As we recently reported, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has moved closer towards introducing a rule that requires table saws to have SawStop-like safety equipment.
The recent activity is the first movements in any direction that the US CPSC has made about the matter in years.
A new comment period, where public and private parties were encouraged to comment on a list of questions and considerations, or in general, closed at the start of February 2024.
Advertisement
Some of those corporate comments strongly support allegations that SawStop has refused to license their safety tech to other companies.
This has been mentioned before, most notably in CPSC updates where they discuss SawStop’s ambiguous stance towards licensing in the absence of a safety standard ruling.
Grizzly Tools’ comments to the CPSC (PDF) were perhaps most illuminating, as they shared private correspondences from 2011 as well as mid-2023.
Consider the following excerpts from Grizzly-SawStop communications.
From SawStop’s Steve Gass to Grizzly in July 2011:
We must now be careful to protect that business and provide a return for our investors.
Advertisement
If Grizzly is serious about licensing the SawStop technology, then Grizzly should encourage the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to adopt new performance standards for table saws as soon as possible.
Grizzly’s President to SawStop’s Steve Gass, in 2011:
We cannot understand your hesitation in granting us a license.
In September 2011, Gass, in a reply to Grizzly, explains SawStop’s opposition to licensing:
Now that SawStop is established, any royalties Grizzly might pay would be less than what SawStop could earn by selling the same number of saws itself, and therefore, as I have explained, a license at the present time is far more challenging because of the risk it creates to SawStop’s business. This, of course, changes should the CPSC implement a requirement for table saws to include active injury mitigation systems. Should that happen, we have said we would offer non-discriminatory licenses to all manufacturers.
In November 2011, Grizzly responded with:
Every letter we have received from you has answers and overtones which imply that you have no intention of licensing your technology to us.
Grizzly’s CEO in August 2023:
I am inquiring about the opportunity to License the SawStop technology so that we can incorporate it into some of our table saw models.
SawStop’s CEO (also the head of Festool in North America) responded with:
I don’t see a licensing agreement in our near future.
Many of the other corporate and institutional comments on the matter are interesting, with parties split down the middle.
UL, for instance, says:
We strongly support this proposal and believe that the use of active injury mitigation (AIM) technology will significantly reduce the incidents of devastating and life-long injuries caused by table saws.
The Power Tool Institute (PTI), a group of table saw brands, opposes the introduction of a safety standard, and points towards a UL standard as standing guidelines:
PTI contends that the Commission should decline to adopt a mandatory rule for table saws, withdraw the SNPR, and terminate the rulemaking. Rather, the Commission should rely upon the voluntary standard UL 62841-3-1… Particular Requirements for Transportable Table Saws.
Reading through many of the public comments, there is a clear line between parties in favor or opposed of the CPSC following through with a flesh-detection and active injury mitigation safety standard.
There are some other interesting arguments that aren’t simply for or against the matter.
Stanley Black & Decker is represented by PTI, and issued their own comments as well, saying that:
If the Consumer Product Safety Commission decides to impose active injury mitigation technology (“AIMT”) as part of a mandatory standard, it is essential that the Commission require that the holder(s) of AIMT standard essential patents, whether SawStop Holding LLC or SawStop LLC, or TTS Tooltechnic Systems, SawStop’s parent since 2017, offer a Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (“FRAND”) licensing commitment to other manufacturers.
In their comment, SBD references SawStop’s “licensing behavior to date”, under a heading saying:
SawStop’s historic behavior underscores the risks of no FRAND commitment.
Referencing arguments made in a lawsuit between SawStop and other toolmakers, SBD says:
First, SawStop has continuously refused multiple AIMT licensing requests dating back to 2002 by Grizzly, another table saw manufacturer. Later, Stanley, Bosch, and Ryobi each approached SawStop to license AIMT in 2009 but were refused licenses “because [SawStop] feared that it would lose sales of its own AIMT saws.
SBD’s puts forward that:
a FRAND commitment would substantially increase the likelihood that AIMT is implemented widely, quickly, and at a reasonable royalty.
They also say:
SawStop’s unreasonably high royalty rate based on the wholesale price of the entire saw—as opposed to the sensing and braking mechanism—has further discouraged manufacturers from licensing the product. With a FRAND assurance, SawStop and TTS would be required to offer reasonable rates reflective only of the patented feature.
Third, SawStop’s successful lawsuit against Bosch illustrates the risk of injunctions.
A FRAND assurance would prevent SawStop and its parent, TTS, from seeking injunctions against companies attempting to implement AIMT and who are willing to enter a license on FRAND terms because a firm that gives a FRAND commitment gives up the power to exclude competitors who believe the offered royalty is unreasonable.
Stephen Gass, a patent attorney who co-founded SawStop and formerly served as its president, previously communicated a strategy of securing intellectual property essential to implement AIMT, stating that “we’ve tried to patent everything that we could to prevent them from using it without a license from us.” For the last twenty years, SawStop has threatened table saw manufacturers with the one-two punch of mandatory CPSC standardization and injunctive relief through district court or ITC action in order to extract supra-FRAND rates.
SBD’s separate comments put forward that, if the CPSC should finalize the proposed rule, they should also require a FRAND commitment.
The argument is that ANY active injury mitigation system may potentially infringe a SawStop patent, and there’s risk of SawStop and their parent company being able to “hold-up” the table saw industry using the threat of injunction to seek supra-FRAND rates on its technology.
They add that:
the FTC has identified the specific risk of patent hold-up where an SEP owner might exploit the industry’s reliance on standardized technology to demand excessive royalties.
Now, here’s the “grab the popcorn part” with the bold styling my own:
SawStop’s and TTS’s refusal to provide a FRAND commitment preserves their ability to wreak havoc with the CPSC’s goal: the inclusion of AIMT technology on table saws. The only beneficiaries to their policy are SawStop and TTS themselves. The CPSC does not need to reach the conclusion that SawStop patents are essential or that end-device pricing is or is not FRAND. Instead, the CPSC need only require SawStop and TTS to provide a binding commitment that they will offer a FRAND rate on any intellectual property rights that may be essential to AIMT and that they will forgo injunctions on any licensee willing in good faith to pay the FRAND rate for their patents.
