solution the market will pick
it up - well hell - you've already denied him any benefit from that with
your first statement. Again - you'd be singing a different tune if you held
that patent.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
>
> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>
I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this particular one.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 30 Sep 2011 00:43:53 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:53:15 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/29/2011 6:42 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:30:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been
>>>>>> legislated down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers,
>>>>>> airbags. And forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors,
>>>>>> standardized stair dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole
>>>>>> electrical panel requirement is a government-let plot to separate
>>>>>> people from their liberties! ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how many prospective woodworkers will abandon the hobby
>>>> when they find their first tablesaw is going to cost them
>>>> $1500-$3000?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Zero, zip, nada. No no one will abandon the hobby. How many people
>>>quit buying houses when grounded wiring was required. How many people
>>>quit buying cars when air bags were required. If you have to abandon
>>>a hobby because a piece of equipment doubles in price your financial
>>>prioritizes should be reconsidered.
>>
>> I certainly wouldn't have bought a $3500 table saw. ...at least for a
>> long time. There were alternatives, though. In the doomsday scenario
>> there would be none.
>
>The language in any bill can't specify the brand of saw, nor the exact
>mechanism by which injuries are to be prevented. Seems to me that the
>whirlwind is an inferior, but viable alternative
><http://www.whirlwindtool.com/>.
Wow! Do you have faith in government, or what?! If they're going to
regulate...
>So is a well-designed circular saw and
>support system (regular circular saw, Festool system, or other
>plungesaw). It's all what you want to or can spend.
...and they're not going to force a SawStop mechanism on circular saws? It's
for the children!
On Sep 30, 7:43=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:45:13 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> w=
rote:
> >On Sep 29, 9:14 pm, "[email protected]"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:57:40 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]=
> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 29, 7:30 pm, "[email protected]"
> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <ricodj...@aol.=
com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Sep 29, 5:29 pm, "[email protected]"
> >> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>
> >> >> >> >>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
> >> >> >> >>> particular one.
>
> >> >> >> >> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hard=
ware,
> >> >> >> >> crap company.
>
> >> >> >> >I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advant=
age to
> >> >> >> >leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of t=
he
> >> >> >> >discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should=
be doing
> >> >> >> >something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God =
bless them
> >> >> >> >for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't underst=
and why
> >> >> >> >anyone would call them a crap company.
>
> >> >> >It comes from confusion about what a company is supposed to do. A =
CEO
> >> >> >that is a pitbull is the same as a lawyer that's a pitbull - you'r=
e
> >> >> >better off with them on your side.
>
> >> >> >When the big tool manufacturer's were approached with the SawStop,
> >> >> >they basically told the guy to take a leap because they didn't wan=
t to
> >> >> >pay up front. He didn't take no for an answer and now they'll just
> >> >> >pay another way.
>
> >> >> >This is business, the American way as much as Superman is, and I'm
> >> >> >surprised that someone that believes in free trade would want some=
one
> >> >> >to give away their patent and not profit from their invention. If =
you
> >> >> >want a saint, start digging up some bones.
>
> >> >> >> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
>
> >> >> >Because someone doesn't share your ethics, doesn't make them
> >> >> >unethical. SawStop is in business to make money. The owner/invento=
r
> >> >> >knows his product will save digits. If he knew that the saw wasn't
> >> >> >any safer, that would be unethical. If he knew it wasn't any safer
> >> >> >and profited from it, that would be fraud.
>
> >> >> Wrong. Ethics (a set of moral principles) are personal. SawStop is
> >> >> unethical, period.
>
> >> >Is a gun unethical? That's a...wait for it...loaded question.
>
> >> A gun isn't, no. An inanimate object obviously can't be assigned ethic=
s.
> >> Owning a gun is considered to be unethical by many.
>
> >> >> >All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislat=
ed
> >> >> >down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And
> >> >> >forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
> >> >> >dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
> >> >> >requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
> >> >> >liberties! ;)
>
> >> >> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>
> >> >Where does it say there's going to be a monopoly?
>
> >> Have you heard of "patents"?
>
> >Yes, they used to make shoes out of that leather.
>
> >Do you believe that the SawStop is the only possible solution to
> >improving tablesaw safety?
>
> Having read the patent, absolutely! =A0At least the guy knows how to writ=
e a
> patent.
And run a business.
> >I think you're undervaluing people's ingenuity when money is on the line=
.
>
> I don't begrudge him a patent or *anything* he can sell it for, as long a=
s he
> doesn't use the government to put his competition out of business. =A0If =
his
> invention is good enough to do it on its own feet, so be it. =A0That's th=
e
> difference between you and I; you *like* crony capitalism.
No, that's your imagination, but there are differences. I got over
the thrill of pissing into the wind years ago.
> >> >OSHA, Workman's Comp, UFPL, NFPA, DOT, FAA, have all mandated what yo=
u
> >> >and I can and can't do.
>
> >> No, they certainly haven't. They haven't mandated that I buy any produ=
ct nor
> >> banned all competing products.
>
> >And at this point they certainly haven't mandated the SawStop or
> >banned any competing products. =A0There is no _law_ yet. =A0You are
> >getting a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions about how the actual
> >law will read.
>
> You don't read well, do you.
The link posted earlier is the most recent on the subject, so you must
be referring to this:
"Recommended Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Performance
Requirements to Address Table Saw Blade Contact Injuries"
Notice the "Performance Requirements" phrase? At no point will there
be a law requiring a specific manufacturer's product. There will be
performance requirements that any particular manufacturer's products
will either live up to or not. There are already SawStop
alternatives. There's one old codger who has an optical sensor system
instead of using capacitance.
If a particular manufacturer can't come up with a viable alternative
that fulfills the performance requirements and doesn't violate
SawStop's patent, then they have to make a choice between licensing
the rights to a system that does, or stop offering that product. Oh,
there's a third choice - they could attack the patent as being written
in an overly broad way.
In the real world this is called "business".
> >> >I don't see the point in getting worked up about something that is a
> >> >well-engineered and proven safety device. I'll save my righteous
> >> >indignation for the crap stuff that is dangerous.
>
> >> You don't get worked up about legalized monopolies?
>
> >I don't know - point one out.
>
> Try reading.
>
> >> >There will be no shortage of used machines on the market to satisfy
> >> >your woodworking needs for many years to come - old iron doesn't die.
>
> >> So, there is no need to make *any* more table saws?
>
> >Strawman argument.
>
> Think! =A0There are a finite number of table saws now, yet they're consta=
ntly
> purchased. =A0There must be a need for more, so your "no shortage" is jus=
t so
> much bullshit.
Not everyone thinks as you do. Not everyone has such rigid "ethics"
that they'd have a problem buying a better product because of a
perceived (and at this point totally imaginary) injustice.
R
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:45:13 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 9:14 pm, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:57:40 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Sep 29, 7:30 pm, "[email protected]"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >On Sep 29, 5:29 pm, "[email protected]"
>> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>>
>> >> >> >>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
>> >> >> >>> particular one.
>>
>> >> >> >> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
>> >> >> >> crap company.
>>
>> >> >> >I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage to
>> >> >> >leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
>> >> >> >discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be doing
>> >> >> >something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God bless them
>> >> >> >for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't understand why
>> >> >> >anyone would call them a crap company.
>>
>> >> >It comes from confusion about what a company is supposed to do. A CEO
>> >> >that is a pitbull is the same as a lawyer that's a pitbull - you're
>> >> >better off with them on your side.
>>
>> >> >When the big tool manufacturer's were approached with the SawStop,
>> >> >they basically told the guy to take a leap because they didn't want to
>> >> >pay up front. He didn't take no for an answer and now they'll just
>> >> >pay another way.
>>
>> >> >This is business, the American way as much as Superman is, and I'm
>> >> >surprised that someone that believes in free trade would want someone
>> >> >to give away their patent and not profit from their invention. If you
>> >> >want a saint, start digging up some bones.
>>
>> >> >> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
>>
>> >> >Because someone doesn't share your ethics, doesn't make them
>> >> >unethical. SawStop is in business to make money. The owner/inventor
>> >> >knows his product will save digits. If he knew that the saw wasn't
>> >> >any safer, that would be unethical. If he knew it wasn't any safer
>> >> >and profited from it, that would be fraud.
>>
>> >> Wrong. Ethics (a set of moral principles) are personal. SawStop is
>> >> unethical, period.
>>
>> >Is a gun unethical? That's a...wait for it...loaded question.
>>
>> A gun isn't, no. An inanimate object obviously can't be assigned ethics.
