Bosch Reaxx Table Saw

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 10:00:03 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
=20
> Smacking self in forehead.
>=20
> Why, oh why do I go online when I'm having fits of insomnia.

I dunno...

For those of use that see one of these threads that is based on smut, rumor=
, hearsay, conjecture, conspiracy, pontificating based on Google research, =
mountains of faux legal expertise and all the other things that make them u=
p, it provides a few minutes of entertainment.

Sure, punishment for someone like you that wants to make a point. But not =
so bad for the home players. The sheer volume of conjecture and "knowledge=
able" postulation that leads the other self appointed pundits to start the =
shredding process of one another they disagree with has to be recognized fo=
r some entertainment value.

When it gets personal, it's time to get the popcorn. Now we get to see who=
has the best internet connection and searching skills. Internet-fu. Googl=
e-fu. Search-fu. Hearsay-fu. It gets old when people get huffy, get their=
feelings hurt, or can't believe others don't understand the gravity and va=
lue of their opinion.

All part of the entertainment provided at no cost to you!

Chomping on the corn over here...

Robert

On 9/20/2015 5:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
Snip

>> That usually does the trick because once that
>> prior art is out of the bag it's out for everyone.
>
> And this is a bad thing because? Bosch may see invalidating the Sawstop
> patent as a public service. Remember how Mercedes-Benz handled their
> antiskid brake patent? They could have done like Gass and demanded huge
> licensing fees for it, but instead, since they saw it as having a major
> impact on highway safety, they licensed it to everyone at no charge.

Does anyone know for a fact know what Gass asked for in license fees?

Considering the fact that when other brand vehicles offered anti lock
brakes that this option was offered mostly on the top of the line
vehicles and at a pretty premium additional cost, there was plenty of
wiggle room. And because it was an option the full expense was probably
passed on directly the customer, maybe it also added to the cost of the
base vehicle whether it as included or not.

There are reports that Gass wanted too much for licensing but for an
industry that only now is beginning to not go with status quo and offer
this technology I would be willing to bet that they rejected Gass's
offer more to keep him from proceeding and the good old boys club could
continue to do what it was doing, turning out the same old technology
that we had come to expect. Any deal may have qualified as too
expensive. Letting competition in and watering down the field is too
expensive.

It was only after Gass produced his saw and introduced his safety
features, including the use of a riving knife, that the competition
started to improve their products as far as user safety is concerned.

As what appears to have happened, not taking Gass's license deal, has
probably been more costly. Delta is hardly in the business any more and
not by the same people that owned them 10`15 years ago. Powermatic is
still in business but owned by another company, the same as the one that
owns Jet and a lot of Powermatic and Jet machines for a long time simply
had different paint and stickers.
I believe most American brands have had to restructure or sell to remain
in the market. While paying Gass for his license may have been very
costly and may have sunk some companies it was a mistake and a lesson on
short sightedness. It would have been to Gass's advantage for his
competition to remain viable so that he could profit from his licenses
and maybe not even produce a saw. If your customers/license holders,
are not selling saws, your are not selling licenses. I understood the
licenses were offered as, per unit, sold with the technology.

Fortunately the PM 2000 and their bandsaws appear to be unique,
possibly some others. And fortunately I believe the quality has not
suffered and most likely why they continue to probably be the strongest
competition to SawStop. But then they, IIRC, were the one of the first,
if not the first, American company to offer the riving knife.
From what I have read SawStop has take more than the lions share of the
market with their own saw.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 13:18:01 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >krw <[email protected]> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:45:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>[email protected] says...
> >>>>
> >>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>> news:opqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@ 4ax.com:
> >>>>
> >>>> > Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye
> >>>> > and don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome
> >>>> > of any civil case in the US courts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly
> >>>> broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by
> >>>> pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely,
> >>>> which is possible but not too likely.
> >>>
> >>>Or perhaps Bosch has discovered prior art that would invalidate the
> >>>patents.
> >>
> >> Perhaps but the courtroom is an expensive place to show it off. If
> >> they really had something, they'd go to Gass and get a cheap license
> >> in trade for burying the prior art. Simply ignoring a patent is a
> >> very risky proposition. Bosch may think they can afford it, though.
> >
> >Prior art is a good point, tho. The Patent Office doesn't look
> >for prior art any longer before issuing a patent (they haven't
> >done for decades), so it's not uncommon for someone to find it
> >and challenge a patent on that ground.
>
> Not usually but there is a chance to show the USPTO prior art before a
> patent is granted. The point is that the normal way of dealing with
> this is to go to the patent holder with prior art in hand and
> negotiate a license.

(1) We do not know that Bosch did not try this. In fact I do not
believe with know with any certainty that Bosch has not obtained a
license from Sawstip.

(2) That it may be "the normal way of dealing with this" does not mean
that doing so is mandatory. Why license something for which no license
is actually needed?

> That usually does the trick because once that
> prior art is out of the bag it's out for everyone.

And this is a bad thing because? Bosch may see invalidating the Sawstop
patent as a public service. Remember how Mercedes-Benz handled their
antiskid brake patent? They could have done like Gass and demanded huge
licensing fees for it, but instead, since they saw it as having a major
impact on highway safety, they licensed it to everyone at no charge.

> It's in both
> parties interest to keep it out of court. Courts are expensive, in
> the best case and can mean the whole Magilla if things don't go so
> well.

It's true that courts are expensive. However there is a long history of
those with deep pockets using this fact to beat the crap out of those
with shallower pockets. Last financials I can find show Sawstop with
about 6 million in total sales. Bosch has about 16 billion in profits.
Bosch is far far more capable of absorbing that expense than is Sawstop.

> >And we don't know what conversations Bosch and SawStop may have
> >had. Perhaps Bosch did go to them with the prior art, and Gass
> >said "you're full of it! That wouldn't hold up in court." And
> >so Bosch decided to find out.
> >
> Bosch could have sued to negate the patents, too. This way, they may
> end up with tripled damages. It's a big risk.

For certain values of "big". If it amounts to three times Sawstop's
total revenues then it's about 0.1 percent of Bosch's profits.

Note that Bosch is privately held--they do not have to explain
themselves to shareholders--if they choose to risk a tiny fraction of
profits to swat an annoying fly, so be it.

However they should have just bought the bastard, waited until he stuck
his hand in the cookie jar, and then fired him for cause. But maybe
they tried and he was too stupid to sell. This might be a Ford vs
Ferrari situation--Ford tried to buy Ferrari, Enzo told them to sod off,
and so Henry wrote the engineers a blank check and told them to beat
Ferrari on his own ground, and of course they did.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > (1) We do not know that Bosch did not try this. In fact I do not
> > believe with know with any certainty that Bosch has not obtained a
> > license from Sawstip.
>
> There is a suit filed against Bosch by SawStop in the Oregon
> courts (*). While it's certainly possible for a company to sue
> another that they have previously licensed, it's uncommon and
> unlikely to prevail.

Smacking self in forehead.

Why, oh why do I go online when I'm having fits of insomnia.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> (1) We do not know that Bosch did not try this. In fact I do not
> believe with know with any certainty that Bosch has not obtained a
> license from Sawstip.

There is a suit filed against Bosch by SawStop in the Oregon
courts (*). While it's certainly possible for a company to sue
another that they have previously licensed, it's uncommon and
unlikely to prevail.

John

(* Oregon does not, apparently, beleive in free access to public
records, or else I'd quote the details)

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 13:18:01 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:45:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>[email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:opqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@ 4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>> > Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye
>>>> > and don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome
>>>> > of any civil case in the US courts.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly
>>>> broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by
>>>> pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely,
>>>> which is possible but not too likely.
>>>
>>>Or perhaps Bosch has discovered prior art that would invalidate the
>>>patents.
>>
>> Perhaps but the courtroom is an expensive place to show it off. If
>> they really had something, they'd go to Gass and get a cheap license
>> in trade for burying the prior art. Simply ignoring a patent is a
>> very risky proposition. Bosch may think they can afford it, though.
>
>Prior art is a good point, tho. The Patent Office doesn't look
>for prior art any longer before issuing a patent (they haven't
>done for decades), so it's not uncommon for someone to find it
>and challenge a patent on that ground.