If SawStop and TTS are seeking to improve safety by making AIMT broadly available to consumers, they will make a FRAND commitment. If they continue to refuse to make a FRAND commitment, however, the truth about their motives will be clear—SawStop and its parent, TTS, are seeking to use a CPSC mandate to extract royalties that are not fair, not reasonable, and not nondiscriminatory. The Commission should not allow SawStop and TTS to hijack its authority in order to line SawStop’s and TTS’s own pockets at the expense of consumers and competition. The Commission should instead require SawStop and TTS to make a FRAND commitment before mandating AIMT.
Grizzly and SawStop’s correspondences, while hand-picked by Grizzly for inclusion in their comments, do – in my opinion – support the argument that SawStop isn’t interested in licensing their tech to other table saw makers outside of the US CPSC requiring it.
“I don’t see a licensing agreement in our near future” is very clear.
There are likely other communications included in court documents concerning SawStop’s lawsuit against other table saw makers, but they have been difficult to find.
Adjacent to the PTI’s opposition to the CPSC’s rulemaking, Stanley Black & Decker essentially argued that any rule must require fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory licensing fees from SawStop, with the argument that SawStop still holds IP that would bar competitive development for nearly another decade.
From the communications between Grizzly and SawStop, it seems that SawStop earns greater revenue on the sale of one of their own table saws than they would from licensing fees from a competing saw with licensed safety tech. This would explain a potential stance where they’d prefer industry-wide licensing rather than working with just one or two companies.
Back when SawStop sued Bosch over the Reaxx saw, I recall one of the arguments being that SawStop heard from a retailer that would potentially stock Bosch’s saw in place of SawStop’s. In that case, SawStop might lose sales. Following the logic from SawStop’s letters to Grizzly, they would earn less money even of the competing saw paid a licensing fee. With that in mind, it makes sense that they would seek to sell their own saws and avoid licensing agreements with individual partners.
SBD’s insistence to the CPSC seems very reasonable in my opinion:
Without a FRAND commitment, SawStop and TTS can benefit if they set the rate too high because it results in significantly raising the costs of competing products or, if the manufacturers do not pay, exclusion from the market.
In 2011, Gass said SawStop “would offer non-discriminatory licenses to all manufacturers” if the CPSC required table saws to feature active injury mitigation tech.
SBD is saying that SawStop’s patents are essential if any brand is to comply with the CPSC’s rulemaking, and that the CPSC should require fair and reasonable licensing fees, not just nondiscriminatory. They add that royalties should be tied to the value of the component and not the entire value of a table saw.
The sensing and braking unit is simply an add-on and an appropriate royalty should be based on that feature alone.
That makes a lot of sense to me.
Also see January’s update:
See More Comments via Regulations.gov (Docket ID CPSC-2011-0074)
Jerry
On the surface it seems that Sawstop is concerned about consumer safety but only when it maximizes their profits. However, it would seem that if they licensed their tech and made a few $$$ on a thousand saws they would be just as profitable making g $$$$$$$$$$$ on a few hundred.
Jason
SawStop initially shopped the tech around and no one bit. I remember a public forum post from the owner of Grizzly about the licensing fee being too high. I can see both sides of that – Grizzly doesn’t want to pay more than they have to, and the patent holder wants to make a profit.
At the same time Grizzly posted about this, other companies (the now defunct Delta in particular) said they didn’t want the liability in case the tech failed. They were less concerned about the licensing fees and more about the potential lawsuits in case someone got hurt. Again, I can see where they’re coming from, but they had the chance, didn’t take it, and now are complaining about not having access to the tech.
Once SawStop started selling their own saws, they had market exclusivity, so why help the competition? Then, SawStop became the best selling tablesaw in the country without any kind of manadates or laws. There are options other than SawStop out there, so there are choices. Again, I can see it from SawsTop’s side and from the potential licensor’s side.
Jerry
Bosch came up with a REAXX system that was in many ways a better system than SawStop, but were sued by SawStop.
I’m not sure, but I think the day is coming when they will be able to start making them again because there are enough differences to not be a direct patent violation. I don’t know exactly how it works, but when you patent something, you get the rights to the ‘idea’ for a number of years, and after that others can build upon that same ‘idea’ as long as they use a different mechanism. If I am right, in a few years, they likely will have competition.
Daniel P Paquette
Patents are good for 20 years. Any manufacturer can implement their own tech as long as it isn’t a direct copy. Hence, why we are seeing some alternative tech demonstrated out there today.
Peter
I also think Bosch has the better system and I hope once SS patents expires you can buy them again.
Bonnie
The Reaxx lawduit is pretty easy to read up on. They had a slightly different brake, but infringed on the method of detecting flesh contact and the overall design of the system.
J. Newell
One of the problems (I suppose that’s an opinion, not a fact) with the patent system is that it seems to be possible to describe an invention in terms that are so general that you can seriously restrict or completely eliminate competing technology during the term of the patent.
I haven’t looked, but I wouldn’t be surprised if SS’s patent refers to use of an electrical current to detect flesh. If that, or something similarly broad and vague, is the case, it’s hard to see anyone designing/inventing around that patent during the life of the patent.
Kuro
Regarding the broadness of patents, they can be very broad indeed. Gibson guitars for example had a patent for the “transmission of music by electronic means”. Which affects… basically any device which could carry music after the wind up vinyl record victrola. Patents can protect a company’s innovation, or be an overly broad stranglehold on a market.
Stuart
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9724840B2/en
Perry
Where are you finding information that sawstop is the best selling table saw? That’s a pretty bold claim
Collin
Not a bold claim, I’ve heard from an industry insider that sawstop outsells all other brands something like 20-1 for cabinet saws.
Perry
Best selling cabinet saw is no where close to “best selling table saw in the country” as Jason claimed.
Gordon
Sawstop is the only organization claiming they’re #1. And if you read more, they claim they are the “#1 choice for safety and performance.” It’s an arbitrary claim, with zero factual data presented to support said claim.
As far as I can see, there is no sales data available to even shareholders and investors about sales numbers other than “$40 million in sales revenue” just before they were purchased by Festool.