>> Owning a gun is considered to be unethical by many.
>>
>> >> >All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>> >> >down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And
>> >> >forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
>> >> >dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
>> >> >requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
>> >> >liberties! ;)
>>
>> >> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>>
>> >Where does it say there's going to be a monopoly?
>>
>> Have you heard of "patents"?
>
>Yes, they used to make shoes out of that leather.
>
>Do you believe that the SawStop is the only possible solution to
>improving tablesaw safety?
Having read the patent, absolutely! At least the guy knows how to write a
patent.
>I think you're undervaluing people's ingenuity when money is on the line.
I don't begrudge him a patent or *anything* he can sell it for, as long as he
doesn't use the government to put his competition out of business. If his
invention is good enough to do it on its own feet, so be it. That's the
difference between you and I; you *like* crony capitalism.
>> >OSHA, Workman's Comp, UFPL, NFPA, DOT, FAA, have all mandated what you
>> >and I can and can't do.
>>
>> No, they certainly haven't. They haven't mandated that I buy any product nor
>> banned all competing products.
>
>And at this point they certainly haven't mandated the SawStop or
>banned any competing products. There is no _law_ yet. You are
>getting a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions about how the actual
>law will read.
You don't read well, do you.
>> >I don't see the point in getting worked up about something that is a
>> >well-engineered and proven safety device. I'll save my righteous
>> >indignation for the crap stuff that is dangerous.
>>
>> You don't get worked up about legalized monopolies?
>
>I don't know - point one out.
Try reading.
>> >There will be no shortage of used machines on the market to satisfy
>> >your woodworking needs for many years to come - old iron doesn't die.
>>
>> So, there is no need to make *any* more table saws?
>
>Strawman argument.
Think! There are a finite number of table saws now, yet they're constantly
purchased. There must be a need for more, so your "no shortage" is just so
much bullshit.
>I would not have a problem buying a SawStop, or old iron if the price
>was right. You would have no problem buying old iron. That's three
>saws bought by two people - that's a 50% increase in sales!
Read the damned thread!
Wow, what a misinformed person.
So the drug companies haven't lobbied for mandatory drugs.
Hmmmm. Pampaloma virus....
How many injections are your kids required to get.
Most all of that was mandated, not by involuntary... but by pushes by
the drug lobbies.
You are very nieve to think this isn't a normal requirement.
The auto companies have been forced to add stuff that someone came up with.
Usually they wind up developing their own version so they don't have to pay.
But very misguided. Our system is not as free and open as you think.
But for the most part, it is better than most other restrictive systems.
But it is getting to the point where they are stiffling competition with
govt regs. Some states prevent competition by the laws they have.
In a couple of states you can't open a business unless you prove there
is a need for it. Since you can't open it, it makes it difficult to show
the need. The feds have a law that prevents that law, but it still
exists anyway in some states.
I was reading about a state that allowed an association to require that
the association must decide whether someone can open a business in that
state (same type as the association). Basically no new business is
allowed to protect the existing association members.
So grow up. Get real.
Gass didn't do anything that most other companies wouldn't try to do if
they could.
On 9/29/2011 9:59 PM, Artemus wrote:
> "tiredofspam"<nospam.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> So the drug companies should give up their patents, because it's for the
>> greater good, and the only medication that can solve the problem.
>> And the price is high because it took years to develop and years to go
>> through clinical.... HMMMMMM...
>>
>> Funny how artists have copyrights for 50 years or more... and patent
>> holders for drugs ... very short time.
>>
>> Patent holders for Saw Stop... well according to you .... they should be
>> made to give it away...
>>
>> Look, I can't stand these idiot CEO's who make a fortune for destroying
>> companies, but this is a guy who made his company, and now employs many
>> people...
>>
>> It's his patent, he did everything to offer the technology to companies
>> for a price (NOT FREE)... Why shouldn't he have made money doing it.
>>
>> Every tool you buy the manufacturer is there not to give it away, but to
>> make money... hand over fist.... Sometimes ripping you off...
>>
>> This is not a rip off... And you should be supporting this American
>> Entrepreneur. He is making a better product at a more reasonable price
>> than the competition.
>>
>> Stop your bellyaching.
>>
>>
> You really don't get it do you? The drug companies and artists aren't
> trying to get legislation passed to give them a monopoly. They are using
> patent and copyright protection as it is intended.
>
> The sawstop patent holders did indeed try to license their patent, but
> the outrageous price they wanted got them nowhere. So they designed
> and are selling their own saw. That should have been the end of the story,
> but their greed is overpowering. So they continued to try to legislate
> their way to monopoly and fame& fortune. That is not the American way.
>
> I don't suppose you had a problem with Enron either did you?
> Art
>
>
Artemus wrote:
> At the very least any new law mandating "xyz" should include
> mandatory provisions which invalidate all patents, copyrights, etc
> relating to "xyz". This would be for the greater good and in
> the public interest.
Why in the world would you suggest such a thing as that? I could see it if
you had suggested that the wording of any legislation should be loose enough
to specify alternatives, and not be so specific as to mandate one particular
solution, but to suggest invalidating patents, copyrights, etc. does not
even make sense. I heartily disagree that it would be in the greater good
of the public interest, and even further argue that the public interest is
not sufficient cause for that type of behavior.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:14:53 +0200, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote
>> The federal government does no such thing! If you find an insurance
>> carrier
>> that gives a discount for a SawStop, or for that matter a flat roof, who
>> cares?! Your choice and theirs.
>>
>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>> didn't
>>
>
>Our workman's comp carrier is strongly recommending them. I don't know if
>they discount rates though, since we have no saws at work.
Great. Have at it. I much prefer my Unisaur, at less than half the price.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:18:56 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How about that bicycle in your garage? Skis? Is your garage messy?
>>> Is your lawn as smooth as a putting green? <good grief>
>>
>> Depends on where you play. Where my league plays - yes my lawn is
>> as smooth as their greens. Of course...
>
> Perhaps you should pay more for your insurance because you golf in a
> dangerous cow pasture.
Unfortunately - not too far from the truth...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>>>
>>
>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
>> particular one.
>
> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
> crap company.
I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage to
leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be doing
something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God bless them
for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't understand why
anyone would call them a crap company.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:40:49 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
>>>> crap company.
>>>
>>> I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage
>>> to leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
>>> discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be
>>> doing something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money.
>>> God bless them for going for it in what ever way they can do it.
>>> Don't understand why anyone would call them a crap company.
>>
>> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
>
>I guess it's all in what one considers unethical.
Inventing a widget, getting the government to require said widget, and
refusing to sell said widget freely, is unethical to most normal minds. Yes,
Gass makes the Snidely Whiplash list. Nope, not going to happen.
J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, tiredofspam
> says...
>>
>> So the drug companies should give up their patents, because it's for
>> the greater good, and the only medication that can solve the problem.
>> And the price is high because it took years to develop and years to
>> go through clinical.... HMMMMMM...
>
> Yep. If the government as a result of lobbying by the patentholder
> says that every drug made MUST incorporate one of those patents then
> the patentholder should not be allowed to profit from the mandate.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I for one do not agree. I bet you
would be singing a different tune if you were the patent holder.
>
>> Look, I can't stand these idiot CEO's who make a fortune for
>> destroying companies, but this is a guy who made his company, and
>> now employs many people...
>
> And now he wants to get a share of everybody else's company handed to
> him by the government.
Stop it.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:11:34 -0500, "ChairMan" <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't
>>>> use a TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>>>
>>> I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's
>>> not
>>> plugged in, is it still a table saw?
>>
>>depends on what your definition of is is<g>
>
> Wait a minute! The Bill is on the wrong duck, here.
that's what Monica said<g>
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:40:09 -0500, Mike Paulsen <[email protected]>
wrote:
>tiredofspam wrote:
>(snip)
>> Patent holders for Saw Stop... well according to you .... they should be
>> made to give it away...
>>
>> Look, I can't stand these idiot CEO's who make a fortune for destroying
>> companies, but this is a guy who made his company, and now employs many
>> people...
>>
>> It's his patent, he did everything to offer the technology to companies
>> for a price (NOT FREE)... Why shouldn't he have made money doing it.
>
>Well, to quote Mr. Gass himself:
>
>Steve says his motivation to get the SawStop out on the U.S. market is
>because "I don't want to go to a trade show five years from now and have
>some kid come up to me with his mangled hand and ask 'Why didn't you try
>harder?"'
And if you believe that...
