> This is where I have a problem. Mandate this invention on all Table Saws?
> This is just an attempt to force his will on all. I have a really big
> problem with that!!!
Remember when you could buy a gasoline powered lawnmower that would just
start and run when you pulled the cord ?
and keep running thereafter until you shut it off ?
Now you have to HOLD the safety interlock on the handle or it will shut
off... I find that a major PITA.
Same goes for the little BEAM sensors on garage doors.
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:33:18 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 3/8/2010 4:54 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 4:26 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>>>
>>> Asshat lawyers ... greed rewarding stupidity/personal irresponsibility.
>>
>> I couldn't agree more.
>
>My problem isn't with the asshat lawyers but with the asshat judge and
>asshat jury that let the trial go forward to begin with and then ruled
>in favor of the plaintiffs.
>
>And it shows that the other manufacturers were right to not back
>sawstop--exactly what was predicted is taking place and in a few years
>from now the affordable power saw will cease to exist as they become
>laden with lawyer-induced safety features each of which adds its
>increment of cost.
Not to mention that the ass hat *could* have bought a Saw Stop if his finger
were that important to him. Seems he is the *only* negligent one.
In article <[email protected]>, CW
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If you come up with something idiot proof, they'll just come up with better
> idiots.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so
ingenious...
"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> I'd be curious to know if he was free handing cuts at the time... If so
>> he certainly wouldn't be the first flooring guy to guide wood through the
>> blade sans fence or miter gauge...
>
> thinking about doing that for cross cuts gives me the heebie-jeebies....
> for rips? Doesn't even bear thinking about. I mean, I guy could lose a
> finger doing tha.... wait, nevermind...
Ya think...??
"Evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> This is where I have a problem. Mandate this invention on all Table Saws?
You have to refresh me - it's been a while since he went through all of his
attempts at things... Did he ever try to get it mandated that all saws
would require SS? I don't recall that ever happening, but it's been a
while. I thought I remembered him lobbying for SS as a requirement for all
new saws though. Frankly, I don't blame him for lobbying for that. As it
turns out though, whether he actually tried that or not, it never happened.
Therefore, we're right back to where we were and I maintain that the issue
is with the jury system and not with his attempts to make a bizillion
dollars.
> This is just an attempt to force his will on all. I have a really big
> problem with that!!!
I'm with you on the notion of forcing one's will - but... did he really do
that, or is the story getting stretched over time?
> You can buy a small table table saw for around
> 100.00. I use an old Delta which I will call a Miniature Table Saw
> probably 2-3 times a week, (off site portable) which I paid 80.00. How
> much would it cost to put this SS invention on this saw? More then the saw
> is worth. If you can't figure out that using a table saw is dangerous and
> you need to use special precautions then you have no reason using it. Have
> no problem signing an agreement to hold harmless saw manufactures without
> SS.
Again - I don't recall every hearing of a requirement to install SS on all
table saws out there. But, I might have forgotten something. I've been
known to do that...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:26:15 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>
>> ---
>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>
>Asshat lawyers ... greed rewarding stupidity/personal irresponsibility.
How do I word this softly? "I can't wait for some idiot to get hurt on
his SawStop saw to prove that they can't keep idiots from hurting
themselves."
How about new legislation, mandating that "any lawyer who loses a
frivial case has to suffer that malady he was ranting about"?
(frivial = trivial + frivolous)
--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.
-- Chuang-tzu
On Mar 10, 11:26=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Good grief... =A0That's fine but what if the SawStop hired sufficient
> > lobbiests to make non-SawStop saws were illegal to sell? =A0Do you thin=
k
> > the "license fees" would be more reasonable?
>
> Good grief??? =A0Good grief indeed! =A0Where do you get ideas like this? =
=A0Are
> you not aware of the competitive market that surrounds you? =A0Make them
> illegal to sell? =A0As you said - good grief...
WTF are you talking about? If SS technology is required by law, you
think SS' license fees would go down?
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Good grief... That's fine but what if the SawStop hired sufficient
> lobbiests to make non-SawStop saws were illegal to sell? Do you think
> the "license fees" would be more reasonable?
Good grief??? Good grief indeed! Where do you get ideas like this? Are
you not aware of the competitive market that surrounds you? Make them
illegal to sell? As you said - good grief...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:56:14 -0600, Chris Friesen <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 03/11/2010 06:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Reading the patent, he certainly *has* sealed off any competing technology.
>> The amazing thing, is that he seems to have painted himself into the table saw
>> corner unnecessarily.
>
>I don't think he has...in general the preamble of a patent claim is not
>considered a legally limiting constraint. But they're definitely
>originally aimed at woodworking equipment.
That wasn't a "preamble". It was the first claim; the independent one.
I'll look up the other patents you cited later.
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:18:55 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/8/2010 5:57 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>
>> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:34ac083e-fc27-4bb0-9b37-5806813887e8@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>
>>> ---
>>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>>
>> Irrational... if it was so important why did he buy the saw he purchased?
>>
>> Due to the irrationality of this suit that gene pool may need terming... He
>> cut the wrong part off for that though...
>
>A bit too much in line with the original legal maneuvering and
>machinations of the lawyer inventor. Color me cynical, but with that
>name, and occupation as hardwood floor installer, odds are that this is
>a carefully selected case, tried in a carefully selected venue, with the
>plaintiff as a convenient 'victim of opportunity', by greedy lawyers on
>contingency, and with more than just the stink of collusion of similar
>financial interests.
Wouldn't surprise me seems to me they tried to get OSHA to cram it
down everyones throat and it didn't fly.
Mike M
On Mar 8, 4:26=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>
> >http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>
> > ---
> >www.garagewoodworks.com
>
> Asshat lawyers ... =A0greed rewarding stupidity/personal irresponsibility=
.
I couldn't agree more.
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 2010-03-08 16:26:15 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> said:
> Asshat lawyers ... greed rewarding stupidity/personal irresponsibility.
Not to mention the lawyers' 30% (or greater) rake-off. They don't do
those TV ads because they care about you...
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>
> Suing after you cut your finger off is dumb. Recently I find myself
> full of fear every time I want to cut a piece of wood on my saw. I'm
> a nervous wreck and the stress is not good for me. I'm going to sue
> so they put a flesh detecting device on my saw and enough money for a
> relaxing vacation.
>
> Get my lawyer on the phone.
>
The only time it would make sense is if a safety feature failed due to
some defect. The saw in question didn't have the feature, so it couldn't
have failed. Since Ryobi probably didn't make any claims of having the
feature, the guy shouldn't have expected it to be there.
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
On 2010-03-09 13:10:57 -0500, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> said:
> You appear to be the only one here. You don't see a conflict of
> interest? He has a state-mandated monopoly (patent) and you don't see
> a problem with the state also requiring his device? <boggle>
Nope -- he offered to license the technology (perhaps the fee was
higher than some might deem appropriate, but's that's not _really_ the
issue). The others were certainly free to develop their own systems.
What seems to gall many writing in this thread is that with a mandated
safety system, there well be no _cheap_ (read: inexpensive) saws. That
means no saws built to a price point for the HDs of this world. Is that
a bad thing? If that's all you think you could afford, yes, it's bad.
If you're DELTA hawking a new Unisaw, yeah, it's bad, because your
price point is in the neighborhood of the SawStop.
If you're a hand surgeon (Anyone out there falling into this category?
Hands, please!) this is a bad thing because it's gonna affect your
livelihood. Conversly, this is a good thing for insurance companies...
but you knew that.
If you'd like to keep your fingers where they belong (on your hands, of
course -- what did you think I meant?) then this is a damn good thing.
The price of a SawStop (irrespectively of the technology, I'm told this
is a GOOD machine) is real cheap insurance. The repair of a partially
severed tendon ten years ago (don't ask, it wasn't in the shop) was
$3,500. Granted, you can barely see the scar, but I'd much rather have
spent that on something else.
I'm pretty new to woodshop. I gulped at the price when I first saw the
SawStop, but I made the decsion right then and there this would be my
next TS. And I will be plunking down the cash real soon.
So, is the management of SawStop ethical in pushing for the safety mandate?
For me, it's not an issue.
On 2010-03-09 17:48:42 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> said:
> I'm with you on the notion of forcing one's will - but... did he really
> do that, or is the story getting stretched over time?
Probably, c.f. Toyota.
On 2010-03-09 17:32:50 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> said:
> The lawyers went around and found some crappy diners and the like that
> served lukewarm coffee and claimed that that was some kind of
> "standard".
It is now, damnit!
On 2010-03-10 09:07:05 -0500, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> said:
> Goody for you. It's obvious that you're the only one who matters.
Yep.
And you're an -- oh, Hell, fill in the blank.
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:32:41 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Relax, just trying to dipstick your ken of the historical context.
Egad! What'll Barbie think of her Ken being dipsticked?
(strange waking moments from Oregon)
--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.
-- Chuang-tzu
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:13:53 -0600, the infamous
[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) scrawled the following:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:55:10 -0800 (PST), the infamous
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>On Mar 9, 10:38 am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:26:15 -0600, the infamous Swingman
>>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>>
>>>> >On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>> >>http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>>
>>>> >> ---
>>>> >>www.garagewoodworks.com
>>>>
>>>> >Asshat lawyers ... greed rewarding stupidity/personal irresponsibility.
>>>>
>>>> How do I word this softly? "I can't wait for some idiot to get hurt on
>>>> his SawStop saw to prove that they can't keep idiots from hurting
>>>> themselves."
>>>
>>>Now *there* is a suit. They're advertising that they will protect you
>>>from yourself!
>>>
>>>> How about new legislation, mandating that "any lawyer who loses a
>>>> frivial case has to suffer that malady he was ranting about"?
>>>>
>>>> (frivial = trivial + frivolous)
>>>
>>>Wouldn't that be trialous? ;-)
>>
>>How DARE you mock my mock words! Harrumph! <stomp, pout>
>
>Just think, those who are against the use of your new word can be
>described as confrivial.
Thank you, my profrivial friend.
--
There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
-- Ronald Reagan
Swingman wrote:
>
> Nothing "revisionist" about it ... the manufacturers at the time
> rightly considered the licensing fees, or otherwise face threats of
> future legal action, as little more than "extortion and
> monopolistic", which has indeed turned out to be the case.
Let's run the numbers: Say the inventor figures he should get $1 million per
year for his invention.
He calculates 100,000 table saws are sold each year, so he needs ten bucks
for each saw sold. Assuming half of the saw people won't go for the deal,
that means he needs $20 royalty per saw sold.
Further assuming half the saws sold are under $200 retail ($100 out the
factory door), that means the saw manufacturers are looking at a 20% price
increase on their finished product.
I can't imagine a tool manufacturer taking that big a competitive hit
intentionally.
Further, that's only if the inventor was $1 million per year. He may need
many times that to amortize development costs.
He needs to "generalize" his invention, making it available for other
devices such as washing machines, garbage disposals*, grinders,
lawnmowers**, or anything else that goes 'round and 'round. Probably not
needed on a clock's second hand.
----
* How this would work on a chicken bone, I do not know.
** Your lawnmower really needs to come to a quick stop when it encounters a
dead opossum - or for that matter, a live opossum that was playing opossum.
An ordinary mower, operating at 3,000 RPM, can fling opossum parts over
almost a quarter-acre and as high as a second-story window. Most will stick
where they land.
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 16:21:04 -0800 (PST), the infamous
"SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Just to go against the grain, I kind of wish it would get mandated,
>then maybe in mass production it would become more affordable. I try
>to be as safe as possible, number one priority, but I still feel a
>little stupid every time I use my ole flesh eating Powermatic TS. If I
>loose a finger I'll feel even stupider... forever. I wish I had a Saw
>Stop. I can't think I'll buy any new saw except a swa stop. I just
>wish they were cheaper or the feature was availble on more saws.
Yeah, the SawStop is not a bad idea at all, but to add one at double
the cost of a saw just irks me to no end.
Open message to SawStop: OK, I'm sold. I'll give you my classic and
not so pristine Davis & Wells saw, named Dina, for one of your 102"
rail, left tilt, 12" models, just so you'll feel better about my
safety. Is it a deal?
--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.
-- Chuang-tzu
On Mar 9, 9:46=A0pm, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2010-03-09 13:10:57 -0500, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> s=
aid:
>
> > You appear to be the only one here. =A0You don't see a conflict of
> > interest? =A0He has a state-mandated monopoly (patent) and you don't se=
e
> > a problem with the state also requiring his device? <boggle>
>
> Nope -- he offered to license the technology (perhaps the fee was
> higher than some might deem appropriate, but's that's not _really_ the
> issue). The others were certainly free to develop their own systems.
Good grief... That's fine but what if the SawStop hired sufficient
lobbiests to make non-SawStop saws were illegal to sell? Do you think
the "license fees" would be more reasonable?
> What seems to gall many writing in this thread is that with a mandated
> safety system, there well be no _cheap_ (read: inexpensive) saws. That
> means no saws built to a price point for the HDs of this world. Is that
> a bad thing? If that's all you think you could afford, yes, it's bad.
Yes, it is BAD. Do you think SawStops would be cheaper if they were
MANDATED?
> If you're DELTA hawking a new Unisaw, yeah, it's bad, because your
> price point is in the neighborhood of the SawStop.
If I'm me, it's bad because I wouldn't have (didn't, in fact) buy a
SawStop because the feature isn't worth the money. I bought a Unisaw
because it was affordable. If it were mandated I likely wouldn't have
bought any saw.
> If you're a hand surgeon (Anyone out there falling into this category?
> Hands, please!) this is a bad thing because it's gonna affect your
> livelihood. Conversly, this is a good thing for insurance companies...
> but you knew that.
Lets make cars illegal too. You know how much money is wasted on
medical care for accident victims?
> If you'd like to keep your fingers where they belong (on your hands, of
> course -- what did you think I meant?) then this is a damn good thing.
What an asinine argument. Isn't it better to not get your fingers in
the path of a blade. It seems plenty of people manage to do just
that.
> The price of a SawStop (irrespectively of the technology, I'm told this
> is a GOOD machine) is real cheap insurance. The repair of a partially
> severed tendon ten years ago (don't ask, it wasn't in the shop) was
> $3,500. Granted, you can barely see the scar, but I'd much rather have
> spent that on something else.
I'd rather, and did, spend the money for a SawStop on something else.
> I'm pretty new to woodshop. I gulped at the price when I first saw the
> SawStop, but I made the decsion right then and there this would be my
> next TS. And I will be plunking down the cash real soon.
Goody for you. I plan to keep my fingers out of the business parts on
my Unisaw. I looked at a SawStop, but at twice the price of the
Unisaw it was a non-starter. Choice is a good thing.
> So, is the management of SawStop ethical in pushing for the safety mandat=
e?
> For me, it's not an issue.
Goody for you. It's obvious that you're the only one who matters.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Reading the patent, he certainly *has* sealed off any competing
> technology. The amazing thing, is that he seems to have painted
> himself into the table saw corner unnecessarily.
I may find myself in the position of having to retract statements I had
previously made. Apparently, like yourself, my recollection of his patent
was faded and some of the things that have been posted today are challenging
that recollection. I do agree with you that for all of his cleverness in
being properly broad, he certainly did seem to miss-fire on the table saw
aspect of this patent.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:25:58 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>> Again - you can only patent a method.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
>So - are you suggesting you can patent the laws of physics?
Of course not. You said "you can only patent a method", which _is_ bullshit.
Processes and designs can also be patented.
>>> Read up on patents. There is nothing
>>> at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
>>> different approach.
>>
>> The patent is on the detection of the digit. There are only so many
>> ways to detect the presence of the digit before it comes in contact
>> with the works. That's the physics. There isn't another good way and
>> if the patent attorney had any sense (it was his idea) he'd close off
>> all other avenues, as well.
>
>He can patent the detection method only to the point of the device design.
>He can't patent the use of capacitance though.
It's even more broad than I remembered. He DID method for safeing a saw which
has *no mention* of the means of detecting the finger. BTW, he could
certainly have limited his invention to capacitance, but was smart enough not
to.
>>> It can even use capacitance as the underlying concept,
>>> just like Saw Stop does.
>>
>> I'd have to read the patent again, but I believe you're wrong here.
>> The claims do include capacitance, indeed that's the entirety of the
>> patent.
>>
>>> Too many people do not understand patents in the
>>> least and seem to feel this guy has a stranglehold on the world.
>>
>> Speak for yourself. I was on a patent review board at IBM for fifteen
>> years.
>
>That's good - but most comments regarding patent restrictions, etc. are not
>based on that level of knowledge.
>>> He only
>>> has a lead on the rest because he was the only one with the
>>> foresight to envision this. Others will come now - just watch.
>>
>> That's the hard part. If he had any brains he's sealed off all
>> competing technologies, as well.
>>
>> In short, you're wrong as you can be.
>
>In short - you are still wrong.
NO, I am certainly not.
>He has not done those things (sealed off
>all other routes), therefore competing technologies or approaches can indeed
>arise. That's the gist of everything I've been saying. You are suggesting
>that he could prevent competing technologies and you have suggested that he
>has inded already done that and I dispute both of those claims. In order to
>seal off any competing technologies, he has to come up with them and patent
>them. Maybe he's not clever enough to do that or maybe he is, but he has to
>have something to patent in order to do that.
Reading the patent, he certainly *has* sealed off any competing technology.
The amazing thing, is that he seems to have painted himself into the table saw
corner unnecessarily.
On 03/11/2010 06:49 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 03/11/2010 06:12 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Have you read the patent claims?
>>
>> "1. A table saw comprising: a frame structure with a generally flat work
>> surface; a rotatable circular blade mounted on an arbor and being adapted
>> to have at least a portion of said blade extending above the flat work
>> surface in position to cut a work piece; a drive motor with an output shaft
>> mounted to the frame structure for powering the saw blade; a sensing
>> mechanism for generating at least a first actuation signal responsive to
>> predetermined sensed characteristics relating to the existence and/or
>> movement of a person in close proximity thereto; a retracting mechanism
>> located beneath said work surface for rapidly moving the blade downwardly
>> below the work surface responsive to said first actuation signal being
>> received.
>
> Just to clarify, the patent you're quoting from isn't actually a Sawstop
> patent.
>
> The main sawstop patents are 20020069734 and 20020170399.
Sorry, my bad. Those are applications. Gass' patents are below. The
main sawstop patents are the first three.
US7617752 - Contact detection system for power equipment - 11/17/2009
A woodworking machine having one or more dangerous portions is
disclosed. The machine also includes a safety system configured to
detect accidental contact between a person and at least one of the
dangerous portions by electrically coupling a signal to the person's
body, and detecting if the signal becomes coupled to the dangerous portion.
US7600455 - Logic control for fast-acting safety system - 10/13/2009
Woodworking machines including cutting tools and motors adapted to drive
the cutting tools are disclosed. The machines also include a detection
system adapted to detect a dangerous condition between the cutting tool
and a person, and a reaction system adapted to perform a specified
action upon detection of the dangerous condition. The machines further
include a control system adapted to test the operability of at least a
portion of the detection system and/or the reaction system. The control
system is adapted to disable the motor if the tested portion is inoperable.
US20090236012 - Detection systems for power equipment - 09/24/2009
Methods to detect when a human body contacts a predetermined portion of
a machine are disclosed. The methods distinguish contact with a person
from contact with other materials. The methods are particularly
applicable in woodworking equipment such as table saws to distinguish
contact between a person and the blade of the saw from contact between
the blade and wet or green wood. The methods and woodworking equipment
may include predictive blade stop algorithms that prevent unnecessary
activations of a safety brake during coast down of a blade and continued
protection in the event a main power switch is turned off.
US20090293692 - Table saw throat plates and table saws including the
same - 12/03/2009
Throat plates for table saws and table saws including the same are
disclosed. In some embodiments, the throat plates and/or saws include at
least one securement mechanism adapted to secure and prevent inadvertent
removal of the throat plate from the throat of the saw. In some
embodiments, at least one of the securement mechanisms also provides a
height adjustment mechanism and/or prevents vertical removal of the
throat plate. In some embodiments, the throat plate includes an
accessory mounting port that provides a portal for accessories,
including safety accessories, to extend through the plate from beneath
the table of the saw. In some embodiments, the port extends from the
plate's outer perimeter to divide the plate's rear end portion into a
pair of spaced-apart members. In some embodiments, these members are
independently secured to the table saw and retained apart from each
other by one or more of the securement mechanisms.
US7621205 - Band saw with safety system - 11/24/2009
A band saw including a frame, at least two, spaced apart, rotatable
wheels supported by the frame, a blade looped around the wheels, where
rotation of at least one wheel causes the blade to move around the
wheels, a detection system adapted to detect a dangerous condition
between a person and the blade, and a reaction system configured to
engage and stop the blade within 10 milliseconds after detection of the
dangerous condition is disclosed. The reaction system may be configured
to cut and grip the blade.
Chris
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:54:50 -0700, "chaniarts"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 2:26 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:89ca1677-087c-45b9-8b05-32474a116df1@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 11, 8:52 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> news:2e81dbd1-65b6-4d4e-9618-9eca6a8a0e67@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Mar 10, 11:26 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Good grief... That's fine but what if the SawStop hired sufficient
>>>>>> lobbiests to make non-SawStop saws were illegal to sell? Do you
>>>>>> think the "license fees" would be more reasonable?
>>>
>>>>> Good grief??? Good grief indeed! Where do you get ideas like this?
>>>>> Are you not aware of the competitive market that surrounds you?
>>>>> Make them illegal to sell? As you said - good grief...
>>>
>>>> WTF are you talking about? If SS technology is required by law, you
>>>> think SS' license fees would go down?
>>>
>>>> **********************************************************************************
>>>
>>>> You don't believe that other companies would come up with a
>>>> competing product if that type of safety device became mandated?
>>>> Laws do not typically require a specific product.
>>>
>>> When a patent covers the basic physics? No.
>>>
>>> ***************************************************************************************
>>>
>>> Again - you can only patent a method.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> Read up on patents. There is nothing
>>> at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
>>> different approach.
>>
>> The patent is on the detection of the digit. There are only so many
>> ways to detect the presence of the digit before it comes in contact
>> with the works. That's the physics. There isn't another good way and
>> if the patent attorney had any sense (it was his idea) he'd close off
>> all other avenues, as well.
>>
>>> It can even use capacitance as the underlying concept,
>>> just like Saw Stop does.
>>
>> I'd have to read the patent again, but I believe you're wrong here.
>> The claims do include capacitance, indeed that's the entirety of the
>> patent.
>>
>>> Too many people do not understand patents in the
>>> least and seem to feel this guy has a stranglehold on the world.