So unless your “industry insider” has any proof to show, I would take that claim with a serious pinch of salt.
shelly
As the owner of a tool store that sells SawStop, Jet, PowerMatic, previously Delta and in small saws, we sell DeWalt and Bosch, we sell SawStop 4-to-1 in all categories. It is by far our best selling saw.
LarryB
A pithy summation. Although I suspect Sawstop has run the numbers. It really comes down to if CPSC requires the safety mechanism they can’t hand a monopoly on table saws to Sawstop.
J. Newell
SS’s math, at least as far as you can tell from what’s quoted, seems both highly unreasonable and not likely to be correct.
The unreasonable part is that they seem to have insisted that companies licensing the tech pay SS an amount equal to SS’s profit on each whole saw that SS sells.
The part that’s not likely to be correct is that SS seems to assume a 1 for 1 unit sales reduction, which is nuts. They’re assuming that there are exactly X consumers who would buy a saw with SS tech onboard, so that if Bosch were to sell Y saws with AIMT during any given year, SS’s sales would be reduced one for one. In other words, that having one or more other competitors in the market wouldn’t increase total sales of table saws with AIMT.
I should buy a SS saw – the case is compelling. At this point I don’t think I’d be willing to own one or contribute to their revenues and profits.
Will Richey
While I believe SawStop is not acting completely in good faith. My fingers are worth more than choosing a side in a fight between multi-billion dollar companies.
blocky
‘SawStop math’ – there it is.
TomD
I suspect that they’re “somewhat” right – in that people by SawStops for the SawStop tech; and that if they were legally forced to NOT include it anymore (hypothetical) that not many people would bother to buy their saw.
Certainly people who buy their lower-end saws are buying it for the safety tech.
MFC
So the job of any company is to make money. They obviously ran the numbers and the numbers said to keep tight hold of the patent. The fact that they got a patent attorney to be a founder meant they understood this technology would be fought over. And they weren’t wrong.
Two main points of view in this discussion:
(1) Companies have a mandate to make things cheaper, better, safer for everyone, even at a loss to that company.
Or
(2) Companies are here to make money, protect their investment and gain more customers.
We all want a nice compromise between these ideas, and sometimes the market allows for a little of both, but walking the invisibly thin line between those two thought processes can lead to a company failing and Sawstop seems to be aware of that and so they chose a side. Not a morally good side. They will be viewed as the “bad guys”.
However:
This tech did not exist before them. Who’s to say it ever would have so why should they be required to give it up?
Where does the regulation of free enterprise start and stop? We are responsible for ourselves, not the government. If you work somewhere that doesn’t have a sawstop and you feel incapable of being safe with a saw, then, within your own company, have that discussion and figure out whether the risk is worth the investment.
Technology is not a right, it is a privilege. No one deserves safe tools. It’s simply within a company’s best interest to produce them. A spinning blade will always have risk and each one of us chooses to accept that risk. If a company makes a product that is worth the money for the mitigated risk, then we can individually accept that cost.
Now, this is from a cold standpoint of not caring about human beings, but who decides the morality of a company? The government? That’s laughable.
Personally, I completely disagree with Sawstop/TTS and would happily distribute such a great invention to other manufacturers even if it meant losing the money completely. But I follow a carpenter that gave up his life for others, and I doubt TTS would agree to a quote of his, “…be content with your wages.”
Adam Ellis
Your whole argument falls apart once the technology becomes mandated .
I could add a lot to the statement above but it shouldn’t be necessary.
Adam Ellis
Alright maybe I should have added a bit more.
“Your whole argument falls to pieces when said company is pushing for having their technology mandated”
MFC
Well, even though I didn’t mention their part in that specifically, I was mentioning government interference, which is typically controlled by “invested companies” (Government 101). However, I don’t think you read everything I wrote (though I don’t blame you).
Mark
The same argument could be used towards Saw Stop’s competition. There was an an initial opportunity to obtain license, due to cost (profitability) other manufacturers declined. Safety has not been a primary concern for other manufacturers. To get the product to consumers Saw Stop made their own tools. Now their competitors are complaining about the cost of licensing. The only reason they want the technology is to compete with Saw Stop, specifically in markets where AIMT is required or highly desired. They [competitors] are still more concerned about profitability vs. safety.
I have a hard time viewing Saw Stop as the “bad guy.”
MFC
Right, none of these entities are operating as non-profits, that I am aware of. They simply desire to play upon morality as a means of gaining something that would, if nothing else, give them equal footing with another company. This is why I put “bad guys” in quotations. We are dealing with a multifaceted issue that has to be viewed impartially. The CPSC could do “good” by enforcing AIMT on tablesaws, but then there’s the point of negotiating the FRAND agreements. And why stop here? This opens up further reason for them to promote AIMT on drill presses, lathes, miter saws, etc.
What I have found is that the more we try to do to regulate safety, the more we surrender freedoms. Because regulations do not allow for individual thoughts or actions. They force the whole to follow a chosen path. And anytime someone else gets involved in telling us what to do, it puts freedom in a precarious position.
So, anyways, it’s pointless to philosophize about this, but I will be interested to see what happens.
John
It looks like sawstop is saying we can put out any junk saw,as long as we are the only one with the safety system, looks like they only care about profits
Jason
None of this is outside the realm of patent holders looking to license their tech. Safety costs money, so voluntary standards are pointless – companies will always default to the bottom line and what makes them more money.
People can complain all they want about SawStop trying to tie up the market, but that happens all the time and is kind of the point when it comes to patents. The patents are so close to expiring at this point that the manufacturers’ worries about being sued like Bosch was, is almost moot. Instead, put some money into R&D for your own system so that when the patents expire you’re ready to go with an alternative. Oh, wait. I almost forgot – safety costs money.
Felder has new safety tech, but only on their highest cost saws. Think about that. If you have a better option than the SawStop, wouldn’t it be added to ALL your models? Or is the tech still so expensive you can’t do that? And do you think Felder is going to want to license their tech at any level until they’ve had exclusivity for a while?
I firmly believe table saws need better safety tech and the only way to get there is to force manufacturers to do so (like virtually anything else). Safety costs money and the bottom line (and shareholder returns) is the most important thing for big business.