Read the history of the guy from a non-Gass site. Eye-opening.
>That was in Woodworker's Journal, Vol 27, #6, December 2003.
>
>His product is on the market, and anyone who _wants_ to buy it and can
>_afford_ to buy it can buy it. If he wants to see it more widely
>adopted, he can license it at whatever price it takes to get the amount
>of market penetration which will allow him to sleep at night. It's been
>8 years and he's still alive, so I can only assume that he's sleeping at
>night. He's obviously not overly concerned about the children at this point.
Do you really think he ever was?
--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:50:30 -0400, k-nuttle <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 9/29/2011 9:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>>> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>>
>>> September 14, 2011
>>>
>>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>>
>> "A. Background
>> On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
>> (petitioners) requested that we require performance standards for a system
>> to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."
>>
>> I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
>> Obama's re-election campaign.
>>
>
>Probably as much as all of the other "inventors" who have coerced the
>government into making their devices safety requirements.
For instance?
>I am waiting for the government to required the little plastic "save a
>deers life alerts" to be required on all cars because of the number of
>deer accidents.
>
>If you invent something the best way to make it pay is to say it is a
>safety device and pay off government workers in a regulatory agency to
>get it to be made a required safety device on something.
Swingman wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 11:58 AM, Bill wrote:
>
>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't
>> use a TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>
> I'm among those in the "table saw" accident statistics.
>
> Mine wasn't plugged in, nor did it have a blade mounted, but the ER
> classed it, for insurance purposes, as a "table saw injury".
What happened?
Did you drop it on your foot? Run into it while playing roller-skate hockey
in the garage?
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:54:20 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 9/29/2011 5:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:25:26 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/29/2011 4:30 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:28:25 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/29/2011 11:58 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use a
>>>>>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm among those in the "table saw" accident statistics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mine wasn't plugged in, nor did it have a blade mounted, but the ER
>>>>> classed it, for insurance purposes, as a "table saw injury".
>>>>
>>>> Does a splinter off the cut wood count?
>>>
>>> Only if you are dumb enough to go to the ER for that splinter to be
>>> removed. ;~)
>>
>> OTOH, if the splinter was that bad.... ;-)
>>
>> I thought of that after I pressed<SEND>.
>
>LOL got caught up in the heat of the moment did you? Been there done
>that. ;~)
I hate it when I hit the foot.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>>
>
>I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this particular one.
The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware, crap
company.
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 07:00:48 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> You raise a good point, but patents can be litigated out of
>>> existence. The ten or so saw manufacturers have, combined, access to
>>> more patent attorneys than the owner of SawStop has friends on
>>> Facebook.
>>
>> Can be, if you have MILLION$ to gamble. This one is particularly
>> air-tight. No one with a brain would challenge it.
>
>Heh! Ever heard the expression "Time is money"? Back in the day, Control
>Data and the anti-trust division of the Justice Department, sued IBM. IBM
>had more lawyers on the case than the DOJ had lawyers in the entire
>anti-trust division! IBM dragged the case out for a little over TEN years.
>Throwing money at the suit was just another cost of doing business. In other
>words, IBM was making more money than the suit was costing them.
Any more straw you want to stuff in that shirt?
>A similar tactic has been recently employed by Microsoft.
>
>Now it may be that Ryoibi, DeWalt, et all do not have the $35 billion in
>CASH that Microsoft has, but they damned sure have more moola than SawStop.
>The table-saw cartel, really, can litigate SawStop to death if they choose
>that tactic. For example, by claiming patent infringement on the part of
>SawStop ("We control the patent on all things that go round-and-round...").
Um, "things that go round-and-round" have, demonstrably, been around more than
20 years. If, by some accident of history that there was a patent, it would
have expired sometime last week.
>>> While that's going on, there's money to be made.
>>
>> No, there really isn't.
>>
>>> As soon as SawStop is mandated, one can stock up on entry-level
>>> table saws, at, say, $90 each, while they're still available. A year
>>> or so down the road, when entry-level table saws have disappeared
>>> from the market or sell for $500 each, you can sell those hoarded
>>> saws on Craigslist for whatever the market will bear.
>>>
>>
>> Why would anyone sell them for $90?
>>
>> Do light bulbs, instead.
>
>That's what I paid for my Ryobi about two years ago. As for lightbulbs, I
>figure there are already too many people in the lightbulb hoarding business.
Sucker. I'll *OWN* you!
In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 10/9/2011 10:19 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:28:32 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/8/2011 2:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/8/2011 12:35 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:56:00 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour<[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight
> >>>>> to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing
> >>>>> bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). They're seeing
> >>>>> thousands per year of amputations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and non-discriminatory'
> >>>>> terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per replacement cartridge) the
> >>>>> commission MIGHT institute requirements that only the
> >>>>> Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme
> >>>>> outcome I'd believe. Congress doesn't have much to say at
> >>>>> this point, of course; CPSC is INDEPENDENT of Congress.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you really believe that even in mass production that the prices you
> >>>> suggested would be of a dependable quality?
> >>>
> >>> He's talking about the LICENSE fee, not the mechanism price.
> >>>
> >>>> From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand
> >>>> knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the
> >>>> additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00.
> >>>
> >>> No one is talking about the cost of the hardware.
> >>>
> >>>> If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it
> >>>> is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and
> >>>> prevents you from being badly injured.
> >>>
> >>> It's *NOT* $100. There are all sorts of dangerous things in this world. Can't
> >>> protect everyone from all of them. It's a cost/benefit trade-off.
> >>
> >> Yeah apparently it is maybe half that amount.
> >
> > Wrong. The proposed licensing alone was far more than that.
>
> That was then 8 or so years ago. Bosch has testified that they can use
> similar technology on their bench top for about $55.
"Similar technology"? So is that manufacturing cost of something they
believe circumvents the patents or is that including the licensing fee?
On 10/9/2011 10:19 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:28:32 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2011 2:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/8/2011 12:35 PM, whit3rd wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:56:00 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters.
>>>>>
>>>>> The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight
>>>>> to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing
>>>>> bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). They're seeing
>>>>> thousands per year of amputations.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and non-discriminatory'
>>>>> terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per replacement cartridge) the
>>>>> commission MIGHT institute requirements that only the
>>>>> Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme
>>>>> outcome I'd believe. Congress doesn't have much to say at
>>>>> this point, of course; CPSC is INDEPENDENT of Congress.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you really believe that even in mass production that the prices you
>>>> suggested would be of a dependable quality?
>>>
>>> He's talking about the LICENSE fee, not the mechanism price.
>>>
>>>> From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand
>>>> knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the
>>>> additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00.
>>>
>>> No one is talking about the cost of the hardware.
>>>
>>>> If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it
>>>> is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and
>>>> prevents you from being badly injured.
>>>
>>> It's *NOT* $100. There are all sorts of dangerous things in this world. Can't
>>> protect everyone from all of them. It's a cost/benefit trade-off.
>>
>> Yeah apparently it is maybe half that amount.
>
> Wrong. The proposed licensing alone was far more than that.
That was then 8 or so years ago. Bosch has testified that they can use
similar technology on their bench top for about $55.
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:28:32 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 10/8/2011 2:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:16:05 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/8/2011 12:35 PM, whit3rd wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:56:00 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters.
>>>>
>>>> The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight
>>>> to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing
>>>> bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). They're seeing
>>>> thousands per year of amputations.
>>>>
>>>> If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and non-discriminatory'
>>>> terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per replacement cartridge) the
>>>> commission MIGHT institute requirements that only the
>>>> Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme
>>>> outcome I'd believe. Congress doesn't have much to say at
>>>> this point, of course; CPSC is INDEPENDENT of Congress.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you really believe that even in mass production that the prices you
>>> suggested would be of a dependable quality?
>>
>> He's talking about the LICENSE fee, not the mechanism price.
>>
>>> From what I understand, Sawstop, the people that have first hand
>>> knowledge of what the additional cos would b,e have stated that the
>>> additional manufacturer cost for a bench top saw would be $55.00.
>>
>> No one is talking about the cost of the hardware.
>>
>>> If you have to think about spending that much more for a saw, even if it
>>> is $100, consider the saving you have when it actually functions and
>>> prevents you from being badly injured.
>>
>> It's *NOT* $100. There are all sorts of dangerous things in this world. Can't
>> protect everyone from all of them. It's a cost/benefit trade-off.
>
>Yeah apparently it is maybe half that amount.
