SawStop released a statement today, which – if I understand it correctly – implies they’ll stop suing companies that build table saws with flesh detection technology, at least if or once the government mandates such features.
The US CPSC has been rapidly moving towards requiring table saws to include active injury mitigation technology.
There are a lot of obstacles to this, with a major one being a broad SawStop patent that covers flesh detection. The company has successfully litigated to protect it.
Advertisement
Today, in response to proposed rulemaking regarding table saw safety by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), SawStop committed to dedicate U.S. Patent 9,724,840 to the public upon the rule’s effective date.
The CPSC proposed rulemaking, which stemmed from a petition by SawStop’s founder, has not yet been finalized.
The situation is messy.
SawStop’s founder claimed in 2017, in an interview with NPR, that the company was “about to come out with a $400 saw with his injury prevention system.”
That never happened.
In a video interview published earlier this year, Gass said about SawStop safety tech: “It’s like a touch lamp, and a spring, and a fuse wire, it’s all very simple pieces that come together to make it function.”
Advertisement
Despite that, SawStop never launched a $400 table saw.
SawStop launched a compact table saw in late 2022, priced at $899 plus freight. It’s larger, heavier, and more expensive than competitors’ portable table saws.
If a flesh detection table saw at the $400 price point were possible, wouldn’t SawStop have followed through with it?
I anticipate there being huge ramifications to the sub-$1000 table saw market.
So yeah, if the CPSC proposed rulemaking goes into effect, things are going to get messy.
Bosch said they’ll need 6 years to redevelop the Reaxx table saw.
Harbor Freight said that they and their suppliers don’t know how to develop flesh detection technology.
Consumers will likely have to pay more – lots more.
It might not even be possible for brands to incorporate flesh detection and blade brake tech into all classes of modern table saws.
Competing tool companies have argued that fair licensing terms would be necessary, otherwise SawStop could potentially exploit the situation to extreme profits.
I believed SawStop might release the patent sometime down the road, but the timing surprised me.
When everyone has to spend more on a table saw, it’ll be blamed on SawStop. Companies would have to recoup R&D costs, there will be higher component costs, and there will likely be more injury lawsuits.
It has been argued in some injury lawsuits – with some calling SawStop’s founder as an expert witness – that table saws without active injury mitigation tech have defective designs. There could be more of that, and the money to fight and settle those suits will have to come from somewhere.
A tool user might look at future table saw prices and then go online to ask why. Those in-the-know will answer – “SawStop petitioned for this.”
On top of all that contributing to higher hardware costs, especially if mandated safety tech requires table saws to grow in size, competing companies would all have to pay licensing fees to SawStop?
SawStop didn’t really have a choice but to pledge to dedicate the key patent to the public.
Sure, they’d miss out on a few years of licensing fees, but what about after the patent expires?
On the point of licensing fees, power tool brands have argued that licensing fees should be based on component costs, and not the entire value of competing table saws built with flesh detection tech. That might not come out to a lot of money.
Festool, SawStop’s sibling company, utilizes the company’s flesh detection and blade brake technology on their European market table saw. They recently launched a cordless table saw that does not flesh detection or blade brake tech.
What about other power tool brands’ cordless table saws? Will they be removed from the market if brands can’t easily or affordably incorporate flesh detection tech?
The CPSC proposed rulemaking makes sense. SawStop’s insistences over the years make sense. Other tool companies’ opposition makes sense.
No party comes out on top here, not SawStop, not competing power tool brands, and definitely not tool users and consumers.
To me, SawStop pledging to release the patent if CPSC mandates flesh detection safety tech makes sense.
However, there’s this part:
Even so, we will not allow this patent to be an obstacle to a safer future. To that end, SawStop is prepared to dedicate this ‘840 patent to the public upon the effective date of a rule requiring active injury mitigation technology on all table saws.
Why don’t they release the patent now?
That’s what makes this more of a face-saving strategy, rather than something being done for consumer benefits.
It’s the right move for SawStop, but I’m coming around to the idea that if SawStop truly cared about tool users, they’d do more.
If they want to be the good guy, rather than trying to look like the good guy, they should release the key flesh detection patent before the government safety agency requires it.
Loring C. Chien
Technically, I read that the ‘840 patent expired Jan of 2023. The filing date was 2002 and with some extensions and a 20 year patent life, the expiration was January of 2023.
