Harbor Freight recently wrote to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), addressing proposed rulemaking that could potentially mandate industry-wide table saw safety standards.
There have been comments in support of and opposed to the proposed rulemaking, which would essentially require all table saws to feature SawStop-like safety technology.
Harbor Freight makes excellent points in their comments, and I feel should be highlighted.
Advertisement
Following are excerpts from Harbor Freight’s comments, with paragraph breaks added for easier readability, and bold text replacing italicized emphasis.
The most important intellectual property and manufacturing consideration not addressed by the proposed rule is the technological “know-how” to implement the solutions as reflected in the patents and required by the proposed rule.
In order to implement a technology which requires the blade to be removed from the danger zone and/or stopped from rotating, a sensing module with a programmed circuit board is required.
Harbor Freight is aware of only one manufacturer making a sensing module, but even that manufacturer has informed Harbor Freight that it does not make or program the circuit board required to implement the technology to make the module function consistent with the proposed rule.
SawStop and PTI members consider the programming of the sensing module to be trade secret information and have not shared that information with any other table saw manufacturers and have not agreed to license that “knowhow” to potential table saw competitors based on Harbor Freight’s inquiries and from evidence presented by others.
None of the table saw manufacturers from whom Harbor Freight buys table saws know how to program the software to ensure the sensing module functions in accordance with the proposed rule.
Advertisement
Additionally, the Harbor Freight engineering team with expertise in table saws and similar power tools also lack the experience or knowledge to instruct the manufacturers on how to program the circuit board to ensure the proper functioning of the module.
Absent CPSC mandating a Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) license for both the unexpired patents and the know-how regarding implementation the patents, it will not be feasible for other table saw manufacturers to adopt the proposed standard prior to the effective date.
The fact that it took many years for both SawStop and the PTI (which was a collaborative effort between multiple table saw competitors with a substantial team of engineers) to develop a solution should be considered a baseline for the number of years that it will take other table saw vendors to develop and implement the patented technology.
Without a FRAND mandate for both the patented technology and the implementation know-how (including at least the software used to detect the presence of flesh and initiate a mitigation mechanism), the patent and trade secret owners will be able to easily seek unreasonable royalties in order to achieve a table saw monopoly.
At present, there are 4 types of active injury mitigation (AIM) systems – SawStop’s, the Power Tool Institute’s (PTI) joint venture design- which has not been marketed but is described as being faster than SawStop’s, “mitigates injury to a greater degree when compared to the SawStop technology,” and has a lower replacement cost of firing – and two European systems that might not be possible to build into benchtop saws.
I can very much understand Harbor Freight’s position.
Corporate communications strongly suggest that SawStop has no interest in licensing their patents to other brands, and applicable patents are still years away from expiring. SawStop successfully sued Bosch after a competing Reaxx system with completely different brake system was introduced to market.
Why would Harbor Freight have developed their own AIM safety tech or implementation, when – barring a CPSC requirement – they would be prevented from bringing it to market until the mid-2030’s?
Harbor Freight summed things up:
The proposed rule would not only result in a monopoly for owners of applicable (and unexpired) patents as well as the trade secret technological know-how to implement those patents. If such a monopoly were permitted, it is the American consumer who would be harmed by the lack of availability of affordable and safe table saws and it could result in even more injuries from this product.
It could be that Harbor Freight believes it will be less expensive for them to license existing “know-how,” regarding table saw AIM tech, than to develop their own independent system that would compete with SawStop and PTI systems, at least short-term.
Harbor Freight’s argument is one that I hadn’t considered, and it might be one that the CPSC hadn’t considered either.
The Hercules table saw shown at the top of the post has a modular blade guard, which has become standard in the jobsite and stationary table saw industry. It seems a flesh detection and active injury mitigation safety systems are going to prove more difficult for them – and other brands – to implement, especially if forced to do so before SawStop’s patents expire.
Lastly, I would add that Harbor Freight likely isn’t alone in facing obstacles in developing independent AIM tech.
The question is, if the CPSC goes forward with their rulemaking, will they also mandate FRAND (fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory) licensing for both unexpired patents and know-how on how to implement them?