Wrong. The proposed licensing alone was far more than that.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> Now it may be that Ryoibi, DeWalt, et all do not have the $35
> >> billion in CASH that Microsoft has, but they damned sure have more
> >> moola than SawStop. The table-saw cartel, really, can litigate
> >> SawStop to death if they choose that tactic. For example, by
> >> claiming patent infringement on the part of SawStop ("We control the
> >> patent on all things that go round-and-round...").
> >
> > Um, "things that go round-and-round" have, demonstrably, been around
> > more than 20 years. If, by some accident of history that there was a
> > patent, it would have expired sometime last week.
> >
>
> So what? That won't stop the filing of lawsuits in every possible
> jurisdiction. Then there are the interrogatories, depositions,
> counter-filings, witnesses, travel, rescheduling, writs and paper filling
> several wheelbarrows, and notary publics without number. That's even BEFORE
> they bring in the patent filings from Patagonia that must be adjudicated
> under the Panama Intellectual Property Act.
>
> Look at the recent health care law: At least a dozen lawsuits have been
> filed in federal courts, so we're not even talking about something that has
> to bubble up through a state court system. The Supreme Court will probably
> hear the combined cases right after the new year with a decision expected in
> the spring of 2012. This contention has been fast-tracked by everybody and
> it's still going to take TWO YEARS to get it settled!
>
> No, a determined law firm can massage the system for a decade at significant
> cost. It then comes down to who has the greater staying power.
See Uri Gellar and James Randi.
[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Now it may be that Ryoibi, DeWalt, et all do not have the $35
>> billion in CASH that Microsoft has, but they damned sure have more
>> moola than SawStop. The table-saw cartel, really, can litigate
>> SawStop to death if they choose that tactic. For example, by
>> claiming patent infringement on the part of SawStop ("We control the
>> patent on all things that go round-and-round...").
>
> Um, "things that go round-and-round" have, demonstrably, been around
> more than 20 years. If, by some accident of history that there was a
> patent, it would have expired sometime last week.
>
So what? That won't stop the filing of lawsuits in every possible
jurisdiction. Then there are the interrogatories, depositions,
counter-filings, witnesses, travel, rescheduling, writs and paper filling
several wheelbarrows, and notary publics without number. That's even BEFORE
they bring in the patent filings from Patagonia that must be adjudicated
under the Panama Intellectual Property Act.
Look at the recent health care law: At least a dozen lawsuits have been
filed in federal courts, so we're not even talking about something that has
to bubble up through a state court system. The Supreme Court will probably
hear the combined cases right after the new year with a decision expected in
the spring of 2012. This contention has been fast-tracked by everybody and
it's still going to take TWO YEARS to get it settled!
No, a determined law firm can massage the system for a decade at significant
cost. It then comes down to who has the greater staying power.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:18:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:07:29 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:35:48 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and
>>>>> non-discriminatory' terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per
>>>>> replacement cartridge) the commission MIGHT institute requirements
>>>>> that only the
>>>>> Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme
>>>>> outcome I'd believe.
>>>>
>>>> That's the reasonable path but it's not going to happen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Reasonable? Because you have a bug up your butt about this guy, you
>>> deem it *reasonable* to constrain a business to sell at a loss?
>>> Your use of the word reasonable is nothing short of unreasonable.
>>
>> If it's going to be mandated by law, you bet! You, OTOH, think the
>> government should give him an unlimited monopoly. THAT is
>> unreasonable.
>
>You, on the other hand are a complete fool by presuming what I believe. Sad
>for you...
That's the position you're arguing. I can't help it if you don't know what
you believe.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:22:35 -0400, tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com>
wrote:
>This is not a rip off... And you should be supporting this American
>Entrepreneur. He is making a better product at a more reasonable price
>than the competition.
Tablesaws costing twice the price than the competition due to the
addition of a (Max $100 cost) gimmick is not "more reasonable than the
competition" you idiot. Buy a clue, troll.
Adios!
--
Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:25:26 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 9/29/2011 4:30 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:28:25 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/29/2011 11:58 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use a
>>>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>>>
>>> I'm among those in the "table saw" accident statistics.
>>>
>>> Mine wasn't plugged in, nor did it have a blade mounted, but the ER
>>> classed it, for insurance purposes, as a "table saw injury".
>>
>> Does a splinter off the cut wood count?
>
>Only if you are dumb enough to go to the ER for that splinter to be
>removed. ;~)
OTOH, if the splinter was that bad.... ;-)
I thought of that after I pressed <SEND>.
On 9/29/2011 9:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>
>> September 14, 2011
>>
>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>
> "A. Background
> On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
> (âpetitionersâ) requested that we require performance standards for a system
> to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."
>
> I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
> Obama's re-election campaign.
>
Probably as much as all of the other "inventors" who have coerced the
government into making their devices safety requirements.
I am waiting for the government to required the little plastic "save a
deers life alerts" to be required on all cars because of the number of
deer accidents.
If you invent something the best way to make it pay is to say it is a
safety device and pay off government workers in a regulatory agency to
get it to be made a required safety device on something.
On 9/29/11 11:34 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:50:30 -0400, k-nuttle<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/29/2011 9:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>>>> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>>>
>>>> September 14, 2011
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>>>
>>> "A. Background
>>> On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
>>> (petitioners) requested that we require performance standards for a system
>>> to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."
>>>
>>> I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
>>> Obama's re-election campaign.
>>>
>>
>> Probably as much as all of the other "inventors" who have coerced the
>> government into making their devices safety requirements.
>
> For instance?
>
Al Gore.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 9/29/11 11:43 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:41:44 -0500, -MIKE-<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/29/11 11:34 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:50:30 -0400, k-nuttle<[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/29/2011 9:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>>>>>> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> September 14, 2011
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> "A. Background
>>>>> On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
>>>>> (petitioners) requested that we require performance standards for a system
>>>>> to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
>>>>> Obama's re-election campaign.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Probably as much as all of the other "inventors" who have coerced the
>>>> government into making their devices safety requirements.
>>>
>>> For instance?
>>>
>>
>> Al Gore.
>
> "Safety requirement(s)"? ...but your point is taken.
Yes, all that silly "cap & trade (tax)" and other government "emissions"
mandates are for our collective "safety."
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 9/29/2011 12:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>>>> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>>>
>>>> September 14, 2011
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>>>
>>> "A. Background
>>> On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
>>> (petitioners) requested that we require performance standards for a system
>>> to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."
>>>
>>> I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
>>> Obama's re-election campaign.
>>>
>>
>> I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
>> many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
>> are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really needs
>> government control?
>
> FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of government's
> damned business.
I agree. But what surprises me is that health care providers haven't
tried to make it their business. Someone who uses sharp tools is
probably more likely to be cut by one than someone who doesn't own any.
Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use
a TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
On 9/29/11 12:52 PM, Han wrote:
>
> They require ground fault interruptors, really good grounding and a host
> of other safety-related things. Why not this? I agree, it looks like it
> should be personal option, but I'd like to get a discount on my medical
> insurance for having a sawstop ... (Which I don't have (yet))
>
My home and life insurance companies never asked about a shop or power
tools, so I am pretty sure I wouldn't get a discount. Don't really need
health insurance in Canada, so I don't know about it being on the list
of questions.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >
> > advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
> > address table saw blade contact injuries.
> >
> > September 14, 2011
> >
> > http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>
> Looks like Sawstop is still at it. Somebody needs to shoot that loon
> and his lawyers and burn the place to the ground.
>
> If he wants to sell saws fine. If he wants to make it law that
> everybody buy his product, he needs to be taken down.
>
At the very least any new law mandating "xyz" should include
mandatory provisions which invalidate all patents, copyrights, etc
relating to "xyz". This would be for the greater good and in
the public interest.
Art
Swingman wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 11:58 AM, Bill wrote:
>
>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use a
>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>
> I'm among those in the "table saw" accident statistics.
>
> Mine wasn't plugged in, nor did it have a blade mounted, but the ER
> classed it, for insurance purposes, as a "table saw injury".
>
You are still using it, are you not?
And Leon's got the SS I think. He hasn't converted you?
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Artemus wrote:
>
> > At the very least any new law mandating "xyz" should include
> > mandatory provisions which invalidate all patents, copyrights, etc
> > relating to "xyz". This would be for the greater good and in
> > the public interest.
>
> Why in the world would you suggest such a thing as that? I could see it if
> you had suggested that the wording of any legislation should be loose enough
> to specify alternatives, and not be so specific as to mandate one particular
> solution, but to suggest invalidating patents, copyrights, etc. does not
> even make sense. I heartily disagree that it would be in the greater good
> of the public interest, and even further argue that the public interest is
> not sufficient cause for that type of behavior.