There also seem to be over 100 more recent patents by Stephen F Gass assigned to SawStop Holdings LLC. Most of them related to saws, power tools and injury protection although admittedly some are for things like quick release throat plates.
The question is whether releasing only one patent will remove roadblocks for competing devices. With such an incredible jungle of patents, it may be that Mr. Gass, a patent attorney originally, has merely made the illusion of giving access to an expired patent, still has tricks up his sleeve to pull?
Stuart
According to numerous corporate statements, the ‘840 patent protections have been extended into the 2030’s.
Lance
I’m not an expert in patents, but they are usually held to an expiration date of 20 years after filing. I had a patent lawyer tell me that, technically speaking, it’s illegal to withhold information that can advance the state of humanity, and patents exist to protect the inventor of that information for a fixed period. No idea how much of that is truth and how much is his opinion?
If that’s the case, what’s the use if you can just extend it? 20 years was set as a reasonable amount of time for inventor protection.
Brian
Interesting that they seem to be stuck on the works flesh detection. It’s the same as some elevator buttons and other things that have non-movable buttons. It’s called capacitance touch.
Not council to say how but there are other ways to have the blade not hurt someone with naming a block of aluminum into the blade.
Stuart
As I understand it, put that capacitance-based elevator button in a table saw so as to detect skin/flesh contact, and it violates SawStop’s patent.
Steve
Remember the blade has momentum and spins hundreds of times PER SECOND so a strong, instant brake is a necessity.
KEN KALUGIN
Bosch Reaxx didn’t kill the blade and all you had to do was reset it.
Patrick
A company recently released an industrial table saw that used visual flesh contact detection. Their system simply dropped the blade out of sight in a fraction of a second. Resetting it just required hitting a button.
I suspect the brake in SawStop tables are a red herring meant to drive up costs and give people something to replace after an incident. They too also have their blades drop down in a fraction of a second. They just throw the brake into the blade during that process.
Stuart
Ask them how much it costs.
The CPSC was given a quote of $8,000 for just the safety feature.
SawStop’s blade brake cartridge is tried-and-true, and was the first product of its kind. I highly doubt it could be considered a red herring.
Don
I wondered about this also. Sure he may release one patent, but what about the others? I’ve always had an issue with the way he’s pushed the product through the gov.
Kevin T
Protoolreviews had a summary when Bosch and Sawstop were fighting. That centered around patents 7,895,927 and 8,011,279.
So, I am not optimistic that they are giving in on the patents to really make a flesh detecting saw.
Mike
Why should saw stop release its patent or allow others to use it? Maybe others need to develop their own novel solutions or pay saw stop licensing fees! There are many other useful patents that protect people or cure people of diseases and they aren’t made available, or not without licensing fees. There are other ways that the saw could be made safer without using saw stops technology. In fact, their technology and use of the brake block could certainly be improved upon. It is expensive to replace and kills a blade. How about a system that uses a disc brake type system that can be reset without being replaced and killing a blade? What about a visual or ai type trigger instead of impedence? Ehat about a blade cover that a hand cant pass? It seems to me that all the other companies just threw up their hands and didnt even try. They didnt want to license the technology and didnt bother developing their own. And how long are we going to keep using spinning metal blades anyway? We have lasers that can now be controlled to limit cut depth.
Patents are syppose to protect but also encourage innovation. You develop something and someone develops something better because they cant use your invention, or they pay you to use it. In this case everyone else simply chose to not innovate. Saw Stop should not be punished for that! Require the safety part, let other manufacturers figure out how they will meet the requirements. Give them 7 years to do so. They will either figure it out, maybe making an even better product, or they will license it from saw stop, or they will pull their product.
Bryan
It is my understand that SawStop has leveraged their patent to sink every attempt at coming up with a competing technology. That likely has to do with the sensing technology, not the stop technology. All the while they’ve been pressuring the government to require the tech so they can have government mandated income from the entire industry. Up to this point it seemed like that may happen without them even freely licensing the patent.
ITCD
Some of their patents are broad, and Gass continually files patents to keep kicking that expiry can down the road. Bosch DID invent a different system. Still infringed, all that R&D down the drain.