>>
>> Speak for yourself. I was on a patent review board at IBM for fifteen
>> years.
>>
>>> He only
>>> has a lead on the rest because he was the only one with the
>>> foresight to envision this. Others will come now - just watch.
>>
>> That's the hard part. If he had any brains he's sealed off all
>> competing technologies, as well.
>>
>> In short, you're wrong as you can be.
>
>there was a post about a month or two ago about an addon to a tablesaw that
>used leds in a box to detect the presence of 'something' near the blade that
>wasn't the wood, and shut off power before you could get near enough to the
>blade.
Have you read the patent claims?
"1. A table saw comprising: a frame structure with a generally flat work
surface; a rotatable circular blade mounted on an arbor and being adapted
to have at least a portion of said blade extending above the flat work
surface in position to cut a work piece; a drive motor with an output shaft
mounted to the frame structure for powering the saw blade; a sensing
mechanism for generating at least a first actuation signal responsive to
predetermined sensed characteristics relating to the existence and/or
movement of a person in close proximity thereto; a retracting mechanism
located beneath said work surface for rapidly moving the blade downwardly
below the work surface responsive to said first actuation signal being
received.
It doesn't claim any mechanism for a sensing mechanism, only that one exists
with the purpose of safeing the blade if tripped. Now, get around that.
>the consensus here was that it was a viable alternative, although it
>wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.
Consensus doesn't work well in cases of science, or law.
On 03/11/2010 06:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Reading the patent, he certainly *has* sealed off any competing technology.
> The amazing thing, is that he seems to have painted himself into the table saw
> corner unnecessarily.
I don't think he has...in general the preamble of a patent claim is not
considered a legally limiting constraint. But they're definitely
originally aimed at woodworking equipment.
Chris
"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 03/11/2010 06:49 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>> On 03/11/2010 06:12 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Have you read the patent claims?
>>>
>>> "1. A table saw comprising: a frame structure with a generally flat
>>> work
>>> surface; a rotatable circular blade mounted on an arbor and being
>>> adapted
>>> to have at least a portion of said blade extending above the flat
>>> work
>>> surface in position to cut a work piece; a drive motor with an output
>>> shaft
>>> mounted to the frame structure for powering the saw blade; a sensing
>>> mechanism for generating at least a first actuation signal responsive
>>> to
>>> predetermined sensed characteristics relating to the existence and/or
>>> movement of a person in close proximity thereto; a retracting
>>> mechanism
>>> located beneath said work surface for rapidly moving the blade
>>> downwardly
>>> below the work surface responsive to said first actuation signal
>>> being
>>> received.
>>
>> Just to clarify, the patent you're quoting from isn't actually a Sawstop
>> patent.
>>
>> The main sawstop patents are 20020069734 and 20020170399.
>
> Sorry, my bad. Those are applications. Gass' patents are below. The
> main sawstop patents are the first three.
>
> US7617752 - Contact detection system for power equipment - 11/17/2009
> A woodworking machine having one or more dangerous portions is
> disclosed. The machine also includes a safety system configured to
> detect accidental contact between a person and at least one of the
> dangerous portions by electrically coupling a signal to the person's
> body,
How is That done? Anyone know?
> and detecting if the signal becomes coupled to the dangerous portion.
On 03/11/2010 06:12 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Have you read the patent claims?
>
> "1. A table saw comprising: a frame structure with a generally flat work
> surface; a rotatable circular blade mounted on an arbor and being adapted
> to have at least a portion of said blade extending above the flat work
> surface in position to cut a work piece; a drive motor with an output shaft
> mounted to the frame structure for powering the saw blade; a sensing
> mechanism for generating at least a first actuation signal responsive to
> predetermined sensed characteristics relating to the existence and/or
> movement of a person in close proximity thereto; a retracting mechanism
> located beneath said work surface for rapidly moving the blade downwardly
> below the work surface responsive to said first actuation signal being
> received.
Just to clarify, the patent you're quoting from isn't actually a Sawstop
patent.
The main sawstop patents are 20020069734 and 20020170399. The first one
is fairly specific:
1. A method for detecting accidental contact between a person and a
dangerous portion of a woodworking machine, the method comprising:
providing a first electrode electrically coupled to the person;
providing a second electrode electrically coupled to the dangerous
portion; transmitting a signal by one of the first or second electrodes;
and identifying contact if the transmitted signal is received by the
other of the first or second electrodes.
The second is in my view ridiculously general, and seems to cover almost
all safety devices possible. Seems plausible it could be contested as
overly broad.
Chris
On Mar 8, 4:21=A0pm, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>
wrote:
> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>
> ---www.garagewoodworks.com
Two questions:
1. Did SawStop fund this guys legal fight?
2. What do regular folks do when they want to sell there table saw to
upgrade?
This decision blows!
In news:[email protected],
Larry Jaques <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:27:34 -0600, the infamous "ChairMan"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>> In
>> news:34ac083e-fc27-4bb0-9b37-5806813887e8@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com,
>> GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>spewed forth:
>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>
>>> ---
>>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>>
>> absurd
>> Someone PLEASE add more chlorine to the gene pool
>
> Attorneys are the anti-chlorine in our gene pool.
outta be a no limit all season on 'em
kinda like feral pigs here in tejas<g>
"Evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So lets see, the inventor of Saw Stop is a Patent Attorney and gets bored
> with not making money with his chosen career. Dreams up this idea of a
> Table Saw that can stop the blade on contact with flesh. Tries to push
> this new tech. on Saw Manufactures and fails. Decides to start his own
> Table Saw Manufacture. I would imagine sales are decent but not decent
> enough for the inventor so decides to lobby for this new tech. on every
> table saw built today. If the millionaire wins he becomes a billionaire.
> Somehow I get the feeling this was the plan when he started the patent
> process. Now that's what I call a "Great Business Plan", at of course the
> expense of Table Saw Manufactures and Table Saw users all over the
> world!!!!
>
This is the part of this discussion that I just don't get. Someone invents
something that actually does have a value and a purpose, and tries to grab
the brass ring. Hell - that is the American way. What is wrong with that?
So he tried to get his invention adopted by all of the manufacturers, so he
started his own company because they all turned him down. What's the big
deal? How is that at the expense of table saw manufacturers? Or users?
You can fault his attempts to mandate his invention by law, but I'm not even
sure I'd fault him for that effort. Any expense to table saw manufacturers
lies solely at the feet of the legal system. Narrow that down a little
further - to the jury system. Your neighbors and mine. You can't even
fault the lawyers - all they do is argue a case. Both sides argue opposing
sides. It's the people in the box that make the decision.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mar 11, 8:52=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:2e81dbd1-65b6-4d4e-9618-9eca6a8a0e67@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 11:26 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Good grief... That's fine but what if the SawStop hired sufficient
> > > lobbiests to make non-SawStop saws were illegal to sell? Do you think
> > > the "license fees" would be more reasonable?
>
> > Good grief??? Good grief indeed! Where do you get ideas like this? Are
> > you not aware of the competitive market that surrounds you? Make them
> > illegal to sell? As you said - good grief...
>
> WTF are you talking about? =A0If SS technology is required by law, you
> think SS' license fees would go down?
>
> *************************************************************************=
*********
>
> You don't believe that other companies would come up with a competing
> product if that type of safety device became mandated? =A0Laws do not
> typically require a specific product.
When a patent covers the basic physics? No.
On Mar 9, 12:26=A0pm, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
> >spilling coffee in her lap.
>
> McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
> the industry standard.
This is a lie that has been handed down for ages. The coffee was
served at a customary serving temperature (180F). Dunkin' Donuts
served coffee at *exactly* the same temperature (their spec was 180F
+/- 3F) at the time.
>=A0While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
> spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
> she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed the
> standard. =A0
BS. You don't want burns, don't put a cup of coffee between your
legs.
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:22:56 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>>
>> Didn't read the whole thread, but ... has anybody noticed that the
>> Patent Attorney/SawStop inventor seems to be behind this one, and a
>> previous, similar lawsuit?
>>
>> http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit
>>
>
>So - what is it in the link that you posted, that supports your claim that
>it appears that the inventor seems to be behind this? I'll admit that I
>read the article quickly, but I sure didn't see anything like that at all.
I didn't see a link in the article, either, but it's more than likely
true.
Hayseuss Crisco! I hadn't heard that he wanted an 8% royalty on the
price of the entire freakin' saw! That's $80 per Griz 1023 or $150 on
a run-of-the-mill Laguna, up to a $400 bump to the consumer.
This asshole would have been rich if he's asked for a grand per mfgr
to license it and a $2 fee per unit, AND he would have seen his safety
feature in every saw on the planet within a decade. Look at him now,
with his greed. Effin' lawyers.
--
There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
-- Ronald Reagan
On Mar 11, 2:29=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "allen476" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 2-3 years we see
> some variant of SS technology be introduced by all manufacturers,
> leaving SS in the dust.
>
> *************************************************************************=
****************
>
> Agreed. =A0The legal genie is out of the bottle now, so others will see a
> value in this kind of product and competing technology will come to marke=
t.
No, you'll see him expand his chokehold into all other woodworking
tools, too.
"allen476" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 2-3 years we see
some variant of SS technology be introduced by all manufacturers,
leaving SS in the dust.
*****************************************************************************************
Agreed. The legal genie is out of the bottle now, so others will see a
value in this kind of product and competing technology will come to market.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2:29 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "allen476" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 2-3 years we see
>> some variant of SS technology be introduced by all manufacturers,
>> leaving SS in the dust.
>>
>> *****************************************************************************************
>>
>> Agreed. The legal genie is out of the bottle now, so others will see
>> a value in this kind of product and competing technology will come
>> to market.
>
> No, you'll see him expand his chokehold into all other woodworking
> tools, too.
Only if no other competing products are brought to market. He has no way of
preventing any competing products, so my bet is you will see other products
coming along.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mar 11, 10:33=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:22:56 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> >> Didn't read the whole thread, but ... has anybody noticed that the
> >> Patent Attorney/SawStop inventor seems to be behind this one, and a
> >> previous, similar lawsuit?
>
> >>http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-law..=
.
>
> >So - what is it in the link that you posted, that supports your claim th=
at
> >it appears that the inventor seems to be behind this? =A0I'll admit that=
I
> >read the article quickly, but I sure didn't see anything like that at al=
l.
>
> I didn't see a link in the article, either, but it's more than likely
> true.
>
> Hayseuss Crisco! =A0I hadn't heard that he wanted an 8% royalty on the
> price of the entire freakin' saw! =A0That's $80 per Griz 1023 or $150 on
> a run-of-the-mill Laguna, up to a $400 bump to the consumer.
>
> This asshole would have been rich if he's asked for a grand per mfgr
> to license it and a $2 fee per unit, AND he would have seen his safety
> feature in every saw on the planet within a decade. =A0Look at him now,
> with his greed. =A0Effin' lawyers.
>
> --
> There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
> to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-- Ronald Reagan
Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 2-3 years we see
some variant of SS technology be introduced by all manufacturers,
leaving SS in the dust.
Allen
On Mar 11, 4:33=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2:29=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > "allen476" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 2-3 years we see
> > some variant of SS technology be introduced by all manufacturers,
> > leaving SS in the dust.
>
> > ***********************************************************************=
******************
>
> > Agreed. =A0The legal genie is out of the bottle now, so others will see=
a
> > value in this kind of product and competing technology will come to mar=
ket.
>
> No, you'll see him expand his chokehold into all other woodworking
> tools, too.
I might not agree with what the jury did in this case, but I believe
that the industry is watching this and the other cases. Will SS
benefit? Doubtful. I doubt that Black and Decker, Walter Meier,
Rikon, Grizzly, or any other manufacturer will pay SS now. They will
develop their own. I doubt that the SS patent is so tight that a TEAM
of patent attorneys can't break it.
As far as other tools, it wouldn't be practical. Could you imaging the
size and weight of a circular saw or jigsaw with it on it. Bandsaws
wouldn't have a way of hiding the blade without breaking the blade.
Jointer's could be a possibility but hardly feasible. A radial arm
saw and a miter saw could be about the only other things that could
benefit. I don't think that a miter saw could be designed to handle
the technology though.
Allen
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:25:25 -0800 (PST), allen476 <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mar 12, 11:34 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 9:47 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 3/12/2010 10:11 AM, allen476 wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 12, 9:07 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >> On Mar 12, 6:11 am, "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]>
>> > >> wrote:
>>
>> > >>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > >>>> Breaking the blade, if done in the right place, might work. Baring
>> > >>>> that, a wrench in the gears would do a lot. Remember, the tool
>> > >>>> doesn't have to survive.
>>
>> > >>> Well..... you're close Keith. How about "braking the blade", rather than
>> > >>> "breaking the blade"? Forcing an instant reversal of the motor direction to
>> > >>> stop the blade? Or clamping a brake on the pulley or on the arbor.
>>
>> > >> Sure, there are ways of stopping the blade quickly but Allen thought
>> > >> that braking the blade would break it. ;-) My point was that this
>> > >> might not be a bad thing, if done in the right spot (or at least not
>> > >> the wrong one). I also wouldn't think a band saw would have to be
>> > >> stopped as quickly as a table saw to minimize damage.
>>
>> > > Poor choice of words at 10:30 last night, teach me to type half
>> > > asleep.
>>
>> > > A bandsaw however would have to stop at the same amount of time. If it
>> > > was a 3 tpi blade, it would do some damage rather quickly. The only
>> > > solution would be either a guard that came up from the table or a
>> > > mechanism that would cut the blade then retract both ends away from
>> > > the work area.
>>
>> > > A braking system, hmmmm, might be an alternative. Then it wouldn't be
>> > > destroying a nice blade. But how?
>>
>> > The Sawstop on table saws forces a piece of metal into the blade in
>> > addition to retracting it. The same would work on a band saw except
>> > without the retraction. Not sure retracting the band saw blade would be
>> > a good thing anyway unless it can reliably be broken in a specific spot
>> > then moved reliably in a way that doesn't cause more harm than it prevents.
>>
>> Breaking the blade not only removes power but also the momentum of the
>> wheels and motor from driving the blade further. It seems reasonable
>> to break the blade to me, although as you say, it has to be done in
>> the right spot. A broken end shooting out of the saw doesn't seem
>> like a good idea.
>>
>> > It's important to remember that just pulling the blade straight down
>> > into the table will likely cause as much harm as continuing to run the
>> > saw, while folding it back away from the teeth risks pinching fingers
>> > that are behind the blade--one can touch a band saw blade from all sides.
>>
>> > Breaking the blade during stopping is a non-issue--if the device breaks
>> > it so be it. They never let that be a consideration on the table saw
>> > device so why would it be a consideration with a band saw? You're
>> > weighing a hundred buck blade against a thousand times that much in
>> > medical costs.
>>
>> The argument is exactly the same as the SS. Are false positives worth
>> the price for that one time where it saves your hand.
>
>After thinking about it, one could design a braking system in a 2
>part design. A set of steel jaws that clamp the blade and a mechanism
>to disengage the motor from the wheels. Instead of direct drive, one
>could use 2 gears to drive the wheels, when the safety engages, a
>spring would retract the motor and the jaws would engage stopping the
>blade. Shouldn't damage the machine and a good chance that it won't
>damage the blade as well.
Instead of a mechanical disconnect from the motor to the wheels, use the motor
itself as part of the solution (regen braking, sorta). Faster than a gear
change I would think, anyway.
In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:22:56 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
><[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Didn't read the whole thread, but ... has anybody noticed that the
>>> Patent Attorney/SawStop inventor seems to be behind this one, and a
>>> previous, similar lawsuit?
>>>
>>> http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit
>>>
>>
>>So - what is it in the link that you posted, that supports your claim that
>>it appears that the inventor seems to be behind this? I'll admit that I
>>read the article quickly, but I sure didn't see anything like that at all.
>
>I didn't see a link in the article, either, but it's more than likely
>true.
>
>Hayseuss Crisco! I hadn't heard that he wanted an 8% royalty on the
>price of the entire freakin' saw! That's $80 per Griz 1023 or $150 on
>a run-of-the-mill Laguna, up to a $400 bump to the consumer.
>
>This asshole would have been rich if he's asked for a grand per mfgr
>to license it and a $2 fee per unit, AND he would have seen his safety
>feature in every saw on the planet within a decade. Look at him now,
>with his greed. Effin' lawyers.
H*ll he should have taken lessons from King Gillette. License the core
technology for the saw itself, for _free_. Charge a royalty only on the
'consumable' -- the cartridge element.
Manufacturers would have had some difficulty resisting =that=, even though
the necessary design changes would add 1-2 hundred dollars to the retail
price of a saw.
In news:[email protected],
Scott Lurndal <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> Swingman <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>
>>> ---
>>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>>
>> Asshat lawyers ... greed rewarding stupidity/personal
>> irresponsibility.
>
> Won't survive appeal. It's a shame that the lawyers will be the only
> ones to win, here.
>
> scott
Don't bet on it
On Mar 11, 2:26=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:89ca1677-087c-45b9-8b05-32474a116df1@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 8:52 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:2e81dbd1-65b6-4d4e-9618-9eca6a8a0e67@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Mar 10, 11:26 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > Good grief... That's fine but what if the SawStop hired sufficient
> > > > lobbiests to make non-SawStop saws were illegal to sell? Do you thi=
nk
> > > > the "license fees" would be more reasonable?
>
> > > Good grief??? Good grief indeed! Where do you get ideas like this? Ar=
e
> > > you not aware of the competitive market that surrounds you? Make them
> > > illegal to sell? As you said - good grief...
>
> > WTF are you talking about? If SS technology is required by law, you
> > think SS' license fees would go down?
>
> > ***********************************************************************=
***********
>
> > You don't believe that other companies would come up with a competing
> > product if that type of safety device became mandated? Laws do not
> > typically require a specific product.
>
> When a patent covers the basic physics? =A0No.
>
> *************************************************************************=
**************
>
> Again - you can only patent a method.
Bullshit.
>=A0Read up on patents. =A0There is nothing
> at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
> different approach.
The patent is on the detection of the digit. There are only so many
ways to detect the presence of the digit before it comes in contact
with the works. That's the physics. There isn't another good way and
if the patent attorney had any sense (it was his idea) he'd close off
all other avenues, as well.
>=A0It can even use capacitance as the underlying concept,
> just like Saw Stop does.
I'd have to read the patent again, but I believe you're wrong here.
The claims do include capacitance, indeed that's the entirety of the
patent.
>=A0Too many people do not understand patents in the
> least and seem to feel this guy has a stranglehold on the world. =A0
Speak for yourself. I was on a patent review board at IBM for fifteen
years.
> He only
> has a lead on the rest because he was the only one with the foresight to
> envision this. Others will come now - just watch.
That's the hard part. If he had any brains he's sealed off all
competing technologies, as well.
In short, you're wrong as you can be.
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:34:23 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>
>Suing after you cut your finger off is dumb. Recently I find myself full of
>fear every time I want to cut a piece of wood on my saw. I'm a nervous
>wreck and the stress is not good for me. I'm going to sue so they put a
>flesh detecting device on my saw and enough money for a relaxing vacation.
Have a beer. I'll sooth your nerves.
>Get my lawyer on the phone.
On 03/08/2010 03:26 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>
>> ---
>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>
> Asshat lawyers ... greed rewarding stupidity/personal irresponsibility.
I dislike lawyers as much as the next guy...but I also think it's a bit
odd that none of the other manufacturers has even attempted to come up
with something similar. Surely the Sawstop guys haven't locked down the
patents that tightly.
In the interest of full disclosure, I don't own a Sawstop but I'd use
one if someone bought it for me. :)
Chris
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:13:08 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > I forget the exact numbers we used but
>> we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
>> and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
>> length of time it took to get there. If you were at the high end 190
>> it was much worse than the low end of 180. If you used the lower
>> temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
>> degree burns instead of third degree burns.
>
>Tell it to ANSI, SCAA, and every other authority on the brewing of coffee.
I guess since I'm such a fool I don't know the difference between
brewing and serving temperature.
-Kevin
On 3/10/2010 5:27 PM, Kevin wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:13:08 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> I forget the exact numbers we used but
>>> we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
>>> and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
>>> length of time it took to get there. If you were at the high end 190
>>> it was much worse than the low end of 180. If you used the lower
>>> temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
>>> degree burns instead of third degree burns.
>>
>> Tell it to ANSI, SCAA, and every other authority on the brewing of coffee.
>
> I guess since I'm such a fool I don't know the difference between
> brewing and serving temperature.
What makes you think that there is such a difference other than that
some scumbag lawyer said so?
On 3/11/10 9:18 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:42:35 -0600, the infamous -MIKE-
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>> On 3/10/10 6:28 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> Plus, apparently, McD's had been warned several times or sued before
>>>> about it or something like that, and that's why the judge ruled in favor
>>>> of the lady.
>>>
>>> They were warned. Question: Have you ever heard anyone drink a cup of
>>> coffee or tea and slurp it out of the cup? That's because most coffee
>>> and tea are too hot to drink without first cooling them to the
>>> drinker's preferred temp.
>>>
>>> The judge didn't rule, the jury did.
>>
>> Semantics.
>> Are you really that obtuse?
>
> No, Mike, it's not mere semantics. Judge and jury are two entirely
> different entities in law. And the fact of the matter is that the
> judge hated the suit in the first place. I don't see how he let the
> thing into his courtroom. He reacted to the assinine award given by
> that dumbass jury and changed (remittitured) a nearly 3 million dollar
> award down to $640k, covering her (lawyer-extended) medical costs.
> Without a lawyer, they would have been a tenth that.
>
No Larry, it is semantics, in the context of what I said.
If I wrote, "she was awarded," it would've save you this whole diatribe.
>
>>> Here's the case we're discussing:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
>>
>> I don't really care about this.
>
> Then why are you participating in the discussion? Just hit 'I' and
> move to the next topic.
>
> --
> There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
> to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
> -- Ronald Reagan
--
-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 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:42:35 -0600, the infamous -MIKE-
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 3/10/10 6:28 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> Plus, apparently, McD's had been warned several times or sued before
>>> about it or something like that, and that's why the judge ruled in favor
>>> of the lady.
>>
>> They were warned. Question: Have you ever heard anyone drink a cup of
>> coffee or tea and slurp it out of the cup? That's because most coffee
>> and tea are too hot to drink without first cooling them to the
>> drinker's preferred temp.
>>
>> The judge didn't rule, the jury did.
>
>Semantics.
>Are you really that obtuse?