>
> --
>
Replace "xyz" in my statement with "Sawstop" for the perfect example.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Any company attempting to use the
legislative process to gain a monopoly in the market under the auspices
of "for the public good" isn't good. Ergo they should have to relinquish
their patent(s) via the same legislation. Let them compete in the market
on an even footing.
Art
On 9/29/2011 6:57 PM, Bill wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't use a
>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>
> I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's not
> plugged in, is it still a table saw?
>
That is kind of like the old question when is a door not a door, when it
is ajar
"tiredofspam" <nospam.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So the drug companies should give up their patents, because it's for the
> greater good, and the only medication that can solve the problem.
> And the price is high because it took years to develop and years to go
> through clinical.... HMMMMMM...
>
> Funny how artists have copyrights for 50 years or more... and patent
> holders for drugs ... very short time.
>
> Patent holders for Saw Stop... well according to you .... they should be
> made to give it away...
>
> Look, I can't stand these idiot CEO's who make a fortune for destroying
> companies, but this is a guy who made his company, and now employs many
> people...
>
> It's his patent, he did everything to offer the technology to companies
> for a price (NOT FREE)... Why shouldn't he have made money doing it.
>
> Every tool you buy the manufacturer is there not to give it away, but to
> make money... hand over fist.... Sometimes ripping you off...
>
> This is not a rip off... And you should be supporting this American
> Entrepreneur. He is making a better product at a more reasonable price
> than the competition.
>
> Stop your bellyaching.
>
>
You really don't get it do you? The drug companies and artists aren't
trying to get legislation passed to give them a monopoly. They are using
patent and copyright protection as it is intended.
The sawstop patent holders did indeed try to license their patent, but
the outrageous price they wanted got them nowhere. So they designed
and are selling their own saw. That should have been the end of the story,
but their greed is overpowering. So they continued to try to legislate
their way to monopoly and fame & fortune. That is not the American way.
I don't suppose you had a problem with Enron either did you?
Art
k-nuttle wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 6:57 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't use a
>>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>>
>> I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's not
>> plugged in, is it still a table saw?
>>
> That is kind of like the old question when is a door not a door, when it
> is ajar
Ajar of what?
>Our workman's comp carrier is strongly recommending them. I don't know if
>they discount rates though, since we have no saws at work.
Great. Have at it. I much prefer my Unisaur, at less than half the price.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When they offer a saw stop with a 5 HP motor and a 12 or 14 inch blade, I'll
be listening.
-- Jim in NC
On 9/29/2011 10:28 PM, Bill wrote:
> k-nuttle wrote:
>> On 9/29/2011 6:57 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't
>>>> use a
>>>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>>>
>>> I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's not
>>> plugged in, is it still a table saw?
>>>
>> That is kind of like the old question when is a door not a door, when it
>> is ajar
>
> Ajar of what?
Door-jam??? : )
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:10:00 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/29/2011 10:28 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> k-nuttle wrote:
>>>> On 9/29/2011 6:57 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't
>>>>>> use a
>>>>>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>>>>>
>>>>> I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's not
>>>>> plugged in, is it still a table saw?
>>>>>
>>>> That is kind of like the old question when is a door not a door, when it
>>>> is ajar
>>>
>>> Ajar of what?
>>
>> Door-jam??? : )
>
> At least it's not the toe kick.
Yeah, if the toe kick knocks over ajar...it wood knot be punny.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:57:21 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>
>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't use a
>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>
>I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's not
>plugged in, is it still a table saw?
Clinton Never Exhaled
Buy the TEE!
--
Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>>> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>>
>>> September 14, 2011
>>>
>>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>>
>> "A. Background
>> On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
>> (petitioners) requested that we require performance standards for a system
>> to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."
>>
>> I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
>> Obama's re-election campaign.
>>
>
>I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
>many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
>are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really needs
>government control?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
--
Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
On 10/19/2011 12:09 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:34:04 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/28/2011 11:17 PM, Mike Paulsen wrote:
>>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>>> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>>
>>> September 14, 2011
>>>
>>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>>
>> A rebuttal to Mr Gass by the PTI issued today 10/18 ... if you're going
>> to argue either way, you still need to read it:
>>
>>
>> http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/industry/pti-sawstop-table-saw-safety
>>
>> Interesting section, copied here:
>>
>> Stephen Gass, a patent attorney, has filed more than 120 U.S. patent
>> applications, and has over 70 issued U.S. patents which pertain to the
>> SawStop technology.
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> Stephen Gass told the U.S. government that it should assume that no
>> manufacturer will be able to introduce injury mitigation technology that
>> does not infringe on his patents.
>>
>> After the PTI-JV technology became known, SawStop amended one of their
>> then-pending patent applications to purportedly cover any table saw that
>> retracts the blade rapidly within 14 milliseconds using any retraction
>> technique after detecting contact. This patent application which was
>> subsequently allowed by the U.S. Patent Office, is arguably not limited
>> to SawStop's blade brake technology for retracting the blade, but rather
>> is designed to cover any retraction technique, hindering the development
>> of alternative blade retraction technologies and blocking competing
>> inventors from using their own inventions.
>>
>> </quote>
>
> I believe the only remedy is to allow the gummint to mandate SS use,
> build a knock off on a saw, sell it, let Gass sue you, file an
> anti-trust suit against the monopoly, and have the patent seized by
> the gummint, nullifying the infringement. Then everyone is happy,
> fingers are safe, and saws aren't priced out of reach.
There could be other advantages to the SawStop patents. One of the
manufacutrers may offer an alternative like a CNC router or laser as a
replacement for a spinning saw blade.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
>>> particular one.
>>
>> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
>> crap company.
>
>I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage to
>leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
>discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be doing
>something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God bless them
>for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't understand why
>anyone would call them a crap company.
Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
On Oct 1, 12:50=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Sep 30, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >Because someone doesn't share your ethics, doesn't make them
> >> >> >> >unethical. SawStop is in business to make money. The owner/inve=
ntor
> >> >> >> >knows his product will save digits. If he knew that the saw was=
n't
> >> >> >> >any safer, that would be unethical. If he knew it wasn't any sa=
fer
> >> >> >> >and profited from it, that would be fraud.
>
> >> >> >> Wrong. Ethics (a set of moral principles) are personal. SawStop =
is
> >> >> >> unethical, period.
>
> >Not everyone thinks as you do. =A0Not everyone has such rigid "ethics"
> >that they'd have a problem buying a better product because of a
> >perceived (and at this point totally imaginary) injustice.
>
> Not everyone understands simple math. =A0<what a dumbass>
=93It is the mark of the mind untrained to take its own processes as
valid for all men, and its own judgments for absolute truth.=94
- Aleister Crowley
R
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:42:18 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sep 30, 7:43 pm, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:45:13 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Sep 29, 9:14 pm, "[email protected]"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:57:40 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >On Sep 29, 7:30 pm, "[email protected]"
>> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Sep 29, 5:29 pm, "[email protected]"
>> >> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
>> >> >> >> >>> particular one.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
>> >> >> >> >> crap company.
>>
>> >> >> >> >I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage to
>> >> >> >> >leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
>> >> >> >> >discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be doing
>> >> >> >> >something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God bless them
>> >> >> >> >for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't understand why
>> >> >> >> >anyone would call them a crap company.
>>
>> >> >> >It comes from confusion about what a company is supposed to do. A CEO
>> >> >> >that is a pitbull is the same as a lawyer that's a pitbull - you're
>> >> >> >better off with them on your side.
>>
>> >> >> >When the big tool manufacturer's were approached with the SawStop,
>> >> >> >they basically told the guy to take a leap because they didn't want to
>> >> >> >pay up front. He didn't take no for an answer and now they'll just
>> >> >> >pay another way.
>>
>> >> >> >This is business, the American way as much as Superman is, and I'm
>> >> >> >surprised that someone that believes in free trade would want someone
>> >> >> >to give away their patent and not profit from their invention. If you
>> >> >> >want a saint, start digging up some bones.
>>
>> >> >> >> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
>>
>> >> >> >Because someone doesn't share your ethics, doesn't make them
>> >> >> >unethical. SawStop is in business to make money. The owner/inventor
>> >> >> >knows his product will save digits. If he knew that the saw wasn't
>> >> >> >any safer, that would be unethical. If he knew it wasn't any safer
>> >> >> >and profited from it, that would be fraud.