Jronman
Felder has mentioned their AIMT is an additional $8000 on top of the saw. I don’t know how much of that is profit but it is an industrial machine and industrial anything is in general more expensive.
Jronman
Earliest we could realistically see more competition is 2030’s. Of the many patents SawStop has, there are one or two patents that won’t expire until the 2030’s. That is still a ways off.
Drew M
SawStop’s goal has ALWAYS been to force their tech on the consumer to maximize their profits.
Nate
I wonder if this might make a good antitrust case against sawstop. Controlling the market, not licensing your product or licensing it a higher cost which prohibits your competition from selling their product at a comparable price. Either way, it is dirty politics for a product that could save many accidents. Clearly greed is in charge here.
CyberKender
At this point, I don’t think so. However, I think that’s exactly what Sawstop is hoping to achieve. Not to have an antitrust case brought against them, but to have the US to declare that all tablesaws have this tech, but without doing anything to force a licensing agreement. Thus, handing Sawstop a monopoly. I mean, the US has been very lax about antitrust issues over the past couple of decades. (Look at the telecommunications market, for instance.)
Jronman
Somehow Felder and Altendorf are able to have AIMT without issue. There is one patent SawStop has that I need to look into to see if the other two companies violate it.
Jason
Yup, their tech is different. But it’s on machines most of us will never even see, nevermind own. Eventually it’ll get cheaper, but that’ll take quite a while.
Stuart
Grizzly says those companies also won’t license their tech, but it’s a moot point as Altendorf safety tech “exceeds the entire retail value of Grizzly table saws” for their market segment.
I’m thinking that Altendorf and Felder tech might be different enough, as they’re built for sliding table saws, so as to get around SawStop IP.
SawStop’s patents firmly prevent competition in the jobsite and cabinet table saw market.
Bosch’s Reaxx was very different, but SawStop’s successful lawsuit showed the Reaxx was still infringing on SawStop IP.
Drew M
” SawStop’s successful lawsuit showed the Reaxx was still infringing on SawStop IP ”
Winning a patent lawsuit merely means they won and got their desired outcome not that the tech actually infringed on the patent.
J. Newell
True, but not different in terms of practical outcomes. 🙂
Pocket Handyman
Isn’t late-stage capitalism interesting? SawStop knows they currently have everyone hostage, and will fight tooth and nail to the bitter end before they’re FORCED to license their technology. A bit of context (even though its from 2008) may be valuable if anyone is still wondering why this is necessary: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/statsaws.pdf
The executive summary breaks down in fairly good detail the type of injuries sustained when using a table saw. *88% of the injuries are from blade contact*. (I would have thought it was kickback, but no.)
For even more detail about table saw injuries than you’d ever need: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154236/
and
https://www.assh.org/handcare/safety/table-saw#google_vignette
Stuart
I think that Stanley Black & Decker makes a convincing argument in favor of fair and reasonable pricing.
Exorbitant royalties will punish end users and tool brands and only benefit SawStop.
If a commitment to FRAND licensing is required, everyone loses, but it seems the cost to brands and tool users would be less than otherwise.
Harrison
Steve Gass is no hero of mine, but it’s funny watching people get twisted up about someone utilizing the patent system to protect their innovation and capitalize on it. Is that not supposed to be the American way?
What harms have been committed here exactly? If you want the safety tech, you’ve had 20 years to buy a SawStop. Their patents on the functionality will be coming to an end soon enough, and other brands will be free to develop and sell their own technology. Felder, Altendorf, etc are already on it. It’s only the giant companies who sell crap $300 table saws at Home Depot who seem to be moaning and making themselves out to be the victims.
Sure, it’s nice from a consumer perspective to have more options, but what gives corporate behemoths like Bosch, TTI, SBD the right to licence smaller company’s innovations for a song? Each of these companies could have easily undercut and run SawStop out of business 20 years ago if given the chance.
Ultimately this whole thing is a huge nothing burger, this is the American patent and legal system working as intended.
I have a ton of respect for brands like Volvo who invented seatbelts and gave the tech away free for all to use, but that comes from a totally different corporate mindset, influenced by a socialist approach to capitalism from the past. It’s funny watching Americans act surprised when their corporations don’t act the same way.
MoogleMan3
Pretty much exactly the way I feel about the whole thing.
Bonnie
Well said.
Stuart
I find the matter and rulemaking process to be interesting, especially when primary documents and additional layers are revealed.
Tool safety guidelines are updated on occasion, and few consumers realize it.
In this case, there would be higher equipment costs with licensing fees or royalties on top of that. That’s why it’s such a concern – the impact on tool users would be much higher than usual.
J. Newell
Agree, and if anything I think you might be understating the situation. At the level SS says it wants licensing priced, a requirement to incorporate the only practical AIMT in table saws might actually completely eliminate at least two categories of table saws (low cost AC-powered saws and cordless job site saws). I’m guessing at numbers, but if SS’s license adds $200-300 to the per-unit price of saws, the pricing would probably kill those categories of saw,
blocky
The Sawstop Jobsite Pro is effectively $1000-1200 more per unit than comparably specc’ed Bosch, Dewalt, and Skil brand saws.
That’s certainly taking the popular capitalist expression ‘what the market will bear’ to its full extent.
Without new innovation or refinement, Saw-stop profits will fall off precipitously when their last patents expire.
I’m sure they’ve run the numbers on every pivot scenario – even for producing saws without flesh-detection or price-points for saws that have a non-serviceable cartridge.
They’ve chosen the most-profitable, unsustainable course.
kent_skinner
I don’t mind him using the patent system to protect his IP – that’s exactly what it was designed for.
On the other hand, I think he’s an ass for trying to force the system on us, while refusing to license the tech at the same time.
He’s an ass. On the other hand, my vintage UniSaw will outlast me and I have no interest in buying a new saw.
Scott K
I totally agree. Patents are meant to protect the idea’s originator and it’s fair for him to enforce it. However, it is also arrogant to try to force a licensing fee on others for tech he won’t license at a fair rate.