No, Mike, it's not mere semantics. Judge and jury are two entirely
different entities in law. And the fact of the matter is that the
judge hated the suit in the first place. I don't see how he let the
thing into his courtroom. He reacted to the assinine award given by
that dumbass jury and changed (remittitured) a nearly 3 million dollar
award down to $640k, covering her (lawyer-extended) medical costs.
Without a lawyer, they would have been a tenth that.
>> Here's the case we're discussing:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
>
>I don't really care about this.
Then why are you participating in the discussion? Just hit 'I' and
move to the next topic.
--
There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
-- Ronald Reagan
On 3/8/2010 4:49 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> -MIKE-<[email protected]> writes:
>> On 3/8/10 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>
>>
>> I wonder if Ryobi's lawyers even asked if he took off the saw guard.
>> I would bet a high end SawStop that he no guard on the saw.
>
> I've seen a couple of construction workers and a bunch of amateur
> homeowners crosscutting freehand on these portable table saws. They
> eventually get what they deserve.
"Carlos Osorio", a hardwood floor installer ... hmmmmm, wonder if he was
fresh from Home Depot?
This guy, nails it:
http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/safer-table-saw-not-good
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 3/8/2010 5:57 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
>
> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:34ac083e-fc27-4bb0-9b37-5806813887e8@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>
>> ---
>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>
> Irrational... if it was so important why did he buy the saw he purchased?
>
> Due to the irrationality of this suit that gene pool may need terming... He
> cut the wrong part off for that though...
A bit too much in line with the original legal maneuvering and
machinations of the lawyer inventor. Color me cynical, but with that
name, and occupation as hardwood floor installer, odds are that this is
a carefully selected case, tried in a carefully selected venue, with the
plaintiff as a convenient 'victim of opportunity', by greedy lawyers on
contingency, and with more than just the stink of collusion of similar
financial interests.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 3/9/2010 9:46 PM, Steve wrote:
> I'm pretty new to woodshop. I gulped at the price when I first saw the
> SawStop, but I made the decsion right then and there this would be my
> next TS. And I will be plunking down the cash real soon.
It's a damn good thing, because the choice will soon be out of your
hands, and shortly after that you won't be able to buy a dado stack
because it is too dangerous for a fool who needs to be protected from
himself.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
In article <[email protected]>,
Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>> Again - you can only patent a method.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
>So - are you suggesting you can patent the laws of physics?
Patents rarely specify the precise methodology employed to accomplish an end.
They claim rights to "a method for .." accomplishing something.
If there _is_ existing competing technology, they have to spell out what
is 'different' about their approach -- that was *NOT* included in the
'a method for ..' claims of the prior patent(s).
If there is *NO* existing competing technology, and you have competently
drawn patent claims, the claim is for 'a method ...' doing the heretofore
impossible. citing the inventor's implementation only as one example of
the claim. In _that_ situation, *any*other* approach to solving the same
problem is simply a different means of doing the _same_thing_, and, as such,
runs afoul of the original holder's patent that covers the basic idea of
doing _that_ thing.
A major goal of drafting patents is to make the claims as _broad_ and _all-
encompassing_ as possible.
SawStop's patent(s), by 'virtue' of being the _first_of_its_kind_ are
very broad in scope. It will be 'difficult' (to put it mildly) to build
a competing technology that does _not_ involve: (1) 'a method for...'
detecting the approach of human anatomy to the blade, and/or (b) 'a method
for ...' removing the blade from potential contact.
>>> Read up on patents. There is nothing
>>> at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
>>> different approach.
>>
>> The patent is on the detection of the digit. There are only so many
>> ways to detect the presence of the digit before it comes in contact
>> with the works. That's the physics. There isn't another good way and
>> if the patent attorney had any sense (it was his idea) he'd close off
>> all other avenues, as well.
>
>He can patent the detection method only to the point of the device design.
>He can't patent the use of capacitance though.
WRONG.
If capacitance has never been used for that purpose previously, he _CAN_
patent 'the use of capacitance for that purpose'.
On 3/8/2010 6:27 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
> I'd be curious to know if he was free handing cuts at the time... If so
> he certainly wouldn't be the first flooring guy to guide wood through
> the blade sans fence or miter gauge...
Almost assuredly not ... most flooring cuts are done on a miter saw, and
for the next-to-wall rips, that type of saw is the choice of most
flooring sub contractors in these parts. AAMOF, I've not seen a fence on
a jobsite saw like that in years, and flooring crews normally don't even
use the stand.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 3/10/2010 9:24 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> Were you around here when they initially started out? At that point
>> there was nothing but a 'jam it down your throat via government edict'
>> mentality to the inventor's method of gaining acceptance for the technology.
>
> Correction to the 'revisionist history' in the above paragraph.
>
> Sawstop _first_ tried to license to all the major table-saw manufacturers.
> _NO_ONE_ expressed any interest.
>
> *Then*, and only then, did they go the route of trying to get the use
> of the device made mandatory by government action.
Nothing "revisionist" about it ... the manufacturers at the time rightly
considered the licensing fees, or otherwise face threats of future legal
action, as little more than "extortion and monopolistic", which has
indeed turned out to be the case.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote
http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
Suing after you cut your finger off is dumb. Recently I find myself full of
fear every time I want to cut a piece of wood on my saw. I'm a nervous
wreck and the stress is not good for me. I'm going to sue so they put a
flesh detecting device on my saw and enough money for a relaxing vacation.
Get my lawyer on the phone.
In news:34ac083e-fc27-4bb0-9b37-5806813887e8@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com,
GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>
> ---
> www.garagewoodworks.com
absurd
Someone PLEASE add more chlorine to the gene pool
On 3/10/2010 6:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:05:30 -0600, the infamous Swingman
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>> On 3/9/2010 9:46 PM, Steve wrote:
>>
>>> I'm pretty new to woodshop. I gulped at the price when I first saw the
>>> SawStop, but I made the decsion right then and there this would be my
>>> next TS. And I will be plunking down the cash real soon.
>>
>> It's a damn good thing, because the choice will soon be out of your
>> hands, and shortly after that you won't be able to buy a dado stack
>> because it is too dangerous for a fool who needs to be protected from
>> himself.
>
> Those (and knives and guns) are now outlawed in the UK. Of course,
> they are also installing padding on their telephone poles and
> lampposts in London to keep the texters safer. You think WE have
> nanny-statism bad? Look to the EU and get the heebie jeebies.
I've observed, since living and working in the UK in the 60's, that we
here in the US follow suit on the UK's progressive/social more's
somewhere between five and ten years later.
IOW, look Eastward if you want to see us in five to 10 years.
And no, I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, overall.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:05:30 -0600, the infamous Swingman
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> Those (and knives and guns) are now outlawed in the UK. Of course,
> they are also installing padding on their telephone poles and
> lampposts in London to keep the texters safer. You think WE have
> nanny-statism bad? Look to the EU and get the heebie jeebies.
The US will be just like that in 50 years.
On Mar 10, 11:01=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 7:41=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 9:15=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 10, 8:52 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> =A0wro=
te:
>
> > > >> =A0 Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
> > > >> along with the rest of the leftists.
>
> > > > How rational.
>
> > > Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?
>
> > > Me, I prefer to just say: "Fuck all you liberal bastards". =A0;)
>
> > But that too is divisive.
> > .
> > .
> > .g,d,& r
>
> Didn't read the whole thread, but ... has anybody noticed that the
> Patent Attorney/SawStop inventor seems to be behind this one, and a
> previous, similar lawsuit?
>
> http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-law...
>
> Isn't that the greedy capitalist, then, and NOT the leftist
> lawyers .... ?
Not greedy capitalist, rather wannabe crony capitalist, which isn't a
capitalist at all.
On Mar 10, 12:01=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 7:41=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 9:15=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 10, 8:52 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> =A0wro=
te:
>
> > > >> =A0 Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
> > > >> along with the rest of the leftists.
>
> > > > How rational.
>
> > > Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?
>
> > > Me, I prefer to just say: "Fuck all you liberal bastards". =A0;)
>
> > But that too is divisive.
> > .
> > .
> > .g,d,& r
>
> Didn't read the whole thread, but ... has anybody noticed that the
> Patent Attorney/SawStop inventor seems to be behind this one, and a
> previous, similar lawsuit?
>
> http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-law...
>
> Isn't that the greedy capitalist, then, and NOT the leftist
> lawyers .... ?
Excellent question.
Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> Didn't read the whole thread, but ... has anybody noticed that the
> Patent Attorney/SawStop inventor seems to be behind this one, and a
> previous, similar lawsuit?
>
> http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit
>
So - what is it in the link that you posted, that supports your claim that
it appears that the inventor seems to be behind this? I'll admit that I
read the article quickly, but I sure didn't see anything like that at all.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mar 10, 9:15=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 8:52 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >> =A0 Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
> >> along with the rest of the leftists.
>
> > How rational.
>
> Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?
>
> Me, I prefer to just say: "Fuck all you liberal bastards". =A0;)
>
But that too is divisive.
.
.
.g,d,& r
On Mar 12, 9:07=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 6:11=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Breaking the blade, if done in the right place, might work. =A0Baring
> > > that, a wrench in the gears would do a lot. =A0Remember, the tool
> > > doesn't have to survive.
>
> > Well..... you're close Keith. =A0How about "braking the blade", rather =
than
> > "breaking the blade"? =A0Forcing an instant reversal of the motor direc=
tion to
> > stop the blade? =A0Or clamping a brake on the pulley or on the arbor.
>
> Sure, there are ways of stopping the blade quickly but Allen thought
> that braking the blade would break it. =A0;-) =A0My point was that this
> might not be a bad thing, if done in the right spot (or at least not
> the wrong one). =A0I also wouldn't think a band saw would have to be
> stopped as quickly as a table saw to minimize damage.
Poor choice of words at 10:30 last night, teach me to type half
asleep.
A bandsaw however would have to stop at the same amount of time. If it
was a 3 tpi blade, it would do some damage rather quickly. The only
solution would be either a guard that came up from the table or a
mechanism that would cut the blade then retract both ends away from
the work area.
A braking system, hmmmm, might be an alternative. Then it wouldn't be
destroying a nice blade. But how?
Allen
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Breaking the blade, if done in the right place, might work. Baring
> that, a wrench in the gears would do a lot. Remember, the tool
> doesn't have to survive.
>
Well..... you're close Keith. How about "braking the blade", rather than
"breaking the blade"? Forcing an instant reversal of the motor direction to
stop the blade? Or clamping a brake on the pulley or on the arbor.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mar 12, 11:34=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 9:47=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3/12/2010 10:11 AM, allen476 wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 9:07 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> =A0wrote=
:
> > >> On Mar 12, 6:11 am, "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > >>>> Breaking the blade, if done in the right place, might work. =A0Bar=
ing
> > >>>> that, a wrench in the gears would do a lot. =A0Remember, the tool
> > >>>> doesn't have to survive.
>
> > >>> Well..... you're close Keith. =A0How about "braking the blade", rat=
her than
> > >>> "breaking the blade"? =A0Forcing an instant reversal of the motor d=
irection to
> > >>> stop the blade? =A0Or clamping a brake on the pulley or on the arbo=
r.
>
> > >> Sure, there are ways of stopping the blade quickly but Allen thought
> > >> that braking the blade would break it. =A0;-) =A0My point was that t=
his
> > >> might not be a bad thing, if done in the right spot (or at least not
> > >> the wrong one). =A0I also wouldn't think a band saw would have to be
> > >> stopped as quickly as a table saw to minimize damage.
>
> > > Poor choice of words at 10:30 last night, teach me to type half
> > > asleep.
>
> > > A bandsaw however would have to stop at the same amount of time. If i=
t
> > > was a 3 tpi blade, it would do some damage rather quickly. The only
> > > solution would be either a guard that came up from the table or a
> > > mechanism that would cut the blade then retract both ends away from
> > > the work area.
>
> > > A braking system, hmmmm, might be an alternative. Then it wouldn't be
> > > destroying a nice blade. But how?
>
> > The Sawstop on table saws forces a piece of metal into the blade in
> > addition to retracting it. =A0The same would work on a band saw except
> > without the retraction. =A0Not sure retracting the band saw blade would=
be
> > a good thing anyway unless it can reliably be broken in a specific spot
> > then moved reliably in a way that doesn't cause more harm than it preve=
nts.
>
> Breaking the blade not only removes power but also the momentum of the
> wheels and motor from driving the blade further. =A0It seems reasonable
> to break the blade to me, although as you say, it has to be done in
> the right spot. =A0A broken end shooting out of the saw doesn't seem
> like a good idea.
>
> > It's important to remember that just pulling the blade straight down
> > into the table will likely cause as much harm as continuing to run the
> > saw, while folding it back away from the teeth risks pinching fingers
> > that are behind the blade--one can touch a band saw blade from all side=
s.
>
> > Breaking the blade during stopping is a non-issue--if the device breaks
> > it so be it. =A0They never let that be a consideration on the table saw
> > device so why would it be a consideration with a band saw? =A0You're
> > weighing a hundred buck blade against a thousand times that much in
> > medical costs.
>
> The argument is exactly the same as the SS. =A0Are false positives worth
> the price for that one time where it saves your hand.
After thinking about it, one could design a braking system in a 2
part design. A set of steel jaws that clamp the blade and a mechanism
to disengage the motor from the wheels. Instead of direct drive, one
could use 2 gears to drive the wheels, when the safety engages, a
spring would retract the motor and the jaws would engage stopping the
blade. Shouldn't damage the machine and a good chance that it won't
damage the blade as well.
Allen
On Mar 13, 1:56=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 9:25=A0pm, allen476 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 11:34=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 9:47=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 3/12/2010 10:11 AM, allen476 wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 12, 9:07 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> =A0w=
rote:
> > > > >> On Mar 12, 6:11 am, "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]>
> > > > >> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > >>>> Breaking the blade, if done in the right place, might work. =
=A0Baring
> > > > >>>> that, a wrench in the gears would do a lot. =A0Remember, the t=
ool
> > > > >>>> doesn't have to survive.
>
> > > > >>> Well..... you're close Keith. =A0How about "braking the blade",=
rather than
> > > > >>> "breaking the blade"? =A0Forcing an instant reversal of the mot=
or direction to
> > > > >>> stop the blade? =A0Or clamping a brake on the pulley or on the =
arbor.
>
> > > > >> Sure, there are ways of stopping the blade quickly but Allen tho=
ught
> > > > >> that braking the blade would break it. =A0;-) =A0My point was th=
at this
> > > > >> might not be a bad thing, if done in the right spot (or at least=
not
> > > > >> the wrong one). =A0I also wouldn't think a band saw would have t=
o be
> > > > >> stopped as quickly as a table saw to minimize damage.
>
> > > > > Poor choice of words at 10:30 last night, teach me to type half
> > > > > asleep.
>
> > > > > A bandsaw however would have to stop at the same amount of time. =
If it
> > > > > was a 3 tpi blade, it would do some damage rather quickly. The on=
ly
> > > > > solution would be either a guard that came up from the table or a
> > > > > mechanism that would cut the blade then retract both ends away fr=
om
> > > > > the work area.
>
> > > > > A braking system, hmmmm, might be an alternative. Then it wouldn'=
t be
> > > > > destroying a nice blade. But how?
>
> > > > The Sawstop on table saws forces a piece of metal into the blade in
> > > > addition to retracting it. =A0The same would work on a band saw exc=
ept
> > > > without the retraction. =A0Not sure retracting the band saw blade w=
ould be
> > > > a good thing anyway unless it can reliably be broken in a specific =
spot
> > > > then moved reliably in a way that doesn't cause more harm than it p=
revents.
>
> > > Breaking the blade not only removes power but also the momentum of th=
e
> > > wheels and motor from driving the blade further. =A0It seems reasonab=
le
> > > to break the blade to me, although as you say, it has to be done in
> > > the right spot. =A0A broken end shooting out of the saw doesn't seem
> > > like a good idea.
>
> > > > It's important to remember that just pulling the blade straight dow=
n
> > > > into the table will likely cause as much harm as continuing to run =
the
> > > > saw, while folding it back away from the teeth risks pinching finge=
rs
> > > > that are behind the blade--one can touch a band saw blade from all =
sides.
>
> > > > Breaking the blade during stopping is a non-issue--if the device br=
eaks
> > > > it so be it. =A0They never let that be a consideration on the table=
saw
> > > > device so why would it be a consideration with a band saw? =A0You'r=
e
> > > > weighing a hundred buck blade against a thousand times that much in
> > > > medical costs.
>
> > > The argument is exactly the same as the SS. =A0Are false positives wo=
rth
> > > the price for that one time where it saves your hand.
>
> > After thinking about it, one could design a braking system =A0in a 2
> > part design. A set of steel jaws that clamp the blade and a mechanism
> > to disengage the motor from the wheels. Instead of direct drive, one
> > could use 2 gears to drive the wheels, when the safety engages, a
> > spring would retract the motor and the jaws would engage stopping the
> > blade. Shouldn't damage the machine and a good chance that it won't
> > damage the blade as well.
>
> > Allen
>
> I got my head around that and like that idea. But... there's a reason
> the SawStop works as well and as quick as it does and that is that it
> uses its own kinetic energy. A bandsaw's system would have to be pre-
> loaded with instant release energy..such as hefty springs or shotgun-
> type shells electrically fired. You wouldn't need much of a charge to
> make stuff happen in a hurry. If you used energy stored in springs,
> the release mechanisms themselves would add unwanted time to the event.
The design I suggested would be for a bandsaw. I would use
electromagnetic releases for the safety with a spring counter to that.
Almost the same idea for the blade clamping system, except using what
looks like jaws from a pair of vice grips. My goal would be not to
destroy some expensive part along with an expensive blade.
Tablesaw design however would be more difficult. I did think about a
caliper type system. Dadoes would be the negating factor to that
though.
Allen
allen476 <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Mar 12, 11:34 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 9:47 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
*trim*
>> > Breaking the blade during stopping is a non-issue--if the device
>> > breaks it so be it. They never let that be a consideration on the
>> > table saw device so why would it be a consideration with a band
>> > saw? You're weighing a hundred buck blade against a thousand times
>> > that much in medical costs.
>>
>> The argument is exactly the same as the SS. Are false positives
>> worth the price for that one time where it saves your hand.
>
> After thinking about it, one could design a braking system in a 2
> part design. A set of steel jaws that clamp the blade and a mechanism
> to disengage the motor from the wheels. Instead of direct drive, one
> could use 2 gears to drive the wheels, when the safety engages, a
> spring would retract the motor and the jaws would engage stopping the
> blade. Shouldn't damage the machine and a good chance that it won't
> damage the blade as well.
>
> Allen
>
For a band saw, this might work.
For a table saw, what happens if you're using a molding head or dado
stack? There's a lot of mass there spinning quite quickly, so those
steel jaws would have to be quite massive themselves. (It would be good
for saw stability.)
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
On Mar 12, 6:11=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Breaking the blade, if done in the right place, might work. =A0Baring
> > that, a wrench in the gears would do a lot. =A0Remember, the tool
> > doesn't have to survive.
>
> Well..... you're close Keith. =A0How about "braking the blade", rather th=
an
> "breaking the blade"? =A0Forcing an instant reversal of the motor directi=
on to
> stop the blade? =A0Or clamping a brake on the pulley or on the arbor.
Sure, there are ways of stopping the blade quickly but Allen thought
that braking the blade would break it. ;-) My point was that this
might not be a bad thing, if done in the right spot (or at least not
the wrong one). I also wouldn't think a band saw would have to be
stopped as quickly as a table saw to minimize damage.
On Mar 12, 9:25=A0pm, allen476 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 11:34=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 9:47=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 3/12/2010 10:11 AM, allen476 wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 12, 9:07 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> =A0wro=
te:
> > > >> On Mar 12, 6:11 am, "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]>
> > > >> wrote:
>
> > > >>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > >>>> Breaking the blade, if done in the right place, might work. =A0B=
aring
> > > >>>> that, a wrench in the gears would do a lot. =A0Remember, the too=
l
> > > >>>> doesn't have to survive.
>
> > > >>> Well..... you're close Keith. =A0How about "braking the blade", r=
ather than
> > > >>> "breaking the blade"? =A0Forcing an instant reversal of the motor=
direction to
> > > >>> stop the blade? =A0Or clamping a brake on the pulley or on the ar=
bor.
>
> > > >> Sure, there are ways of stopping the blade quickly but Allen thoug=
ht
> > > >> that braking the blade would break it. =A0;-) =A0My point was that=
this
> > > >> might not be a bad thing, if done in the right spot (or at least n=
ot
> > > >> the wrong one). =A0I also wouldn't think a band saw would have to =
be
> > > >> stopped as quickly as a table saw to minimize damage.
>
> > > > Poor choice of words at 10:30 last night, teach me to type half
> > > > asleep.
>
> > > > A bandsaw however would have to stop at the same amount of time. If=
it
> > > > was a 3 tpi blade, it would do some damage rather quickly. The only
> > > > solution would be either a guard that came up from the table or a
> > > > mechanism that would cut the blade then retract both ends away from
> > > > the work area.
>
> > > > A braking system, hmmmm, might be an alternative. Then it wouldn't =
be
> > > > destroying a nice blade. But how?
>
> > > The Sawstop on table saws forces a piece of metal into the blade in
> > > addition to retracting it. =A0The same would work on a band saw excep=
t
> > > without the retraction. =A0Not sure retracting the band saw blade wou=
ld be
> > > a good thing anyway unless it can reliably be broken in a specific sp=
ot
> > > then moved reliably in a way that doesn't cause more harm than it pre=
vents.
>
> > Breaking the blade not only removes power but also the momentum of the
> > wheels and motor from driving the blade further. =A0It seems reasonable
> > to break the blade to me, although as you say, it has to be done in
> > the right spot. =A0A broken end shooting out of the saw doesn't seem
> > like a good idea.
>
> > > It's important to remember that just pulling the blade straight down
> > > into the table will likely cause as much harm as continuing to run th=
e
> > > saw, while folding it back away from the teeth risks pinching fingers
> > > that are behind the blade--one can touch a band saw blade from all si=
des.
>
> > > Breaking the blade during stopping is a non-issue--if the device brea=
ks
> > > it so be it. =A0They never let that be a consideration on the table s=
aw
> > > device so why would it be a consideration with a band saw? =A0You're
> > > weighing a hundred buck blade against a thousand times that much in
> > > medical costs.
>
> > The argument is exactly the same as the SS. =A0Are false positives wort=
h
> > the price for that one time where it saves your hand.
>
> After thinking about it, one could design a braking system =A0in a 2
> part design. A set of steel jaws that clamp the blade and a mechanism
> to disengage the motor from the wheels. Instead of direct drive, one
> could use 2 gears to drive the wheels, when the safety engages, a
> spring would retract the motor and the jaws would engage stopping the
> blade. Shouldn't damage the machine and a good chance that it won't
> damage the blade as well.