Not usually but there is a chance to show the USPTO prior art before a
patent is granted. The point is that the normal way of dealing with
this is to go to the patent holder with prior art in hand and
negotiate a license. That usually does the trick because once that
prior art is out of the bag it's out for everyone. It's in both
parties interest to keep it out of court. Courts are expensive, in
the best case and can mean the whole Magilla if things don't go so
well.
>
>And we don't know what conversations Bosch and SawStop may have
>had. Perhaps Bosch did go to them with the prior art, and Gass
>said "you're full of it! That wouldn't hold up in court." And
>so Bosch decided to find out.
>
Bosch could have sued to negate the patents, too. This way, they may
end up with tripled damages. It's a big risk.

On 9/25/2015 1:54 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:20:24 -0500
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> Oh, ok, that is sensible. FWIW there are some here that do buy
>> products based on my reviews.
>
> but do they get a discount
>

No one gets a discount on Festool or SawStop

On 9/24/2015 8:52 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 9/23/2015 9:04 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 9/23/2015 7:55 AM, Jack wrote:
>>> On 9/20/2015 11:21 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Look at the risk/reward. The reward for Bosch is miniscule.
>>>>
>>>> I think you grossly underestimate the public relations value of "beat
>>>> the crap out of that Sawstop asshole and made the technology freely
>>>> available for everybody".
>>>
>>> I like this idea, unlikely as it is. I would rather cut my arm off than
>>> buy anything from that Sawstop asshole.
>>>
>>> If Bosch wins, my next saw will be a Bosch. Chances are good I'll be
>>> well over 100 years old before I wear out my current saws that depend
>>> solely on user for safety.
>>>
>>> If I ever cut myself, which gets more likely as I age, I'll simply have
>>> to sue myself...
>>
>> Well Jack, you are of the persuasion that makes emotional decisions
>> rather than rational, I strongly suspected that.
>
>> Not saying that there is anything wrong with that but leaving emotion
>> out of the decision process typically makes for better decision making.
>> And that is often hard to do.
>>
>> When I read your comments, I'll try to remember that.
>
> Everyone one has emotions.
Absolutely but if used to make decisions the result is a 50/50 chance
that it is not a good one.

In this case, you can call it emotions, I'll call it principles.
I'll call it emotions. You are basing a decision on a product, not by
the product, but by your feelings towards the inventor. And that's ok
if you feel better making decisions that way. But for some one that
might value your opinion on a product yours will not be based on fact if
you let your emotions stand in the way of an honest evaluation of the
product. It is important that I and others understand that.


That "Sawstop asshole" tried to get the government
> to require every saw manufacturer to license his crap. That to me is an
> underhanded way to make a buck, not surprising for a lawyer.

Welcome to the American way. At least he went about that in a legal way
and in a way that was perfectly with in his rights.

>
> My emotions tell me the first one to cut off a finger and sue Sawstop
> for every penny they have would make my day.

I think you are way too invested in wanting revenge for something that
might have happened in the past but did not happen. While I understand
your feelings towards Gass, it is unlikely that his insurance would not
cover the loss and IIRC there are limitations to this type settlement.
Again emotions interfering logical judgement with what is likely to
really happen, if it happened. At least eight years in production and I
don't think there has been a report of even a cut. It is likely that
information would come up in a trial and the jury would probably favor
the defendant rather than sacrifice ending a great safety feature on a
good tool, if they took every penny.


>
> My principles tell me not to support an asshole, and, after almost 60
> years of safely using saws w/o his crap hanging on it I can probably
> live without it. Others may be better off with it, that's fine by me.

Your emotions have lead you to believe that Gass is an asshole. Have
you met him? He might be a nice guy, not an ass hole. He did not do any
thing wrong, that we know of, other than pursue promoting his product in
a way that you apparently do not agree with. Ignorance is bliss. There
is no telling how many products you use that have come to reality that
affect you every day that yu don't know any thing about.

>
> Aside from that, if Bosch has a way to do the same thing w/o ruining
> your blade, not to mention a $100 mechanism you need to buy from Goss,
> then I would buy that tech in my next saw, which will not likely happen
> until I'm well into my 100's.

Ok, again with the emotional exaggerations. I know the SS brake is
under $70. for the single blade brake and under $90 for the dado brake.
IIRC the Bosch tripping insert is approximately $80. But it is true
that it can be used two times so the effect cost would be about half of
what either SS brake costs. See, I'm using facts here so the it is
easier to form a valid decision. Emotions do not care about facts of
what the real decision process should be considering.
And the assumption of the blade being destroyed is just that, an
assumption. I have seen many pictures and demonstrations of a brake
stopping a blade. Never have I seen a destroyed blade. I understand
that it is not unusual for a blade to be resharpened, re-flattened, or
repaired. IMHO the blade is more likely to need to be re-flattened
than anything else. The brake is aluminum. I would not care to say how
many times I have cut into my aluminum miter fence with not damage to
the blade. And direct power is immediately disconnected from the blade
as it droops down below the table surface so the brake does not have to
harness the energy of the motor too.
Now, would "I" have a blade repaired and reuse it? that has not
happened yet and I don't have enough information to make that decision
right now. If I were letting my emotions enter into that decision
process I might cut my nose off to spite my face to bolster my thoughts
on the whole subject.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 06:41:44 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 13:18:01 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >krw <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> >news:[email protected]:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:45:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >>>[email protected] says...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> >>>> news:opqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@ 4ax.com:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> > Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye
> >> >>>> > and don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome
> >> >>>> > of any civil case in the US courts.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly
> >> >>>> broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by
> >> >>>> pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely,
> >> >>>> which is possible but not too likely.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Or perhaps Bosch has discovered prior art that would invalidate the
> >> >>>patents.
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps but the courtroom is an expensive place to show it off. If
> >> >> they really had something, they'd go to Gass and get a cheap license
> >> >> in trade for burying the prior art. Simply ignoring a patent is a
> >> >> very risky proposition. Bosch may think they can afford it, though.
> >> >
> >> >Prior art is a good point, tho. The Patent Office doesn't look
> >> >for prior art any longer before issuing a patent (they haven't
> >> >done for decades), so it's not uncommon for someone to find it
> >> >and challenge a patent on that ground.
> >>
> >> Not usually but there is a chance to show the USPTO prior art before a
> >> patent is granted. The point is that the normal way of dealing with
> >> this is to go to the patent holder with prior art in hand and
> >> negotiate a license.
> >
> >(1) We do not know that Bosch did not try this. In fact I do not
> >believe with know with any certainty that Bosch has not obtained a
> >license from Sawstip.
>
> Since you put two ideas under one bullet, I'll separate them for
> you...
>
> 1a) We don't know whether they approached SawStop with what they
> consider prior art but we do know that if they did, it didn't impress
> SS much.
>
> 1b) Yes, we certainly do know that Bosch has not obtained a license
> from SawStop. If Bosch had obtained a license, SawStop would not have
> sued them. That makes no sense at all.

You are of course correct. I claim insomnia, senior moment,
insufficient caffeine, or all of the above.

> >(2) That it may be "the normal way of dealing with this" does not mean
> >that doing so is mandatory. Why license something for which no license
> >is actually needed?
>
> Again, with the run-on ideas...
>
> 2a) Of course it's not mandatory but courts are exceedingly expensive
> and unreliable. There is a reason things are done the way they are.

For certain values.

> 2b) A license is required if a patent is in force. Their only hope to
> come out of the situation without major financial losses is to win the
> court case totally. This is pretty rare since the USPTO is considered
> the expert on patents, deserved or not.

License is not required if patent is not valid. One may go ahead and
license the invalid patent rather than attempting to prove that it is
nto valid. Bosch has apparently chosen not to do this.

> >> That usually does the trick because once that
> >> prior art is out of the bag it's out for everyone.
> >
> >And this is a bad thing because?
>
> Do try to follow along. It's not a good thing for SawStop.

Of course not. Having something bad happen to Sawstop is the whole
idea.

> It's not
> even a good thing for Bosch, if they can get a license cheap (or
> free).