I do disagree with the assertion that a fair fee would seriously impact sales. There are definitely sales solely attributed to the AIMT that may go away, but there are also plenty of customers who want a saw from DeWalt, Milwaukee, or any of the other big brands. Buying a DeWalt with AIMT doesn’t necessarily mean I would have bought a SawStop had DeWalt not licensed the patent. Safety is good and so is competition and choice.
Personally, I think Festool not wanting to license patents they bought is short sighted. What happens when someone else invents the next major innovation – why allow Festool the opportunity to benefit from it at a fair rate?
Saulac
Totally agree. Would be totally fine if they do either one, but not both. Especially when they try to get all other guys to make the force happen.
Mike McFalls
I agree with your summation. No issue with him protecting his IP but to then use the already invasive government to force the use of the tech because he has been able to effectively reduce the cost to a price point where consumers will opt for this saw over the competition is sleazy. It’s not an original idea and many other have used the same tactics over the years- at least we live in an age to be more informed than in past generations.
Of course since the number one risk is due to blade contact- there are other ways for the CPSC to try and achieve that goal. I suspect though that’s not the case here- instead I’m suspicious of the CSPC and question if this isn’t some ‘favor to a buddy’ situation. But back to other solutions- make blade guards non removable (don’t jump me I’m aware that limits the potentials of the saw).
Add annoying alarms or disable the saw when people inevitably remove the guards. My seatbelt won’t shut up when I don’t buckle it. And the airbag alarm is as annoying when a box is placed on the front seat and not one is actually sitting there.
Last thought – even if this rule is enacted- how many years will it take for the only available saws in use to have this tech? 20-40-60? Consumers will just hang onto what they have and if necessary Frankenstein them to work if they do not want this functionality and/or the costs are prohibitive…. Which brings me back to my first point….. sawstops approach should’ve been to make the price point comparable to the competition and then promoted the hell out of the safety versus trying to force people to buy a saw a 2-3x the cost of their competitors.
Troy H.
What if I told you that their overly broad patents will last well into the 2030’s?
Sawstop has had plenty of time being the only game in town. They’ve abused the patent system and gotten very rich.
They do not currently and never have cared about safety. Pretending like they do is disingenuous and that’s what I see a bunch of people having a problem with.
Rob G Mann
Patent attorney here. Well said.
Pablo
Thank your for explaining how the patent system is supposed to work. Patents give the inventor the exclusive rights (in other words a monopoly) to produce market or license their own invention. I can’t afford a SawStop right now, but I don’t begrudge inventors of any type of safety equipment for patenting and profiting from their own creation.
Frankly, law schools should use Saw Stop as a case study for how patent attorneys can and should write patents that are protectable, enforceable and prevent competitors from “designing around” their invention.
TomD
What we need is a competing table saw company to design some OTHER safety feature, get it mandated, and refuse to license it ALSO.
So that no table saws whatsoever can be sold in the USA, because they have at most one safety feature, not both.
Nathan
I love how it’s not applied nor tried to be applied to anything else
Where is the sawstop mitre or circular, band?
Are they the best selling table saw?
While safer I see high potential for complacency especially when using other saws
MoogleMan3
That complacency is entirely on the end user, regardless of blade sensing tech.
Just because cars have seat belts does not mean it’s A-OK to go driving through the city at 90mph.
Bonnie
Braking generates a ton of energy. They reportedly built a bandsaw prototype but it had to be bolted to the floor to work safely and not junp which isn’t something most home shops or jobsite carpenters are going to do. Flesh detecting bandsaws also already exist for the meat industry where they’re even more necessary.
Potato
How does a flesh detecting mechanism detect living from dead tissue?
B
I would waher on conductivity differences based on the capacitance of skin, but that’s strictly a guess.
Stuart
My understanding is that it’s capacitive, similar to modern smartphone touchscreens.
The “hot dog test” is common.
I tested the Bosch Reaxx with cheese sticks.
Bonnie
Meat industry saws use vision systems and gloves to tell the difference.
J. Newell
I can’t even begin to imagine how it would work, but I’d love to see something that was functionally similar (i.e., faster than instantaneous detection and arrest of the cutter) in routers, even if it mean creating a new category of router intended only for under-table use.
Bob
It was my understanding that most of SawStop’s patents were close to expiring. Some have expired. Is that true?
Once the patents expire, is this a moot point? No licensing is required.
Stuart
I thought so too, but multiple brands have argued that applicable patents have been extended to 2033.
SawStop has sued and ended competitors’ efforts to market rivalling safety tech.
It’s been argued that their patents continue to be essential to the proposed safety standard. Given what I have read, the CPSC ruling would result in every competing table saw maker having to choose between either forced licensing or a high likelihood of litigation, or exclusion from the market. That’s why SawStop continued to be in the middle of all this.
Hon Cho
It will take a patent expert to explain but there are no “extensions” to Sawstop’s patents. There are additional claims attached to them but they do not extend the basic patent dates. It is my understanding that only pharmaceutical patents have the possibility of extensions.
JR Ramos
Unless they agree on an implementation date that is past the date of patent expiration, which I assume they would do, this will fall on its face one way or another. They can’t override patent law and if they did then the various affected manufacturers would sue and win, even with a FRAND agreement. I wonder if perhaps this belongs better in an OSHA standard with typical clauses and “options” (for lack of a better term).
Is this a unique situation? It seems so…have there been past situations where mandates were considered or issued while chained to intellectual property reign? I’ve never considered various features on electric appliances (heaters come to mind, with tip-over switches and such) but I wonder if something in that arena has faced this dilemma before.
I think the tech is wonderful and smart – and might even be improved with the freedom to design, market, and profit as other engineers explore it further. Right now, and despite the appearance of greed/selfishness on SawStop’s part, you really have to rule in favor of them exercising their rights and benefits to their patents – that’s working exactly as it was intended to and not in a bad way (though there are plenty of examples where it has not and the IP system is far from perfect these days). Mandating it? Mixed feelings, practical and legal quandaries aside. Sure to reduce the frequency and severity of injuries but also still nothing to ensure adequate and proper basic instruction on the use and safe use of these machines. But using an electric heater as an example, nobody can argue that implementing tip-over switches has not benefited every single owner of these products, simply and inexpensively.