And if not, will that result in companies like Harbor Freight, who aren’t a part of PTI, to be excluded from the market entirely?
It’s worth repeating Harbor Freight’s summarizing argument:
Without a FRAND [fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory licensing] mandate for both the patented technology and the implementation know-how (including at least the software used to detect the presence of flesh and initiate a mitigation mechanism), the patent and trade secret owners will be able to easily seek unreasonable royalties in order to achieve a table saw monopoly.
And to repeat what Harbor Freight said about development time:
The fact that it took many years for both SawStop and the PTI (which was a collaborative effort between multiple table saw competitors with a substantial team of engineers) to develop a solution should be considered a baseline for the number of years that it will take other table saw vendors to develop and implement the patented technology.
In Bosch’s comments to the CPSC, separate from those of the PTI, they include a timeline showing that it took the company approximately 6 years to develop the Reaxx table saw. This follows nearly 6 years of PTI joint venture collaboration, with “knowledge transfer” taking place at the start of Reaxx development.
Bosch describes the Reaxx development, with this passage adding weight to Harbor Freight’s claims:
The REAXX table saw required work by engineering specialists as the development of the mechanical mitigation system required advanced computer simulation. A mechanical engineer with a PhD took 18 months to complete the simulation and optimize the design. Bosch Power Tools also relied on specialists from Bosch’s other divisions, including engineers from the automotive divisions to resolve technical challenges beyond the capabilities of the power tool division.
Bosch also comments about the development time it would take to relaunch the Reaxx table saw, with paragraph breaks are added for readability, and emphasis my own:
If the CPSC were to move forward with mandating AIM technology on table saws in the U.S., which Bosch does not believe is necessary or warranted, Bosch Power Tools calculates that it would take up to 6 years to redesign the original Bosch REAXX table saw and make it available in the United States market.
This time would be needed to meet the latest UL 62841-3-1 standard, and develop updated AIM electronics and mechanical components. Since the original Bosch REAXX design was completed, there have been changes including numerous environmental factors, such as more powerful cellular signals, which can affect operation of the AIM system. To ready the next generation of the REAXX table saw for commercial release, many of the components of the Bosch Power Tools AIM system will need to be redesigned or entirely redeveloped.
Bosch Power Tools is unsure if it is possible for the technology to be incorporated into smaller, less expensive portable table saws with the technology available today. The redesign of each of these products would require a similar, and potentially longer, schedule than the REAXX table saw.
It seems clear to me why Harbor Freight would like to see fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory licensing of non-expired patents and know-how to be tied into any safety standard that mandates AIM tech.
Should the CPSC rule in favor of a required safety standard, it seems that FRAND licensing of existing patents and know-how regarding AIM implementation seems almost essential, rather than a shortcut.
Harbor Freight’s Comments to the CPSC (PDF)
Bosch’s Comments to the CPSC (PDF)
See More Comments via Regulations.gov (Docket ID CPSC-2011-0074)
Christian Reed (REEKON)
I didn’t realize before but it looks like Festool is a member of the PTI (or maybe only the US entity is). I wonder what impact that has had as I assume that would mean they also have visibility on this ‘alternative’ that they had developed, perhaps even before TTS aquired SawStop
Stuart
Good question.
Bosch discusses the joint venture a little bit in their comments (I added a link to the end of the post).
On page 4, they show a development timeline of the Bosch Reaxx table saw, which includes a period between November 2003 and August 2009 where the PTI joint venture conducted collaborative research and development.
Bk
I would say from years of design experience and coding that one the touch sensor is nothing more than a capacitance touch (like an elevator button that has no movement). Not something they can patent, common usage. Next the method to actually stop the saw can be a tough point, but not impossible to do differently then sawstop. Next the software I cannot imagine anything more than a few lines of code to see a voltage input of a certain level and trigger the stop mechanics.
That leaves the stopping mechanism as the hard part.
Jeff J Petroski
For the uninformed, who or what is “the PTI”?? Not defined at all in the write-up.
Stuart
Power Tool Institute, an industry group with many power tool brands as members, such as Bosch, Dewalt, Milwaukee, Ryobi, and others.