>
> Allen
I got my head around that and like that idea. But... there's a reason
the SawStop works as well and as quick as it does and that is that it
uses its own kinetic energy. A bandsaw's system would have to be pre-
loaded with instant release energy..such as hefty springs or shotgun-
type shells electrically fired. You wouldn't need much of a charge to
make stuff happen in a hurry. If you used energy stored in springs,
the release mechanisms themselves would add unwanted time to the event.
"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> allen476 <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Mar 12, 11:34 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 9:47 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> *trim*
>
>>> > Breaking the blade during stopping is a non-issue--if the device
>>> > breaks it so be it. They never let that be a consideration on the
>>> > table saw device so why would it be a consideration with a band
>>> > saw? You're weighing a hundred buck blade against a thousand times
>>> > that much in medical costs.
>>>
>>> The argument is exactly the same as the SS. Are false positives
>>> worth the price for that one time where it saves your hand.
>>
>> After thinking about it, one could design a braking system in a 2
>> part design. A set of steel jaws that clamp the blade and a mechanism
>> to disengage the motor from the wheels. Instead of direct drive, one
>> could use 2 gears to drive the wheels, when the safety engages, a
>> spring would retract the motor and the jaws would engage stopping the
>> blade. Shouldn't damage the machine and a good chance that it won't
>> damage the blade as well.
>>
>> Allen
>>
>
> For a band saw, this might work.
>
> For a table saw, what happens if you're using a molding head or dado
> stack? There's a lot of mass there spinning quite quickly, so those
> steel jaws would have to be quite massive themselves. (It would be good
> for saw stability.)
>
Not really. Think of a cars brake caliper. If it can lock up your wheel (if
it were not for the ABS POS), it can do a blade.
On Mar 12, 9:47=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/12/2010 10:11 AM, allen476 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 9:07 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> On Mar 12, 6:11 am, "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>> Breaking the blade, if done in the right place, might work. =A0Barin=
g
> >>>> that, a wrench in the gears would do a lot. =A0Remember, the tool
> >>>> doesn't have to survive.
>
> >>> Well..... you're close Keith. =A0How about "braking the blade", rathe=
r than
> >>> "breaking the blade"? =A0Forcing an instant reversal of the motor dir=
ection to
> >>> stop the blade? =A0Or clamping a brake on the pulley or on the arbor.
>
> >> Sure, there are ways of stopping the blade quickly but Allen thought
> >> that braking the blade would break it. =A0;-) =A0My point was that thi=
s
> >> might not be a bad thing, if done in the right spot (or at least not
> >> the wrong one). =A0I also wouldn't think a band saw would have to be
> >> stopped as quickly as a table saw to minimize damage.
>
> > Poor choice of words at 10:30 last night, teach me to type half
> > asleep.
>
> > A bandsaw however would have to stop at the same amount of time. If it
> > was a 3 tpi blade, it would do some damage rather quickly. The only
> > solution would be either a guard that came up from the table or a
> > mechanism that would cut the blade then retract both ends away from
> > the work area.
>
> > A braking system, hmmmm, might be an alternative. Then it wouldn't be
> > destroying a nice blade. But how?
>
> The Sawstop on table saws forces a piece of metal into the blade in
> addition to retracting it. =A0The same would work on a band saw except
> without the retraction. =A0Not sure retracting the band saw blade would b=
e
> a good thing anyway unless it can reliably be broken in a specific spot
> then moved reliably in a way that doesn't cause more harm than it prevent=
s.
Breaking the blade not only removes power but also the momentum of the
wheels and motor from driving the blade further. It seems reasonable
to break the blade to me, although as you say, it has to be done in
the right spot. A broken end shooting out of the saw doesn't seem
like a good idea.
> It's important to remember that just pulling the blade straight down
> into the table will likely cause as much harm as continuing to run the
> saw, while folding it back away from the teeth risks pinching fingers
> that are behind the blade--one can touch a band saw blade from all sides.
>
> Breaking the blade during stopping is a non-issue--if the device breaks
> it so be it. =A0They never let that be a consideration on the table saw
> device so why would it be a consideration with a band saw? =A0You're
> weighing a hundred buck blade against a thousand times that much in
> medical costs.
The argument is exactly the same as the SS. Are false positives worth
the price for that one time where it saves your hand.
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:31:08 -0800 (PST), allen476 <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mar 11, 4:33 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 2:29 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "allen476" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 2-3 years we see
>> > some variant of SS technology be introduced by all manufacturers,
>> > leaving SS in the dust.
>>
>> > *****************************************************************************************
>>
>> > Agreed. The legal genie is out of the bottle now, so others will see a
>> > value in this kind of product and competing technology will come to market.
>>
>> No, you'll see him expand his chokehold into all other woodworking
>> tools, too.
>
>I might not agree with what the jury did in this case, but I believe
>that the industry is watching this and the other cases. Will SS
>benefit? Doubtful. I doubt that Black and Decker, Walter Meier,
>Rikon, Grizzly, or any other manufacturer will pay SS now. They will
>develop their own. I doubt that the SS patent is so tight that a TEAM
>of patent attorneys can't break it.
You'd better read some more. Unless there is some prior art, that no one has
brought up here, reigning in the claims, this one looks air-tight.
>As far as other tools, it wouldn't be practical. Could you imaging the
>size and weight of a circular saw or jigsaw with it on it. Bandsaws
>wouldn't have a way of hiding the blade without breaking the blade.
Breaking the blade, if done in the right place, might work. Baring that, a
wrench in the gears would do a lot. Remember, the tool doesn't have to
survive.
>Jointer's could be a possibility but hardly feasible. A radial arm
>saw and a miter saw could be about the only other things that could
>benefit. I don't think that a miter saw could be designed to handle
>the technology though.
On 3/12/2010 10:11 AM, allen476 wrote:
> On Mar 12, 9:07 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 6:11 am, "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>> Breaking the blade, if done in the right place, might work. Baring
>>>> that, a wrench in the gears would do a lot. Remember, the tool
>>>> doesn't have to survive.
>>
>>> Well..... you're close Keith. How about "braking the blade", rather than
>>> "breaking the blade"? Forcing an instant reversal of the motor direction to
>>> stop the blade? Or clamping a brake on the pulley or on the arbor.
>>
>> Sure, there are ways of stopping the blade quickly but Allen thought
>> that braking the blade would break it. ;-) My point was that this
>> might not be a bad thing, if done in the right spot (or at least not
>> the wrong one). I also wouldn't think a band saw would have to be
>> stopped as quickly as a table saw to minimize damage.
>
> Poor choice of words at 10:30 last night, teach me to type half
> asleep.
>
> A bandsaw however would have to stop at the same amount of time. If it
> was a 3 tpi blade, it would do some damage rather quickly. The only
> solution would be either a guard that came up from the table or a
> mechanism that would cut the blade then retract both ends away from
> the work area.
>
> A braking system, hmmmm, might be an alternative. Then it wouldn't be
> destroying a nice blade. But how?
The Sawstop on table saws forces a piece of metal into the blade in
addition to retracting it. The same would work on a band saw except
without the retraction. Not sure retracting the band saw blade would be
a good thing anyway unless it can reliably be broken in a specific spot
then moved reliably in a way that doesn't cause more harm than it prevents.
It's important to remember that just pulling the blade straight down
into the table will likely cause as much harm as continuing to run the
saw, while folding it back away from the teeth risks pinching fingers
that are behind the blade--one can touch a band saw blade from all sides.
Breaking the blade during stopping is a non-issue--if the device breaks
it so be it. They never let that be a consideration on the table saw
device so why would it be a consideration with a band saw? You're
weighing a hundred buck blade against a thousand times that much in
medical costs.
On 3/13/2010 10:20 PM, CW wrote:
> "Puckdropper"<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> allen476<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Mar 12, 11:34 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 9:47 am, "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> *trim*
>>
>>>>> Breaking the blade during stopping is a non-issue--if the device
>>>>> breaks it so be it. They never let that be a consideration on the
>>>>> table saw device so why would it be a consideration with a band
>>>>> saw? You're weighing a hundred buck blade against a thousand times
>>>>> that much in medical costs.
>>>>
>>>> The argument is exactly the same as the SS. Are false positives
>>>> worth the price for that one time where it saves your hand.
>>>
>>> After thinking about it, one could design a braking system in a 2
>>> part design. A set of steel jaws that clamp the blade and a mechanism
>>> to disengage the motor from the wheels. Instead of direct drive, one
>>> could use 2 gears to drive the wheels, when the safety engages, a
>>> spring would retract the motor and the jaws would engage stopping the
>>> blade. Shouldn't damage the machine and a good chance that it won't
>>> damage the blade as well.
>>>
>>> Allen
>>>
>>
>> For a band saw, this might work.
>>
>> For a table saw, what happens if you're using a molding head or dado
>> stack? There's a lot of mass there spinning quite quickly, so those
>> steel jaws would have to be quite massive themselves. (It would be good
>> for saw stability.)
>>
> Not really. Think of a cars brake caliper. If it can lock up your wheel (if
> it were not for the ABS POS), it can do a blade.
(a) the problem is not locking the blade, the problem is locking it so
fast that it doesn't cut you.
(b) why do you consider ABS to be "POS"? There is no circumstance on a
paved road under which locked brakes confer any kind of benefit except
when there is fairly deep snow.
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>allen476 <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Mar 12, 11:34 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 9:47 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>*trim*
>
>>> > Breaking the blade during stopping is a non-issue--if the device
>>> > breaks it so be it. They never let that be a consideration on the
>>> > table saw device so why would it be a consideration with a band
>>> > saw? You're weighing a hundred buck blade against a thousand times
>>> > that much in medical costs.
>>>
>>> The argument is exactly the same as the SS. Are false positives
>>> worth the price for that one time where it saves your hand.
>>
>> After thinking about it, one could design a braking system in a 2
>> part design. A set of steel jaws that clamp the blade and a mechanism
>> to disengage the motor from the wheels. Instead of direct drive, one
>> could use 2 gears to drive the wheels, when the safety engages, a
>> spring would retract the motor and the jaws would engage stopping the
>> blade. Shouldn't damage the machine and a good chance that it won't
>> damage the blade as well.
>>
>> Allen
>>
>
>For a band saw, this might work.
>
>For a table saw, what happens if you're using a molding head or dado
>stack? There's a lot of mass there spinning quite quickly, so those
>steel jaws would have to be quite massive themselves. (It would be good
>for saw stability.)
Seems like it'd have _real_ problems with a 'wobble dado', too.
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:18:43 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 2:29 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> "allen476" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 2-3 years we see
>>> some variant of SS technology be introduced by all manufacturers,
>>> leaving SS in the dust.
>>>
>>> *****************************************************************************************
>>>
>>> Agreed. The legal genie is out of the bottle now, so others will see
>>> a value in this kind of product and competing technology will come
>>> to market.
>>
>> No, you'll see him expand his chokehold into all other woodworking
>> tools, too.
>
>Only if no other competing products are brought to market. He has no way of
>preventing any competing products, so my bet is you will see other products
>coming along.
The patent won't allow it, if this sort of legislation passes. Have you even
read the patent?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/13/2010 10:20 PM, CW wrote:
>> "Puckdropper"<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> allen476<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 12, 11:34 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 12, 9:47 am, "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> *trim*
>>>
>>>>>> Breaking the blade during stopping is a non-issue--if the device
>>>>>> breaks it so be it. They never let that be a consideration on the
>>>>>> table saw device so why would it be a consideration with a band
>>>>>> saw? You're weighing a hundred buck blade against a thousand times
>>>>>> that much in medical costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> The argument is exactly the same as the SS. Are false positives
>>>>> worth the price for that one time where it saves your hand.
>>>>
>>>> After thinking about it, one could design a braking system in a 2
>>>> part design. A set of steel jaws that clamp the blade and a mechanism
>>>> to disengage the motor from the wheels. Instead of direct drive, one
>>>> could use 2 gears to drive the wheels, when the safety engages, a
>>>> spring would retract the motor and the jaws would engage stopping the
>>>> blade. Shouldn't damage the machine and a good chance that it won't
>>>> damage the blade as well.
>>>>
>>>> Allen
>>>>
>>>
>>> For a band saw, this might work.
>>>
>>> For a table saw, what happens if you're using a molding head or dado
>>> stack? There's a lot of mass there spinning quite quickly, so those
>>> steel jaws would have to be quite massive themselves. (It would be good
>>> for saw stability.)
>>>
>> Not really. Think of a cars brake caliper. If it can lock up your wheel
>> (if
>> it were not for the ABS POS), it can do a blade.
>
> (a) the problem is not locking the blade, the problem is locking it so
> fast that it doesn't cut you.
>
> (b) why do you consider ABS to be "POS"? There is no circumstance on a
> paved road under which locked brakes confer any kind of benefit except
> when there is fairly deep snow.
RE (b) I used to like taking my big rear wheel drive car with it's 455 CID
V8 out on snowy days on parking lots and skidding/sliding it around when I
was a kid.... Isn't entertainment a benefit? ;~)
John
PS, On the other hand ABS probably saved my life two years ago when a
tractor trailer in the right lane of a two lane on-ramp changed lanes while
I was next to him. There was no room to out-race him out the front... The
ABS allowed me to stop quickly and steer up close to the guard rail under
control. Net result was my 6 week old car was still totaled but I walked out
of the hospital... beat up but no internal injuries or broken bones. The
left side was wrecked bumper to bumper from being crushed into the guard
rail and the right side bumper to bumper from the truck trailer driving
through the right rear quarter and down the side. Two wheels were broken
off. If I hadn't gotten up close to the guard rail before he hit me I would
have been completely under the trailer wheels...
On Mar 9, 8:33=A0pm, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:39:43 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mar 9, 12:26 pm, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds =
for
> >> >spilling coffee in her lap.
>
> >> McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
> >> the industry standard.
>
> >This is a lie that has been handed down for ages. =A0The coffee was
> >served at a customary serving temperature (180F). =A0Dunkin' Donuts
> >served coffee at *exactly* the same temperature (their spec was 180F
> >+/- 3F) at the time.
>
> You're right in that it wasn't a standard. =A0I studied this case in
> college and it's been a while so the details were fuzzy. =A0McDonald's
> coffee was 185 +/- 5 degrees. =A0I forget the exact numbers we used but
> we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
> and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
> length of time it took to get there. =A0If you were at the high end 190
> it was much worse than the low end of 180. =A0If you used the lower
> temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
> degree burns instead of third degree burns.
Nonsense. The energy contained in a liquid is proportional to its
temperature (difference).
> >> While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
> >> spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
> >> she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed the
> >> standard.
>
> >BS. =A0You don't want burns, don't put a cup of coffee between your
> >legs.
>
> Most people wouldn't expect to receive third degree burns requiring
> skin grafts and years of treatment to recover. =A0People blamed her not
> removing the pants as the source of the problem but the analysis
> showed that there was nothing she could have done about it. =A0The jury
> did find her partially to blame, though I do think most of the blame
> rested on her. =A0
Most people are bright enough not to put a cup of steaming coffee
between their legs. Most people are bright enough to blame themselves
when they do something stupid. Alas, this is changing in your prized
nanny state.
> The point is that this case is always trotted out as the worst example
> but it's not as cut and dry as it is presented. =A0I have a hard time
> believing there's as good of a story to back up the fellow that wants
> the safety feature from a $3000 saw on his $100 Ryobi.
Yes, it is cut and dried. The lawyers lied, their expert witnesses
lied, the press lied (no surprise in any of this), and the defendant's
lawyers weren't bright enough to hire competent expert witnesses on
their own. ...so now you can't get a decent cup of coffee and you
want to take table saws away too. Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
along with the rest of the leftists.
On 3/10/2010 8:41 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 10, 9:15 am, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 10, 8:52 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
>>>> along with the rest of the leftists.
>>
>>> How rational.
>>
>> Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?
>>
>> Me, I prefer to just say: "Fuck all you liberal bastards". ;)
>>
>
>
> But that too is divisive.
> .
> .
> .g,d,& r
Then why the bastards keep multiplying, cher?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Mar 10, 7:41=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 9:15=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 10, 8:52 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> =A0wrote=
:
>
> > >> =A0 Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
> > >> along with the rest of the leftists.
>
> > > How rational.
>
> > Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?
>
> > Me, I prefer to just say: "Fuck all you liberal bastards". =A0;)
>
> But that too is divisive.
> .
> .
> .g,d,& r
Didn't read the whole thread, but ... has anybody noticed that the
Patent Attorney/SawStop inventor seems to be behind this one, and a
previous, similar lawsuit?
http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit
Isn't that the greedy capitalist, then, and NOT the leftist
lawyers .... ?
On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:52 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
>> along with the rest of the leftists.
>
> How rational.
Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?
Me, I prefer to just say: "Fuck all you liberal bastards". ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Mar 10, 8:52=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
> along with the rest of the leftists.
How rational.
On Mar 10, 9:59=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/10/2010 8:41 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 9:15 am, Swingman<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 10, 8:52 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]> =A0 =A0w=
rote:
>
> >>>> =A0 =A0Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
> >>>> along with the rest of the leftists.
>
> >>> How rational.
>
> >> Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?
>
> >> Me, I prefer to just say: "Fuck all you liberal bastards". =A0;)
>
> > But that too is divisive.
> > .
> > .
> > .g,d,& =A0r
>
> Then why the bastards keep multiplying, cher?
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
That's because they keep poking their noses and other parts where they
have no business.
That makes them a Librul.
On 3/9/2010 9:33 PM, Kevin wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:39:43 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 9, 12:26 pm, Kevin<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
>>>> spilling coffee in her lap.
>>>
>>> McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
>>> the industry standard.
>>
>> This is a lie that has been handed down for ages. The coffee was
>> served at a customary serving temperature (180F). Dunkin' Donuts
>> served coffee at *exactly* the same temperature (their spec was 180F
>> +/- 3F) at the time.
>
> You're right in that it wasn't a standard.
ANSI CM-1.
> I studied this case in
> college and it's been a while so the details were fuzzy. McDonald's
> coffee was 185 +/- 5 degrees.
As it should be.
> I forget the exact numbers we used but
> we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
> and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
> length of time it took to get there. If you were at the high end 190
> it was much worse than the low end of 180. If you used the lower
> temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
> degree burns instead of third degree burns.
Tell it to ANSI, SCAA, and every other authority on the brewing of coffee.
>>> While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
>>> spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
>>> she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed the
>>> standard.
>>
>> BS. You don't want burns, don't put a cup of coffee between your
>> legs.
>
> Most people wouldn't expect to receive third degree burns requiring
> skin grafts and years of treatment to recover.
Then most people are idiots.
> People blamed her not
> removing the pants as the source of the problem but the analysis
> showed that there was nothing she could have done about it. The jury
> did find her partially to blame, though I do think most of the blame
> rested on her.
Of course there was. She could have not held the cup between her legs.
> The point is that this case is always trotted out as the worst example
> but it's not as cut and dry as it is presented.
Yes, it is, until the lawyers get involved.
> I have a hard time
> believing there's as good of a story to back up the fellow that wants
> the safety feature from a $3000 saw on his $100 Ryobi.
The lawyers will make one up and cherry pick their data to support their
argument, just like the ones in the McDonalds case.
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Mar 10, 7:41 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 9:15 am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On 3/10/2010 7:59 AM, Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 10, 8:52 am, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>
wrote:
>>
>> > >> Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
>> > >> along with the rest of the leftists.
>>
>> > > How rational.
>>
>> > Fire with fire, irrationality with irrationality?
>>
>> > Me, I prefer to just say: "Fuck all you liberal bastards". ;)
>>
>> But that too is divisive.
>> .
>> .
>> .g,d,& r
>
> Didn't read the whole thread, but ... has anybody noticed that the
> Patent Attorney/SawStop inventor seems to be behind this one, and a
> previous, similar lawsuit?
>
> http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-
lawsuit
>
> Isn't that the greedy capitalist, then, and NOT the leftist
> lawyers .... ?
Hmmmm, in the article it says, he's a lawyer! So maybe he's a leftist
lawyer and a greedy capitalist. Does that make him a moderate???
--
You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK !
Mandriva 2010 using KDE 4.3
Website: www.rentmyhusband.biz
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:39:43 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mar 9, 12:26 pm, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
>> >spilling coffee in her lap.
>>
>> McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
>> the industry standard.
>
>This is a lie that has been handed down for ages. The coffee was
>served at a customary serving temperature (180F). Dunkin' Donuts
>served coffee at *exactly* the same temperature (their spec was 180F
>+/- 3F) at the time.
You're right in that it wasn't a standard. I studied this case in
college and it's been a while so the details were fuzzy. McDonald's
coffee was 185 +/- 5 degrees. I forget the exact numbers we used but
we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
length of time it took to get there. If you were at the high end 190
it was much worse than the low end of 180. If you used the lower
temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
degree burns instead of third degree burns.
>
>> While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
>> spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
>> she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed the
>> standard.
>
>BS. You don't want burns, don't put a cup of coffee between your
>legs.
Most people wouldn't expect to receive third degree burns requiring
skin grafts and years of treatment to recover. People blamed her not
removing the pants as the source of the problem but the analysis
showed that there was nothing she could have done about it. The jury
did find her partially to blame, though I do think most of the blame
rested on her.
The point is that this case is always trotted out as the worst example
but it's not as cut and dry as it is presented. I have a hard time
believing there's as good of a story to back up the fellow that wants
the safety feature from a $3000 saw on his $100 Ryobi.
-Kevin
On 03/10/2010 07:52 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:33 pm, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You're right in that it wasn't a standard. I studied this case in
>> college and it's been a while so the details were fuzzy. McDonald's
>> coffee was 185 +/- 5 degrees. I forget the exact numbers we used but
>> we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
>> and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
>> length of time it took to get there. If you were at the high end 190
>> it was much worse than the low end of 180. If you used the lower
>> temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
>> degree burns instead of third degree burns.
>
> Nonsense. The energy contained in a liquid is proportional to its
> temperature (difference).
While this is true, it doesn't necessarily make Kevin's point false. I
can hold reasonably hot coffee in my mouth without burning it. However,
there is a threshold beyond which I will be burnt.
Hypothetically, if going from 180 to 190 were to cross such a threshold,
the severity of the difference of the result could be out of proportion
to the temperature difference.
I'm not an expert and so I cannot say whether there is this type of
nonlinear response. But it doesn't seem impossible.