Nobody wants to license Sawstop tech because their fees are outrageous. For example, the capacitive method of flesh detection. What other method do you suppose there is, that would work only when blade contact is made, but detect flesh specifically and not any old thing that touches it? And it needs to be extremely reliable in detection to avoid lawsuits.
Jack H
Here’s the thing – Bosch DID come out with an improved technology that can be reset immediately and does not annihilate the blade or require expensive brake cartridges. Sawstop is a great product, but their success and monopoly on safety today is nothing more than the product of their lawyers. The patent system was never intended to be abused in this manner, and this watering down of patents with constant new submissions and renewals despite no real innovation is a known flaw of our system. You seemingly dont understand just how much their questionable & favorable rulings over the years has sucked the life out of any would-be competitors plans. Might as well flush the massive R&D costs down a toilet. Sawstop isn’t being “punished” for anything. They have elite lawyers and are now actively trying to influence public policy for their own financial gain on a product designed to save fingers or limbs. Think about it.
BigTool
Don’t forget the added costs from replacing cartridges after a nuisance trip. A family member bought a very pricey SS cabinet saw, and yes, the system can/does occasionally fire when it shouldn’t. After buying a saw with the price inflated by this mandate, we get to look forward to ongoing costs as we use it. Given how it detects flesh, I can foresee increased problems when using it outside of a nice climate controlled shop. A jobsite saw gets rained on, runs from dirty generator power, cuts wet and PT lumber, sometimes cuts aluminum, doesn’t always have good grounding……what could go wrong?
Lance
Nothing, if you’re getting paid with each failure!
I see the mandate as problematic. For the very reasons you point out, I can see people bypassing the feature and ending up with a saw that’s more unsafe given anyone not aware will use it assuming the safety is still in place. People will use it assuming the worst is a nick or cut, and ending up with severe injuries instead.
Brian
Don’t know if it’s still there but they had a cut off so you could cut certain woods that could not be cut without tripping it.
Eric
I’ve used their large cabinet saw and a more jobsite style open leg version in unconditioned shops in 100% humidity Houston. Never had them fire because of the humidity. Wet wood, aluminum, and foil faced material all set it off at various times (only once on my watch). The method to turn off detection is terrible and fools lots of novices into thinking they’ve turned it off. There are just two led lights above the typical paddle switch, green and red. The pattern of flashing is all that says it’s off. A third LED that is just constant on red and says safety off would be better.
Jerry
Sawstop has several years of patent protection left. I’m guessing they are gambling that the government will move slow enough on new regulations that they won’t have much to worry about.
One can argue how much Sawstop does or does not care about the public safety when they could easily allow anyone to use their technology with a royalty fee but when they have a history of lobbying for a feature they have sued to keep exclusive to themselves it makes them look greedy.
I have mixed feelings about regulations requiring this tech on all saws. On the one hand it will likely save a few fingers. On the other it might regulate away inexpensive table saws completely. Some time in the past, the government decided to regulate the safety of wooden (step) ladders. They wound up making so many confusing and conflicting rules manufacturers quit making wooden (step) ladders all together. the rules specifically were for step ladders but I think bled over to all ladders. Anyway my point is that regulations may go too far and make it impractical for anyone to make a lightweight and low priced saw.
Lance
Once it’s mandated for table saws, what’s stopping them from doing the same for chainsaws, circular saws, weed trimmers… laugh all you want, this is how government control starts. Next you’ll have to register your “dangerous” tools in a national database, or not be able to purchase them without certified training and registration.
Companies want government to protect everyone from themselves by regulations that benefit the company, all under the guise of Public Safety. Some things make sense (seat belts) and others not so much. The nannys won’t be happy until there’s zero risk in anything, and zero freedom too.
AllenN
Maybe if other countries are allowed to sue US table saw manufacturers for injuries then the tech will get implemented. I’m sure these injuries are a burden to their health system.
Don
When they get rid of the $300-400 stuff, what to stop people from fastening circular saws to sheets of plywood or something similar that can be a LOT more dangerous.
Lance
EXACTLY. Removing the guards from existing table saws is probably responsible for a large percentage of current injuries. Make the tools more expensive and you’ll just encourage people to use older less safe equipment, or come up with other less safe alternatives.
If the safety equipment is one-shot then expensive replacement (like the SS solution) people will just bypass the safety and get hurt anyway, especially if the system is triggered during normal use (like the SS solution).