Nate
The TTS acquisition of SawStop occurred in 2017, after the SawStop lawsuit against Bosch for REAXX. I haven’t been able to determine when Festool joined PTI, but it’s possible their membership predates. Also, TTS owns a bunch of brands, but they are probably independently managed: Narex (Czech chisels and other great cutting tools), Festool, SawStop, Shaper, and Tanos (systainers). There’s probably more brands that I am not tracking.
mikedt
It really does seem hard to believe that CPSC would mandate a feature that is basically controlled by a single company. They’d be handing a monopoly to them. And in general, Democrat administrations tend not to like monopolies so it’s surprising that this is happening now.
Stuart
The rulemaking has been in the works for more than 12 years.
The question is whether they’ll finalize the rulemaking, reject it, or kick the can down the road.
Min
It is an interesting and complex problem. What do we think the likely outcome is?
Seems to me that the rule will be added, FRAND licensing will be required, costs/prices for all saws will go up, market share will shift around and manufacturers struggle to implement (some manufacturers will be winners, others will be losers), Sawstop will lose significant sales but recapture some revenue with easy money licensing, increasing margins.
So, are we long or short TTNDY ?
Bob
I agree this should only become a required feature if the technology can be licensed on a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory licensing.
That said, I am not very sympathetic to the argument that Harbor Freight is making. How many years have they had to figure this out? It seems clear that this was going to be required at some point.
Stuart
The patents don’t expire until mid-2030’s, and maybe Harbor Freight doesn’t want to “figure this out.” Maybe they don’t intend to sell table saws with AIM safety systems.
If the CPCS rule, which SawStop founders petitioned for, goes into effect , Harbor Freight would be forced to “figure things out.”
Meanwhile, companies like Bosch are saying it will take years to redevelop jobsite saws and that they haven’t figured AIM out yet for smaller saws, if it’s even possible.
Saulac
Only six more years. SS already lost the battle. If the rule ever passed, brands will flood the market with whatever they have. People will rush to buy one. So if when the rule take effect, there will be a pretty small window that people must buy new.
TomD
If my experience is anything to go by, the rule will take effect, new products will emerge, and people will rush to buy the OLD ones because the new products suck for various reasons.
Which is basically what HF and Bosch are saying – they would take about 6 years to make a non-sucky one, unless given access to the parts and know-how to “jump the line”.
KC
For clarity, I will start by saying that I do not own a SawStop of any kind. I do own several Powermatic machines for my wood shop, including a 3HP PM2000 cabinet saw. I bought the PM tools 15-20 years ago. The TS replaced the best available contractor version from Craftsman, about $450 at the time. The fence on the Craftsman came apart mid-rip on some 1/2” birch plywood I was cutting into 18” squares, literally a year and five days after purchase. Fortunately, I just had a large bruise from the kickback and no lost flesh or bone. I bought the PM2000 because it has a fence I felt would help avoid a repeat situation.
I have discussed the safety mechanism of the SawStop TS with a friend and have taken the position that complacency with the safety of one tool could lead to getting hurt by another tool. If I ever add a second TS, I would most likely get the 5HP Powermatic PM2000.
I grew up working with wood in the garage with my dad. I took wood shop class all six years from junior high till my senior year. There is just no good substitute for learning how to safely use tools, and I am fortunate to have had some great instruction. I am also fully aware of the dangers of using these tools and have utmost respect for them. My rules for working in the shop are the same as they were flying airplanes. If I’m too tired, stressed or don’t feel good, I don’t work in the shop.
Now, as far as the CPSC proposed changes go, I find some of the history quite interesting. Do I not remember that Mr. Gass invented the technology, even trying it out with his own finger at some point (no thanks!) with the intent to license it as a safety device for other manufacturers to add to existing saws? After two years and no takers, the company began developing its own saw and produced the first one four years after inventing the safety technology?