Chris
"GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:34ac083e-fc27-4bb0-9b37-5806813887e8@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>
> ---
> www.garagewoodworks.com
Irrational... if it was so important why did he buy the saw he purchased?
Due to the irrationality of this suit that gene pool may need terming... He
cut the wrong part off for that though...
On 03/08/2010 05:35 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 3/8/2010 5:13 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>> I dislike lawyers as much as the next guy...but I also think it's a bit
>> odd that none of the other manufacturers has even attempted to come up
>> with something similar. Surely the Sawstop guys haven't locked down the
>> patents that tightly.
>
> The "guy", Steve Gass, _is_ a patent attorney.
He also has a doctorate in physics and claims to have started
woodworking at age 4. The fact that someone who invents something
useful happens to be an attorney shouldn't be held against them.
> Like they say ... one lawyer in a town will starve to death, two and
> they'll both get rich.
Sure. And I know there was some interesting happenings in the early
days of his idea when he wanted a pretty good premium for the use of the
concept.
But all the other companies all have patent attorneys as well. I have a
hard time believing that nobody else in the entire industry could have
come up with a flesh-sensing device of their own after the better part
of a decade.
Chris
On Mar 11, 9:03=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:10:22 -0500, the infamous Kevin
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:52:58 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>On Mar 9, 8:33=A0pm, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:39:43 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>
> >>> You're right in that it wasn't a standard. =A0I studied this case in
> >>> college and it's been a while so the details were fuzzy. =A0McDonald'=
s
> >>> coffee was 185 +/- 5 degrees. =A0I forget the exact numbers we used b=
ut
> >>> we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
> >>> and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
> >>> length of time it took to get there. =A0If you were at the high end 1=
90
> >>> it was much worse than the low end of 180. =A0If you used the lower
> >>> temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline secon=
d
> >>> degree burns instead of third degree burns.
>
> >>Nonsense. =A0The energy contained in a liquid is proportional to its
> >>temperature (difference).
>
> >What is so hard to understand about the fact that the hotter something
> >is the faster it burns you? =A0Whether it takes 2 seconds or 2 minutes
> >to achieve a certain level of burn is significant.
>
> What is so hard to understand about the fact that YOU DON'T PUT HOT
> COFFEE BETWEEN YOUR LEGS
IN A STYROFOAM CUP
> BECAUSE EVEN AT THE MUCH LOWER 150F, IT'S HOT
> ENOUGH TO BURN YOU, DISTRACT YOU, AND CAUSE AN ACCIDENT, POTENTIALLY
> KILLING SOMEONE?
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:41:37 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/10/2010 5:27 PM, Kevin wrote:
>> I guess since I'm such a fool I don't know the difference between
>> brewing and serving temperature.
>
>What makes you think that there is such a difference other than that
>some scumbag lawyer said so?
I'm not. You aren't going to be drinking 185 degree coffee though.
In a restaurant setting you have your server going around to multiple
tables freshening up cups, and you want the last cup to still be hot.
At the drive thru I'm guessing you are going straight from the holding
container, which is in close proximity, into an insulated cup and into
the customer's hands pretty quickly. It seems plausible to me that
you might not necessarily want the same holding temperature. You
don't just have idiot customers to worry about but also your minimum
wage drone who might not get the lid secured properly and drop the
thing in the customer's lap. I might still decide to serve it at 185
but I wouldn't get there straight from a brewing spec.
-Kevin
On 3/10/2010 8:16 PM, Kevin wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:41:37 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 3/10/2010 5:27 PM, Kevin wrote:
>
>>> I guess since I'm such a fool I don't know the difference between
>>> brewing and serving temperature.
>>
>> What makes you think that there is such a difference other than that
>> some scumbag lawyer said so?
>
> I'm not. You aren't going to be drinking 185 degree coffee though.
> In a restaurant setting you have your server going around to multiple
> tables freshening up cups, and you want the last cup to still be hot.
> At the drive thru I'm guessing you are going straight from the holding
> container, which is in close proximity, into an insulated cup and into
> the customer's hands pretty quickly. It seems plausible to me that
> you might not necessarily want the same holding temperature. You
> don't just have idiot customers to worry about but also your minimum
> wage drone who might not get the lid secured properly and drop the
> thing in the customer's lap. I might still decide to serve it at 185
> but I wouldn't get there straight from a brewing spec.
So tell us how, using the typical Bunn-O-Matic coffee brewer that most
restaurants have on the counter, you would go about achieving this
reduced holding temperature.
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:10:22 -0500, the infamous Kevin
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:52:58 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 9, 8:33 pm, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:39:43 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>
>>> You're right in that it wasn't a standard. I studied this case in
>>> college and it's been a while so the details were fuzzy. McDonald's
>>> coffee was 185 +/- 5 degrees. I forget the exact numbers we used but
>>> we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
>>> and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
>>> length of time it took to get there. If you were at the high end 190
>>> it was much worse than the low end of 180. If you used the lower
>>> temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
>>> degree burns instead of third degree burns.
>>
>>Nonsense. The energy contained in a liquid is proportional to its
>>temperature (difference).
>
>What is so hard to understand about the fact that the hotter something
>is the faster it burns you? Whether it takes 2 seconds or 2 minutes
>to achieve a certain level of burn is significant.
What is so hard to understand about the fact that YOU DON'T PUT HOT
COFFEE BETWEEN YOUR LEGS BECAUSE EVEN AT THE MUCH LOWER 150F, IT'S HOT
ENOUGH TO BURN YOU, DISTRACT YOU, AND CAUSE AN ACCIDENT, POTENTIALLY
KILLING SOMEONE?
--
There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
-- Ronald Reagan
On 3/8/2010 8:17 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 3/8/10 8:09 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 3/8/2010 7:54 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>
>>> Except for one glaringly wrong statement...
>>>
>>> "... SawStop, a technology company that invented a table saw tech that
>>> senses capacitance of a finger and immediately stops the blade....have
>>> been active in mandating this technology across all table saws. The
>>> problem, of course, is that they aren't doing this out of good will -
>>> they want to license it and make a fortune. Quite simply, SawStop wants
>>> to legislate itself into millions.
>>>
>>> While I wholeheartedly agree they shouldn't be trying to "legislate
>>> itself into millions," to say they should do it out of good will is
>>> absurd.
>>>
>>> The act of inventing the technology in and of itself is "good will"
>>> enough. They should be able to make a billion dollars from it. As long
>>> as their business practices are fair and ethical, no one should complain
>>> one iota about it.
>>
>> I agree, but I think you may have missed the context.
>>
>> Were you around here when they initially started out? At that point
>> there was nothing but a 'jam it down your throat via government edict'
>> mentality to the inventor's method of gaining acceptance for the
>> technology.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for an "Atlas Shrugged" altruism
>> here. Acutally, I think the SS is a great innovation, and a boon to
>> those having to use a TS for business or hobby ... AAMOF, I would buy
>> one for my next saw given the opportunity.
>>
>> I just simply don't like the nasty, and obvious, legal extortion
>> machinations that have been involved in getting the technology accepted
>> since the get go.
>>
>
> To you and KW...
> I clearly stated, "I wholeheartedly agree they shouldn't be trying to
> "legislate itself into millions."
Relax, just trying to dipstick your ken of the historical context.
Don't worry, they have NO history, whatsoever, of doing it out of simple
"goodwill".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 3/8/2010 6:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 3/8/2010 6:27 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
>
>> I'd be curious to know if he was free handing cuts at the time... If so
>> he certainly wouldn't be the first flooring guy to guide wood through
>> the blade sans fence or miter gauge...
>
> Almost assuredly not
Sorry, John ... that should have been "Almost assuredly", the "not" was
typed by the cat, apparently??
IOW, yeah, you're right ... that was most likely what he was doing (free
handing the cut)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/8/2010 5:57 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>
>> "GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:34ac083e-fc27-4bb0-9b37-5806813887e8@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>
>>> ---
>>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>>
>> Irrational... if it was so important why did he buy the saw he purchased?
>>
>> Due to the irrationality of this suit that gene pool may need terming...
>> He
>> cut the wrong part off for that though...
>
> A bit too much in line with the original legal maneuvering and
> machinations of the lawyer inventor. Color me cynical, but with that name,
> and occupation as hardwood floor installer, odds are that this is a
> carefully selected case, tried in a carefully selected venue, with the
> plaintiff as a convenient 'victim of opportunity', by greedy lawyers on
> contingency, and with more than just the stink of collusion of similar
> financial interests.
I'd be curious to know if he was free handing cuts at the time... If so he
certainly wouldn't be the first flooring guy to guide wood through the blade
sans fence or miter gauge...
On 3/11/2010 6:51 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>>
>> Nothing "revisionist" about it ... the manufacturers at the time
>> rightly considered the licensing fees, or otherwise face threats of
>> future legal action, as little more than "extortion and
>> monopolistic", which has indeed turned out to be the case.
>
> Let's run the numbers: Say the inventor figures he should get $1 million per
> year for his invention.
>
> He calculates 100,000 table saws are sold each year, so he needs ten bucks
> for each saw sold. Assuming half of the saw people won't go for the deal,
> that means he needs $20 royalty per saw sold.
Actually, and IIRC, he was seeking 8 percent licensing/royalties from
manufacturers on the wholesale price of each saw sold.
What surprises me is the number of naive apologists who don't see each
development that has played out thus far, from the original attempt to
secure licensing fees as above, to the attempts at securing government
mandate, to manufacture of a saw with the device, to the ongoing
litigation, as the carefully planned legal strategy (extortion, some
would say) that it is.
"Those who have eyes ...."
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:89ca1677-087c-45b9-8b05-32474a116df1@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> **********************************************************************************
>
> You don't believe that other companies would come up with a competing
> product if that type of safety device became mandated? Laws do not
> typically require a specific product.
>When a patent covers the basic physics? No.
There is nothing about the technology that hasn't been used before. The only
thing they could patent is the mechanism.
On Mar 9, 11:44=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > So lets see, the inventor of Saw Stop is a Patent Attorney and gets bor=
ed
> > with not making money with his chosen career. Dreams up this idea of a
> > Table Saw that can stop the blade on contact with flesh. Tries to push
> > this new tech. on Saw Manufactures and fails. Decides to start his own
> > Table Saw Manufacture. I would imagine sales are decent but not decent
> > enough for the inventor so decides to lobby for this new tech. on every
> > table saw built today. If the millionaire wins he becomes a billionaire=
.
> > Somehow I get the feeling this was the plan when he started the patent
> > process. Now that's what I call a "Great Business Plan", at of course t=
he
> > expense of Table Saw Manufactures and Table Saw users all over the
> > world!!!!
>
> This is the part of this discussion that I just don't get. =A0Someone inv=
ents
> something that actually does have a value and a purpose, and tries to gra=
b
> the brass ring. =A0Hell - that is the American way. =A0What is wrong with=
that?
> So he tried to get his invention adopted by all of the manufacturers, so =
he
> started his own company because they all turned him down. =A0What's the b=
ig
> deal? =A0How is that at the expense of table saw manufacturers? =A0Or use=
rs?
So far, nothing - read on.
> You can fault his attempts to mandate his invention by law, but I'm not e=
ven
> sure I'd fault him for that effort. =A0
You appear to be the only one here. You don't see a conflict of
interest? He has a state-mandated monopoly (patent) and you don't see
a problem with the state also requiring his device? <boggle>
> Any expense to table saw manufacturers
> lies solely at the feet of the legal system. =A0Narrow that down a little
> further - to the jury system. =A0Your neighbors and mine. =A0You can't ev=
en
> fault the lawyers - all they do is argue a case. =A0Both sides argue oppo=
sing
> sides. =A0It's the people in the box that make the decision.
...and you think this is goodness?
Get real! Saws are dangerous things. We *all* know it, as did the
PROFESSIONAL. Whether we *choose* to use a dangerous tool is our
business, not the nanny-state's.
Just to go against the grain, I kind of wish it would get mandated,
then maybe in mass production it would become more affordable. I try
to be as safe as possible, number one priority, but I still feel a
little stupid every time I use my ole flesh eating Powermatic TS. If I
loose a finger I'll feel even stupider... forever. I wish I had a Saw
Stop. I can't think I'll buy any new saw except a swa stop. I just
wish they were cheaper or the feature was availble on more saws.
On Mar 8, 1:21=A0pm, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>
wrote:
> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>
> ---www.garagewoodworks.com
On Mar 10, 6:12=A0pm, "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Innews:b88d07dc-0ac3-445e-98ea-0000218f34b9@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
> Robatoy <[email protected]>spewed forth:
>
> > Somebody had to.
>
> can I sue if I sew my finger?
I think sew.
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:26:15 -0600, the infamous Swingman
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>
>>> ---
>>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>>
>>Asshat lawyers ... greed rewarding stupidity/personal irresponsibility.
>
> How do I word this softly? "I can't wait for some idiot to get hurt on
> his SawStop saw to prove that they can't keep idiots from hurting
> themselves."
>
If you come up with something idiot proof, they'll just come up with better
idiots.
[email protected] wrote:
>> Again - you can only patent a method.
>
> Bullshit.
So - are you suggesting you can patent the laws of physics?
>
>> Read up on patents. There is nothing
>> at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
>> different approach.
>
> The patent is on the detection of the digit. There are only so many
> ways to detect the presence of the digit before it comes in contact
> with the works. That's the physics. There isn't another good way and
> if the patent attorney had any sense (it was his idea) he'd close off
> all other avenues, as well.
He can patent the detection method only to the point of the device design.
He can't patent the use of capacitance though.
>
>> It can even use capacitance as the underlying concept,
>> just like Saw Stop does.
>
> I'd have to read the patent again, but I believe you're wrong here.
> The claims do include capacitance, indeed that's the entirety of the
> patent.
>
>> Too many people do not understand patents in the
>> least and seem to feel this guy has a stranglehold on the world.
>
> Speak for yourself. I was on a patent review board at IBM for fifteen
> years.
That's good - but most comments regarding patent restrictions, etc. are not
based on that level of knowledge.
>
>> He only
>> has a lead on the rest because he was the only one with the
>> foresight to envision this. Others will come now - just watch.
>
> That's the hard part. If he had any brains he's sealed off all
> competing technologies, as well.
>
> In short, you're wrong as you can be.
In short - you are still wrong. He has not done those things (sealed off
all other routes), therefore competing technologies or approaches can indeed
arise. That's the gist of everything I've been saying. You are suggesting
that he could prevent competing technologies and you have suggested that he
has inded already done that and I dispute both of those claims. In order to
seal off any competing technologies, he has to come up with them and patent
them. Maybe he's not clever enough to do that or maybe he is, but he has to
have something to patent in order to do that.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mar 8, 5:43=A0pm, RonB <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 3:21=A0pm, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>
> > ---www.garagewoodworks.com
>
> HHHMMMMmmmmmm. =A0 Which pinkie could I do without?
>
> Hmmmmmmmm!
>
> RonB
Pinkies, you need to play piano. Better one of your toes.
On 08 Mar 2010 22:47:58 GMT, the infamous [email protected] (Scott
Lurndal) scrawled the following:
>Swingman <[email protected]> writes:
>>On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>
>>> ---
>>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>>
>>Asshat lawyers ... greed rewarding stupidity/personal irresponsibility.
>
>Won't survive appeal.
I sure hope not. The McDonalds coffee case was by the judge and
Mickey D's paid only her medical fees. They shouldn't have been forced
to pay anything. The old biddy should have jumped out of the car and
waved her hot clothes in the air to instantly cool them, preventing
the majority of the burns. That's what we do...er, would do if that
ever happened, right?
>It's a shame that the lawyers will be the only
>ones to win, here.
As usual. It's disgusting. My next door neighbor just lost her
defense of her land from a rich neighbor who wanted it. There are
still squatter's rights here in OR and even though the rich neighbor
couldn't prove that she'd been using the land for 10 years, she had
friends swear that she had and the judge gave it to her.
Friends, our legal, penal, political, and medical systems are severely
broken. Is it time to do more than brew tea?
--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.
-- Chuang-tzu
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:89ca1677-087c-45b9-8b05-32474a116df1@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 11, 8:52 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:2e81dbd1-65b6-4d4e-9618-9eca6a8a0e67@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 11:26 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Good grief... That's fine but what if the SawStop hired sufficient
> > > lobbiests to make non-SawStop saws were illegal to sell? Do you think
> > > the "license fees" would be more reasonable?
>
> > Good grief??? Good grief indeed! Where do you get ideas like this? Are
> > you not aware of the competitive market that surrounds you? Make them
> > illegal to sell? As you said - good grief...
>
> WTF are you talking about? If SS technology is required by law, you
> think SS' license fees would go down?
>
> **********************************************************************************
>
> You don't believe that other companies would come up with a competing
> product if that type of safety device became mandated? Laws do not
> typically require a specific product.
When a patent covers the basic physics? No.
***************************************************************************************
Again - you can only patent a method. Read up on patents. There is nothing
at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
different approach. It can even use capacitance as the underlying concept,
just like Saw Stop does. Too many people do not understand patents in the
least and seem to feel this guy has a stranglehold on the world. He only
has a lead on the rest because he was the only one with the foresight to
envision this. Others will come now - just watch.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 3/8/2010 7:54 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> Except for one glaringly wrong statement...
>
> "... SawStop, a technology company that invented a table saw tech that
> senses capacitance of a finger and immediately stops the blade....have
> been active in mandating this technology across all table saws. The
> problem, of course, is that they aren't doing this out of good will -
> they want to license it and make a fortune. Quite simply, SawStop wants
> to legislate itself into millions.
>
> While I wholeheartedly agree they shouldn't be trying to "legislate
> itself into millions," to say they should do it out of good will is absurd.
>
> The act of inventing the technology in and of itself is "good will"
> enough. They should be able to make a billion dollars from it. As long
> as their business practices are fair and ethical, no one should complain
> one iota about it.
I agree, but I think you may have missed the context.
Were you around here when they initially started out? At that point
there was nothing but a 'jam it down your throat via government edict'
mentality to the inventor's method of gaining acceptance for the technology.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for an "Atlas Shrugged" altruism
here. Acutally, I think the SS is a great innovation, and a boon to
those having to use a TS for business or hobby ... AAMOF, I would buy
one for my next saw given the opportunity.
I just simply don't like the nasty, and obvious, legal extortion
machinations that have been involved in getting the technology accepted
since the get go.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:58:18 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:51:08 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:00:00 -0600, [email protected] (Robert
>>>> Bonomi) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again - you can only patent a method.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So - are you suggesting you can patent the laws of physics?
>>>>>
>>>>>Patents rarely specify the precise methodology employed to accomplish an
>>>>>end.
>>>>>
>>>>>They claim rights to "a method for .." accomplishing something.
>>>>>
>>>>>If there _is_ existing competing technology, they have to spell out what
>>>>>is 'different' about their approach -- that was *NOT* included in the
>>>>>'a method for ..' claims of the prior patent(s).
>>>>>
>>>>>If there is *NO* existing competing technology, and you have competently
>>>>>drawn patent claims, the claim is for 'a method ...' doing the
>>>>>heretofore
>>>>>impossible. citing the inventor's implementation only as one example of
>>>>>the claim. In _that_ situation, *any*other* approach to solving the
>>>>>same
>>>>>problem is simply a different means of doing the _same_thing_, and, as
>>>>>such,
>>>>>runs afoul of the original holder's patent that covers the basic idea of
>>>>>doing _that_ thing.
>>>>
>>>>>A major goal of drafting patents is to make the claims as _broad_ and
>>>>>_all-
>>>>>encompassing_ as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>SawStop's patent(s), by 'virtue' of being the _first_of_its_kind_ are
>>>>>very broad in scope. It will be 'difficult' (to put it mildly) to build
>>>>>a competing technology that does _not_ involve: (1) 'a method for...'
>>>>>detecting the approach of human anatomy to the blade, and/or (b) 'a
>>>>>method
>>>>>for ...' removing the blade from potential contact.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly right.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Read up on patents. There is nothing
>>>>>>>> at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
>>>>>>>> different approach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The patent is on the detection of the digit. There are only so many
>>>>>>> ways to detect the presence of the digit before it comes in contact
>>>>>>> with the works. That's the physics. There isn't another good way
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> if the patent attorney had any sense (it was his idea) he'd close off
>>>>>>> all other avenues, as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He can patent the detection method only to the point of the device
>>>>>>design.
>>>>>>He can't patent the use of capacitance though.
>>>>>
>>>>>WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>>If capacitance has never been used for that purpose previously, he _CAN_
>>>>>patent 'the use of capacitance for that purpose'.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, he's patented the use if *any* sensor for this purpose.
>>>
>>>
>>>Prior Art: There exists all manner of machinery with sensors to keep human
>>>appendages out of harms way.
>>
>> ...and payday is on Friday. So what?
>
>
>Prior art makes it easier to break.
That is *not* prior art.
On Mar 8, 3:21=A0pm, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>
wrote:
> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>
> ---www.garagewoodworks.com
HHHMMMMmmmmmm. Which pinkie could I do without?
Hmmmmmmmm!
RonB
On Mar 11, 3:26=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:89ca1677-087c-45b9-8b05-32474a116df1@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 8:52 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:2e81dbd1-65b6-4d4e-9618-9eca6a8a0e67@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Mar 10, 11:26 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > Good grief... That's fine but what if the SawStop hired sufficient
> > > > lobbiests to make non-SawStop saws were illegal to sell? Do you thi=
nk
> > > > the "license fees" would be more reasonable?
>
> > > Good grief??? Good grief indeed! Where do you get ideas like this? Ar=
e
> > > you not aware of the competitive market that surrounds you? Make them
> > > illegal to sell? As you said - good grief...
>
> > WTF are you talking about? If SS technology is required by law, you
> > think SS' license fees would go down?
>
> > ***********************************************************************=
**** *******
>
> > You don't believe that other companies would come up with a competing
> > product if that type of safety device became mandated? Laws do not
> > typically require a specific product.
>
> When a patent covers the basic physics? =A0No.
>
> *************************************************************************=
** ************
>
> Again - you can only patent a method. =A0Read up on patents. =A0There is =
nothing
> at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
> different approach. =A0It can even use capacitance as the underlying conc=
ept,
> just like Saw Stop does. =A0Too many people do not understand patents in =
the
> least and seem to feel this guy has a stranglehold on the world. =A0He on=
ly
> has a lead on the rest because he was the only one with the foresight to
> envision this. =A0Others will come now - just watch.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
Capacitance detection is what makes all the touch screens and remote
buttons, and cooktop controls work. It's old hat.
For Gass to hook it up to a safety device is pretty damned clever, but
that application would be damned hard to defend.
I applied for 3 patents, got one granted and sold it the same day.