J. Newell
There are statements by the CPSC in the most recent notice of proposed rulemaking that amount to “we believe that if we give the industry 36 months before the new rules become effective, there will be commercially viable alternatives to the SawStop patented technology.”
Excuse me, 36 months is probably not a whole lot more time than it takes to design a new saw and get it onto the market. —> Since this, what’s a polite word, discussion, has been going on for at least 20 years, I can’t believe that people at the CPSC could ever imagine a whole new technology being invented and commercially deployed within three years. And you can absolutely bet that SawStop will tie up any new technology in litigation for years, even if it clearly doesn’t infringe SS patents.
Mark M.
SawStop seems far more confident in their AIM IP than they are in the overall quality of their saws, otherwise I think they’d view this as an opportunity to create an additional revenue stream via IP licensing while accepting the challenge to market their whole product (not just the tech) and convince the market they have the better saw.
This would make for a heck of a good case study for b-school students. “Does SawStop have an ethical or moral obligation to license AIM IP, or do they have an overriding obligation to shareholders to maximize value?”
S
Also an interesting case study, “do consumers buy more from brands that encourage appropriate moral and ethical behavior, or brands that operate to maximize shareholder value?”
B
That question would need to have an answer that controlled for things like mass retail availability/adoption and the inclusion of zombie brands to be answered fairly.
Nate
This is going to be interesting to see how it comes out. I personally would love to see the tech on DeWalt jobsite saws (ubiquitous portable saws) , the Laguna F1 (1.5HP “cabinet” saw), and the Grizzly saws (result of some good cost engineering). Those don’t directly compete with SawStop, and the addition of the tech would increase their prices. I would argue that neither the Laguna nor Grizzly saws are direct competitors, as they sit at different price points than the company’s offerings.
Jet, Powermatic, and Harvey (though they are pretty small) make very nice saws, and I think they are actually more of a direct competitor to the PCS/ICS saws from SawStop.
eddie sky
Stuart! Look up my post on https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/sawstop-table-saw-regulations-update-012024/%3C/a%3E on Jan 9th.
Pretty much called it. Gass is greedy. Nothing else. If they took the Windows approach, (see Bill Gates), they could have licensed the tech (and even be cheap about it) and make millions on millions with license fees as ALL tables saw makers would benefit. All the fingers saved! All the insecure and unsure, saved! Replacement carts could be OEM like Epson with chip.. Sorry Stu, that is a DeWalt cartridge and won’t work in this Jet saw.
Greed and collusion have ruined my childhood dreams of monorails and sawstops!
🙂
Ben
My biggest take away from the documents that had been submitted by company like Bosch and Stanley Black and Decker is not that SawStop doesn’t want to license their technology it’s that they list two key patents that they claim to not expire until 2030 and 2033 (Patent No. 9,724,840). I can’t seem to find the patent that expires in 2030 at this time.
I tried to look up patent 9,724,840 and I found US9724840B2 which I believe to be it and everything I see says it is already expired.
Ben
I found the second patent that was referenced in the comment from Harbor Freight listed as expiring in 2030. US 8,459,157 which from again what I see was filed on Dec 31 2004.
I thought that US patents after being granted as good for 20 years beginning at the filing date.I am not a lawyer nor do I really know anything about patent law. If someone who does have knowledge of patent law could take a look at Patent No. 9,724,840 and 8,459,157 and tell us information about when they expire that would be great.
Grokew
@Stuart Sir
In 2011, Gass aid (sp) SawStop “would offer non-discriminatory licenses to all manufacturers” if the CPSC required table saws to feature active injury mitigation tech.
Stuart
Thanks! *fixed*
J. Newell
Correspondence with Grizzly and others last year says, in just about exactly those words, that SS is not going to consider FRAND licensing at this time.
TWB
I would rather see companies compete to offer safety technology than rely on licensing it from Sawstop.
Competition is how products improve. Sawstop was not the product of a regulation, but rather saw a place in the market for a tablesaw safety feature and built it into products that are very good tablesaws even without the feature.
I’d like to see other companies be motivated to do that too, and perhaps extend those features to other products like handheld circular saws, and let the market decide if they are any good. At worst, we end up with products about as good as Sawstop — but there is definitely unexplored potential that should not be left on the table.
Licensing existing tech is the easy way out — we should want innovation.
Stuart
They can’t; Bosch launched a competing saw a few years ago with very different tech, and SawStop sued them. The Bosch saw was determined to be infringing on SawStop IP and banned from the US market.
It’s been argued that SawStop holds at least one essential patent with protections extended to 2033.
The PTI industry group says they developed a joint venture solution, but brands can’t market it due to the threat of litigation from SawStop.
So, it seems brands can’t bring to market competing solutions, and they’re arguing that SawStop won’t fairly discuss licensing potential.
And the CPSC wants to finalize rulemaking that would essentially require table saws to have SawStop-like safety tech.
If companies are forced to license SawStop tech, that doesn’t mean they have to stick with SawStop’s solutions. There are many examples where IP or patented tech is licensed but leveraged into new and novel ideas.
Bosch L-Boxx tool boxes, for example, are physically labeled as being licensed from TTS – coincidentally the current SawStop owner – and yet they are very different in design.
Tim
They should all just kick over half their profits for a year and pay SS to go away.
At first (59BC when this started) I thought SS was a bunch of jerks.
How I hope they all get paid a fortune.
SBD has more money than god. They can fix it but they want a cheap out.
Ron K
A comment on Patents. The US Patent and Trademark Office is supported by Patent fees. When the Executive Branch has to shut down, USPTO doesn’t because their funding isn’t a Congressional Appropriation. So if you are fee funded, do you want more or fewer Patents? If you have staff that can be fired for not producing, patent examiners, and have a quarterly quota of patents, is it unexpected there are patents that are very general when the idea appears unique? Does someone who was a patent attorney know all this? I think the answers are pretty self evident.
IMHO SS is for safety only as long as they can maximize their profit. “But what about when no one would blah, blah, blah . . . 100% perfect justice is a dream. If SS is really concerned about consumers, why can’t they let go of old issues for the greater good? Because they are also obviously afraid that if the safety feature is on a level playing field, their product may not stay on top. “Trust us to do the right thing after we control everything.” Uh, no.