>>
>> >> >> Wrong. Ethics (a set of moral principles) are personal. SawStop is
>> >> >> unethical, period.
>>
>> >> >Is a gun unethical? That's a...wait for it...loaded question.
>>
>> >> A gun isn't, no. An inanimate object obviously can't be assigned ethics.
>> >> Owning a gun is considered to be unethical by many.
>>
>> >> >> >All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>> >> >> >down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And
>> >> >> >forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
>> >> >> >dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
>> >> >> >requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
>> >> >> >liberties! ;)
>>
>> >> >> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>>
>> >> >Where does it say there's going to be a monopoly?
>>
>> >> Have you heard of "patents"?
>>
>> >Yes, they used to make shoes out of that leather.
>>
>> >Do you believe that the SawStop is the only possible solution to
>> >improving tablesaw safety?
>>
>> Having read the patent, absolutely! At least the guy knows how to write a
>> patent.
>
>And run a business.
Right. Buy a congressman. You obviously think that's a good thing.
>> >I think you're undervaluing people's ingenuity when money is on the line.
>>
>> I don't begrudge him a patent or *anything* he can sell it for, as long as he
>> doesn't use the government to put his competition out of business. If his
>> invention is good enough to do it on its own feet, so be it. That's the
>> difference between you and I; you *like* crony capitalism.
>
>No, that's your imagination, but there are differences. I got over
>the thrill of pissing into the wind years ago.
Bullshit. You _are_ defending crony capitalism.
>> >> >OSHA, Workman's Comp, UFPL, NFPA, DOT, FAA, have all mandated what you
>> >> >and I can and can't do.
>>
>> >> No, they certainly haven't. They haven't mandated that I buy any product nor
>> >> banned all competing products.
>>
>> >And at this point they certainly haven't mandated the SawStop or
>> >banned any competing products. There is no _law_ yet. You are
>> >getting a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions about how the actual
>> >law will read.
>>
>> You don't read well, do you.
>
>The link posted earlier is the most recent on the subject, so you must
>be referring to this:
>"Recommended Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Performance
>Requirements to Address Table Saw Blade Contact Injuries"
Ok, I'll help you with your comprehension problem. The WHOLE DAMNED THREAD is
about what happens if... OF COURSE "there is no law yet".
>Notice the "Performance Requirements" phrase? At no point will there
>be a law requiring a specific manufacturer's product. There will be
>performance requirements that any particular manufacturer's products
>will either live up to or not. There are already SawStop
>alternatives. There's one old codger who has an optical sensor system
>instead of using capacitance.
>
>If a particular manufacturer can't come up with a viable alternative
>that fulfills the performance requirements and doesn't violate
>SawStop's patent, then they have to make a choice between licensing
>the rights to a system that does, or stop offering that product. Oh,
>there's a third choice - they could attack the patent as being written
>in an overly broad way.
Gee, he does "get: the fucking obvious, after all.
>In the real world this is called "business".
No, it's called "crony capitalism". You just love it. I don't.
>> >> >I don't see the point in getting worked up about something that is a
>> >> >well-engineered and proven safety device. I'll save my righteous
>> >> >indignation for the crap stuff that is dangerous.
>>
>> >> You don't get worked up about legalized monopolies?
>>
>> >I don't know - point one out.
>>
>> Try reading.
>>
>> >> >There will be no shortage of used machines on the market to satisfy
>> >> >your woodworking needs for many years to come - old iron doesn't die.
>>
>> >> So, there is no need to make *any* more table saws?
>>
>> >Strawman argument.
>>
>> Think! There are a finite number of table saws now, yet they're constantly
>> purchased. There must be a need for more, so your "no shortage" is just so
>> much bullshit.
>
>Not everyone thinks as you do. Not everyone has such rigid "ethics"
>that they'd have a problem buying a better product because of a
>perceived (and at this point totally imaginary) injustice.
Not everyone understands simple math. <what a dumbass>
So, there will be a sudden growth in machinery sales outlets in Canada
& Mexico, just near border crossing points. Grizzly, Jet, etc will set
up some large warehouses nearby, improving employment in those
'foreign' areas too. Wonder if they can get a "foreign aid' grant as
well?
As well, existing saws will go up in value, even old junkers will be
worth refurbishing.
regards
Bruce
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen <[email protected]>
wrote:
>advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>address table saw blade contact injuries.
>
>September 14, 2011
>
>http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:28:25 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/29/2011 11:58 AM, Bill wrote:
>
>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use a
>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>
>I'm among those in the "table saw" accident statistics.
>
>Mine wasn't plugged in, nor did it have a blade mounted, but the ER
>classed it, for insurance purposes, as a "table saw injury".
Does a splinter off the cut wood count?
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:24:04 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/29/2011 7:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>>> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>>
>>> September 14, 2011
>>>
>>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>>
>> "A. Background
>> On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
>> (petitioners) requested that we require performance standards for a system
>> to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."
>>
>> I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
>> Obama's re-election campaign.
>>
>
>I realize that table saws are inherently dangerous. But I wonder how
>many injuries (needing something more than a band-aid) there actually
>are per man-hour of use. Is this an area where the country really needs
>government control?
FWIG, it's not infinitesimal, but you're right. It's none of government's
damned business.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:44:09 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:40:49 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice
>>>>>> hardware, crap company.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their
>>>>> advantage to leverage everything they can to command market share.
>>>>> Most of the discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw
>>>>> Stop should be doing something more "nobel". Hell - they're about
>>>>> making money. God bless them for going for it in what ever way
>>>>> they can do it. Don't understand why anyone would call them a crap
>>>>> company.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
>>>
>>> I guess it's all in what one considers unethical.
>>
>> Inventing a widget, getting the government to require said widget, and
>> refusing to sell said widget freely, is unethical to most normal
>> minds. Yes, Gass makes the Snidely Whiplash list. Nope, not going
>> to happen.
>
>Well - they did try to sell it long before they went the route of the
>government approach.
Extortionists often do ask for tribute before burning down your business.
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:31:33 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>>> down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And
>>> forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
>>> dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
>>> requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
>>> liberties! ;)
>>
>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>
>There's no proposed government monopoly for saws either. True, there's only
>one product on the market that will stop a saw blade before it does damage. \
Yes, that "law" (rule) would IN FACT make it a monopoly on the entire
industry.
>But that doesn't mean others won't come along.
Have you read the patent? Do, before you comment further.
>Not too many years ago, the federal government, in its infinite wisdom, and
>acting in a beneficent and loving manner for all the public, regardless of
>race, gender, or hair-length, mandated that washing machine tubs stop their
>spin cycle in five seconds or so any time the door was opened. Countless
>children (well, maybe two) are alive today because of this ruling.
I know, the table saw ban "is for the children".
>So it might be with saws.
...and you don't see a problem?
>In fact, if such a ruling comes into force, it might spell the end for
>SawStop! Not wanting to pay the exorbitant fees demanded by SawStop,
>manufacturers will beaver their way to a non-infringing alternative. This
>new technique may end up costing the saw manufacturer fifty-cents per
>machine and double-dribble SawStop into oblivion.
>
Read the patent.
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 18:56:00 -0500, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 2, 6:52 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >No, a determined law firm can massage the system for a decade at significant
>>> >cost. It then comes down to who has the greater staying power.
>>>
>>> But ITS NOT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE TO DO SO.
>>
>>It is the mark of the mind untrained to take its own processes as
>>valid for all men, and its own judgments for absolute truth.
>>- Aleister Crowley
>>
>>I do believe old Aleister just said you were full of crap. :)~
>>
>>I've made my prediction already. Let's hear yours.
>
>>Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop?
>
>I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters.
>
>>Will Stanley Black & Decker, with a market cap of $8.5 billion, rollover and ask for
>>Vaseline because of a paltry ten or fifteen million in lawyer's fees?
>
>If #1 is wrong, they'll have no choice.
Let me rephrase that, they may attack the SS but it won't be on patent grounds
or by designing around the patent (that one is a *hard* target). They won't
dilly-dally around, either. It's *NOT* in their interest.
>>Will Bosch baulk, will Makita make tracks, will Festool...okay, let's
>>just keep Festool out of this one. Tune in tomorrow, same crazy
>>batshit channel, same crazy batshit time!
>
>If it's that crazy, you'll be there.
J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, tiredofspam
> says...
>>
>> Funny how the Unisaw price was 1200 about 10 years ago.
>> Now it's approaching what $3000... I would rather buy the better made
>> Saw Stop... My delta products have not been up to par... My bandsaw
>> (American Made) was a disaster. I applaud Saw Stop for a good
>> product, safe... And when I can, I will buy the 3hp unit... It's
>> nice.