BTDT, and to make it water and air tight is extremely difficult if all
one does is to combine existing technologies.
Any company who would try to mess with Sawstop would be faced with a
plethora of injunctions, each could be beat given enough time and
money...and therein lies the rub. Patents, for the most part, are to
give the 'inventor' a leg up on the competition..for a while at least.
Patents which come out of research labs and venture into areas never
before explored as much more solid. But capacitive detection? Not so
much.
Also... how many saws do you think these guys are selling? Who in
their right mind would want a market share of a product that sells in
such limited numbers?
Wait for Festool's table saw. All buyers of the saw need a BNC
connector attached to their skull. And if you only THINK of doing
something stupid, a huge, gloved hand appears from the control panel
and slaps you silly. The glove will be green.
On Mar 9, 10:38=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:26:15 -0600, the infamous Swingman
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>
> >> ---
> >>www.garagewoodworks.com
>
> >Asshat lawyers ... =A0greed rewarding stupidity/personal irresponsibilit=
y.
>
> How do I word this softly? "I can't wait for some idiot to get hurt on
> his SawStop saw to prove that they can't keep idiots from hurting
> themselves."
Now *there* is a suit. They're advertising that they will protect you
from yourself!
> How about new legislation, mandating that "any lawyer who loses a
> frivial case has to suffer that malady he was ranting about"?
>
> (frivial =3D trivial + frivolous)
Wouldn't that be trialous? ;-)
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2e81dbd1-65b6-4d4e-9618-9eca6a8a0e67@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 11:26 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Good grief... That's fine but what if the SawStop hired sufficient
> > lobbiests to make non-SawStop saws were illegal to sell? Do you think
> > the "license fees" would be more reasonable?
>
> Good grief??? Good grief indeed! Where do you get ideas like this? Are
> you not aware of the competitive market that surrounds you? Make them
> illegal to sell? As you said - good grief...
WTF are you talking about? If SS technology is required by law, you
think SS' license fees would go down?
**********************************************************************************
You don't believe that other companies would come up with a competing
product if that type of safety device became mandated? Laws do not
typically require a specific product.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:10:37 -0800, the infamous "CW"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:05:30 -0600, the infamous Swingman
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>> Those (and knives and guns) are now outlawed in the UK. Of course,
>> they are also installing padding on their telephone poles and
>> lampposts in London to keep the texters safer. You think WE have
>> nanny-statism bad? Look to the EU and get the heebie jeebies.
>
>The US will be just like that in 50 years.
I just thank Crom that _I'll_ be gone then. <spit>
--
There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
-- Ronald Reagan
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a2e59135-88e6-49b5-9c73-e95404afc922@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
> You appear to be the only one here.
Oh hell, I'm used to that. Great minds often stand alone...
> You don't see a conflict of
> interest?
Absolutely not. How do you see a conflict of interest?
> He has a state-mandated monopoly (patent) and you don't see
> a problem with the state also requiring his device? <boggle>
A patent is a state-mandated monoploy? Do you realize you cannot patent a
concept, only a method? He has no such monopoly. Anyone can invent their
own technology to do the same thing in a different way. Happens every day.
Would not surprise me if we see a competing idea hit the street soon, now
that a jury of your neighbors and mine have put on their stupid hats.
>> Any expense to table saw manufacturers
>> lies solely at the feet of the legal system. Narrow that down a little
>> further - to the jury system. Your neighbors and mine. You can't even
>> fault the lawyers - all they do is argue a case. Both sides argue
>> opposing
>> sides. It's the people in the box that make the decision.
< ...and you think this is goodness?
Where did I ever say that? I don't mind defending my ideas, but try to keep
your exceptions to my ideas limited to what I have actually said.
> Get real! Saws are dangerous things. We *all* know it, as did the
> PROFESSIONAL. Whether we *choose* to use a dangerous tool is our
> business, not the nanny-state's.
Good lord - where are you coming from? You need to go back and re-read my
comments. "Get real"??? Kindly point me to what I said that you find so
offensive.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In news:%[email protected],
Rudy <[email protected]>spewed forth:
>> This is where I have a problem. Mandate this invention on all Table
>> Saws? This is just an attempt to force his will on all. I have a
>> really big problem with that!!!
>
> Remember when you could buy a gasoline powered lawnmower that would
> just start and run when you pulled the cord ?
> and keep running thereafter until you shut it off ?
>
> Now you have to HOLD the safety interlock on the handle or it will
> shut off... I find that a major PITA.
> Same goes for the little BEAM sensors on garage doors.
way i solved the beam sensors was to mount them on the ceiling about a foot
in front of the opener pointed at each other about a foot apart
"GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:34ac083e-fc27-4bb0-9b37-5806813887e8@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>
> ---
> www.garagewoodworks.com
The safety feature was pitched to major saw manufacturers by Gass, but
according to SawStop, licensing negotiations broke down and no agreements
were reached...
Could he not sue Sawstop yet, for the broken down negotiations. After all,
this is probably the main reason other manufacturers aren't offering
flesh-detecting technology.
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:55:10 -0800 (PST), the infamous
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Mar 9, 10:38 am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:26:15 -0600, the infamous Swingman
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>> >On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> >>http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>
>> >> ---
>> >>www.garagewoodworks.com
>>
>> >Asshat lawyers ... greed rewarding stupidity/personal irresponsibility.
>>
>> How do I word this softly? "I can't wait for some idiot to get hurt on
>> his SawStop saw to prove that they can't keep idiots from hurting
>> themselves."
>
>Now *there* is a suit. They're advertising that they will protect you
>from yourself!
>
>> How about new legislation, mandating that "any lawyer who loses a
>> frivial case has to suffer that malady he was ranting about"?
>>
>> (frivial = trivial + frivolous)
>
>Wouldn't that be trialous? ;-)
How DARE you mock my mock words! Harrumph! <stomp, pout>
--
There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
-- Ronald Reagan
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:27:34 -0600, the infamous "ChairMan"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>In news:34ac083e-fc27-4bb0-9b37-5806813887e8@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com,
>GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>spewed forth:
>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>
>> ---
>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>
>absurd
>Someone PLEASE add more chlorine to the gene pool
Attorneys are the anti-chlorine in our gene pool.
--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.
-- Chuang-tzu
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:14:34 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On 08 Mar 2010 22:49:57 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>-MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>>>On 3/8/10 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>>
>>>
>>>I wonder if Ryobi's lawyers even asked if he took off the saw guard.
>>>I would bet a high end SawStop that he no guard on the saw.
>>
>>I've seen a couple of construction workers and a bunch of amateur
>>homeowners crosscutting freehand on these portable table saws. They
>>eventually get what they deserve.
>>
>>scott
>
>Some of us would rather be retain possession of all our digits -
>fingers are more useful than lawsuits.
>
>I have some small stock (1x2) that needs to be cut to length (maybe 5
>mnutes?) but it can wait until morning when I'm not fighting a sinus
>headache..
>
>John
...I don't use a guard on my Skilsaw(s), because that's how I was
taught and have vast experience with. I don't let anyone else use my
Skilsaw(s) unless they're equally experienced. Sam Maloof used his
bandsaw in the same manner, and cautioned his audience similarly, too.
Times change, though, and soon enough there will be fewer and fewer of
us Dinos...but you'll be able to use my Powermatic 66 *long* after I'm
gone...cut and count will be around for awhile yet...
AFA Mr. Osario...too bad you took that first puff...
gc
In article <[email protected]>,
LDosser <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:51:08 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:00:00 -0600, [email protected] (Robert
>>>> Bonomi) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again - you can only patent a method.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So - are you suggesting you can patent the laws of physics?
>>>>>
>>>>>Patents rarely specify the precise methodology employed to accomplish an
>>>>>end.
>>>>>
>>>>>They claim rights to "a method for .." accomplishing something.
>>>>>
>>>>>If there _is_ existing competing technology, they have to spell out what
>>>>>is 'different' about their approach -- that was *NOT* included in the
>>>>>'a method for ..' claims of the prior patent(s).
>>>>>
>>>>>If there is *NO* existing competing technology, and you have competently
>>>>>drawn patent claims, the claim is for 'a method ...' doing the
>>>>>heretofore
>>>>>impossible. citing the inventor's implementation only as one example of
>>>>>the claim. In _that_ situation, *any*other* approach to solving the
>>>>>same
>>>>>problem is simply a different means of doing the _same_thing_, and, as
>>>>>such,
>>>>>runs afoul of the original holder's patent that covers the basic idea of
>>>>>doing _that_ thing.
>>>>
>>>>>A major goal of drafting patents is to make the claims as _broad_ and
>>>>>_all-
>>>>>encompassing_ as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>SawStop's patent(s), by 'virtue' of being the _first_of_its_kind_ are
>>>>>very broad in scope. It will be 'difficult' (to put it mildly) to build
>>>>>a competing technology that does _not_ involve: (1) 'a method for...'
>>>>>detecting the approach of human anatomy to the blade, and/or (b) 'a
>>>>>method
>>>>>for ...' removing the blade from potential contact.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly right.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Read up on patents. There is nothing
>>>>>>>> at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
>>>>>>>> different approach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The patent is on the detection of the digit. There are only so many
>>>>>>> ways to detect the presence of the digit before it comes in contact
>>>>>>> with the works. That's the physics. There isn't another good way
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> if the patent attorney had any sense (it was his idea) he'd close off
>>>>>>> all other avenues, as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He can patent the detection method only to the point of the device
>>>>>>design.
>>>>>>He can't patent the use of capacitance though.
>>>>>
>>>>>WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>>If capacitance has never been used for that purpose previously, he _CAN_
>>>>>patent 'the use of capacitance for that purpose'.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, he's patented the use if *any* sensor for this purpose.
>>>
>>>
>>>Prior Art: There exists all manner of machinery with sensors to keep human
>>>appendages out of harms way.
>>
>> ...and payday is on Friday. So what?
>
>
>Prior art makes it easier to break.
>
If nobody has ever used a sensor to keep human appendages out of harms way
_on_a_table_saw_, then one _can_ patent the concept of 'using a sensor on a
table saw' for that purpose, *REGARDLESS* of the 'prior art' that exists
with regard to other kinds of devices. That patent would cover *any* kind
of sensor used _for_that_purpose_ *ON*A*TABLE*SAW*. To come up with a
'competing technology' for a table saw, *without* infringing that patent,
one would have to do it _without_ using a sensor.
In that scenario, the difficulties in producing such a competing technology
should be obvious.
On 3/8/10 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>
I wonder if Ryobi's lawyers even asked if he took off the saw guard.
I would bet a high end SawStop that he no guard on the saw.
I also wonder if SawStop is paying dudes to cut off their fingers and
sue. :-)
--
-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 3/8/2010 4:54 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> On Mar 8, 4:26 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>
>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>
>>> ---
>>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>>
>> Asshat lawyers ... greed rewarding stupidity/personal irresponsibility.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
My problem isn't with the asshat lawyers but with the asshat judge and
asshat jury that let the trial go forward to begin with and then ruled
in favor of the plaintiffs.
And it shows that the other manufacturers were right to not back
sawstop--exactly what was predicted is taking place and in a few years
from now the affordable power saw will cease to exist as they become
laden with lawyer-induced safety features each of which adds its
increment of cost.
On 3/8/10 4:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
> This guy, nails it:
>
> http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/safer-table-saw-not-good
>
Except for one glaringly wrong statement...
"... SawStop, a technology company that invented a table saw tech that
senses capacitance of a finger and immediately stops the blade....have
been active in mandating this technology across all table saws. The
problem, of course, is that they aren't doing this out of good will -
they want to license it and make a fortune. Quite simply, SawStop wants
to legislate itself into millions.
While I wholeheartedly agree they shouldn't be trying to "legislate
itself into millions," to say they should do it out of good will is
absurd.
The act of inventing the technology in and of itself is "good will"
enough. They should be able to make a billion dollars from it. As long
as their business practices are fair and ethical, no one should complain
one iota about it.
--
-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 3/8/10 8:09 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 3/8/2010 7:54 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>
>> Except for one glaringly wrong statement...
>>
>> "... SawStop, a technology company that invented a table saw tech that
>> senses capacitance of a finger and immediately stops the blade....have
>> been active in mandating this technology across all table saws. The
>> problem, of course, is that they aren't doing this out of good will -
>> they want to license it and make a fortune. Quite simply, SawStop wants
>> to legislate itself into millions.
>>
>> While I wholeheartedly agree they shouldn't be trying to "legislate
>> itself into millions," to say they should do it out of good will is
>> absurd.
>>
>> The act of inventing the technology in and of itself is "good will"
>> enough. They should be able to make a billion dollars from it. As long
>> as their business practices are fair and ethical, no one should complain
>> one iota about it.
>
> I agree, but I think you may have missed the context.
>
> Were you around here when they initially started out? At that point
> there was nothing but a 'jam it down your throat via government edict'
> mentality to the inventor's method of gaining acceptance for the
> technology.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for an "Atlas Shrugged" altruism
> here. Acutally, I think the SS is a great innovation, and a boon to
> those having to use a TS for business or hobby ... AAMOF, I would buy
> one for my next saw given the opportunity.
>
> I just simply don't like the nasty, and obvious, legal extortion
> machinations that have been involved in getting the technology accepted
> since the get go.
>
To you and KW...
I clearly stated, "I wholeheartedly agree they shouldn't be trying to
"legislate itself into millions."
--
-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 3/8/10 8:32 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> To you and KW...
>> I clearly stated, "I wholeheartedly agree they shouldn't be trying to
>> "legislate itself into millions."
>
> Relax, just trying to dipstick your ken of the historical context.
>
> Don't worry, they have NO history, whatsoever, of doing it out of simple
> "goodwill".
>
If they were trying to lobby for legislation to mandate the use of their
product, at least they have a solution to a real problem, not the
made-up BS that a certain former politician is trying to push down our
throats to pad his pockets. :-)
--
-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 3/9/2010 12:33 AM, Mike M wrote:
> So now when you buy a table saw you will have to sign a liability
> release that you understand that it doesn't have this safety device
> and the manufacuturers will have to offer safety classes which have
> been available at the better dealers. Its like the notices on
> generators in a dozen languages that says don't run them in your
> house. If you buy something it should be your responsibility to know
> what your getting into. If your operating equipment it should be the
> same.
That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
spilling coffee in her lap.
Until somebody shoots every lawyer in Congress and shoots the next batch
that gets elected and keeps shooting them until no lawyer dares run for
Congress that's not going to get fixed. Should have been in the
Constitution--no person who has ever worked as a lawyer should be
eligible for Congress.
GarageWoodworks wrote:
> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>
> ---
> www.garagewoodworks.com
So lets see, the inventor of Saw Stop is a Patent Attorney and gets bored
with not making money with his chosen career. Dreams up this idea of a
Table Saw that can stop the blade on contact with flesh. Tries to push
this new tech. on Saw Manufactures and fails. Decides to start his own
Table Saw Manufacture. I would imagine sales are decent but not decent
enough for the inventor so decides to lobby for this new tech. on every
table saw built today. If the millionaire wins he becomes a billionaire.
Somehow I get the feeling this was the plan when he started the patent
process. Now that's what I call a "Great Business Plan", at of course the
expense of Table Saw Manufactures and Table Saw users all over the
world!!!!
And of course Congress will probably go along with it, since they see the
US citizen as dumb asses with the need to nanny state everything.
You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK !
Mandriva 2010 using KDE 4.3
Website: www.rentmyhusband.biz
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:52:04 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:2e81dbd1-65b6-4d4e-9618-9eca6a8a0e67@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>On Mar 10, 11:26 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > Good grief... That's fine but what if the SawStop hired sufficient
>> > lobbiests to make non-SawStop saws were illegal to sell? Do you think
>> > the "license fees" would be more reasonable?
>>
>> Good grief??? Good grief indeed! Where do you get ideas like this? Are
>> you not aware of the competitive market that surrounds you? Make them
>> illegal to sell? As you said - good grief...
>
>WTF are you talking about? If SS technology is required by law, you
>think SS' license fees would go down?
>
>**********************************************************************************
>
>You don't believe that other companies would come up with a competing
>product if that type of safety device became mandated? Laws do not
>typically require a specific product.
Since not a one of them has released one yet, I don't think there -is-
a competing technology yet. Anybody can do it. "Cheaply" or
"affordably" is the catch.
--
There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
--Ronald Reagan
Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> "Evodawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> So lets see, the inventor of Saw Stop is a Patent Attorney and gets
bored
>> with not making money with his chosen career. Dreams up this idea of a
>> Table Saw that can stop the blade on contact with flesh. Tries to push
>> this new tech. on Saw Manufactures and fails. Decides to start his own
>> Table Saw Manufacture. I would imagine sales are decent but not decent
>> enough for the inventor so decides to lobby for this new tech. on every
>> table saw built today. If the millionaire wins he becomes a
billionaire.
>> Somehow I get the feeling this was the plan when he started the patent
>> process. Now that's what I call a "Great Business Plan", at of course
the
>> expense of Table Saw Manufactures and Table Saw users all over the
>> world!!!!
>>
>
> This is the part of this discussion that I just don't get. Someone
> invents something that actually does have a value and a purpose, and
tries
> to grab
> the brass ring. Hell - that is the American way. What is wrong with
> that? So he tried to get his invention adopted by all of the
> manufacturers, so he
> started his own company because they all turned him down. What's the
big
> deal?
This part of the story is fine and yes it is a wonderful invention. I
agree with his business plan up to this point.
> How is that at the expense of table saw manufacturers? Or users?
>
> You can fault his attempts to mandate his invention by law, but I'm not
> even
> sure I'd fault him for that effort. Any expense to table saw
> manufacturers
> lies solely at the feet of the legal system. Narrow that down a little
> further - to the jury system. Your neighbors and mine. You can't even
> fault the lawyers - all they do is argue a case. Both sides argue
> opposing
> sides. It's the people in the box that make the decision.
>
This is where I have a problem. Mandate this invention on all Table Saws?
This is just an attempt to force his will on all. I have a really big
problem with that!!! You can buy a small table table saw for around
100.00. I use an old Delta which I will call a Miniature Table Saw
probably 2-3 times a week, (off site portable) which I paid 80.00. How
much would it cost to put this SS invention on this saw? More then the saw
is worth. If you can't figure out that using a table saw is dangerous and
you need to use special precautions then you have no reason using it. Have
no problem signing an agreement to hold harmless saw manufactures without
SS.
--
You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK !
Mandriva 2010 using KDE 4.3
Website: www.rentmyhusband.biz
On 3/9/10 12:26 PM, Kevin wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
>> spilling coffee in her lap.
>
> McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
> the industry standard. While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
> spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
> she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed the
> standard.
>
>
> -Kevin
Plus, apparently, McD's had been warned several times or sued before
about it or something like that, and that's why the judge ruled in favor
of the lady.
Also, while we think the amount was ridiculous, the way the judge came
up with it, was to calculate the a single day's coffee sales for McD's.
It's akin to fining a MLB player $20,000 for doing something wrong.
It's less than they make for a single at bat.
--
-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 3/9/2010 1:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 3/9/10 12:26 PM, Kevin wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
>>> spilling coffee in her lap.
>>
>> McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
>> the industry standard. While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
>> spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
>> she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed the
>> standard.
>>
>>
>> -Kevin
>
> Plus, apparently, McD's had been warned several times or sued before
> about it or something like that, and that's why the judge ruled in favor
> of the lady.
They had been sued. They had not been "warned". Are you suggesting
that someone bringing suit in and of itself constitutes evidence of
wrongdoing?
> Also, while we think the amount was ridiculous, the way the judge came
> up with it, was to calculate the a single day's coffee sales for McD's.
> It's akin to fining a MLB player $20,000 for doing something wrong. It's
> less than they make for a single at bat.
The woman came to grief because of her own stupidity. McD was following
published industry standards.
On 3/9/2010 1:26 PM, Kevin wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
>> spilling coffee in her lap.
>
> McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
> the industry standard.
Bullshit. There is in fact a published standard and it calls for coffee
being served at the temperature McDonalds uses.
The lawyers went around and found some crappy diners and the like that
served lukewarm coffee and claimed that that was some kind of "standard".
Some years later there was a lawsuit initiated against Bunn-O-Matic, the
company that makes the coffee makers used by McDonalds and just about
every other restaurant in the US and they trotted out the published
standard and that was the end of that suit.
> While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
> spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
> she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed the
> standard.
And I'm sure that any liability lawyer would be more than happy to have
a gullible fool like you in his jury pool.
On 3/9/2010 11:23 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Imagine the Far Side cartoon showing a horde of Vikings storming the castle.
> Arrows are flying, boiling oil being poured, swords vs. axes on the
> ramparts, and on the top of the nearest scaling ladder: "Not a Step!"
LOL!
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 3/10/2010 12:28 AM, ChairMan wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Larry Jaques<[email protected]>spewed forth:
>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:27:34 -0600, the infamous "ChairMan"
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>> In
>>> news:34ac083e-fc27-4bb0-9b37-5806813887e8@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com,
>>> GarageWoodworks<[email protected]>spewed forth:
>>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>>>
>>> absurd
>>> Someone PLEASE add more chlorine to the gene pool
>>
>> Attorneys are the anti-chlorine in our gene pool.
>
> outta be a no limit all season on 'em
> kinda like feral pigs here in tejas<g>
Lawyers, politicians, and journalists. A pox on all their houses.
On 3/9/2010 10:50 PM, Steve wrote:
> On 2010-03-09 17:32:50 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> said:
>
>> The lawyers went around and found some crappy diners and the like that
>> served lukewarm coffee and claimed that that was some kind of "standard".
>
> It is now, damnit!
If you mean the lawyers lie, then no, it is NOT a standard NOW damnit.
The lawyers tried to get Bunn-O-Matic with the same argument and Bunn
trotted out the published industry standards and made the lawyers look
like total idiots.
"ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:86Gln.56222$%[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected],
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:27:34 -0600, the infamous "ChairMan"
> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
> >
> >> In
> >> news:34ac083e-fc27-4bb0-9b37-5806813887e8@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com,
> >> GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> >>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> www.garagewoodworks.com
> >>
> >> absurd
> >> Someone PLEASE add more chlorine to the gene pool
> >
> > Attorneys are the anti-chlorine in our gene pool.
>
> outta be a no limit all season on 'em
> kinda like feral pigs here in tejas<g>
>
The sport in that would get old in a hurry as there are so many of them.
And what do you do with the carcass? It would be so full of shit that
the meat would be useless. I'd like to see a bounty on them with the
carcasses rendered into oil. That should help solve 2 problems.