Ben
That is part of the core of Bosch’s argument to the CPSC.
JR Ramos
This was an early and initial thought of mine, too. Homebrew or cheaply fabricated “adapter” plates have always been around and still are, for various tools, but this would be the common I-can’t-afford-the-safety-mandate workaround, sadly. With any luck, the large manufacturers can implement this cheaper (or lower profit margin) with their scaling and minimize the cost increases. Doesn’t help with replacement cartridges, which I suspect would see a larger demand as many more joe publics are “exposed” to the technology…maybe that’s where SawStop imagines they will prosper most. That’s assuming the mechanism in its current form is what is widely adopted without moving toward something else by grace of the patent release (if other patents don’t preclude that movement).
Rog
It’s been obvious from the start they don’t really care about consumer safety, just their profits
Stuart
Consumer safety and profits are not mutually exclusive.
Personally, I would argue that SawStop has exceptionally customer-friendly products.
Troy
They possess IP that could be used to make *all* table saws safer, yet they continue to leverage it as a tool to protect their market share rather than license it to other companies.
Obviously they need to recoup their R&D, and they’re entitled to profit from it – but IMO, with safety devices like this, there’s a tipping point where they become morally obligated to find a way to release it to the public. They could become a supplier of the core components or license the IP, and probably generate more total profit than they bring in now.
What if the creators of airbags or seatbelts just built their own cars with that exclusive technology, sued other companies who tried to copy it, while drivers of all other cars continued to be maimed and killed? It seems like we’d all agree that’s morally corrupt. I don’t see how this is fundamentally different.
Doug
They tried to pitch the tech to all the major saw companies. They got shot down. So they copied a Delta and started their own saw company. Fine, whatever. Then they lobbied the insurance companies causing higher rates for shops without SawStops. Now they’ve lobbied congress to make their safety feature mandatory.
However I notice they aren’t bothering making a flesh stop detecting jointer, shaper, panelsaw, radial, drill press or end mill, lathe, planer, bandsaw, etc.
It’s fine at the novice level where a table saw is the baddest machine in the shop. But invites more foolish practices which are carried over to other limb eating machines. If not other table saws. I’ll never buy one unless I can turn off the safety for the whole day with a switch. I’d turn it back on if I was teaching a beginner, temporarily.
This needs to stay at the Sears Craftsman market and leave the professionals out of this Nanny State BS.
Lance
“SawStop has exceptionally customer-friendly products.” that could be mandated to make the company more money.
When someone is pushing for their own product to be mandated, that’s 100% motivated by profit (reminds me of something else too…). If their motivation was for public safety they wouldn’t have extended their patent protection.
Peter
That is how the type of capitalism we have in the US of A works.
Make as much money as possible to keep ceo’s, investors and stockholders happy.
To quote a song from a famous rock band.
Nothing else matters.
dave
according to google patents that patent expired on 2023-01-12.
John
They have multiple patents covering the tech. If I remember the last of the key patents expire around 2032 maybe.
Stuart
From corporate and CPSC statements, that’s inaccurate; it has been repeatedly expressed as a matter of fact that the patent protection has been extended into the 2030’s.
Doug
A patent can be updated to reset the clock. Which they did update their cartridge a while back.
Any other company is welcome to file a patent which improves on Saw Stop’s tech. But they don’t. They didn’t want the training wheels on professional tools over 20 years ago when Sawstop tried to sell the tech to Powermatic, Delta, Grizzly, Oliver, etc. They don’t want it now.
Just like no one in Europe wants short arbors that restrict dado stacks because of a brake mandate.
Dave
I work with this company. What the consumer probably doesn’t know is that saw stop offered the tech to EVERYONE else first, and they all turned it down. So they started their own company. I think they deserve to keep this patent if they want.
Stuart
Yes, and then they petitioned the CPSC to force all parties to buy their technology.
When some brands did come around and try to license the tech, SawStop essentially said “nah, we’d rather make more money.”
Companies should be held accountable for what they do TODAY. 20-year-ago positions are moot.
don
And testified in lawsuits against other companies.
Chris
You’re opinion doesn’t mean much on this topic since you would clearly be biased working with them. It wouldn’t benefit you to have a negative or less than positive opinion on a public forum.