You are assuming that you understand their objective.

> Patents limit competition, which is in their interest.

Only if they see "their interest" in having a partial monopoly on safety
saws. Maybe they are more public-spirited than that.

> >Bosch may see invalidating the Sawstop
> >patent as a public service.
>
> If that's the only alternative but only if.
>
> >Remember how Mercedes-Benz handled their
> >antiskid brake patent? They could have done like Gass and demanded huge
> >licensing fees for it, but instead, since they saw it as having a major
> >impact on highway safety, they licensed it to everyone at no charge.
>
> But Gass is not MB, quite obviously.

No. But Bosch is a large German company with vast resources, just like
Mercedes-Benz. And perhaps they think like Mercedes-Benz.

> >> It's in both
> >> parties interest to keep it out of court. Courts are expensive, in
> >> the best case and can mean the whole Magilla if things don't go so
> >> well.
> >
> >It's true that courts are expensive. However there is a long history of
> >those with deep pockets using this fact to beat the crap out of those
> >with shallower pockets. Last financials I can find show Sawstop with
> >about 6 million in total sales. Bosch has about 16 billion in profits.
> >Bosch is far far more capable of absorbing that expense than is Sawstop.
>
> OK, how much of their corporate profits are going to come from table
> saws?

You are assuming that they care.

> Are the executives willing to risk the expense of a court trial
> against the profits generated by one product?

Obviously.

> How do they pay this
> cost out of profits of a table saw over five years, especially
> considering that they're looking at treble damages.

Why do they have to pay the costs out of the profits from saws?

> Not smart but it appears that's what's afoot.

What appears to be afoot is someone with vast resources setting out to
see if they can beat the crap out of Gass.

> >> >And we don't know what conversations Bosch and SawStop may have
> >> >had. Perhaps Bosch did go to them with the prior art, and Gass
> >> >said "you're full of it! That wouldn't hold up in court." And
> >> >so Bosch decided to find out.
> >> >
> >> Bosch could have sued to negate the patents, too. This way, they may
> >> end up with tripled damages. It's a big risk.
> >
> >For certain values of "big". If it amounts to three times Sawstop's
> >total revenues then it's about 0.1 percent of Bosch's profits.
>
> Look at the risk/reward. The reward for Bosch is miniscule.

I think you grossly underestimate the public relations value of "beat
the crap out of that Sawstop asshole and made the technology freely
available for everybody".

> The
> risk, large.

The risk to Bosch is about the same as the risk to you of having a
quarter accidentlly go down the storm sewer while you are flipping it to
determine "heads or tails".

> They are taking on a pretty big risk for a couple of
> years in the market.

It's only a "big risk" if you consider a few million dollars to be a lot
of money.

> >Note that Bosch is privately held--they do not have to explain
> >themselves to shareholders--if they choose to risk a tiny fraction of
> >profits to swat an annoying fly, so be it.
>
> Perhaps but how is SawStop annoying them? Why now? I might agree
> more if they'd done it fifteen years ago.

You'd have to ask them. Perhaps it took them this long to come up with
something that their lawyers believe has a fair chance of prevailing in
court.

> >However they should have just bought the bastard, waited until he
stuck
> >his hand in the cookie jar, and then fired him for cause. But maybe
> >they tried and he was too stupid to sell. This might be a Ford vs
> >Ferrari situation--Ford tried to buy Ferrari, Enzo told them to sod off,
> >and so Henry wrote the engineers a blank check and told them to beat
> >Ferrari on his own ground, and of course they did.
> >
> Except Ferrari didn't have the patent on the internal combustion
> engine and wasn't up against the power of the federal government (and
> Goliath vs. David in courtroom full of technical illiterates.

No, they were up against the power of Goliath vs David on the racetracks
of Europe. And in fact I suspect that Ferrari helds a variety of
patents relating to high performance engines. Which were of no
relevance since Ford beat them with brute force and awfulness.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > And in fact I suspect that Ferrari helds a
> > variety of patents relating to high performance engines. Which were
> > of no relevance since Ford beat them with brute force and awfulness.
>
> I don't think I'd describe the GT40 as "brute force" and
> certainly not "awfulness". Awesomeness, maybe.

Ferrari won with small displacement and lots of cylinders. Henry just
stuck a NASCAR 427 in the thing,.

> What's interesting there is that, having been given a blank
> check by Henry Ford, his engineers took advantage to not
> only beat Ferrari at Le Mans, but also to fund Meyer-Drake
> to build an Indy engine (later sold to AJ and known as the
> Foyt-Ford); to fund Holman-Moody in NASCAR; and to fund
> Cosworth to build the DFV that dominated F1 for so long.

As for NASCAR, all the automakers at the time backed NASCAR teams.
>
> John

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> > And in fact I suspect that Ferrari helds a
> >> > variety of patents relating to high performance engines. Which
> >> > were of no relevance since Ford beat them with brute force and
> >> > awfulness.
> >>
> >> I don't think I'd describe the GT40 as "brute force" and
> >> certainly not "awfulness". Awesomeness, maybe.
> >
> > Ferrari won with small displacement and lots of cylinders. Henry just
> > stuck a NASCAR 427 in the thing,.
>
> That's actually a condemnation of Ferrari's engineering. For
> a long endurance race, a large, low-revving engine is more
> likely to be durable. Using the largest engine the rules
> allowed was intelligent engineering. The same idea was used
> by Jaguar many years later, when they used a turbo V6 for
> the short races, and the big V12 for Le Mans.
>
> > As for NASCAR, all the automakers at the time backed NASCAR teams.
>
> Your understanding of NASCAR history is somewhat lacking.

Perhaps. Living memory is often at variance with book learning.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >
> > Perhaps. Living memory is often at variance with book learning.
>
> That's kind of funny. It's clear you do not know John or understand
> anything about him. I won't bother to instruct you in how badly you just
> made yourself look - I'll just let that happen naturally.

I don't know who he is and I don't care who he is and quite honestly I
neither know nor care who you are either.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
>
> >> > As for NASCAR, all the automakers at the time backed NASCAR teams.
> >>
> >> Your understanding of NASCAR history is somewhat lacking.
> >
> > Perhaps. Living memory is often at variance with book learning.
>
> Yeah, memory is a tricky thing. I'm guessing you're thinking
> NASCAR of the 70's more than the 60's.

You're probably right. I would have been around 11 when Ford first won
LeMans.

> After the 1955 Le Mans disaster, all the automakers agreed to
> get out of racing. All of them then pretty quickly started
> supporting teams under the table, but for several years there
> was no official backing of NASCAR teams. Then in the early
> 60's Plymouth started backing Petty, and as noted upthread,
> Ford started funding Holman-Moody. GM stayed out of official
> involvement in NASCAR until 1970.


>
> John

On 9/23/2015 7:55 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 9/20/2015 11:21 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>> Look at the risk/reward. The reward for Bosch is miniscule.
>>
>> I think you grossly underestimate the public relations value of "beat
>> the crap out of that Sawstop asshole and made the technology freely
>> available for everybody".
>
> I like this idea, unlikely as it is. I would rather cut my arm off than
> buy anything from that Sawstop asshole.
>
> If Bosch wins, my next saw will be a Bosch. Chances are good I'll be
> well over 100 years old before I wear out my current saws that depend
> solely on user for safety.
>
> If I ever cut myself, which gets more likely as I age, I'll simply have
> to sue myself...



Well Jack, you are of the persuasion that makes emotional decisions
rather than rational, I strongly suspected that.

Not saying that there is anything wrong with that but leaving emotion
out of the decision process typically makes for better decision making.
And that is often hard to do.

When I read your comments, I'll try to remember that.

On 9/24/2015 10:28 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:48:51 -0500
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>
> you do know that no one really cares

70 responses by others at least 3 by you.

On 9/24/2015 10:28 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:48:51 -0500
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> my thoughts on the whole subject.
>
> the amount of time you spend defending your tool purchases/choices is
> astonishing

Not really defending, that is unnecessary. I'm just pointing out facts.

>
> you do know that no one really cares

Perhaps you do not but I get questioned about the Festool products quite
often. So perhaps you are jumping to conclusions with out facts.