A quick search on a popular woodworking retailer website shows a 3HP SawStop Industrial cabinet saw at $4825 and a 3HP Powermatic PM2000 at $4699.99. The saws have a 52” and 50” rip capacity, respectively. In 2008, PTI gave congress several reasons why they were against the technology. Now, after their members originally refused to spend the money to license the technology for their own saws, telling congress why it’s such a bad idea and would be cost-prohibitive to use, watching SawStop grow into the business it has become today with a competitive advantage, they cry foul and play the victim, saying they don’t know how and expect SawStop to license the product they once refused at a FRAND price.
If you remove the patent lawyer part, Mr. Gass is an amateur woodworker with a physics degree who invented a safety mechanism for table saws and has made a lot of money on his invention while saving some fingers, too. Is this not what free enterprise is all about? And if the CPSC does move forward with the rule, which tools are next for added safety technology? Is this just a beginning?
Do you really think the other manufacturers will add $500 to $1000 to the price of their current machines? The SawStop machine I’ve noted above sells for $150.00 more. How many saws would they sell at a much higher price than SawStop? If they did add that much to the retail price of their saws, they would essentially give SawStop the same monopoly they are afraid of now if the rule were to go into effect, but it would be self-inflicted and not government mandated, though they might claim the latter, anyway. How much did a nice cabinet saw cost before the pandemic, or even 5-10 years ago. I think the current price for any of them is ludicrous. I paid $2000 for my PM2000, brand new at a retailer in Texas.
There are inherent risks with most things we do in life. Each of us has to take some responsibility for our own actions and live with the consequences if we don’t. Accidents do happen, but how many TS accidents happen because of a malfunction or something beyond the users control vs how many are the result of doing stupid stuff, failure to understand the tool and what can happen when you don’t use it properly or by working with the tool when you are not 100%. Anyone remember what Norm Abram used to say at the beginning of each show?
David Z
“How many years have they had to figure this out? ”
A few things to consider: First, As HF said, this isn’t their area of expertise, so they wouldn’t have been figuring out anyway. They’d likely expect one of their supliers to figure it out by the time it was needed. Second, the likelihood of this being required was not, and still isn’t, a sure thing. And finally, how early do you work on something that you potentially can’t sell until the 2030’s? If they started 10 years ago, they’d be in the same position as Bosch and potentially need to redesign again.
When this whole SS and licensing started, there weren’t battery powered saws like there are today. No one anticipated the improvements in battery tech and brushless motors brining us to this point. If I were an HF, or SBD/etc, exec, I’d have held off until closer to the patent expiration. I wouldn’t have known how saws might change or what technology would be available for the sensing/braking mechanisms. Almost 25 years of change is a lot.
Also consider that HF, like most companies, including Bosch Tools, don’t have the expertise to develop this tech, or the necessarily deep pockets. It makes little sense for them all to do so. I presume that’s why the PTI solution exists.
TomD
There’s also the issue that customers don’t really care much about this, in total.
Sawstops exist. From everything I’ve heard and seen, they’re capable saws.
Yet they’re not the entirety of the market; if customers REALLY WANTED this feature, that’s all they’d buy.
I suspect we’ll end up with something half-hearted, where saws are sold with “something that kinda works sometimes” and most people just turn it off, just like so many saws on job sites have the blade guard and the anti-kickback pawls removed.
Stuart
You can’t have a safety feature that “kinds works sometimes,” which is why development isn’t quick, easy, or inexpensive.
At this time, there’s no SawStop table saw equivalent of the most popular compact table saws on the market. They have a compact table saw, but it’s larger and heavier, and 3X the price.
mark
But in their defense they didn’t have to. It’s costs are beyond belief. I don’t see it passing. Harbor freight has a good argument. What if they can’t fit it in a table top? Either way it’s just government trying to implement laws without having a real discussion with these companies that are realistic. Saw stop wont sell licenses either. There is somebody out there making buco bucks to get this law passed in legislation, who are they kidding? Or is it government over stepping once again? If it hadn’t been invented we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we?
Stuart
The CPSC has been having discussions with companies about this for years.
HF and others’ comments are part of that discussion.
The CPSC was petitioned to act on this and are basically still – 13 years later – deciding whether to act (and how) or not. Consumer protection groups have also been urging the CPSC to do this. I don’t see how that’s “government overstep” when the Commission was asked to be put in the middle of this.