Art
Artemus wrote:
> "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:86Gln.56222$%[email protected]...
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]>spewed forth:
>>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:27:34 -0600, the infamous "ChairMan"
>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>
>>>> In
>>>> news:34ac083e-fc27-4bb0-9b37-5806813887e8@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com,
>>>> GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>spewed forth:
>>>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>>>>
>>>> absurd
>>>> Someone PLEASE add more chlorine to the gene pool
>>>
>>> Attorneys are the anti-chlorine in our gene pool.
>>
>> outta be a no limit all season on 'em
>> kinda like feral pigs here in tejas<g>
>>
> The sport in that would get old in a hurry as there are so many of
> them. And what do you do with the carcass? It would be so full of
> shit that the meat would be useless. I'd like to see a bounty on
> them with the carcasses rendered into oil. That should help solve 2
> problems.
> Art
do like they did with wolves. you only have to turn in the ears.
they stopped using rendered whale oil a long time ago. what would you
propose we do with rendered lawyer oil? there's only so many swiss watches
needing lubrication.
"chaniarts" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Artemus wrote:
> > "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:86Gln.56222$%[email protected]...
> >> In news:[email protected],
> >> Larry Jaques <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> >>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:27:34 -0600, the infamous "ChairMan"
> >>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
> >>>
> >>>> In
> >>>> news:34ac083e-fc27-4bb0-9b37-5806813887e8@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com,
> >>>> GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> >>>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> www.garagewoodworks.com
> >>>>
> >>>> absurd
> >>>> Someone PLEASE add more chlorine to the gene pool
> >>>
> >>> Attorneys are the anti-chlorine in our gene pool.
> >>
> >> outta be a no limit all season on 'em
> >> kinda like feral pigs here in tejas<g>
> >>
> > The sport in that would get old in a hurry as there are so many of
> > them. And what do you do with the carcass? It would be so full of
> > shit that the meat would be useless. I'd like to see a bounty on
> > them with the carcasses rendered into oil. That should help solve 2
> > problems.
> > Art
>
> do like they did with wolves. you only have to turn in the ears.
>
> they stopped using rendered whale oil a long time ago. what would you
> propose we do with rendered lawyer oil? there's only so many swiss watches
> needing lubrication.
>
I was thinking diesel or gasoline.
OTOH a kamasutra type oil would be a natural as lawyers are(or were
in this case) amazingly slippery and always good at screwing people.
On 3/10/10 6:28 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> Plus, apparently, McD's had been warned several times or sued before
>> about it or something like that, and that's why the judge ruled in favor
>> of the lady.
>
> They were warned. Question: Have you ever heard anyone drink a cup of
> coffee or tea and slurp it out of the cup? That's because most coffee
> and tea are too hot to drink without first cooling them to the
> drinker's preferred temp.
>
> The judge didn't rule, the jury did.
>
Semantics.
Are you really that obtuse?
>
>> Also, while we think the amount was ridiculous, the way the judge came
>> up with it, was to calculate the a single day's coffee sales for McD's.
>> It's akin to fining a MLB player $20,000 for doing something wrong.
>> It's less than they make for a single at bat.
>
> The fact doesn't make it right for a person to sue someone else for a
> wrong they did to themselves. This lady has a bogus award named after
> her now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Award
>
>
> Here's the case we're discussing:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
>
I don't really care about this.
--
-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
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2:26 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:89ca1677-087c-45b9-8b05-32474a116df1@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 11, 8:52 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>> news:2e81dbd1-65b6-4d4e-9618-9eca6a8a0e67@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 10, 11:26 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>> Good grief... That's fine but what if the SawStop hired sufficient
>>>>> lobbiests to make non-SawStop saws were illegal to sell? Do you
>>>>> think the "license fees" would be more reasonable?
>>
>>>> Good grief??? Good grief indeed! Where do you get ideas like this?
>>>> Are you not aware of the competitive market that surrounds you?
>>>> Make them illegal to sell? As you said - good grief...
>>
>>> WTF are you talking about? If SS technology is required by law, you
>>> think SS' license fees would go down?
>>
>>> **********************************************************************************
>>
>>> You don't believe that other companies would come up with a
>>> competing product if that type of safety device became mandated?
>>> Laws do not typically require a specific product.
>>
>> When a patent covers the basic physics? No.
>>
>> ***************************************************************************************
>>
>> Again - you can only patent a method.
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> Read up on patents. There is nothing
>> at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
>> different approach.
>
> The patent is on the detection of the digit. There are only so many
> ways to detect the presence of the digit before it comes in contact
> with the works. That's the physics. There isn't another good way and
> if the patent attorney had any sense (it was his idea) he'd close off
> all other avenues, as well.
>
>> It can even use capacitance as the underlying concept,
>> just like Saw Stop does.
>
> I'd have to read the patent again, but I believe you're wrong here.
> The claims do include capacitance, indeed that's the entirety of the
> patent.
>
>> Too many people do not understand patents in the
>> least and seem to feel this guy has a stranglehold on the world.
>
> Speak for yourself. I was on a patent review board at IBM for fifteen
> years.
>
>> He only
>> has a lead on the rest because he was the only one with the
>> foresight to envision this. Others will come now - just watch.
>
> That's the hard part. If he had any brains he's sealed off all
> competing technologies, as well.
>
> In short, you're wrong as you can be.
there was a post about a month or two ago about an addon to a tablesaw that
used leds in a box to detect the presence of 'something' near the blade that
wasn't the wood, and shut off power before you could get near enough to the
blade.
the consensus here was that it was a viable alternative, although it
wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.
On 3/11/2010 5:14 PM, CW wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:89ca1677-087c-45b9-8b05-32474a116df1@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> **********************************************************************************
>>
>> You don't believe that other companies would come up with a competing
>> product if that type of safety device became mandated? Laws do not
>> typically require a specific product.
>
>> When a patent covers the basic physics? No.
>
> There is nothing about the technology that hasn't been used before. The only
> thing they could patent is the mechanism.
No, they patent the principle. Any device that purports to stop a saw
from cutting someone would likely infringe their patent even if it
worked by Harry Potter waving a wand. Even if it didn't, there's enough
reason to believe that it does that any competent judge would find the
suit meritorious and allow it to go forward.
Of course if the Sawstop people were really the public spirited
benefactors that they claim to be they would have done like
Mercedes-Benz did with antiskid brakes and open-sourced the patent.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:00:00 -0600, [email protected] (Robert
> Bonomi) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Again - you can only patent a method.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>>So - are you suggesting you can patent the laws of physics?
>>
>>Patents rarely specify the precise methodology employed to accomplish an
>>end.
>>
>>They claim rights to "a method for .." accomplishing something.
>>
>>If there _is_ existing competing technology, they have to spell out what
>>is 'different' about their approach -- that was *NOT* included in the
>>'a method for ..' claims of the prior patent(s).
>>
>>If there is *NO* existing competing technology, and you have competently
>>drawn patent claims, the claim is for 'a method ...' doing the heretofore
>>impossible. citing the inventor's implementation only as one example of
>>the claim. In _that_ situation, *any*other* approach to solving the same
>>problem is simply a different means of doing the _same_thing_, and, as
>>such,
>>runs afoul of the original holder's patent that covers the basic idea of
>>doing _that_ thing.
>
>>A major goal of drafting patents is to make the claims as _broad_ and
>>_all-
>>encompassing_ as possible.
>>
>>SawStop's patent(s), by 'virtue' of being the _first_of_its_kind_ are
>>very broad in scope. It will be 'difficult' (to put it mildly) to build
>>a competing technology that does _not_ involve: (1) 'a method for...'
>>detecting the approach of human anatomy to the blade, and/or (b) 'a method
>>for ...' removing the blade from potential contact.
>
> Exactly right.
>
>>>>> Read up on patents. There is nothing
>>>>> at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
>>>>> different approach.
>>>>
>>>> The patent is on the detection of the digit. There are only so many
>>>> ways to detect the presence of the digit before it comes in contact
>>>> with the works. That's the physics. There isn't another good way and
>>>> if the patent attorney had any sense (it was his idea) he'd close off
>>>> all other avenues, as well.
>>>
>>>He can patent the detection method only to the point of the device
>>>design.
>>>He can't patent the use of capacitance though.
>>
>>WRONG.
>>
>>If capacitance has never been used for that purpose previously, he _CAN_
>>patent 'the use of capacitance for that purpose'.
>
> In fact, he's patented the use if *any* sensor for this purpose.
Prior Art: There exists all manner of machinery with sensors to keep human
appendages out of harms way.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:e63670ab-4f08-404b-8833-41890c58439b@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 11, 3:26 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:89ca1677-087c-45b9-8b05-32474a116df1@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 8:52 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:2e81dbd1-65b6-4d4e-9618-9eca6a8a0e67@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 10, 11:26 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > Good grief... That's fine but what if the SawStop hired sufficient
> > > > lobbiests to make non-SawStop saws were illegal to sell? Do you
> > > > think
> > > > the "license fees" would be more reasonable?
>
> > > Good grief??? Good grief indeed! Where do you get ideas like this? Are
> > > you not aware of the competitive market that surrounds you? Make them
> > > illegal to sell? As you said - good grief...
>
> > WTF are you talking about? If SS technology is required by law, you
> > think SS' license fees would go down?
>
> > ***************************************************************************
> > *******
>
> > You don't believe that other companies would come up with a competing
> > product if that type of safety device became mandated? Laws do not
> > typically require a specific product.
>
> When a patent covers the basic physics? No.
>
> ***************************************************************************
> ************
>
> Again - you can only patent a method. Read up on patents. There is nothing
> at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
> different approach. It can even use capacitance as the underlying concept,
> just like Saw Stop does. Too many people do not understand patents in the
> least and seem to feel this guy has a stranglehold on the world. He only
> has a lead on the rest because he was the only one with the foresight to
> envision this. Others will come now - just watch.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
Capacitance detection is what makes all the touch screens and remote
buttons, and cooktop controls work. It's old hat.
For Gass to hook it up to a safety device is pretty damned clever, but
that application would be damned hard to defend.
I applied for 3 patents, got one granted and sold it the same day.
BTDT, and to make it water and air tight is extremely difficult if all
one does is to combine existing technologies.
Any company who would try to mess with Sawstop would be faced with a
plethora of injunctions, each could be beat given enough time and
money...and therein lies the rub. Patents, for the most part, are to
give the 'inventor' a leg up on the competition..for a while at least.
Patents which come out of research labs and venture into areas never
before explored as much more solid. But capacitive detection? Not so
much.
Also... how many saws do you think these guys are selling? Who in
their right mind would want a market share of a product that sells in
such limited numbers?
Wait for Festool's table saw. All buyers of the saw need a BNC
connector attached to their skull. And if you only THINK of doing
something stupid, a huge, gloved hand appears from the control panel
and slaps you silly. The glove will be green.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will it have a dust collector port?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:51:08 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:00:00 -0600, [email protected] (Robert
>>> Bonomi) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again - you can only patent a method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>>So - are you suggesting you can patent the laws of physics?
>>>>
>>>>Patents rarely specify the precise methodology employed to accomplish an
>>>>end.
>>>>
>>>>They claim rights to "a method for .." accomplishing something.
>>>>
>>>>If there _is_ existing competing technology, they have to spell out what
>>>>is 'different' about their approach -- that was *NOT* included in the
>>>>'a method for ..' claims of the prior patent(s).
>>>>
>>>>If there is *NO* existing competing technology, and you have competently
>>>>drawn patent claims, the claim is for 'a method ...' doing the
>>>>heretofore
>>>>impossible. citing the inventor's implementation only as one example of
>>>>the claim. In _that_ situation, *any*other* approach to solving the
>>>>same
>>>>problem is simply a different means of doing the _same_thing_, and, as
>>>>such,
>>>>runs afoul of the original holder's patent that covers the basic idea of
>>>>doing _that_ thing.
>>>
>>>>A major goal of drafting patents is to make the claims as _broad_ and
>>>>_all-
>>>>encompassing_ as possible.
>>>>
>>>>SawStop's patent(s), by 'virtue' of being the _first_of_its_kind_ are
>>>>very broad in scope. It will be 'difficult' (to put it mildly) to build
>>>>a competing technology that does _not_ involve: (1) 'a method for...'
>>>>detecting the approach of human anatomy to the blade, and/or (b) 'a
>>>>method
>>>>for ...' removing the blade from potential contact.
>>>
>>> Exactly right.
>>>
>>>>>>> Read up on patents. There is nothing
>>>>>>> at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
>>>>>>> different approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The patent is on the detection of the digit. There are only so many
>>>>>> ways to detect the presence of the digit before it comes in contact
>>>>>> with the works. That's the physics. There isn't another good way
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> if the patent attorney had any sense (it was his idea) he'd close off
>>>>>> all other avenues, as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>He can patent the detection method only to the point of the device
>>>>>design.
>>>>>He can't patent the use of capacitance though.
>>>>
>>>>WRONG.
>>>>
>>>>If capacitance has never been used for that purpose previously, he _CAN_
>>>>patent 'the use of capacitance for that purpose'.
>>>
>>> In fact, he's patented the use if *any* sensor for this purpose.
>>
>>
>>Prior Art: There exists all manner of machinery with sensors to keep human
>>appendages out of harms way.
>
> ...and payday is on Friday. So what?
Prior art makes it easier to break.
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:19:44 -0800, the infamous "Artemus"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"chaniarts" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Artemus wrote:
>> > "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:86Gln.56222$%[email protected]...
>> >> In news:[email protected],
>> >> Larry Jaques <[email protected]>spewed forth:
>> >>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:27:34 -0600, the infamous "ChairMan"
>> >>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>> >>>
>> >>>> In
>> >>>> news:34ac083e-fc27-4bb0-9b37-5806813887e8@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com,
>> >>>> GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>spewed forth:
>> >>>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ---
>> >>>>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>> absurd
>> >>>> Someone PLEASE add more chlorine to the gene pool
>> >>>
>> >>> Attorneys are the anti-chlorine in our gene pool.
>> >>
>> >> outta be a no limit all season on 'em
>> >> kinda like feral pigs here in tejas<g>
>> >>
>> > The sport in that would get old in a hurry as there are so many of
>> > them. And what do you do with the carcass? It would be so full of
>> > shit that the meat would be useless. I'd like to see a bounty on
>> > them with the carcasses rendered into oil. That should help solve 2
>> > problems.
>> > Art
Feed the meat to the less picky zoo animals, like buzzards and sharks.
They eat their own kind, so it's quite fitting.
>> do like they did with wolves. you only have to turn in the ears.
>>
>> they stopped using rendered whale oil a long time ago. what would you
>> propose we do with rendered lawyer oil? there's only so many swiss watches
>> needing lubrication.
>>
>
>I was thinking diesel or gasoline.
>OTOH a kamasutra type oil would be a natural as lawyers are(or were
>in this case) amazingly slippery and always good at screwing people.
You'd let a lawyer get between you and the woman you lust^H^H^Hove, IN
BED?
No, replace the imported oil with domestic lawyer oil. It's likely
light enough to replace neetsfoot oil, 3-in-1, agricultural, and
sewing oils. Make lawyers USEFUL for once in their meager lives.
--
There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
-- Ronald Reagan
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:35:12 -0600, the infamous
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> scrawled the
following:
>On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:34:23 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"GarageWoodworks" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>
>>Suing after you cut your finger off is dumb. Recently I find myself full of
>>fear every time I want to cut a piece of wood on my saw. I'm a nervous
>>wreck and the stress is not good for me. I'm going to sue so they put a
>>flesh detecting device on my saw and enough money for a relaxing vacation.
>
>Have a beer. I'll sooth your nerves.
>
>>Get my lawyer on the phone.
Better yet, if you go drink a fifth of bourbon before using the saw,
you can sue both the distillery and the sawmaker, you wonderful guy!
--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.
-- Chuang-tzu
In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:55:10 -0800 (PST), the infamous
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>On Mar 9, 10:38 am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:26:15 -0600, the infamous Swingman
>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>
>>> >On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> >>http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>
>>> >> ---
>>> >>www.garagewoodworks.com
>>>
>>> >Asshat lawyers ... greed rewarding stupidity/personal irresponsibility.
>>>
>>> How do I word this softly? "I can't wait for some idiot to get hurt on
>>> his SawStop saw to prove that they can't keep idiots from hurting
>>> themselves."
>>
>>Now *there* is a suit. They're advertising that they will protect you
>>from yourself!
>>
>>> How about new legislation, mandating that "any lawyer who loses a
>>> frivial case has to suffer that malady he was ranting about"?
>>>
>>> (frivial = trivial + frivolous)
>>
>>Wouldn't that be trialous? ;-)
>
>How DARE you mock my mock words! Harrumph! <stomp, pout>
Just think, those who are against the use of your new word can be
described as confrivial.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 9, 12:26 pm, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued
>>> McDonalds for spilling coffee in her lap.
>>
>> McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
>> the industry standard.
>
> This is a lie that has been handed down for ages. The coffee was
> served at a customary serving temperature (180F). Dunkin' Donuts
> served coffee at *exactly* the same temperature (their spec was 180F
> +/- 3F) at the time.
>
>> While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
>> spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
>> she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed
>> the standard.
>
> BS. You don't want burns, don't put a cup of coffee between your
> legs.
Official Navy recipe for coffee includes:
"Hold finished coffee at temperature of 185o F to 190o F until served."
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:54:56 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/8/10 4:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> This guy, nails it:
>>
>> http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/safer-table-saw-not-good
>>
>
>Except for one glaringly wrong statement...
>
>"... SawStop, a technology company that invented a table saw tech that
>senses capacitance of a finger and immediately stops the blade....have
>been active in mandating this technology across all table saws. The
>problem, of course, is that they aren't doing this out of good will -
>they want to license it and make a fortune. Quite simply, SawStop wants
>to legislate itself into millions.
>
>While I wholeheartedly agree they shouldn't be trying to "legislate
>itself into millions," to say they should do it out of good will is
>absurd.
>
>The act of inventing the technology in and of itself is "good will"
>enough. They should be able to make a billion dollars from it. As long
>as their business practices are fair and ethical, no one should complain
>one iota about it.
As long as...
Having their (legitimate) patent monopoly made into an absolute monopoly by
congress (or judge) isn't part of your "as long as", IMO. If they convince
everyone that they need the technology, fine, the price will reflect the
decision. Doing otherwise will effectively ban table saws until the patent
expires.
>
> I'd be curious to know if he was free handing cuts at the time... If so he
> certainly wouldn't be the first flooring guy to guide wood through the
> blade sans fence or miter gauge...
thinking about doing that for cross cuts gives me the heebie-jeebies.... for
rips? Doesn't even bear thinking about. I mean, I guy could lose a finger
doing tha.... wait, nevermind...
Mike M wrote:
> So now when you buy a table saw you will have to sign a liability
> release that you understand that it doesn't have this safety device
> and the manufacuturers will have to offer safety classes which have
> been available at the better dealers. Its like the notices on
> generators in a dozen languages that says don't run them in your
> house. If you buy something it should be your responsibility to know
> what your getting into. If your operating equipment it should be the
> same.
>
Imagine the Far Side cartoon showing a horde of Vikings storming the castle.
Arrows are flying, boiling oil being poured, swords vs. axes on the
ramparts, and on the top of the nearest scaling ladder: "Not a Step!"
On 3/8/2010 7:21 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
>
> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>
>>> I'd be curious to know if he was free handing cuts at the time... If
>>> so he certainly wouldn't be the first flooring guy to guide wood
>>> through the blade sans fence or miter gauge...
>>
>> thinking about doing that for cross cuts gives me the
>> heebie-jeebies.... for rips? Doesn't even bear thinking about. I mean,
>> I guy could lose a finger doing tha.... wait, nevermind...
>
> Ya think...??
LOL ... like the Forrest blade guys at the WW shows, using one of those
little table top saws for demoing paper thin cuts, on a 2"x4"x6" slab of
hardwood, freehand.
What are they gonna do now? :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
So now when you buy a table saw you will have to sign a liability
release that you understand that it doesn't have this safety device
and the manufacuturers will have to offer safety classes which have
been available at the better dealers. Its like the notices on
generators in a dozen languages that says don't run them in your
house. If you buy something it should be your responsibility to know
what your getting into. If your operating equipment it should be the
same.
Mike M
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:44:51 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/8/2010 6:08 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>> On 03/08/2010 05:35 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2010 5:13 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I dislike lawyers as much as the next guy...but I also think it's a bit
>>>> odd that none of the other manufacturers has even attempted to come up
>>>> with something similar. Surely the Sawstop guys haven't locked down the
>>>> patents that tightly.
>>>
>>> The "guy", Steve Gass, _is_ a patent attorney.
>>
>> He also has a doctorate in physics and claims to have started
>> woodworking at age 4. The fact that someone who invents something
>> useful happens to be an attorney shouldn't be held against them.
>
>By dint of name alone, "lawyers" need little else be held against
>them... :)
>
>>> Like they say ... one lawyer in a town will starve to death, two and
>>> they'll both get rich.
>>
>> Sure. And I know there was some interesting happenings in the early
>> days of his idea when he wanted a pretty good premium for the use of the
>> concept.
>
>A "licensing fee", and apparently nothing has changed with regard to same.
>
>> But all the other companies all have patent attorneys as well. I have a
>> hard time believing that nobody else in the entire industry could have
>> come up with a flesh-sensing device of their own after the better part
>> of a decade.
>
>I'd say get used to it, because it's painfully obvious that that's the case.
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:18:40 -0500, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:45:34 -0500, "J. Clarke"
><[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
>>So tell us how, using the typical Bunn-O-Matic coffee brewer that most
>>restaurants have on the counter, you would go about achieving this
>>reduced holding temperature.
>
>Excerpt from the judgement in a similar later case in Britain:
>
>"I accept Mr. Hathaways evidence that the temperature settings for
>the Blickman and Bloomfield coffee machines were pre-set by the
>manufacturers and were as follows:
>
>Blickman
>
>Brewing temperature 86.66 C to 90 C (188 F to 194 F)
>
>Holding temperature 86.66 C to 90 C (188 F to 194 F)
>
>Bloomfield (up to September 2001)
>
>Brewing temperature 78.88 C to 83.33 C (174 F to 182 F )
>
>Holding temperature 75 C to 78.88 C (167 F to 174 F)"
>
>So it's pretty obvious at least some of the machines have separate
>brewing and holding temperature settings. If not, I'm fairly
>confident McDonald's has enough of these things to tell the
>manufacturer whatever they want to do with one and get it.
So you require that the coffee sit on the burner for an hour before serving?
When it's done brewing it's served.