B
I love content like this: primary sources, quotes, a little drama, naked exposés on late stage capitalism, and tool news.
Heads-up: towards the bottom, you have a typo:
“In 2011, Gass aid SawStop ‘would offer…'”
Stuart
Thanks, *fixed*
There’s additional info in injury lawsuits as well, such as Osorio vs One World Technologies (Ryobi) where Gass was called an expert witness. The plaintiff in that case and others essentially argued that table saw were defectively designed because they didn’t have flesh detection technology like that in SawStop.
Here’s a document from the Osorio appeal: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca1-10-01824/pdf/USCOURTS-ca1-10-01824-0.pdf
There, Gass is quoted as saying that SawStop tech would add “less than $150” to the price of a table saw.
In 2017, Gass told NPR that SawStop was working on a $400 table saw. A more compact SawStop was finally released in 2022 at the $899 price point.
Here’s something interesting from the Osorio vs Ryobi appeal:
Many injury lawsuits followed Osorio’s and argued the same, that table saws were defective because they didn’t have flesh detection technology.
Nathan
So they will license the tech only when the government forces it?
DRT42
We have a lamp that turns on or off when you touch it. Yes, likely capacitive. I think these things have been on the market for decades. SS took a little circuit out of a lamp, added a quick acting brake, and instant invention. OK, that’s admittedly smarmy on my part, but I think that is about the gist of it. I would like to see the patent judge’s face if somebody actually bought a lamp, took the circuit out, made it work with a saw, and then explained that they were just buying lamp parts which have been on the market since the 1950s.
In any case, I have no need for a flesh sensing saw. I was well trained in junior high school shop class – thank you so much, Mr. Black. You made a difference in many people’s lives.
Stuart
From https://youtu.be/S6yhL5QKafc?t=120
Mr. Creek
So in the picture is “SawStop” going in mid air pause that huge Guillotine with a heavy counter weight if the rope breaks in that photo shoot? Or did they file with the S.E.C. To take the place of insurance companies to force a product on a consumer that they couldn’t take it to market because it is potentially a Forced Supply Curve without A Natural Market Demand? With very clever legal timing? It’s kinda feels like for a small subscription fee you get a permit to breath but not choose the option of your own body modification scars.
My opinion, with no facts, Allegedly.
scott
As someone who worked for the past 15 years in a fortune 20 company in patents technology and brands both licensing out and in, it it interesting to see the various comments. Sawstop has a feature that they value at $300 dollars in the portable saw market. We all know the BOM (bill of materials) for the braking tech is less than $25 in volume prices. The number of $899 sawstop saws you can sell would drop dramatically if the dewalt, etc. could offer the tech with a $25 licensing fee. Gass is a dumbass, who cant do math. The amount of money he could have earned by licensing this tech at $25 a pop is enormous. He just is lazy. Running a licensing program takes work. Dealing with unscrupulous chinese manufacturer is tough to say the least. While he has product, he is acting like a patent troll with respect to litigation.
I think the powertool manufactures are dealing with a jilted lover. No one wanted the ugly duckling. Them it grew up to a be graceful gorgeous swan so now the swan is being a “female dog” to get back at the various suitors who refused them before.
And BTW the insurance argument is a weak BS argument. There are lots of cases where safety technology is licensed, especially in the transportation business, and this is a non issue.
Stuart
It seems to me that the strategy was to wait for a larger licensing fee for EVERY table saw from EVERY tool brand. The CPSC’s rulemaking process on table saws isn’t new, it goes back to 2011.
According to the earliest documents from the CPSC, Gass petitioned for a required performance standard more than 20 years ago.
Joseph Salazar
If I were sawstop I would say the same thing.
Point blank, has this become a requirement? No? Then don’t ask.
Just because there are plans to create a standard for consumers doesn’t mean they have to preemptively agree to anything.
Put it in writing and then maybe we will talk.
If this tech is so important then I would be down CPSC throat asking why haven’t you made this a requirement?
Pat W
Sawstop invented this product, it belongs to them, it is their decision to do what they deem fit to protect it, and the idea of forcing them to allow other companies to profit on their invention is repugnant. I have a Sawstop, would have preferred a Grizzly, but overall I am happy with my saw. Maybe the other companies need to get off their butts and invent their own saw brake system…
But one quick note: the brake system has flaws, it isn’t perfect. I see nothing but problems on the horizon from licensing it out. Plus, this will turn a $400 table saw for the “weekend warrior” into a $1200-$1500 saw they can’t afford.
Stuart
They did, and SawStop sued them over infringement.
Normally brands will wait until a patent expires, but the US CPSC is ruling on whether to mandate safety tech, and compliance would be impossible without basic processes that SawStop patented.
With such a ruling, toolmakers would be forced with two options – pay royalties to SawStop over the patents, or be excluded from the market and not sell any table saws.
That no brand has been unable to negotiate licensing arrangement with SawStop does suggest their strategy is to wait for compulsory licensing. The concern that SawStop would unfairly exploit a CPSC ruling – that their founders originally petitioned for in the first place – prompted the comments suggesting the requirement of FRAND terms alongside any safety performance standard.
In other words, the argument is that if paying royalties to SawStop for use of their patented process (but not necessarily their components or braking system), compulsory, fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms should also be a part of any requirements.
A W
There’s another reason for companies to point out Sawstop’s unwillingness to license their product. Government analysts will often evaluate the economic costs and benefits when evaluating new rulemaking. (Google “DOT Value of Statistical Life” for more detail). If the economic benefits from a safety mitigation outweigh the implementation costs, the mandate is more likely to survive court challenges.
For example, in 2022, NHTSA published a rule requiring infant car seat manufacturers to meet side impact testing standards within 3 years. NHTSA estimated that the increased padding would cost (at scale) $0.58 per infant car seat sold in the US, for a total cost to society of $7.37 million dollars annually. However, they estimated that by saving 3-4 lives per year and 41 non-fatal injuries, the benefit to society would be $142.7 million dollars, and because the benefit outweighed the cost, they were able to put that rule into place.
If the government conducts a cost benefit analysis using only the cost of materials, the results could be far different than if they conduct the cost benefit analysis accounting for a hefty licensing fee.