>
> but i think you should ask the respective manufacturers for some free
> stuff

I'm not a mooch.

On 9/24/2015 11:37 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:24:17 -0500
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> 70 responses by others at least 3 by you.
>
> discussion is good but still no one really cares
> that is just human nature
>
> reading and discussing is one thing
>
>
> caring is another because that involves taking things to heart
>
> i like reading about your tools but i do not care beyond that
>
> if i win a festool i will post here and people will read it for whatever reason
> but they will not care and it will have zero impact on their life
>

Oh, ok, that is sensible. FWIW there are some here that do buy products
based on my reviews.

On 9/24/2015 11:26 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:20:16 -0500
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> Not really defending, that is unnecessary. I'm just pointing out
>> facts.
>
> you have that thing that is opposite of buyer remorse
> forget what it is called

Happiness from a smart decision made from using facts.



>
>> Perhaps you do not but I get questioned about the Festool products
>
> i never get asked about festool products

No doubt considering your next statement.

> i do not even know what festool means

So you do know that Festool has products based on your comment above but
don't know what it means. Do you know that Makita, Porter Cable, Fein,
Bosch, Powermatic, etc. mean?

>
>> quite often. So perhaps you are jumping to conclusions with out
>> facts.
>
>
> a long slow jump of years reading internet discussions
> maybe if i said that people barely care it would be easier to accept

If I read a comment and am asked a question I normally respond. Just
like I am responding to you.
>
>
>> I'm not a mooch.
>
> get on their payroll then if you have not already
> why go on and on for free when you can receive remunerations
>
Because I make money using their products. I don't want to work for
Festool right now. I have been retired from the rat race for 20+ years.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> And in fact I suspect that Ferrari helds a
> variety of patents relating to high performance engines. Which were
> of no relevance since Ford beat them with brute force and awfulness.

I don't think I'd describe the GT40 as "brute force" and
certainly not "awfulness". Awesomeness, maybe.

What's interesting there is that, having been given a blank
check by Henry Ford, his engineers took advantage to not
only beat Ferrari at Le Mans, but also to fund Meyer-Drake
to build an Indy engine (later sold to AJ and known as the
Foyt-Ford); to fund Holman-Moody in NASCAR; and to fund
Cosworth to build the DFV that dominated F1 for so long.

John

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > And in fact I suspect that Ferrari helds a
>> > variety of patents relating to high performance engines. Which
>> > were of no relevance since Ford beat them with brute force and
>> > awfulness.
>>
>> I don't think I'd describe the GT40 as "brute force" and
>> certainly not "awfulness". Awesomeness, maybe.
>
> Ferrari won with small displacement and lots of cylinders. Henry just
> stuck a NASCAR 427 in the thing,.

That's actually a condemnation of Ferrari's engineering. For
a long endurance race, a large, low-revving engine is more
likely to be durable. Using the largest engine the rules
allowed was intelligent engineering. The same idea was used
by Jaguar many years later, when they used a turbo V6 for
the short races, and the big V12 for Le Mans.

> As for NASCAR, all the automakers at the time backed NASCAR teams.

Your understanding of NASCAR history is somewhat lacking.

John

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:

>> > As for NASCAR, all the automakers at the time backed NASCAR teams.
>>
>> Your understanding of NASCAR history is somewhat lacking.
>
> Perhaps. Living memory is often at variance with book learning.

Yeah, memory is a tricky thing. I'm guessing you're thinking
NASCAR of the 70's more than the 60's.

After the 1955 Le Mans disaster, all the automakers agreed to
get out of racing. All of them then pretty quickly started
supporting teams under the table, but for several years there
was no official backing of NASCAR teams. Then in the early
60's Plymouth started backing Petty, and as noted upthread,
Ford started funding Holman-Moody. GM stayed out of official
involvement in NASCAR until 1970.

John

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 06:41:44 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 13:18:01 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >news:[email protected]:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:45:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> >>>[email protected] says...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >>>> news:opqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@ 4ax.com:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye
>> >>>> > and don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome
>> >>>> > of any civil case in the US courts.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly
>> >>>> broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by
>> >>>> pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely,
>> >>>> which is possible but not too likely.
>> >>>
>> >>>Or perhaps Bosch has discovered prior art that would invalidate the
>> >>>patents.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps but the courtroom is an expensive place to show it off. If
>> >> they really had something, they'd go to Gass and get a cheap license
>> >> in trade for burying the prior art. Simply ignoring a patent is a
>> >> very risky proposition. Bosch may think they can afford it, though.
>> >
>> >Prior art is a good point, tho. The Patent Office doesn't look
>> >for prior art any longer before issuing a patent (they haven't
>> >done for decades), so it's not uncommon for someone to find it
>> >and challenge a patent on that ground.
>>
>> Not usually but there is a chance to show the USPTO prior art before a
>> patent is granted. The point is that the normal way of dealing with
>> this is to go to the patent holder with prior art in hand and
>> negotiate a license.
>
>(1) We do not know that Bosch did not try this. In fact I do not
>believe with know with any certainty that Bosch has not obtained a
>license from Sawstip.

Since you put two ideas under one bullet, I'll separate them for
you...

1a) We don't know whether they approached SawStop with what they
consider prior art but we do know that if they did, it didn't impress
SS much.

1b) Yes, we certainly do know that Bosch has not obtained a license
from SawStop. If Bosch had obtained a license, SawStop would not have
sued them. That makes no sense at all.
>
>(2) That it may be "the normal way of dealing with this" does not mean
>that doing so is mandatory. Why license something for which no license
>is actually needed?

Again, with the run-on ideas...

2a) Of course it's not mandatory but courts are exceedingly expensive
and unreliable. There is a reason things are done the way they are.

2b) A license is required if a patent is in force. Their only hope to
come out of the situation without major financial losses is to win the
court case totally. This is pretty rare since the USPTO is considered
the expert on patents, deserved or not.

>> That usually does the trick because once that
>> prior art is out of the bag it's out for everyone.
>
>And this is a bad thing because?

Do try to follow along. It's not a good thing for SawStop. It's not
even a good thing for Bosch, if they can get a license cheap (or
free). Patents limit competition, which is in their interest.

>Bosch may see invalidating the Sawstop
>patent as a public service.

If that's the only alternative but only if.

>Remember how Mercedes-Benz handled their
>antiskid brake patent? They could have done like Gass and demanded huge
>licensing fees for it, but instead, since they saw it as having a major
>impact on highway safety, they licensed it to everyone at no charge.

But Gass is not MB, quite obviously.
>
>> It's in both
>> parties interest to keep it out of court. Courts are expensive, in
>> the best case and can mean the whole Magilla if things don't go so
>> well.
>
>It's true that courts are expensive. However there is a long history of
>those with deep pockets using this fact to beat the crap out of those
>with shallower pockets. Last financials I can find show Sawstop with
>about 6 million in total sales. Bosch has about 16 billion in profits.
>Bosch is far far more capable of absorbing that expense than is Sawstop.

OK, how much of their corporate profits are going to come from table
saws? Are the executives willing to risk the expense of a court trial
against the profits generated by one product? How do they pay this
cost out of profits of a table saw over five years, especially
considering that they're looking at treble damages. Not smart but it
appears that's what's afoot.
>
>> >And we don't know what conversations Bosch and SawStop may have
>> >had. Perhaps Bosch did go to them with the prior art, and Gass
>> >said "you're full of it! That wouldn't hold up in court." And
>> >so Bosch decided to find out.
>> >
>> Bosch could have sued to negate the patents, too. This way, they may
>> end up with tripled damages. It's a big risk.
>
>For certain values of "big". If it amounts to three times Sawstop's
>total revenues then it's about 0.1 percent of Bosch's profits.

Look at the risk/reward. The reward for Bosch is miniscule. The
risk, large. They are taking on a pretty big risk for a couple of
years in the market.

>Note that Bosch is privately held--they do not have to explain
>themselves to shareholders--if they choose to risk a tiny fraction of
>profits to swat an annoying fly, so be it.