S
I see both sides of harbor freights comment. In one respect, there’s significant fear over implementing a rule that encourages a monopoly. I have no love for saw stop in this, as I’m not a shareholder. I understand them working for the shareholders best interests as a for-profit company, but I’m personally bothered by the insinuation of a safety device being pay-walled. It puts lives below profits, and given an alternative, i don’t like to support that kind of business plan.
On the other, HF is well known(as are many other cheaper brands) to shop for completed ready-to-ship products that only get minor coloration or branding alterations.
While I would argue that cheaper saws would benefit the most from the tech(given the higher likelihood of lesser experienced people, and/or harsher environmental/jobsite use), the lower end market has the most to gain from the technology.
But because the tech has been locked away like KFC’s recipe, there are no manufacturers for HF, or any other rebrand middle-range company to even go to, which would further extend their timeline for implementation.
I think the ” we don’t know how, and no one else does either!” part comes off a little over-emphasized though, as Bosch’s REAX and Saw Stop have proven designs that do work, meaning no one is starting from a completely blank drawing board.
I suspect that line has more to do with HF fearing how such a technology addition will forcibly move their product up to a price point that their typical lesser quality components would no longer be acceptable at.
But I’m also reminded of the many times the EPA would introduce a new emissions standard, and all the large auto makers would band together, call such a standard “impossible to ever achieve”, only to arrive at that standard by the deadline date.
TomD
Sawstop doesn’t even have to go to the “Volvo” level of “here’s everything about this safety feature for everyone for free forever”.
They’d show a lot of goodwill by just making a “SawStop module” that can be integrated by any OEM, and charging a reasonable price for said module.
Which is basically what Harbor Freight is asking for – if you mandate this, make it so it’s a fixed and reasonable cost that *everyone* adds.
Nate
This is the answer. FRAND allows this to be effectively spread through the market, and for manufacturers to innovate on functionally similar, but improved, functionality without fear of a patent lawsuit.
I’m not a complete fan of SawStop’s prior patent protectionism, but once they switched from “buy our patent” business model (early 2000s with their lobbying of CPSC and others) to “build saws with proprietary tech” model, they had a business to run, people to keep empoloyed, and investors to satisfy. FRAND seems like the best way out of this mess and to allow companies to compete on quality, features and price.
Dwayne Freed Sr.
I own a Sawstop, and also work in the woodworking industry, I believed that safety standards need to be in place, way to many “old-timers” with missing digits! Bit there needs to be a fair way of achieving that, without a monopoly. How that is done is the question.
Spalted Maple Mac
Glad to see some input from the people that make money using these tools, rather than politicians who have never been inside a shop. Once the technology is industry standard, of course every saw should have it. I’ve had close calls even though I’m safety conscious, and use sleds, jigs, and push sticks because I want to keep all my fingers. If I had the money, I’d buy one tomorrow, but it isn’t fair business competition if the only people legally allowed to sell are the one’s with the secret sauce.
Richard Miller
How is this whole process not extreme corruption? A private company petitions the government to make a rule that only they can meet, then they keep the information needed to meet this rule proprietary, and the government is actually considering implementing it?
What am I missing here? And is there any reason we should not shun SawStop as a pariah?
Stuart
From what I understand, the people running the company now are not the same ones who petitioned the CPSC 20 years ago.
Perry
But Gass is still in charge of the SS division under festool, is he not?
Gordon
Gass, one of the co-founders of SS, was formerly a patent lawyer. He knows the system better than almost anyone else and has purposefully abused it for profit. They’re a patent company that makes saws. There is zero competitive advantage to a SawStop over a Jet or Powermatic once you remove the AIM from the SawStop.
Stuart
I disagree.
SawStop makes solid products and I have found them to be very consumer-friendly. They stock a full range of parts for their saws, and their customer service is actually very knowledgeable.
Remove AIM and pricing from consideration, and SawStop can still hold their own against companies like Powermatic, Jet, Grizzly, and Harvey.
TomD
I think that’s basically what Gordon said, reworded. Without AIM, they’re competitive but not obviously better.