>
> Fine, do that.
>
> That's not the issue, the issue is that Sawstop wants the government
> to force Delta to give it a share of the price of that Unisaw as well.
>
Bullshit John. Want to try that one again?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:31:33 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been
>>>> legislated down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers,
>>>> airbags. And forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors,
>>>> standardized stair dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole
>>>> electrical panel requirement is a government-let plot to separate
>>>> people from their liberties! ;)
>>>
>>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>>
>> There's no proposed government monopoly for saws either. True,
>> there's only one product on the market that will stop a saw blade
>> before it does damage. \
>
> Yes, that "law" (rule) would IN FACT make it a monopoly on the entire
> industry.
>
>> But that doesn't mean others won't come along.
>
> Have you read the patent? Do, before you comment further.
>
>> Not too many years ago, the federal government, in its infinite
>> wisdom, and acting in a beneficent and loving manner for all the
>> public, regardless of race, gender, or hair-length, mandated that
>> washing machine tubs stop their spin cycle in five seconds or so any
>> time the door was opened. Countless children (well, maybe two) are
>> alive today because of this ruling.
>
> I know, the table saw ban "is for the children".
>
>> So it might be with saws.
>
> ...and you don't see a problem?
>
>> In fact, if such a ruling comes into force, it might spell the end
>> for SawStop! Not wanting to pay the exorbitant fees demanded by
>> SawStop, manufacturers will beaver their way to a non-infringing
>> alternative. This new technique may end up costing the saw
>> manufacturer fifty-cents per machine and double-dribble SawStop into
>> oblivion.
>>
>
> Read the patent.
You raise a good point, but patents can be litigated out of existence. The
ten or so saw manufacturers have, combined, access to more patent attorneys
than the owner of SawStop has friends on Facebook.
While that's going on, there's money to be made.
As soon as SawStop is mandated, one can stock up on entry-level table saws,
at, say, $90 each, while they're still available. A year or so down the
road, when entry-level table saws have disappeared from the market or sell
for $500 each, you can sell those hoarded saws on Craigslist for whatever
the market will bear.
On Oct 8, 2:07=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2011, whit3rd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight
> >to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing
> >bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). =A0 They're seeing
> >thousands per year of =A0amputations.
>
> Life is dangerous. =A0Your point?
Saying "life is dangerous" is a mantra for people that don't have a
better argument. You're trying to convince people that an improvement
in safety is not really an improvement.
Do you have GFIs in your house? Wear a seatbelt in your car? Why?
Life is dangerous. What a dumb thing to say.
There are people on this newsgroup who have had power tool accidents,
and you're basically saying "Fuck You" to them - and this without
having any knowledge about what happened in the accident(s).
Your major issue is, what?, your "ethical" objection to a _business_
doing whatever it can to sell its product? Gee, now there's a
surprise. Which would you prefer - a company that uses whatever means
it can to get a safety device into widespread use, or a company that
uses whatever means it can to get more money in its pockets with a
shoddy, dangerous device?
You'd do business differently? Great - go do it. Get the law
changed, eliminate or change the patent process, write a letter to the
CPSC, start your own business that has your "ethics".
I think you have a major moral failing in that your "ethics" - and
that's clearly not the issue here - are not ethical. You exhibit no
compassion. A lack of compassion is antithetical to ethical behavior.
Brush up on a term before you start bandying it about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Thanks.
R
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:35:48 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and non-discriminatory'
>> terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per replacement cartridge) the
>> commission MIGHT institute requirements that only the
>> Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme
>> outcome I'd believe.
>
> That's the reasonable path but it's not going to happen.
>
Reasonable? Because you have a bug up your butt about this guy, you deem it
*reasonable* to constrain a business to sell at a loss? Your use of the
word reasonable is nothing short of unreasonable.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 10/8/2011 6:40 PM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2:07 pm, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Life is dangerous. Your point?
>
> Saying "life is dangerous" is a mantra for people that don't have a
> better argument.
No, it's just a statement of fact.
You're trying to convince people that an improvement
> in safety is not really an improvement.
I think he's saying there is a difference in people deciding what is a
"better product" than having government make the decision for you.
> Do you have GFIs in your house? Wear a seatbelt in your car? Why?
> Life is dangerous. What a dumb thing to say.
> There are people on this newsgroup who have had power tool accidents,
> and you're basically saying "Fuck You" to them - and this without
> having any knowledge about what happened in the accident(s).
Do you wear a NASCAR approved crash helmet when you drive? Why not?
Should your nanny state government mandate them for all auto occupants
or are you saying "fuck you" to all those billions of head injury deaths
and injuries that could have been avoided by simple government mandate?
> Your major issue is, what?, your "ethical" objection to a _business_
> doing whatever it can to sell its product? Gee, now there's a
> surprise. Which would you prefer - a company that uses whatever means
> it can to get a safety device into widespread use, or a company that
> uses whatever means it can to get more money in its pockets with a
> shoddy, dangerous device?
My choice is to reject greedy business for attempting to get government
force free individuals to buy his product and make him filthy stinking
rich via government mandate rather than consumer demand.
> You'd do business differently? Great - go do it. Get the law
> changed, eliminate or change the patent process, write a letter to the
> CPSC, start your own business that has your "ethics".
I can do that right now by going to Grizzly, Home Depot, Lowe's and
buying a dangerous saw from them because I choose to live dangerously,
or am stupid cheap, or am too freaking dumb to know that Saw Stop
exists. Perhaps Saw Stop should be sued for not informing the public
enough about their freaking product?
> I think you have a major moral failing in that your "ethics" - and
> that's clearly not the issue here - are not ethical. You exhibit no
> compassion. A lack of compassion is antithetical to ethical behavior.
I have no compassion for government protecting me from myself. Yes, I'm
against seat belt laws, helmet laws, saw stop laws. I also have no
compassion for the fools that think government is the best one to make
these decisions for me.
--
Jack
Got Change: Supply and Demand ======> Command and Control!
http://jbstein.com
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:35:48 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:56:00 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Will the CPSC mandate a monopoly for SawStop?
>>
>> I don't think they will. SawStop hasn't bought enough congresscritters.
>
>The report makes VERY interesting reading, and sent me straight
>to my tablesaw to see what I could do about the missing
>bits (I got the saw used, without the guards). They're seeing
>thousands per year of amputations.
Life is dangerous. Your point?
>If Sawstop were to be licensed at 'reasonable and non-discriminatory'
>terms (like, $10 per saw and $5 per replacement cartridge) the
>commission MIGHT institute requirements that only the
>Sawstop mechanism can meet, but that's the most extreme
>outcome I'd believe.
That's the reasonable path but it's not going to happen.
>Congress doesn't have much to say at
>this point, of course; CPSC is INDEPENDENT of Congress.
The USPS is "independent", too. Congress most certainly does have "something
to say" about it.
There is that Mickey's challenge again.
Mickey has no data to challenge with and wants you run around doing
research to appease him.
This is called "trolling" and best ignored.
Perhaps his domain name is just his nickname??
---------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Bullshit John. Want to try that one again?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, tiredofspam
says...
>
> Funny how the Unisaw price was 1200 about 10 years ago.
> Now it's approaching what $3000... I would rather buy the better made
> Saw Stop... My delta products have not been up to par... My bandsaw
> (American Made) was a disaster. I applaud Saw Stop for a good product,
> safe... And when I can, I will buy the 3hp unit... It's nice.
Fine, do that.
That's not the issue, the issue is that Sawstop wants the government to
force Delta to give it a share of the price of that Unisaw as well.
> On 9/29/2011 7:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:42:20 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:30:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
> >>>> down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget
> >>>> about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions,
> >>>> GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a
> >>>> government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;)
> >>>
> >>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
> >>
> >> I wonder how many prospective woodworkers will abandon the hobby when
> >> they find their first tablesaw is going to cost them $1500-$3000?
> >
> > I wonder if they would [*] keep the price at $1500-$3000? My fairly recent
> > Unisaur would appreciate, though.
> >
> > [*] I don't think this is going to happen, but wouldn't bet on any line with
> > the crew now in the WH
Funny how the Unisaw price was 1200 about 10 years ago.
Now it's approaching what $3000... I would rather buy the better made
Saw Stop... My delta products have not been up to par... My bandsaw
(American Made) was a disaster. I applaud Saw Stop for a good product,
safe... And when I can, I will buy the 3hp unit... It's nice.