Perhaps but how is SawStop annoying them? Why now? I might agree
more if they'd done it fifteen years ago.
>
>However they should have just bought the bastard, waited until he stuck
>his hand in the cookie jar, and then fired him for cause. But maybe
>they tried and he was too stupid to sell. This might be a Ford vs
>Ferrari situation--Ford tried to buy Ferrari, Enzo told them to sod off,
>and so Henry wrote the engineers a blank check and told them to beat
>Ferrari on his own ground, and of course they did.
>
Except Ferrari didn't have the patent on the internal combustion
engine and wasn't up against the power of the federal government (and
Goliath vs. David in courtroom full of technical illiterates.

J. Clarke wrote:

>
> Perhaps. Living memory is often at variance with book learning.

That's kind of funny. It's clear you do not know John or understand
anything about him. I won't bother to instruct you in how badly you just
made yourself look - I'll just let that happen naturally.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps. Living memory is often at variance with book learning.
>>
>> That's kind of funny. It's clear you do not know John or understand
>> anything about him. I won't bother to instruct you in how badly you
>> just made yourself look - I'll just let that happen naturally.
>
> I don't know who he is and I don't care who he is and quite honestly I
> neither know nor care who you are either.

Yeah - that's fine by me. Judging by the number of people you manage to
insult and get into arguments with here, I figure I'm in some pretty good
company in hearing you express your feelings.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 9/20/2015 11:21 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

>> Look at the risk/reward. The reward for Bosch is miniscule.
>
> I think you grossly underestimate the public relations value of "beat
> the crap out of that Sawstop asshole and made the technology freely
> available for everybody".

I like this idea, unlikely as it is. I would rather cut my arm off than
buy anything from that Sawstop asshole.

If Bosch wins, my next saw will be a Bosch. Chances are good I'll be
well over 100 years old before I wear out my current saws that depend
solely on user for safety.

If I ever cut myself, which gets more likely as I age, I'll simply have
to sue myself...
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 9/23/2015 9:04 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 9/23/2015 7:55 AM, Jack wrote:
>> On 9/20/2015 11:21 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>> Look at the risk/reward. The reward for Bosch is miniscule.
>>>
>>> I think you grossly underestimate the public relations value of "beat
>>> the crap out of that Sawstop asshole and made the technology freely
>>> available for everybody".
>>
>> I like this idea, unlikely as it is. I would rather cut my arm off than
>> buy anything from that Sawstop asshole.
>>
>> If Bosch wins, my next saw will be a Bosch. Chances are good I'll be
>> well over 100 years old before I wear out my current saws that depend
>> solely on user for safety.
>>
>> If I ever cut myself, which gets more likely as I age, I'll simply have
>> to sue myself...
>
> Well Jack, you are of the persuasion that makes emotional decisions
> rather than rational, I strongly suspected that.

> Not saying that there is anything wrong with that but leaving emotion
> out of the decision process typically makes for better decision making.
> And that is often hard to do.
>
> When I read your comments, I'll try to remember that.

Everyone one has emotions. In this case, you can call it emotions, I'll
call it principles. That "Sawstop asshole" tried to get the government
to require every saw manufacturer to license his crap. That to me is an
underhanded way to make a buck, not surprising for a lawyer.

My emotions tell me the first one to cut off a finger and sue Sawstop
for every penny they have would make my day.

My principles tell me not to support an asshole, and, after almost 60
years of safely using saws w/o his crap hanging on it I can probably
live without it. Others may be better off with it, that's fine by me.

Aside from that, if Bosch has a way to do the same thing w/o ruining
your blade, not to mention a $100 mechanism you need to buy from Goss,
then I would buy that tech in my next saw, which will not likely happen
until I'm well into my 100's.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:48:51 -0500
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

> my thoughts on the whole subject.

the amount of time you spend defending your tool purchases/choices is
astonishing

you do know that no one really cares

but i think you should ask the respective manufacturers for some free
stuff

t-shirts, blades, spare parts, etc.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:20:16 -0500
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

> Not really defending, that is unnecessary. I'm just pointing out
> facts.

you have that thing that is opposite of buyer remorse
forget what it is called

> Perhaps you do not but I get questioned about the Festool products

i never get asked about festool products
i do not even know what festool means

> quite often. So perhaps you are jumping to conclusions with out
> facts.


a long slow jump of years reading internet discussions
maybe if i said that people barely care it would be easier to accept


> I'm not a mooch.

get on their payroll then if you have not already
why go on and on for free when you can receive remunerations

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:24:17 -0500
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

> 70 responses by others at least 3 by you.

discussion is good but still no one really cares
that is just human nature

reading and discussing is one thing


caring is another because that involves taking things to heart

i like reading about your tools but i do not care beyond that

if i win a festool i will post here and people will read it for whatever reason
but they will not care and it will have zero impact on their life









_

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> ... You are basing a decision on a product, not by
> the product, but by your feelings towards the inventor.

Actually a resonable factor in one's decision. Environment, source, impact
on others, etc are all important factors in any decision. Certainly
reasonable to boycott a product based on an unethical manufacturer.

On 9/24/2015 10:48 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 9/24/2015 8:52 AM, Jack wrote:

>> Everyone one has emotions.

> Absolutely but if used to make decisions the result is a 50/50 chance
> that it is not a good one.

> In this case, you can call it emotions, I'll call it principles.
> I'll call it emotions. You are basing a decision on a product, not by
> the product, but by your feelings towards the inventor. And that's ok
> if you feel better making decisions that way. But for some one that
> might value your opinion on a product yours will not be based on fact if
> you let your emotions stand in the way of an honest evaluation of the
> product. It is important that I and others understand that.

Well, I partially agree with you, but my decision is not based solely on
emotions (principles) I also know, for a fact, that I have been using
table saws for going on 60 years with zero safety gadgets, and have not
once nicked a finger, cut of a hand, or killed myself. There are 40,000
motor vehicle deaths in the US every year, and most of them could be
prevented by simple crash cages, crash helmets and so on. I take my
changes dying with cars, I reckon after 60 years of sawing, I'm not
overly worried about loping off a pinkie.

> That "Sawstop asshole" tried to get the government
>> to require every saw manufacturer to license his crap. That to me is an
>> underhanded way to make a buck, not surprising for a lawyer.

> Welcome to the American way. At least he went about that in a legal way
> and in a way that was perfectly with in his rights.

The American way is to make a better product, and they will come to your
door. He made the product, then tried to force everyone to use it via
government mandate.

>> My principles tell me not to support an asshole, and, after almost 60
>> years of safely using saws w/o his crap hanging on it I can probably
>> live without it. Others may be better off with it, that's fine by me.
>
> Your emotions have lead you to believe that Gass is an asshole. Have
> you met him? He might be a nice guy, not an ass hole.

Actually, someone eles, (Clark?) called him an asshole, I just went with
that.

> He did not do any
> thing wrong, that we know of, other than pursue promoting his product in
> a way that you apparently do not agree with.

Yes, thus me agreeing with Clark that the guy is an asshole. Asshole is
just a simple way of saying what I really think about him, and I don't
really give a damn if he is the nicest, or the worst guy on the planet.

Ignorance is bliss. There
> is no telling how many products you use that have come to reality that
> affect you every day that yu don't know any thing about.

A principle is based on what you know, what I don't know, well, I don't
know.

>> Aside from that, if Bosch has a way to do the same thing w/o ruining
>> your blade, not to mention a $100 mechanism you need to buy from Goss,
>> then I would buy that tech in my next saw, which will not likely happen
>> until I'm well into my 100's.
>
> Ok, again with the emotional exaggerations. I know the SS brake is
> under $70. for the single blade brake and under $90 for the dado brake.

I always thought the brake was $70, I read your post somewhere that it
was $90, so I rounded it off to $100 (with taxes?) So shoot me.

> IIRC the Bosch tripping insert is approximately $80. But it is true
> that it can be used two times so the effect cost would be about half of
> what either SS brake costs. See, I'm using facts here so the it is
> easier to form a valid decision. Emotions do not care about facts of
> what the real decision process should be considering.