As I said in an earlier post, at the time of the McD's fiasco, Dunkin' Donuts
was *serving* coffee at 180F +/-3F. The franchise would be measured on this
and it was a severe ding if the coffee was out of spec. Now, after the trial
lawyers took over the world, it's hard to get a luke warm cup of coffee from
anyone.
<...>
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:05:30 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 3/9/2010 9:46 PM, Steve wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty new to woodshop. I gulped at the price when I first saw the
>> SawStop, but I made the decsion right then and there this would be my
>> next TS. And I will be plunking down the cash real soon.
>
>It's a damn good thing, because the choice will soon be out of your
>hands, and shortly after that you won't be able to buy a dado stack
>because it is too dangerous for a fool who needs to be protected from
>himself.
Those (and knives and guns) are now outlawed in the UK. Of course,
they are also installing padding on their telephone poles and
lampposts in London to keep the texters safer. You think WE have
nanny-statism bad? Look to the EU and get the heebie jeebies.
--
There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
-- Ronald Reagan
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:58:27 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 3/8/2010 4:49 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> -MIKE-<[email protected]> writes:
>>> On 3/8/10 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if Ryobi's lawyers even asked if he took off the saw guard.
>>> I would bet a high end SawStop that he no guard on the saw.
>>
>> I've seen a couple of construction workers and a bunch of amateur
>> homeowners crosscutting freehand on these portable table saws. They
>> eventually get what they deserve.
>
>"Carlos Osorio", a hardwood floor installer ... hmmmmm, wonder if he was
>fresh from Home Depot?
Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha! My thoughts ran that direction, too.
>This guy, nails it:
>
>http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/safer-table-saw-not-good
Yeah, good article.
--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.
-- Chuang-tzu
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:51:08 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:00:00 -0600, [email protected] (Robert
>> Bonomi) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Again - you can only patent a method.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>>So - are you suggesting you can patent the laws of physics?
>>>
>>>Patents rarely specify the precise methodology employed to accomplish an
>>>end.
>>>
>>>They claim rights to "a method for .." accomplishing something.
>>>
>>>If there _is_ existing competing technology, they have to spell out what
>>>is 'different' about their approach -- that was *NOT* included in the
>>>'a method for ..' claims of the prior patent(s).
>>>
>>>If there is *NO* existing competing technology, and you have competently
>>>drawn patent claims, the claim is for 'a method ...' doing the heretofore
>>>impossible. citing the inventor's implementation only as one example of
>>>the claim. In _that_ situation, *any*other* approach to solving the same
>>>problem is simply a different means of doing the _same_thing_, and, as
>>>such,
>>>runs afoul of the original holder's patent that covers the basic idea of
>>>doing _that_ thing.
>>
>>>A major goal of drafting patents is to make the claims as _broad_ and
>>>_all-
>>>encompassing_ as possible.
>>>
>>>SawStop's patent(s), by 'virtue' of being the _first_of_its_kind_ are
>>>very broad in scope. It will be 'difficult' (to put it mildly) to build
>>>a competing technology that does _not_ involve: (1) 'a method for...'
>>>detecting the approach of human anatomy to the blade, and/or (b) 'a method
>>>for ...' removing the blade from potential contact.
>>
>> Exactly right.
>>
>>>>>> Read up on patents. There is nothing
>>>>>> at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
>>>>>> different approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> The patent is on the detection of the digit. There are only so many
>>>>> ways to detect the presence of the digit before it comes in contact
>>>>> with the works. That's the physics. There isn't another good way and
>>>>> if the patent attorney had any sense (it was his idea) he'd close off
>>>>> all other avenues, as well.
>>>>
>>>>He can patent the detection method only to the point of the device
>>>>design.
>>>>He can't patent the use of capacitance though.
>>>
>>>WRONG.
>>>
>>>If capacitance has never been used for that purpose previously, he _CAN_
>>>patent 'the use of capacitance for that purpose'.
>>
>> In fact, he's patented the use if *any* sensor for this purpose.
>
>
>Prior Art: There exists all manner of machinery with sensors to keep human
>appendages out of harms way.
...and payday is on Friday. So what?
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
>spilling coffee in her lap.
McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
the industry standard. While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed the
standard.
-Kevin
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:37:06 -0600, the infamous -MIKE-
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 3/9/10 12:26 PM, Kevin wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
>>> spilling coffee in her lap.
>>
>> McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
>> the industry standard. While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
>> spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
>> she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed the
>> standard.
>>
>>
>> -Kevin
>
>Plus, apparently, McD's had been warned several times or sued before
>about it or something like that, and that's why the judge ruled in favor
>of the lady.
They were warned. Question: Have you ever heard anyone drink a cup of
coffee or tea and slurp it out of the cup? That's because most coffee
and tea are too hot to drink without first cooling them to the
drinker's preferred temp.
The judge didn't rule, the jury did.
>Also, while we think the amount was ridiculous, the way the judge came
>up with it, was to calculate the a single day's coffee sales for McD's.
> It's akin to fining a MLB player $20,000 for doing something wrong.
>It's less than they make for a single at bat.
The fact doesn't make it right for a person to sue someone else for a
wrong they did to themselves. This lady has a bogus award named after
her now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Award
Here's the case we're discussing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
--
There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
-- Ronald Reagan
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:12:33 -0600, the infamous Chris Friesen
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 03/09/2010 06:04 PM, Rudy wrote:
>
>> Now you have to HOLD the safety interlock on the handle or it will shut
>> off... I find that a major PITA.
>
>I don't find that a problem at all. If I need to let go it turns off,
>and when I come back I yank it again.
I don't find a problem with either, either. And to get around it
shutting off when I'm mowing and have to move a downed branch, I put a
twistie on the handle in a loop larger than the handle and safety
lever. I slide it up and the mower stays running while I spend ten
second moving the vegetation. I don't mind the safety feature at all
other than that, and I sidestepped it in 15 seconds at no cost. A
cable tie will go on there if this twistie dies.
>> Same goes for the little BEAM sensors on garage doors.
>
>The beam sensor kept my bike trailer from getting crushed a couple days
>ago...my wife was coming inside, hit the overhead door switch, and
>didn't notice the trailer was slowly rolling under the door...
Sorry, Chris, but the bike trailer would have been unscathed by the
door. It stops and reverses when it hits something. It might be
enough to dent a car roof, but not a trailer.
--
There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
-- Ronald Reagan
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/8/2010 6:27 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
>
>> I'd be curious to know if he was free handing cuts at the time... If so
>> he certainly wouldn't be the first flooring guy to guide wood through
>> the blade sans fence or miter gauge...
>
> Almost assuredly not ... most flooring cuts are done on a miter saw, and
> for the next-to-wall rips, that type of saw is the choice of most flooring
> sub contractors in these parts. AAMOF, I've not seen a fence on a jobsite
> saw like that in years, and flooring crews normally don't even use the
> stand.
>
When I'm doing flooring, I don't even bring the table/jobsite saw. I have a
mitre saw for crosses and angles and my trusty bosch sabre saw for rips.
Come to think of it, I use the bosch more and more for crosses as well. It
saves getting up and making a trip to the saw stand.
-MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>On 3/8/10 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>
>
>I wonder if Ryobi's lawyers even asked if he took off the saw guard.
>I would bet a high end SawStop that he no guard on the saw.
I've seen a couple of construction workers and a bunch of amateur
homeowners crosscutting freehand on these portable table saws. They
eventually get what they deserve.
scott
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:00:00 -0600, [email protected] (Robert
Bonomi) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>> Again - you can only patent a method.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>
>>So - are you suggesting you can patent the laws of physics?
>
>Patents rarely specify the precise methodology employed to accomplish an end.
>
>They claim rights to "a method for .." accomplishing something.
>
>If there _is_ existing competing technology, they have to spell out what
>is 'different' about their approach -- that was *NOT* included in the
>'a method for ..' claims of the prior patent(s).
>
>If there is *NO* existing competing technology, and you have competently
>drawn patent claims, the claim is for 'a method ...' doing the heretofore
>impossible. citing the inventor's implementation only as one example of
>the claim. In _that_ situation, *any*other* approach to solving the same
>problem is simply a different means of doing the _same_thing_, and, as such,
>runs afoul of the original holder's patent that covers the basic idea of
>doing _that_ thing.
>A major goal of drafting patents is to make the claims as _broad_ and _all-
>encompassing_ as possible.
>
>SawStop's patent(s), by 'virtue' of being the _first_of_its_kind_ are
>very broad in scope. It will be 'difficult' (to put it mildly) to build
>a competing technology that does _not_ involve: (1) 'a method for...'
>detecting the approach of human anatomy to the blade, and/or (b) 'a method
>for ...' removing the blade from potential contact.
Exactly right.
>>>> Read up on patents. There is nothing
>>>> at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
>>>> different approach.
>>>
>>> The patent is on the detection of the digit. There are only so many
>>> ways to detect the presence of the digit before it comes in contact
>>> with the works. That's the physics. There isn't another good way and
>>> if the patent attorney had any sense (it was his idea) he'd close off
>>> all other avenues, as well.
>>
>>He can patent the detection method only to the point of the device design.
>>He can't patent the use of capacitance though.
>
>WRONG.
>
>If capacitance has never been used for that purpose previously, he _CAN_
>patent 'the use of capacitance for that purpose'.
In fact, he's patented the use if *any* sensor for this purpose.
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:36:44 -0600, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 3/8/2010 7:21 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>
>> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd be curious to know if he was free handing cuts at the time... If
>>>> so he certainly wouldn't be the first flooring guy to guide wood
>>>> through the blade sans fence or miter gauge...
>>>
>>> thinking about doing that for cross cuts gives me the
>>> heebie-jeebies.... for rips? Doesn't even bear thinking about. I mean,
>>> I guy could lose a finger doing tha.... wait, nevermind...
>>
>> Ya think...??
>
>LOL ... like the Forrest blade guys at the WW shows, using one of those
>little table top saws for demoing paper thin cuts, on a 2"x4"x6" slab of
>hardwood, freehand.
>
>What are they gonna do now? :)
Remember the video of the guy doing freehand cuts on the big bandsaw,
ending up with a reindeer at the end? I was in mortal fear of his
fingers the whole way.
--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.
-- Chuang-tzu
On 08 Mar 2010 22:49:57 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>-MIKE- <[email protected]> writes:
>>On 3/8/10 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>>
>>
>>I wonder if Ryobi's lawyers even asked if he took off the saw guard.
>>I would bet a high end SawStop that he no guard on the saw.
>
>I've seen a couple of construction workers and a bunch of amateur
>homeowners crosscutting freehand on these portable table saws. They
>eventually get what they deserve.
>
>scott
Some of us would rather be retain possession of all our digits -
fingers are more useful than lawsuits.
I have some small stock (1x2) that needs to be cut to length (maybe 5
mnutes?) but it can wait until morning when I'm not fighting a sinus
headache..
John
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 3/9/2010 12:33 AM, Mike M wrote:
>> So now when you buy a table saw you will have to sign a liability
>> release that you understand that it doesn't have this safety device
>> and the manufacuturers will have to offer safety classes which have
>> been available at the better dealers. Its like the notices on
>> generators in a dozen languages that says don't run them in your
>> house. If you buy something it should be your responsibility to know
>> what your getting into. If your operating equipment it should be the
>> same.
>
>That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
>spilling coffee in her lap.
I think I left the word "remittitured" out of my last post on this
subject. (had to look it up and forgot to go back) The judge
seriously reduced the award, giving her only her medical costs, legal
costs, and a tiny sum which is not to be discussed openly.
>Until somebody shoots every lawyer in Congress and shoots the next batch
>that gets elected and keeps shooting them until no lawyer dares run for
>Congress that's not going to get fixed. Should have been in the
>Constitution--no person who has ever worked as a lawyer should be
>eligible for Congress.
CONgresscritters should start out their careers with a 2-year stretch
of hard time in a maximum-security pen. Those who survive might be a
bit better grounded on the necessities of life.
The Constitution also should have stated that "Anyone who _seeks_ to
be in office shall never be allowed to do so." The Founders were all
hesitant obligers, and that turned out very well. Look what we have
now! Disgusting.
--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.
-- Chuang-tzu
On 03/09/2010 06:04 PM, Rudy wrote:
> Now you have to HOLD the safety interlock on the handle or it will shut
> off... I find that a major PITA.
I don't find that a problem at all. If I need to let go it turns off,
and when I come back I yank it again.
> Same goes for the little BEAM sensors on garage doors.
The beam sensor kept my bike trailer from getting crushed a couple days
ago...my wife was coming inside, hit the overhead door switch, and
didn't notice the trailer was slowly rolling under the door...
Chris
In news:b88d07dc-0ac3-445e-98ea-0000218f34b9@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
Robatoy <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> Somebody had to.
can I sue if I sew my finger?
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:05:45 -0600, the infamous
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> scrawled the
following:
>On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:54:56 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 3/8/10 4:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> This guy, nails it:
>>>
>>> http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/safer-table-saw-not-good
>>>
>>
>>Except for one glaringly wrong statement...
>>
>>"... SawStop, a technology company that invented a table saw tech that
>>senses capacitance of a finger and immediately stops the blade....have
>>been active in mandating this technology across all table saws. The
>>problem, of course, is that they aren't doing this out of good will -
>>they want to license it and make a fortune. Quite simply, SawStop wants
>>to legislate itself into millions.
>>
>>While I wholeheartedly agree they shouldn't be trying to "legislate
>>itself into millions," to say they should do it out of good will is
>>absurd.
>>
>>The act of inventing the technology in and of itself is "good will"
>>enough. They should be able to make a billion dollars from it. As long
>>as their business practices are fair and ethical, no one should complain
>>one iota about it.
>
>As long as...
>
>Having their (legitimate) patent monopoly made into an absolute monopoly by
>congress (or judge) isn't part of your "as long as", IMO. If they convince
>everyone that they need the technology, fine, the price will reflect the
>decision. Doing otherwise will effectively ban table saws until the patent
>expires.
Bingo. Methinks the guys may have been in cahoots with the ambulance
chasers in search of monopoly and wealth.
--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate.
-- Chuang-tzu
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:26:17 -0500, the infamous Kevin
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
>>spilling coffee in her lap.
>
>McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
>the industry standard. While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
>spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
>she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed the
>standard.
I'll bet you a case of her Depends she would have done exactly the
same thing had she known, Kevin. And if she'd been smart, she'd have
jumped up and waved her clothing to get air to the hot skin, as most
people would have done.
Do you know why the Mickey D's coffee was hotter? Customers kept
telling them that they had X miles to drive and wanted it hot when
they got to work. Most people liked the hotter state of the drink for
that reason and complimented them on it.
--
There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
-- Ronald Reagan
In article <[email protected]>,
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/8/2010 7:54 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>
>> Except for one glaringly wrong statement...
>>
>> "... SawStop, a technology company that invented a table saw tech that
>> senses capacitance of a finger and immediately stops the blade....have
>> been active in mandating this technology across all table saws. The
>> problem, of course, is that they aren't doing this out of good will -
>> they want to license it and make a fortune. Quite simply, SawStop wants
>> to legislate itself into millions.
>>
>> While I wholeheartedly agree they shouldn't be trying to "legislate
>> itself into millions," to say they should do it out of good will is absurd.
>>
>> The act of inventing the technology in and of itself is "good will"
>> enough. They should be able to make a billion dollars from it. As long
>> as their business practices are fair and ethical, no one should complain
>> one iota about it.
>
>I agree, but I think you may have missed the context.
>
>Were you around here when they initially started out? At that point
>there was nothing but a 'jam it down your throat via government edict'
>mentality to the inventor's method of gaining acceptance for the technology.
Correction to the 'revisionist history' in the above paragraph.
Sawstop _first_ tried to license to all the major table-saw manufacturers.
_NO_ONE_ expressed any interest.
*Then*, and only then, did they go the route of trying to get the use
of the device made mandatory by government action.
When -that- failed, they went into manufacture for themselves.
>
>Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for an "Atlas Shrugged" altruism
>here. Acutally, I think the SS is a great innovation, and a boon to
>those having to use a TS for business or hobby ... AAMOF, I would buy
>one for my next saw given the opportunity.
You can't buy it as an 'add-on'. it has to be designed in/built in
as part of the original design.
It is subject to mis-fire under certain situations, The owners manual
expressly _tells_ you to disable this 'safety feature' if doing that
kind of cutting.
It's also fairly costly 'in use'. If the device fires, the saw is
not usable until a replacement cartridge is installed. *and* the saw-
blade is probably ruined. 'Cheap insurance' if it actually saves a
finger. *REALLY* expensive if it was a 'false alarm'. Especially
if you _don't_ have a 'spare' on hand.
On 3/8/2010 6:08 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 05:35 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 3/8/2010 5:13 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>>
>>> I dislike lawyers as much as the next guy...but I also think it's a bit
>>> odd that none of the other manufacturers has even attempted to come up
>>> with something similar. Surely the Sawstop guys haven't locked down the
>>> patents that tightly.
>>
>> The "guy", Steve Gass, _is_ a patent attorney.
>
> He also has a doctorate in physics and claims to have started
> woodworking at age 4. The fact that someone who invents something
> useful happens to be an attorney shouldn't be held against them.
By dint of name alone, "lawyers" need little else be held against
them... :)
>> Like they say ... one lawyer in a town will starve to death, two and
>> they'll both get rich.
>
> Sure. And I know there was some interesting happenings in the early
> days of his idea when he wanted a pretty good premium for the use of the
> concept.
A "licensing fee", and apparently nothing has changed with regard to same.
> But all the other companies all have patent attorneys as well. I have a
> hard time believing that nobody else in the entire industry could have
> come up with a flesh-sensing device of their own after the better part
> of a decade.
I'd say get used to it, because it's painfully obvious that that's the case.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:45:34 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/10/2010 8:16 PM, Kevin wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:41:37 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/10/2010 5:27 PM, Kevin wrote:
>>
>>>> I guess since I'm such a fool I don't know the difference between
>>>> brewing and serving temperature.
>>>
>>> What makes you think that there is such a difference other than that
>>> some scumbag lawyer said so?
>>
>> I'm not. You aren't going to be drinking 185 degree coffee though.
>> In a restaurant setting you have your server going around to multiple
>> tables freshening up cups, and you want the last cup to still be hot.
>> At the drive thru I'm guessing you are going straight from the holding
>> container, which is in close proximity, into an insulated cup and into
>> the customer's hands pretty quickly. It seems plausible to me that
>> you might not necessarily want the same holding temperature. You
>> don't just have idiot customers to worry about but also your minimum
>> wage drone who might not get the lid secured properly and drop the
>> thing in the customer's lap. I might still decide to serve it at 185
>> but I wouldn't get there straight from a brewing spec.
>
>So tell us how, using the typical Bunn-O-Matic coffee brewer that most
>restaurants have on the counter, you would go about achieving this
>reduced holding temperature.
Excerpt from the judgement in a similar later case in Britain:
"I accept Mr. Hathaways evidence that the temperature settings for
the Blickman and Bloomfield coffee machines were pre-set by the
manufacturers and were as follows:
Blickman
Brewing temperature 86.66 C to 90 C (188 F to 194 F)
Holding temperature 86.66 C to 90 C (188 F to 194 F)
Bloomfield (up to September 2001)
Brewing temperature 78.88 C to 83.33 C (174 F to 182 F )
Holding temperature 75 C to 78.88 C (167 F to 174 F)"
So it's pretty obvious at least some of the machines have separate
brewing and holding temperature settings. If not, I'm fairly
confident McDonald's has enough of these things to tell the
manufacturer whatever they want to do with one and get it.
The judge however wasn't having any of it, including the if it was a
lower temperature it wouldn't have been as bad of a burn argument,
because according to what was presented to him even the lower
temperature they were asking for was still in the 3rd degree burn in 2
seconds range. However, he is of course not an expert in
thermodynamics and can only go on what he is told. A model or
experiment is only as good as the assumptions behind it. It doesn't
sound like anyone bothered to rig up a human analog with temperature
sensors, get it up to body temperature and with clothes on it actually
pour the damn coffee on it.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html
"There has been no research performed on human skin to study the
relative effects of temperature and duration of contact. However, pigs
have skin very similar to human skin and there has been research using
pigs. The classic paper in this field is Moritz and Henriques: The
relative importance of time and surface temperature in the causation
of cutaneous burns published in (1947) 23 American Journal of
Pathology 695-720. This research shows that the minimum temperature at
which skin burns is 44 degrees Celsius. At 50 C the duration of
exposure required for a full thickness burn is 257 seconds. At 55 C
the duration for such a burn is 11 seconds. At 65 C the duration
required is just 2 seconds. The relationship between the surface
temperature of the skin and the exposure time required for a full
thickness burn is exponential. "
This doesn't tell me whether they were applying a fixed heat source,
say a thick metal plate, which would hold its temperature, versus a
spilled liquid which would be losing its temperature rapidly in a
dynamic situation which would give different results. I'm guessing
the former. There's also the clothing which would also reduce the
temperature before contact with the skin. Small differences, but
we're talking about whether a temperature is reached in 2 seconds
(you're screwed) or 10 seconds (you have time to go "FUCK!" a couple
times, gather your wits, release your seat belt, and yank down your
pants.
-Kevin
On 3/8/2010 5:13 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> I dislike lawyers as much as the next guy...but I also think it's a bit
> odd that none of the other manufacturers has even attempted to come up
> with something similar. Surely the Sawstop guys haven't locked down the
> patents that tightly.
The "guy", Steve Gass, _is_ a patent attorney.
Like they say ... one lawyer in a town will starve to death, two and
they'll both get rich.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:52:58 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mar 9, 8:33 pm, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:39:43 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>> You're right in that it wasn't a standard. I studied this case in
>> college and it's been a while so the details were fuzzy. McDonald's
>> coffee was 185 +/- 5 degrees. I forget the exact numbers we used but
>> we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
>> and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
>> length of time it took to get there. If you were at the high end 190
>> it was much worse than the low end of 180. If you used the lower
>> temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
>> degree burns instead of third degree burns.
>
>Nonsense. The energy contained in a liquid is proportional to its
>temperature (difference).
What is so hard to understand about the fact that the hotter something
is the faster it burns you? Whether it takes 2 seconds or 2 minutes
to achieve a certain level of burn is significant.
-Kevin
Swingman <[email protected]> writes:
>On 3/8/2010 3:21 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> http://bit.ly/bUTXOP
>>
>> ---
>> www.garagewoodworks.com
>
>Asshat lawyers ... greed rewarding stupidity/personal irresponsibility.
Won't survive appeal. It's a shame that the lawyers will be the only
ones to win, here.
scott