Lance
Dave, the issue is not with them (you) keeping the patent. The issue is with them (you) LOBBYING THE GOVERNMENT to have your patent-protected technology MANDATED.
Please explain how everyone here seems to have that wrong?
If Public Safety was really the intention and profit was not a motive, the patent would have been left to expire and the free market, including governments, would be free to adopt/mandate as they saw (haha) fit. You (Sawstop) would then be free to lobby on behalf of the public, and at the very least no one would be obligated to pay royalties.
JR Ramos
“…deserve to keep this patent…”
Yes, absolutely they do. I think public opinion on this one is more of a moral standpoint. Seems like semi-vindictive behavior down the road…sort of. Legally, I don’t think the CPSC could force them to give up the patent, and therein lies the quandry here, all the other fluff notwithstanding. If they were to mandate and shift unfavorably against SawStop’s patents, it would be litigated and overturned (not inexpensively). Shifting the other direction would likely also see litigation against the mandate, and would likely succeed depending on the arguments presented. It’s a mess.
What a lot of people don’t know, and I’ll just throw this out there in case readers here don’t, is that owners of intellectual property awards are *required* to “aggressively defend” those awards, else lose them entirely. So when we hear about some lawsuits, people are quick to call out an evil empire or declare “patent troll”, but it’s simply a part of the patent/IP ownership process that really must be adhered to if the owner wants to retain interest and control over their invention or whatever.
“Kokie Koala” comes to mind, where Coca Cola received worldwide hate for suing a young minor girl in Australia over trademark infringement. It was just enough where they felt they had to….ridiculous as it seems.
Adabhael
I am not a lawyer, but I think you might be conflating two different kinds of IP. I am pretty sure trademarks, like the Coca Cola example you cite, must be defended or are lost. My understanding is that trademarks started as a form of consumer protection, so that we consumers would not be confused or tricked by incorrect, possibly inferior copies of the product or service we wanted. In effect the trademark gives the benefit of exclusivity over words or images (the mark), in exchange it requires the obligation of defending that mark against imitations. In theory anyway, I know it doesn’t always play out that way in reality (see recent stories about Mickey Mouse)
However, I don’t believe there is a similar obligation with patents: they merely grant a period of exclusive use for the creator (to support continued innovation) before they become public. In that sense they grant a temporary protection as a way of ultimately advancing innovation for the public good. The protection for the investor is an incentive, not an obligation; I don’t think you have to enforce your patent if you don’t want to, you just loose that money. why have a patent if you don’t want to make money? There are some folks who hold patents just to make sure an idea cannot be patented by others, and/or license it at no cost (Volvo’s 3-point seat belt patent is often cited, including in other posts). Of course, that doesn’t always work in practice either. For example some companies (aka trolls) buy up lots of patents, do nothing with them except hope somebody else does something similar enough that the threat or reality of litigation results in license fees or settlement. But while the validity of the patent might be challenged in this cases, my is standing is that it does not depend on if they are using it or not.
I could be wrong though!
TomD
You are correct. Trademarks are “indefinite” and have to be defended; patents are for a time and do not have to be defended (hence “submarine patents” where a holder waits until near the end of the lifecycle to begin action).
JR Ramos
I wasn’t conflating but I probably shouldn’t have said “lose them entirely” either. Yes, marks and copyright are different in many aspects than various patents. I’m not an attorney or patent attorney either but I did work with them for 8 years and dated one of their paralegals…learned a lot of neat stuff and could ask questions freely (they were primarily dealing with oil and with Seagate hard drives, but). That was a bit over 15 years ago, though, and there have been 2 (or 3?) major changes in the system plus whatever Act that was around 2013 or so, and I wasn’t able to learn about those changes or see their effects.
So taking a common Utility patent like what I assume the SawStop at issue must be, there is still some “duty to defend” your property (per se). As the owner, they have the responsibility to maintain, monitor, and pursue. The pursuing part sometimes is not put into action for various reasons – the effect of not doing so can vary by situation and patent details, but at the very least it puts the owner’s rights at risk as to enforcement and successful litigation. There are soft-edged limitations as well (I think six years if I remember right) as to when enforcement can be undertaken based on infringement. Not strictly use-it-or-lose-it but it can bump up against that and potentially end up being just that. With a sloppy or lazy patent owner there are a few ways infringers can successfully defend their…errors…and leave the patent holder suffering. Needs to be undertaken by a patent attorney as well, painful as those costs are. Basic laches doctrine is one of the more common methods when petitioners (patent or otherwise) basically sit on their laurels.