On 9/29/2011 7:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:42:20 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:30:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>>>> down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget
>>>> about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions,
>>>> GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a
>>>> government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;)
>>>
>>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>>
>> I wonder how many prospective woodworkers will abandon the hobby when
>> they find their first tablesaw is going to cost them $1500-$3000?
>
> I wonder if they would [*] keep the price at $1500-$3000? My fairly recent
> Unisaur would appreciate, though.
>
> [*] I don't think this is going to happen, but wouldn't bet on any line with
> the crew now in the WH
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:42:20 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:30:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>>>down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget
>>>about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions,
>>>GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a
>>>government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;)
>>
>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
But the SawStop's inventor evidently tried to pressure the gov't into
making his invention required by law. I wouldn't buy one of his tools,
either, at half the extraordinary price.
>I wonder how many prospective woodworkers will abandon the hobby when
>they find their first tablesaw is going to cost them $1500-$3000?
$3k+
--
Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:42:20 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:30:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>>>down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And forget
>>>about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair dimensions,
>>>GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel requirement is a
>>>government-let plot to separate people from their liberties! ;)
>>
>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
>
>I wonder how many prospective woodworkers will abandon the hobby when
>they find their first tablesaw is going to cost them $1500-$3000?
I wonder if they would [*] keep the price at $1500-$3000? My fairly recent
Unisaur would appreciate, though.
[*] I don't think this is going to happen, but wouldn't bet on any line with
the crew now in the WH
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:08:57 -0400, tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>You truly are an ASS.
Because I know what "ethics" means? <shrug>
>On 9/29/2011 7:30 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 29, 5:29 pm, "[email protected]"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:54:36 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:44 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wouldn't buy a SawStop!
>>>>
>>>>>>> I would - but that's a whole different discussion than this
>>>>>>> particular one.
>>>>
>>>>>> The reason I wouldn't is *exactly* this discussion. Nice hardware,
>>>>>> crap company.
>>>>
>>>>> I disagree. they are a for profit company. It's to their advantage to
>>>>> leverage everything they can to command market share. Most of the
>>>>> discussions here are far too altruistic - as if Saw Stop should be doing
>>>>> something more "nobel". Hell - they're about making money. God bless them
>>>>> for going for it in what ever way they can do it. Don't understand why
>>>>> anyone would call them a crap company.
>>>
>>> It comes from confusion about what a company is supposed to do. A CEO
>>> that is a pitbull is the same as a lawyer that's a pitbull - you're
>>> better off with them on your side.
>>>
>>> When the big tool manufacturer's were approached with the SawStop,
>>> they basically told the guy to take a leap because they didn't want to
>>> pay up front. He didn't take no for an answer and now they'll just
>>> pay another way.
>>>
>>> This is business, the American way as much as Superman is, and I'm
>>> surprised that someone that believes in free trade would want someone
>>> to give away their patent and not profit from their invention. If you
>>> want a saint, start digging up some bones.
>>>
>>>> Wrong! I don't do business with unethical companies. Period.
>>>
>>> Because someone doesn't share your ethics, doesn't make them
>>> unethical. SawStop is in business to make money. The owner/inventor
>>> knows his product will save digits. If he knew that the saw wasn't
>>> any safer, that would be unethical. If he knew it wasn't any safer
>>> and profited from it, that would be fraud.
>>
>> Wrong. Ethics (a set of moral principles) are personal. SawStop is
>> unethical, period.
>>
>>> All those inventions and new-fangled stuff that have been legislated
>>> down our throats - seatbelts, intermittant wipers, airbags. And
>>> forget about houses! CO and smoke detectors, standardized stair
>>> dimensions, GFIs and AFCIs - hell, the whole electrical panel
>>> requirement is a government-let plot to separate people from their
>>> liberties! ;)
>>
>> There was no government mandated monopoly for any of those.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:07:06 -0400, tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com>
wrote:
>I don't understand.
>Gass offered it to companies, they didn't want it.
His profit would double the cost to consumers. Run the numbers and
tell me how many customers those companies would lose as a result.
>He creates his own... typical American ingenuity and open market.
>Now you want him to give it away for free?
>He tried selling the license to these companies and they balked.
Instead of making a million or ten, he wants a billion. Did you see
the prices he offered his invention to them for?
>I applaud his effort. Very American....
Speaking-weasel ethics/attempted blackmail are not very upstanding and
American to me. I shun your misread of his efforts. Research him and
you'll see how wrong you are.
--
Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:10:00 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/29/2011 10:28 PM, Bill wrote:
>> k-nuttle wrote:
>>> On 9/29/2011 6:57 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't
>>>>> use a
>>>>> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>>>>
>>>> I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's not
>>>> plugged in, is it still a table saw?
>>>>
>>> That is kind of like the old question when is a door not a door, when it
>>> is ajar
>>
>> Ajar of what?
>
>Door-jam??? : )
At least it's not the toe kick.
On 9/29/2011 11:58 AM, Bill wrote:
> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw I don't use a
> TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
I'm among those in the "table saw" accident statistics.
Mine wasn't plugged in, nor did it have a blade mounted, but the ER
classed it, for insurance purposes, as a "table saw injury".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/ewoodshop
So the drug companies should give up their patents, because it's for the
greater good, and the only medication that can solve the problem.
And the price is high because it took years to develop and years to go
through clinical.... HMMMMMM...
Funny how artists have copyrights for 50 years or more... and patent
holders for drugs ... very short time.
Patent holders for Saw Stop... well according to you .... they should be
made to give it away...
Look, I can't stand these idiot CEO's who make a fortune for destroying
companies, but this is a guy who made his company, and now employs many
people...
It's his patent, he did everything to offer the technology to companies
for a price (NOT FREE)... Why shouldn't he have made money doing it.
Every tool you buy the manufacturer is there not to give it away, but to
make money... hand over fist.... Sometimes ripping you off...
This is not a rip off... And you should be supporting this American
Entrepreneur. He is making a better product at a more reasonable price
than the competition.
Stop your bellyaching.
On 9/29/2011 7:54 PM, Artemus wrote:
> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Artemus wrote:
>>
>>> At the very least any new law mandating "xyz" should include
>>> mandatory provisions which invalidate all patents, copyrights, etc
>>> relating to "xyz". This would be for the greater good and in
>>> the public interest.
>>
>> Why in the world would you suggest such a thing as that? I could see it if
>> you had suggested that the wording of any legislation should be loose enough
>> to specify alternatives, and not be so specific as to mandate one particular
>> solution, but to suggest invalidating patents, copyrights, etc. does not
>> even make sense. I heartily disagree that it would be in the greater good
>> of the public interest, and even further argue that the public interest is
>> not sufficient cause for that type of behavior.
>>
>> --
>>
>
> Replace "xyz" in my statement with "Sawstop" for the perfect example.
> Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Any company attempting to use the
> legislative process to gain a monopoly in the market under the auspices
> of "for the public good" isn't good. Ergo they should have to relinquish
> their patent(s) via the same legislation. Let them compete in the market
> on an even footing.
> Art
>
>
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:18:56 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> How about that bicycle in your garage? Skis? Is your garage messy?
>> Is your lawn as smooth as a putting green? <good grief>
>
>Depends on where you play. Where my league plays - yes my lawn is as smooth
>as their greens. Of course...
Perhaps you should pay more for your insurance because you golf in a dangerous
cow pasture.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:11:34 -0500, "ChairMan" <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> Reminiscent of Bill Clinton, if any one asks, "When I saw, I don't
>>> use a TS--and if I do, I leave it unplugged!".
>>
>> I sort of hate to ask, but this sort of begs the question: If it's
>> not
>> plugged in, is it still a table saw?
>
>depends on what your definition of is is<g>
Wait a minute! The Bill is on the wrong duck, here.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:41:44 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/29/11 11:34 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:50:30 -0400, k-nuttle<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/29/2011 9:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:17:45 -0500, Mike Paulsen<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to
>>>>> address table saw blade contact injuries.
>>>>>
>>>>> September 14, 2011
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA11/brief/tablesaw.pdf
>>>>
>>>> "A. Background
>>>> On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al.
>>>> (petitioners) requested that we require performance standards for a system
>>>> to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how much Stephed Gass (SawStop's inventor, BTW) has contributed to
>>>> Obama's re-election campaign.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Probably as much as all of the other "inventors" who have coerced the
>>> government into making their devices safety requirements.
>>
>> For instance?
>>
>
>Al Gore.
"Safety requirement(s)"? ...but your point is taken.