I suspect that SS wants to be strong-armed by the government so they have an excuse to open/sell at FRAND whatever is needed to let everyone comply, but that’s probably because I generally consider people to be good.
Gordon
I don’t mean to imply that they are a subpar brand. it’s just that without AIM, they are one of many.
To put it another way, would they be where they are today if every other brand had unrestricted access to develop their own AIM? I don’t even mean access to their patents, just simply not being restricted from developing their own system.
Outside of AIM what do they offer? https://www.sawstop.com/why-sawstop/ They don’t seem to advertise anything.
Powermatic talks about ArmorGlide. Harvey has their Golden TiN coating, and their Big Eye Fence. They find ways to differentiate themselves from the competition because they can’t “hang their hat” on a single thing. Whether you like a particular feature of one brand or another is up to you. And that’s a GREAT thing. Healthy competition is always good for the consumer.
Stuart
I haven’t tested it, but see Powermatic “ArmorGlide” and other surface treatments as being largely cosmetic and maybe marketing in nature.
Michael
It’s not a rule that only they can meet. Both Altendorf and Felder (the two European systems noted in the article) have commercially available solutions right now, andy understanding is that SCM is about to bring a solution to market as well.
mark
I agree totally. They’re the ones that will benefit the most out of it.
Jronman
The PTI venture sounds promising. Hopefully it improves over the SawStop design. The Felder and Altendorf system are improved but cost prohibited for lower cost saws. If you are already spending $50k on a saw an extra $8k is probably not a big issue where it would be a major issue on lower cost saws.
David Z
Random, silly idea. Sell cheap t-shirts, hoodies, and mugs; print it on shipping boxes; hang banners at trade shows:
SawStop, be a Volvo
Its time to share your tech
People over excessive profits
Or some better saying than that. They’ll hate the bad press.
Nathan
Yeah isn’t it now festool?
Meanwhile I lost all faith in saw stop when they sued for a stopage of the Bosch system without offering to license their product to Bosch.
Ben
I still believe that the primary reason why table saw hand injuries has not gone down over time isn’t because the lack of wide stem AIM technology but the failure of the table saw manufacturers to convince users to use a blade guard. The reason why users don’t user the blade guard usually seem to be one or more of the following reason, they get in the way, get dirty quickly, make it hard to see the cut. Most saws I’d argue are being sold today with a blade guard that is so poorly designed and made that the manufacturer never even intends for anyone to.
Jack D
Boy howdy is that on the money. Some of these blade guards are downright embarrassing, but the worst part is that most buyers of low end table saws have minimal experience at best, so they see these flimsy guards and instantly think, “superfluous”, and remove them often.
The only worse things are of course, the stock fences, which are so bad I’m shocked kickback hasn’t crippled more over the years.
I honestly don’t know how I still have all five fingers…if it weren’t for all that safety training as a high schooler, well…
MM
I couldn’t agree more. The fact is that the guard is an afterthought for the majority of saws, even quite expensive ones. But it is especially true that lower end saws usually have terrible guards. I’ve also seen riving knives that weren’t straight and terrible anti-kickback pawls mounted on guards. When poorly thought out guards, etc, get in the way people remove them to save themselves the frustration.
I wonder, are there quality aftermarket guards? I know one can buy fancy fences, miter gauges, and so on for table saws, perhaps someone makes guards too?
Jack D
Not that I’ve ever seen. The only option is to go with one of the overarm guards that also double as dust collection, assuming you can easily detach your old guard from the riving knife and pawls. Or with something like Microjigs splitters in a zero clearance insert to replace the riving knife, and a trued up fence, but no real aftermarket guard per set that’s better than the flimsy stock ones. That would be interesting. ..
mark
They never seem to invest anything into reinventing the blade guard. How hard would it be for them to do so? I imagine not very hard.
Stuart
Blade guards were updated a few years ago, with modern “modular” designs commonly featuring a movable guard over the blade, a riving knife, and anti-kickback pawls.
kent_skinner
I think the ruling would be good for SS in the short run, as they’d sell a lot more table saws for a handful of years. But after there are more safety saws on the market, SS will lose their competitive advantage and be just one of many options. Then they’re just competing on price like everybody else.