It ends up being more of a risk of loss (great or small) rather than a revocation as you would see with trademarks through dilution/loss of distinction from failure to pursue and defend. Always the risk of revocation via reexamination if things aren’t done smartly but that would never be an option with the SawStop tech (as least I can’t think of any possibility that it could).
Patent owners are not required to put their rights into action (manufacturing or licensing, for instance) but they are not guaranteed the right to do so, either, believe it or not. They are granted the right to enforce and defend against others infringing their IP. Not quite that simple of course but it almost is.
eddie sky
I hope you didn’t sign any NDA’s or Non-competition forms. Because Gass would love to find anyone that works with them (suppliers, etc) and sue.
Point is, what was the offer? Because you realize, if A company says to B, C, D through G that its making a patent license available for $$$ and those companies realize, that is too much, since Tablesaw sales aren’t like hotcakes. Perhaps seeing the actual offer letters (behind legal liability, we won’t see them) would clear up that, “no way this is affordable and would mean marking up the saw costs 40%!”
Its plain greed. And using the patent as political leverage to have a government (Regulatory) rule in their favor.
When a lawyer creates a company, its only good for the lawyers.
Richard Miller
Pretty gutsy to publicly associate yourself with a company that tries to immorally use the government to protect its business model.
My contempt for SawStop for that move could not be greater. That’s disgusting behavior.
Stuart
That’s uncalled for.
Would you rather brand employees or associates not disclose their affiliations? That already happens at times, and bullying will drive them to anonymity, silence, or both.
Michael F
I’m just holding onto my M18 FUEL Table Saw that I no longer use so I can sell it second hand on the used market when they regulate saws like that out of existence.
Collin
How will you hold on to it with no fingers though?
evadman
This comment is the only reason that the comments section needs a upvote button.
Blocky
Collin, he already explained — with his second hand.
Greg
I wouldn’t sell a used saw. Too much risk. It could break and injure someone and then you might get blamed for being negligent for not properly maintaining it.
Mike McFalls
I agree was a face saving attempt and was only put out there because they know/have been urged (privately) or are assuming the CPSC was going to enact a rule that forced Sawstop into a far license agreement.
I have said this before, I don’t object to sawstops protection of their IP (suing Bosch). I dont object to them choosing a business model in which they didn’t want to license their tech after Dr.Glass approached the manufacturers and they all said no years ago forcing SS to make their own product. I do however object to sawstops crusade to use an intrusive govt entity to force this rules creation and adoption. I object to the Sawstop pretending/saying they did all this in the name of safety for consumers. If they cared about safety- they would’ve made this free from day 1 like Volvo did with seatbelts.
Hon Cho
“I do however object to sawstops crusade to use an intrusive govt entity to force this rules creation and adoption. I object to the Sawstop pretending/saying they did all this in the name of safety for consumers.”
What SawStop has done / is doing is is standard practice for business advocacy with regulatory bureaucracies. Tablesaws are small potatoes in the grand scheme of things but the story of SawStop’s battles gives us insight into how government regulation and corporate interests work both for and against consumer interests.
Mike McFalls
No disagreement that it is standard corporate practice, but when a company tries to treat me like a moron, by making asinine statements, to try to mislead us that this is about our safety as consumers – I draw the line.
Jason
Bosch, SBD, Koki, etc. are not going to start developing new saws based on a “promise” the patent will be released in the future. They will begin integrating that proprietary technology after the patent is released or after a licensing agreement has been reached
Actions speak louder than words. This is nothing more than PR. If they cared about people they would have negotiated licensing years ago, and they would release the patent now in good faith that it would expedite the legislation.
Jason
Years ago I bought a table saw for about $150 that served my needs well for years. I can’t help but to think if this rule goes through the entry level table saw will by 3X that price. This isn’t like when auto manufacturers were required to add a backup camera and a $20,000 car because $20,500 this is exponential
TomD
I wonder how “table saw” will be defined – as I can imagine an (annoying) saw that is basically a table saw with a protective slot above the blade that locks down over the piece being cut, so it’s impossible to contact the blade. It would be annoying to adjust for various heights but it’d be cheaper.