If I needed the tech, I would buy the Bosch simply on the fact it works,
and is NOT Saw Stop. I might add that when the SS first came out, I
looked at one at a Saw store show room and it looked like a nice saw. I
wasn't in the market, so didn't buy one. I didn't really care all that
much about the safety crap, just not a big concern for me then or now.
I did like the overall fit and finish, much as I (emotionally) hate to
admit it.

> And the assumption of the blade being destroyed is just that, an
> assumption.

I read all over the place, including, I believe, from your very own
keyboard that triggering the device destroys the blade. Considering the
importance of a true running blade, I can readily see how this dramatic
event would render a blade useless, and either in need of expensive
repairs or replacement if not using the worlds most expensive saw blade.

> I understand that it is not unusual for a blade to be resharpened, re-flattened, or
> repaired.

By "understand" I assume your mean you are making an assumption?

> If I were letting my emotions enter into that decision
> process I might cut my nose off to spite my face to bolster my thoughts
> on the whole subject.

If you were a man of principle, you would not do business with someone
that violates your principles, ie, an asshole. You don't mind his
business tactics, I do, simple as that.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:18:53 -0500
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

> So you do know that Festool has products based on your comment above
> but don't know what it means. Do you know that Makita, Porter Cable,
> Fein, Bosch, Powermatic, etc. mean?

humor has left you
or
actually you are someone that takes the internet seriously

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:20:24 -0500
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

> Oh, ok, that is sensible. FWIW there are some here that do buy
> products based on my reviews.

but do they get a discount

Leon wrote:
> On 9/25/2015 1:54 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:20:24 -0500
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, ok, that is sensible. FWIW there are some here that do buy
>>> products based on my reviews.
>>
>> but do they get a discount
>>
>
> No one gets a discount on Festool or SawStop
>
You mean besides those sponsored? I'll bet I could get them to throw in
a hat or t-shirt, at least...lol

krw <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:45:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>>
>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:opqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@ 4ax.com:
>>>
>>> > Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye
>>> > and don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome
>>> > of any civil case in the US courts.
>>>
>>> Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly
>>> broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by
>>> pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely,
>>> which is possible but not too likely.
>>
>>Or perhaps Bosch has discovered prior art that would invalidate the
>>patents.
>
> Perhaps but the courtroom is an expensive place to show it off. If
> they really had something, they'd go to Gass and get a cheap license
> in trade for burying the prior art. Simply ignoring a patent is a
> very risky proposition. Bosch may think they can afford it, though.

Prior art is a good point, tho. The Patent Office doesn't look
for prior art any longer before issuing a patent (they haven't
done for decades), so it's not uncommon for someone to find it
and challenge a patent on that ground.

And we don't know what conversations Bosch and SawStop may have
had. Perhaps Bosch did go to them with the prior art, and Gass
said "you're full of it! That wouldn't hold up in court." And
so Bosch decided to find out.

John

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:45:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:opqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:03:25 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>That's the hard part about patent cases - you might think it's
>> >>totally different, your lawyers (who aren't technical folk)
>> >>might think it's totally different, but will a judge & jury?
>> >>Patent cases are notoriously unpredictable.
>> >
>> > Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye and
>> > don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome of any
>> > civil case in the US courts.
>>
>> Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly
>> broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by
>> pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely,
>> which is possible but not too likely.
>
>Or perhaps Bosch has discovered prior art that would invalidate the
>patents.

Perhaps but the courtroom is an expensive place to show it off. If
they really had something, they'd go to Gass and get a cheap license
in trade for burying the prior art. Simply ignoring a patent is a
very risky proposition. Bosch may think they can afford it, though.

On 9/18/2015 10:02 PM, krw wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 16:50:33 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/18/2015 4:45 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:opqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@
>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:03:25 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the hard part about patent cases - you might think it's
>>>>>> totally different, your lawyers (who aren't technical folk)
>>>>>> might think it's totally different, but will a judge & jury?
>>>>>> Patent cases are notoriously unpredictable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye and
>>>>> don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome of any
>>>>> civil case in the US courts.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly
>>>> broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by
>>>> pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely,
>>>> which is possible but not too likely.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps Bosch has discovered prior art that would invalidate the
>>> patents.
>>>
>>
>> Art?
>
> It's jargon in the IP world. ...as in "one practiced in the art (of
> designing table saws)". AKA "Technology".
>
Oooooh.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 16:50:33 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 9/18/2015 4:45 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:opqmva14cik686vlr9h8ogbaunome4m4fg@
>>> 4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:03:25 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's the hard part about patent cases - you might think it's
>>>>> totally different, your lawyers (who aren't technical folk)
>>>>> might think it's totally different, but will a judge & jury?
>>>>> Patent cases are notoriously unpredictable.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly right. I read the patents with a reasonably trained eye and
>>>> don't see how Bosch can win but I'd never bet on the outcome of any
>>>> civil case in the US courts.
>>>
>>> Agreed. Unless the court decides SawStop's patents are overly
>>> broad ("a woodworking machine that retracts a cutting tool by
>>> pivoting" is pretty damn broad), and invalidates them completely,
>>> which is possible but not too likely.
>>
>> Or perhaps Bosch has discovered prior art that would invalidate the
>> patents.
>>
>
>Art?

It's jargon in the IP world. ...as in "one practiced in the art (of
designing table saws)". AKA "Technology".

Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> ... You are basing a decision on a product, not by
>> the product, but by your feelings towards the inventor.
>
> Actually a resonable factor in one's decision. Environment, source, impact
> on others, etc are all important factors in any decision. Certainly
> reasonable to boycott a product based on an unethical manufacturer.

That is an emotional decision and perfectly fine if that way of deciding
which is best for you, I try to use facts about the product with out
considering anything else. You are not buying the manufacturer, you should
not consider that if you want to make the best educated decision on closing
a product that best works for you.

On 9/25/2015 6:00 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 9/25/2015 5:55 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>
>>> IOW, the doctorine of selfishness.
>>>
>>> And if the manufacturer makes his product using slave and/or child
>>> labor?
>>
>> This has come up wit other groups and other products. Child labor is
>> a problem in some countries, but not buying the product is not the
>> answer.
>> If you put those factories out of business the kids can no longer
>> afford a bowl of rice. What is the solution? Since you want them shut
>> down, you must have a better idea.
>>
> Buying products manufactured with slave or child labor only perpetuates
> that abuse and that poverty. Buy the competing product that costs just a
> little bit more and pays a free adult a better wage so they can send their
> kids to school.
>
> Period.
>
Seriously? You believe that if you don't buy a product, that might be
produced by a child, that it will put a stop to that? While I agree
that child labor is not a great scenario, if not manufacturing, they
might be sold or traded as slaves.

krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:48:51 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/2015 8:52 AM, Jack wrote:
>>> On 9/23/2015 9:04 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/2015 7:55 AM, Jack wrote:
>>>>> On 9/20/2015 11:21 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look at the risk/reward. The reward for Bosch is miniscule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you grossly underestimate the public relations value of "beat
>>>>>> the crap out of that Sawstop asshole and made the technology freely
>>>>>> available for everybody".
>>>>>
>>>>> I like this idea, unlikely as it is. I would rather cut my arm off than
>>>>> buy anything from that Sawstop asshole.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Bosch wins, my next saw will be a Bosch. Chances are good I'll be
>>>>> well over 100 years old before I wear out my current saws that depend
>>>>> solely on user for safety.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I ever cut myself, which gets more likely as I age, I'll simply have
>>>>> to sue myself...
>>>>
>>>> Well Jack, you are of the persuasion that makes emotional decisions
>>>> rather than rational, I strongly suspected that.
>>>
>>>> Not saying that there is anything wrong with that but leaving emotion
>>>> out of the decision process typically makes for better decision making.
>>>> And that is often hard to do.
>>>>
>>>> When I read your comments, I'll try to remember that.
>>>
>>> Everyone one has emotions.
>> Absolutely but if used to make decisions the result is a 50/50 chance
>> that it is not a good one.
>>
>> In this case, you can call it emotions, I'll call it principles.
>> I'll call it emotions. You are basing a decision on a product, not by
>> the product, but by your feelings towards the inventor. And that's ok
>> if you feel better making decisions that way. But for some one that
>> might value your opinion on a product yours will not be based on fact if
>> you let your emotions stand in the way of an honest evaluation of the
>> product. It is important that I and others understand that.
>
> Emotions? Perhaps but there are several companies I refuse to do
> business with because the way they do business is counter to my
> interests. Sony, for instance. I haven't bought anything with the
> Sony name on it since the rootkit debacle. Any company who would even
> consider such a thing gets crossed off my list.