I assume that SS has amortized the R&D for developing the safety tech; it’s been 20 years. A quick look shows that the price difference between a Laguna/Jet/etc and a SS cabinet saw is $1,000 to $1,500 (quick scan, this could be wrong). It might cost them $100 per saw to install the system.
Is it worth giving up $1,000 extra profit on every saw, after selling a boatload of them for 5 years?
If it happens, I’d love to see the tool industry organize, cooperate and develop a better system that is inexpensive for any manufacturer to use, except SS.
They make a good product, but I hate their approach.
NoahG
How did SawStop win against Bosch? What made the systems similar enough to make the Bosch design and infringement?
Andy Kehl
Iirc it was the trigger mechanism, essentially Bosch also was checking blade resistance to detect flesh.
Doresoom
Capacitive sensing was what got Bosch in trouble with infringement. Their system overall was a much better design since it didn’t destroy the blade.
Nathan
The patent language is so vague on the works that basically any spinning saw blade stopping mechanism that activated with flesh detection is infringement.
So even if you made something that required the operator to wear a glove on the hand and it stopped the blade with a powerful electromagnet friction brake it would be infringement
AlexK
Is Europe finding this an issue? I remember seeing table saws with a shorter length fence from there so a board has less chance of binding and kicking back. They didn’t allow Dado blades on tablesaws either. Are there less digit injuries there? I worked at a wood shop whose owner was trained as an apprentice in Ireland. He was missing around an inch of his index finger. Does having better training help reduce injuries?
I use push sticks, hearing/eye protection and lucky to not have to use certain machines when tired. At the woodshop, the Felder sliding table saw with built in clamps kept me and my hands a couple of feet away from the blade for most cuts. The shop also has a SS cabinet saw and SS contractor saw.
Number one rule at the shop was safety first. First job I had where I was told I’m working too fast. Slow down, never move backwards with looking first, don’t walk on the side of the bandsaw while blade moving etc. What a great learning experience.
Lee Carpenter
As I understand it the EU issue with dado blades is bringing the stack to a stop within the mandated 5 seconds after the saw is switched off. I recently read there is a set that conforms by making the blades and chippers light weight. Other blade manufacturers may follow suit for the EU market.
Perry
If this does get implemented, I see prices going up, and a large shift to grey/black market sales from overseas through online marketplaces of traditional table saws
Peter
I really doubt that would increase.
This is an argument that seems to always come up when new safety requirements are made.
Otherwise we would have a grey market for cars that do not have abs, air bags and who knows what.
The whole I do not need and I can out brake abs on motorcycle is also going around in the moment for the same reason it did when it showed up with cars.
I know its a bit far stretched to compare those but hey.
The only thing I dislike about this is like most here the danger of a SS having a monopoly.
Craig
What if the technology was somehow implemented in the guard and not the saw? Would that get around SS choke holding patents? Just an idea. Cheers.
FrankCuz
This is one place where the market can regulate itself. If workman’s comp or business liability starts giving discounts for this type of safety equipment, contractors and shops that have employees and should be following OSHA regulations will buy the technology even if it costs substantially more. This should not be a mandatory feature for every device being sold. I think it’s self explanatory that having your hands near a sharpened spinning steel disc can be dangerous. Why not ban extreme sports, why should health insurance providers pay for claims related to injuries related to extreme sports? You can’t regulate your way out of every single risk in this world. This is a money grab being disguised as protecting your safety and caring about you, just like many others.
Blair
SawStop had ZERO intent on manufacturing saws when they first developed the tech. They approached EVERY major manufacturer at the point and offered to license the sensing tech, and everyone refused it. Was HF one of those manufacturers? I don’t know, it was a long time ago and maybe HF even in the saw game? Probably not. It’s more complicated than “SS won’t share / license tech”…
mark
Rather than argue who has patents, and who gets this or that – why not vie for CONSUMER CHOICE? Let customers decide which kind of saw to purchase, rather than making “safety mandates.”
This is exactly one of the many reasons I hate big brother government involvement in my life.
If I want to buy a “dangerous” saw (at my own risk), I should be able to.