Mike McFalls
Great point about the government defining things. Just look in the current news and how many cases end up in the Supreme Court over ambiguous terminology
BC
It is a free market, or should be, all companies are free to develop similar tech. I don’t think the government should mandate this type of safety.
Stuart
Competitors are NOT free to market similar tech; SawStop sued the Bosch Reaxx off the market. Their key patent covers – as I understand it – any form of electrical skin or flesh detection.
This means other tool brands can’t market any saw with flesh detection. SawStop’s lobbying has been instrumental in petitioning for and furthering the CPSC’s proposed rulemaking towards requiring active injury mitigation technology in every table saw.
Without a CPSC mandate, companies can voluntarily launch their own table saws with active safety tech in the mid 2030’s after SawStop’s key patent expires. With a mandate, they will be required to redevelop every table saw product with features that require sensors that are broadly covered by the key SawStop patent.
Lance
So we can infer that Sawstop is actually making the market LESS safe by keeping other safety systems out of the market.
I wonder if a class action suit could launch based on anyone claiming damages, lol.
Xrh07
Bosch already developed superior tech. Sawstop doesn’t want to compete in a “free” market and got the superior product put down.
SS wants the government mandate and to hold a monopoly on licensing. They’re rent seeking losers
Stuart
Their sensor work was sensitive to wireless interference, with their recent comments saying current environmental conditions would require extensive redevelopment.
Their brake tech was innovative, effective – in my testing – and economical.
Bruce Shulman
CPSC should not ram Sawstop down consumers throats in the name of safety. Doing so will vastly increase prices. CPSC has done this previously, resulting in prices of consumer products such as strollers and cribs going from $30 to over $700 for a stroller and $500 for a crib. Yes, the regulators are well meaning, but their actions result in prices many people simply cannot afford.
mikedt
I can go on Target right now and buy a $30 baby stroller and a $125 crib. $700 ones are status symbols – nobody is forced to buy a Bjorn. I think you’ve been reading urban legends.
TomD
Car seat inflation has definitely occurred, as has vehicle safety equipment.
I don’t think anyone’s against “add 10% to make it safe” kind of cost increases, it is the “mandate 4x the cost to make it safe” that is the problem.
Jeff Sill
2 most important safety features are those eyes above nose, head clear, pay attention, have old Mikita, no blade guard, no riving knife, it’s a beast.
Sam
They are continuing to hold on to the patent because it applies more pressure on the CPSC to apply the rule requiring the technology. And until anyone else comes to market, they’re the only game in town. If they released the patent now, other companies could start competitive sooner.
Stuart
Exactly.
This is not a pro-consumer move, it’s pro-SawStop. That’s within their right, but I don’t believe anyone should be thinking “aww, that’s so nice of them.”
They’re not doing this for us, they’re doing it for themselves and their bottom line.
SawStop’s “pledge” could be a strategy to further convince the CPSC to finalize their rulemaking and enact a mandate.
This seems much like sharing a cookie with a friend, but not because you are kind and a really good friend, but because you hate coconut.
Zack
SawStop is counting on consumers to not understand that it takes time to bring a product to market. By releasing the patent only when the rule comes into effect, they’re souring the proposition just enough. Will Bosch dedicate funds simply on the assumption that regulators will act? Maybe enough for exploratory efforts, but not as much as if SawStop simply released the patent now. It’s all half measures and face-saving.
Leo B.
For those who want a cheaper saw, there will be thousands of them on the second hand market and in inventory for many years. Can’t you still buy aluminium bodied drills and grinders, Shopsmiths, and radial arm saws? Those are no longer necessarily safe, and have largely been phased out in favor of safer methods and solutions. Did people complain about discontinuing all those tools? I’m sure they did. Can you still buy them on the second hand market if you must have one? Generally, yes. I know you can buy new radial arm saws as well, but that’s beside the point. I think it’ll be similar. We’ll look back and ask: “Why did we ever use these without flesh detection?” For those who swear up and down that experience and “common sense” will keep them safe, those saws will continue to be on the market. Although those are critically important, they’re not infallible, and being tired or a small slip shouldn’t potentially bring amputation with it. For those who may never have an accident but don’t want to take the chance on a saw you push your hands into by design, a new breed of safer saws will be available. This is the seatbelt argument all over again.