That is ok IMHO, I will not do business in the foreseeable future with HP
because of the problems I had with all 3 of their printers an their
service. Yours and mine are valid reasons for making decisions. We were
both actually affected.






>>
>> That "Sawstop asshole" tried to get the government
>>> to require every saw manufacturer to license his crap. That to me is an
>>> underhanded way to make a buck, not surprising for a lawyer.
>>
>> Welcome to the American way. At least he went about that in a legal way
>> and in a way that was perfectly with in his rights.
>
> "Rights" and "right" are only close in spelling bees.
>
>>> My emotions tell me the first one to cut off a finger and sue Sawstop
>>> for every penny they have would make my day.
>>
>> I think you are way too invested in wanting revenge for something that
>> might have happened in the past but did not happen. While I understand
>> your feelings towards Gass, it is unlikely that his insurance would not
>> cover the loss and IIRC there are limitations to this type settlement.
>> Again emotions interfering logical judgement with what is likely to
>> really happen, if it happened. At least eight years in production and I
>> don't think there has been a report of even a cut. It is likely that
>> information would come up in a trial and the jury would probably favor
>> the defendant rather than sacrifice ending a great safety feature on a
>> good tool, if they took every penny.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> My principles tell me not to support an asshole, and, after almost 60
>>> years of safely using saws w/o his crap hanging on it I can probably
>>> live without it. Others may be better off with it, that's fine by me.
>>
>> Your emotions have lead you to believe that Gass is an asshole. Have
>> you met him? He might bea nice guy, not an ass hole. He did not do any
>> thing wrong, that we know of, other than pursue promoting his product in
>> a way that you apparently do not agree with. Ignorance is bliss. There
>> is no telling how many products you use that have come to reality that
>> affect you every day that yu don't know any thing about.
>
> How many monopolies do I support? Dunno of any.

How about the government you send your hard earned dollars to? :-)


>
>>> Aside from that, if Bosch has a way to do the same thing w/o ruining
>>> your blade, not to mention a $100 mechanism you need to buy from Goss,
>>> then I would buy that tech in my next saw, which will not likely happen
>>> until I'm well into my 100's.
>>
>> Ok, again with the emotional exaggerations. I know the SS brake is
>> under $70. for the single blade brake and under $90 for the dado brake.
>> IIRC the Bosch tripping insert is approximately $80. But it is true
>> that it can be used two times so the effect cost would be about half of
>> what either SS brake costs. See, I'm using facts here so the it is
>> easier to form a valid decision. Emotions do not care about facts of
>> what the real decision process should be considering.
>> And the assumption of the blade being destroyed is just that, an
>> assumption. I have seen many pictures and demonstrations of a brake
>> stopping a blade. Never have I seen a destroyed blade. I understand
>> that it is not unusual for a blade to be resharpened, re-flattened, or
>> repaired. IMHO the blade is more likely to need to be re-flattened
>> than anything else. The brake is aluminum. I would not care to say how
>> many times I have cut into my aluminum miter fence with not damage to
>> the blade. And direct power is immediately disconnected from the blade
>> as it droops down below the table surface so the brake does not have to
>> harness the energy of the motor too.
>> Now, would "I" have a blade repaired and reuse it? that has not
>> happened yet and I don't have enough information to make that decision
>> right now. If I were letting my emotions enter into that decision
>> process I might cut my nose off to spite my face to bolster my thoughts
>> on the whole subject.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On 9/25/2015 7:00 PM, Baxter wrote:
> > Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> On 9/25/2015 5:55 PM, Baxter wrote:
> >>
> >>> IOW, the doctorine of selfishness.
> >>>
> >>> And if the manufacturer makes his product using slave and/or child
> >>> labor?
> >>
> >> This has come up wit other groups and other products. Child labor is
> >> a problem in some countries, but not buying the product is not the
> >> answer.
> >> If you put those factories out of business the kids can no longer
> >> afford a bowl of rice. What is the solution? Since you want them shut
> >> down, you must have a better idea.
> >>
> > Buying products manufactured with slave or child labor only perpetuates
> > that abuse and that poverty. Buy the competing product that costs just a
> > little bit more and pays a free adult a better wage so they can send their
> > kids to school.
> >
> > Period.
> >
>
> So let the other kids starve? I don't see where you offered a solution,
> just some self righteous posturing.

So you're saying that in China the options are to be slave-labor for
Apple and Nike or to starve? So much for Communism and the state-
controlled economy.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On 9/26/2015 1:33 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And if the manufacturer makes his product using slave and/or child
> >>>>> labor?
> >>>>
> >>>> This has come up wit other groups and other products. Child labor is
> >>>> a problem in some countries, but not buying the product is not the
> >>>> answer.
> >>>> If you put those factories out of business the kids can no longer
> >>>> afford a bowl of rice. What is the solution? Since you want them shut
> >>>> down, you must have a better idea.
> >>>>
> >>> Buying products manufactured with slave or child labor only perpetuates
> >>> that abuse and that poverty. Buy the competing product that costs just a
> >>> little bit more and pays a free adult a better wage so they can send their
> >>> kids to school.
> >>>
> >>> Period.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So let the other kids starve? I don't see where you offered a solution,
> >> just some self righteous posturing.
> >
> > So you're saying that in China the options are to be slave-labor for
> > Apple and Nike or to starve? So much for Communism and the state-
> > controlled economy.
> >
>
> I don't see where I said that or brought particular brands into the mix.
>
> In India, a bunch of do-gooders from outside were demanding the children
> not work for a clothing manufacturer. The kids begged them to go away
> because without the meager wages, they had nothing.
>
> If for have a solution, I'm all for it, but don't put them out of work
> until you do. I'm not in favor of child labor, but I'm against
> starvation.
>
> Ask your parents and grandparents when they went to work. Many of them
> did not finish elementary school because they had to go to work to help
> support the family.

It's not my job to fix some other country's social problems. Maybe if
they spent more money on developing their economy and less on building
space rockets and nuclear weapons and buying used aircraft carriers and
the like their people would be better off.

On 9/26/2015 8:51 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

>
> It's not my job to fix some other country's social problems. Maybe if
> they spent more money on developing their economy and less on building
> space rockets and nuclear weapons and buying used aircraft carriers and
> the like their people would be better off.
>

I'm OK with that, but I'll still buy the tool that suites me best. If
it keeps someone working very hard, but not to starve, so much the better.

On 9/26/2015 7:20 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/26/2015 1:33 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if the manufacturer makes his product using slave and/or child
>>>>>> labor?
>>>>>
>>>>> This has come up wit other groups and other products. Child labor is
>>>>> a problem in some countries, but not buying the product is not the
>>>>> answer.
>>>>> If you put those factories out of business the kids can no longer
>>>>> afford a bowl of rice. What is the solution? Since you want them shut
>>>>> down, you must have a better idea.
>>>>>
>>>> Buying products manufactured with slave or child labor only perpetuates
>>>> that abuse and that poverty. Buy the competing product that costs
>>>> just a
>>>> little bit more and pays a free adult a better wage so they can send
>>>> their
>>>> kids to school.
>>>>
>>>> Period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So let the other kids starve? I don't see where you offered a solution,
>>> just some self righteous posturing.
>>
>> So you're saying that in China the options are to be slave-labor for
>> Apple and Nike or to starve? So much for Communism and the state-
>> controlled economy.
>>
>
> I don't see where I said that or brought particular brands into the mix.
>
> In India, a bunch of do-gooders from outside were demanding the children
> not work for a clothing manufacturer. The kids begged them to go away
> because without the meager wages, they had nothing.
>
> If for have a solution, I'm all for it, but don't put them out of work
> until you do. I'm not in favor of child labor, but I'm against starvation.
>
> Ask your parents and grandparents when they went to work. Many of them
> did not finish elementary school because they had to go to work to help
> support the family.