Stuart
I think the main point is to reduce the chance of exploitative and unreasonable licensing fees.
Corporate comments – past and recent – build a years-long pattern, and suggest that SawStop has been holding out for a CPSC ruling that would force licensing upon all saw makers.
This does tie into economic impact as well. If SawStop is compelled to offer licensing under FRAND terms, that would result in the least economic impact to consumers.
If brands have to pay royalties based on the entire value of a saw, rather than just sensing and braking components covered – or potentially covered – by SawStop patents, that cost is going to be passed down to end users, who will already have to pay higher costs for compliant equipment.
A W
I agree. Without a FRAND requirement, a mandate alone will likely result in high fees for consumers, potentially locking many out of the tablesaw market.
Stuart
Or, some tool users might resort to more dangerous tool usage, such as clamping a circular saws to a work stand.
scott
As someone who did such analysis for a living, as well as negotiate said deals, and was able to retire a 50, I’m sure he is bad a math. He was looking for a huge payoff and it bit him in the ass. If you want to look at patent wars you should look at what was and is going on in the mobile phone market, and how much various companies get out of a $1000 handset.
Quick math. Licensing the technology for the past 21+ years at $25 a saw, minus about 4% overhead for running a compliance and licensing program is close to 500M cash.
PTI shows that from 2004 to 2016 (numbers that were just easy to get) 650k to 800k saws were sold. Assuming a 10% take rate gets you between 1.6M and 2M, not counting cartridge sales, which are probable at least as much. If this feature had been a $50 additional cost (25 BOM and 25 licensing fee), I’m sure the ramp-up in sales of this feature would have been dramatic. I’m not sure anyone on this site would not pay $50 for said feature. Once it reached a tipping point say 25% the CPSC would have moved to make it mandatory, and this would have happened before 2010. SawStop will be a good harvard business review case at some point.
Most attorneys, Gass included, like most attorneys I dealt with were not business or finance people first. When the patent licensing and sales team was in the legal department I knew I was in for a long drawn out affair. The companies that had a business organization with P & L responsibilities and used legal to help with contract language were also must easier to deal with.
Remember lawyers like to lawyer, business folks like to make money and deals.
Joe
It is so funny in a “I want to get off this planet kind of way” that the person who patented a flesh-sensing table saw safety feature… was a patent lawyer…
Lawyers are one of these rare professions where it really feels like the ultimate gatekeepers. It’s a small club and you’re really not welcome.
I always held out hope that maybe everyone else was trying to license it for a pittance. But no. Laid plain and simple, Gass is an ass and I hope something shoots him and his efforts down.
scott
Also they were never pay based on the total value of the saw, just ask numerous companies in the mobile handset space who tried ask for percentages of final handset costs. The federal courts have already adjudicated that numerous times, much to the patent holders ire.
David Z
Kind of related: basing real estate commission solely on house price and not on what work was done ( like paying a license fee based on the value of whole saw vs value of licensed component) never made sense. Same for tipping in that a server does the same work whether two people order the least expensive or most entrees, but you end up tipping them much more for the latter.
Jacob Frame
It sounds like sawstop is really pushing the government to make this type of technology required on all new table saws. Of course they are trying to make money, just like everyone.
Brian
It’s amusing to read the competition’s responses given the history. Saw Stop tried to license the tech and no one wanted it, so they pivoted to building their own saws and decided to build great saws even ignoring the safety system. First real step change to table saws in 50 years. Now they have a huge success and the competition is essentially complaining that now that SawStop is beating them they should be forced to share at the expense of their saw market. Of course those competitors want to cherry pick licensing only for their their high end saws that pretty much compete 1:1 with SawStop and not license for their lower end saws.
SawStop is saying we can make more money without than licensing to a few of you for your high end saws that will directly compete with our saws. However, if the rules change and you have to license for all your models and all manufacturers, then we can actually make enough licensing money to offset the list high end sales.
Perfectly reasonable position from SawStop. They paid all the upfront cash to develop the tech and took all the risk, so they should get the reward. The patent system was designed to do exactly this and protect that advantage for a few decades in exchange for sharing the learning with everyone and making it open after that time. Before patents, many technologies and processes would be monopolized for lifetimes and key learning could be hidden and not built on.
J. Newell
Yes, but the big question is whether a government agency can essentially force manufacturers to either exit a market or pay a third party whatever licensing fee the patent holder wants to charge.
Given the positions SawStop has taken, it’s really the first case. SS has stated that they will not license the technology. In more than 20 years, no one has invented a system that works without allegedly infringing on the SS patents. So what we’re talking about is the government compelling private sector businesses out of a business that they’ve been engaged in for many years.
It’s outrageous and there’s little chance the rules, as currently proposed, would withstand a legal challenge, and I’m sure that PTI and other industry groups would be happy to fund that litigation.
J. Newell
Excellent-plus post, thank you. I was looking through the comments this weekend and know how much work that can be. With this record, it is sort of hard to believe that the CPSC could go forward with final rule making that would become effective at any time before the expiration of the last significant SS patent.
This snip to me crystalizes the situation:
SawStop’s CEO (also the head of Festool in North America) responded with:
I don’t see a licensing agreement in our near future.
Doresoom
If Gass had been content with protecting a great idea with patents and building a solid table saw manufacturing company, I’d probably own a SawStop by now.
But instead he chose to be slimy and try to lobby his way into a government forced monopoly. For that reason I don’t know if I’ll ever be OK buying a SawStop, and will probably just wait until the patents run out and some other manufacturer makes a tables saw with flesh detection.
I certainly hope the CPSC has considered unintended consequences of their ruling too. If table saws become unaffordable by mandated safety features, there will be a lot of people out there who will just make sketchy cuts with a circular saw for a net effect of potentially even more injuries.
Charles
so what I learned that was new to me is that SS and Festool are the same guy in USA.
pretty sure I’m not buying either brand anytime soon until they stop using lawfare to mak emoney.
Stuart
I’ve spoken to him before – he seems like a nice guy that gave very fair and seemingly honest answers to my questions. My conversation with him a long time go helped me feel a lot better about SawStop.
At this point, I think any CPSC action will hurt SawStop long-term.