Exactly. This is a lesson of don't tell me what is good for me until
you have walked a mile in my shoes. Don't help me starve to death.

On 9/25/2015 7:00 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 9/25/2015 5:55 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>
>>> IOW, the doctorine of selfishness.
>>>
>>> And if the manufacturer makes his product using slave and/or child
>>> labor?
>>
>> This has come up wit other groups and other products. Child labor is
>> a problem in some countries, but not buying the product is not the
>> answer.
>> If you put those factories out of business the kids can no longer
>> afford a bowl of rice. What is the solution? Since you want them shut
>> down, you must have a better idea.
>>
> Buying products manufactured with slave or child labor only perpetuates
> that abuse and that poverty. Buy the competing product that costs just a
> little bit more and pays a free adult a better wage so they can send their
> kids to school.
>
> Period.
>

So let the other kids starve? I don't see where you offered a solution,
just some self righteous posturing.

On 9/26/2015 1:33 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>> And if the manufacturer makes his product using slave and/or child
>>>>> labor?
>>>>
>>>> This has come up wit other groups and other products. Child labor is
>>>> a problem in some countries, but not buying the product is not the
>>>> answer.
>>>> If you put those factories out of business the kids can no longer
>>>> afford a bowl of rice. What is the solution? Since you want them shut
>>>> down, you must have a better idea.
>>>>
>>> Buying products manufactured with slave or child labor only perpetuates
>>> that abuse and that poverty. Buy the competing product that costs just a
>>> little bit more and pays a free adult a better wage so they can send their
>>> kids to school.
>>>
>>> Period.
>>>
>>
>> So let the other kids starve? I don't see where you offered a solution,
>> just some self righteous posturing.
>
> So you're saying that in China the options are to be slave-labor for
> Apple and Nike or to starve? So much for Communism and the state-
> controlled economy.
>

I don't see where I said that or brought particular brands into the mix.

In India, a bunch of do-gooders from outside were demanding the children
not work for a clothing manufacturer. The kids begged them to go away
because without the meager wages, they had nothing.

If for have a solution, I'm all for it, but don't put them out of work
until you do. I'm not in favor of child labor, but I'm against
starvation.

Ask your parents and grandparents when they went to work. Many of them
did not finish elementary school because they had to go to work to help
support the family.

On 9/25/2015 4:55 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Leon <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> ... You are basing a decision on a product, not by
>>>> the product, but by your feelings towards the inventor.
>>>
>>> Actually a resonable factor in one's decision. Environment, source,
>>> impact on others, etc are all important factors in any decision.
>>> Certainly reasonable to boycott a product based on an unethical
>>> manufacturer.
>>
>> That is an emotional decision and perfectly fine if that way of
>> deciding which is best for you, I try to use facts about the product
>> with out considering anything else. You are not buying the
>> manufacturer,
>
> But you ARE supporting that manufacturer.

Oh Well...

>
>> you should not consider that if you want to make the
>> best educated decision on closing a product that best works for you.
>>
> IOW, the doctorine of selfishness.

Absolutely if that is they way you want to look at it.

>
> And if the manufacturer makes his product using slave and/or child labor?

Now you are being emotional and speculating and using what if's. I deal
with product facts information. I suppose one could find a problem with
some kind of exploitation with most anything you might purchase.

On 9/25/2015 5:02 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/25/2015 5:55 PM, Baxter wrote:
>
>> IOW, the doctorine of selfishness.
>>
>> And if the manufacturer makes his product using slave and/or child labor?
>>
>
> This has come up wit other groups and other products. Child labor is a
> problem in some countries, but not buying the product is not the answer.
> If you put those factories out of business the kids can no longer
> afford a bowl of rice. What is the solution? Since you want them shut
> down, you must have a better idea.


I believe migrant workers and their families, including kids, work in
the fields to harvest.

Leon wrote:
> Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> ... You are basing a decision on a product, not by
>>> the product, but by your feelings towards the inventor.
>> Actually a resonable factor in one's decision. Environment, source, impact
>> on others, etc are all important factors in any decision. Certainly
>> reasonable to boycott a product based on an unethical manufacturer.
> That is an emotional decision and perfectly fine if that way of deciding
> which is best for you, I try to use facts about the product with out
> considering anything else. You are not buying the manufacturer, you should
> not consider that if you want to make the best educated decision on closing
> a product that best works for you.

That reminds me of the "prisoners dilemma" (problem from game theory).

On 9/25/2015 2:11 AM, Leon wrote:
> krw <[email protected]> wrote:

>> How many monopolies do I support? Dunno of any.

> How about the government you send your hard earned dollars to? :-)

Government monopoly is called socialism. You can't choose not to
support it on principle. This is what SawStop tried to impose on the
world. It is not, as you say, the American way.

So now, my principles tell me to shoot the bird at Gass.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

Leon <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> ... You are basing a decision on a product, not by
>>> the product, but by your feelings towards the inventor.
>>
>> Actually a resonable factor in one's decision. Environment, source,
>> impact on others, etc are all important factors in any decision.
>> Certainly reasonable to boycott a product based on an unethical
>> manufacturer.
>
> That is an emotional decision and perfectly fine if that way of
> deciding which is best for you, I try to use facts about the product
> with out considering anything else. You are not buying the
> manufacturer,

But you ARE supporting that manufacturer.

>you should not consider that if you want to make the
> best educated decision on closing a product that best works for you.
>
IOW, the doctorine of selfishness.

And if the manufacturer makes his product using slave and/or child labor?

Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 9/25/2015 5:55 PM, Baxter wrote:
>
>> IOW, the doctorine of selfishness.
>>
>> And if the manufacturer makes his product using slave and/or child
>> labor?
>
> This has come up wit other groups and other products. Child labor is
> a problem in some countries, but not buying the product is not the
> answer.
> If you put those factories out of business the kids can no longer
> afford a bowl of rice. What is the solution? Since you want them shut
> down, you must have a better idea.
>
Buying products manufactured with slave or child labor only perpetuates
that abuse and that poverty. Buy the competing product that costs just a
little bit more and pays a free adult a better wage so they can send their
kids to school.

Period.

Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 9/25/2015 7:00 PM, Baxter wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 9/25/2015 5:55 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>>> IOW, the doctorine of selfishness.
>>>>
>>>> And if the manufacturer makes his product using slave and/or child
>>>> labor?
>>>
>>> This has come up wit other groups and other products. Child labor
>>> is a problem in some countries, but not buying the product is not
>>> the answer.
>>> If you put those factories out of business the kids can no longer
>>> afford a bowl of rice. What is the solution? Since you want them
>>> shut down, you must have a better idea.
>>>
>> Buying products manufactured with slave or child labor only
>> perpetuates that abuse and that poverty. Buy the competing product
>> that costs just a little bit more and pays a free adult a better wage
>> so they can send their kids to school.
>>
>> Period.
>>
>
> So let the other kids starve? I don't see where you offered a
> solution, just some self righteous posturing.

You might study the origins of Capitalism. Those kids probably weren't
starving before the factory was build and their families forced of the
land they were farming.

----------
The Highland Clearances, a prime example of Capitalist displacement of
peoples. In the 18oo’s, Scottish tribal chieftains began expelling people
from land in order to ‘improve’ production. Supported by the English
Crown which had already begun the same process, landlords forced people
off their ancestral lands to turn land into Capital. The subsequent
emigration also caused violence in the lands to which people fled, as
indigenous peoples in the Americas and Australia became secondary victims
of Scottish Capitalism.

http://tinyurl.com/om6wyds
-----------

And, no, this pattern is not restricted to Scotland but is repeated again
and again around the world.

On 9/25/2015 5:55 PM, Baxter wrote:

> IOW, the doctorine of selfishness.
>
> And if the manufacturer makes his product using slave and/or child labor?
>

This has come up wit other groups and other products. Child labor is a
problem in some countries, but not buying the product is not the answer.
If you put those factories out of business the kids can no longer
afford a bowl of rice. What is the solution? Since you want them shut
down, you must have a better idea.