Backcountry164
Seatbelts were mandated because people were dying not because they were losing a couple of fingers. So no, not remotely the same.
Troy H.
“It’s just a couple fingers”…
Bold argument.
Backcountry164
My point is that your fingers aren’t remotely comparable to your life. You honestly think that’s a “bold argument”?? Really??
Jeff
Evidenced by “Accidental death and dismemberment” payouts.
Ian
It may not be life ending, but it’s definitely life changing. Not to mention that cutting yourself in the wrong place could easily be fatal. Regulations are frequently justified to protect against less than fatal injury where it’s feasible to do so.
Jason
Yes and with that analogy – Volvo gave away the rights to the 3 point seatbelt for free instead of making auto makers license it
Buddy C
Ok so here’s the problem with your argument…
VOLVO RELEASED THE SEAT BELT PATENT TO THE ENTIRE WORLD, FOR FREE, IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY!
They never made a dime on it other than the boost in customer opinion towards the brand.
This is the ONLY reason we were able to make seat belts a requirement. Which they shouldn’t be. If you wanna die on I94 during rush hour. That’s your business.
Mike
It’s one thing if you want to die. It’s entirely different if you have passengers, especially minors. Also, what happens if you don’t die, but you wind up in an expensive coma, or a near-vegetable. Stupid things like that make insurance rise for all the rest of us.
Lance
Mike, good points. Was thinking the same.
Ty
“…if SawStop truly cared about tool users, they’d do more.”
This says it all. Historical actions by Mr. Glass and SawStop bring out the cynic in me with this promise. The goalposts have been moved around in the past, its not a stretch to think it’ll happen again.
JOHN NEWTON
By definition, things that cut, can be dangerous. We need to use care when using them. If a user desires a higher level of safety and is willing to pay for that privilege or feature, they can do so. Those who would rather throw caution to the wind, should also be allowed purchase the saw they want. I would prefer to keep government out of our shops and let the market decide.
Ben
I’ve been a number of organizations such as PTI, Stanley Black & Decker, Bosch, and Harbor Feight mention that Patent 9,724,840 doesn’t expire until 2033.
Can someone please explain how U.S. Patent 9,724,840 that was files on Mar. 13, 2002 is still in effect let alone not expiring for another 9 years?
Stuart
SawStop sued the patent and trademark office over adjustments and extensions, but this particular patent doesn’t seem to be a part of that.
I also haven’t seen any primary documents concerning its adjusted/extended expiration date.
David Ogden
I thought patents lasted 26 years and with small changes could be extended 5 years.
Lance
The math adds up – 2002+26+5=2033
I always thought patents expired after 20 years… maybe I was wrong, or the rules changed?
CoBlue
The default patent term is 20 years from filing, but this can be extended to ‘compensate’ for ‘excessive’ delays in processing the application. Which is apparently what happened here.
Backcountry164
If regulators aren’t making regulations they’d be out of a job. So faceless, and clueless, nobodies in some random building somewhere make rules about things they don’t know the first thing about.
The vast majority of table saw accidents would already be prevented if safety devices are left in place. But they’re inconvenient so they get removed. The same will happen here, people will just use the bypass to avoid accidental triggers and the 250 bucks that go with it.
Stuart
One of the Commissioners (Richard Trumka) describes himself as a hobbyist woodworker. From one of his statements, he’s intimidated by table saws (which I don’t think is very uncommon).
In a lot of the cases he’s commented on, companies fight against rules that would improve safety and potentially save lives for a fractional increase in component costs.
He could very well be seeing the table saw industry through a similar lens, and I wouldn’t blame him.
One of the closing statements at the recent hearing mentioned to the Commissioners how this ruling could be a “great legacy” for them.
Frank D
I remember that $400 contractor saw … but between that never coming to market, and all that sawstop has done to litigate, prevent other systems from coming to market, etc … and this mess with them now getting the government to mandate their system across the board … so we’ll now make the patent free after it is mandatory.
Yeah, no. They can keep it for all I care.
I don’t like their corporate angle.
David Ogden
A $400.00 product in 2017 would be $500.00 product in 2022 due to 2 years of 12% inflation. Regardless I’ve been using tablesaws professionally [I currently own three] for 45 years and I’ve never had an injury. My grandfather owned a construction company and a cabinet shop so I was instructed on the don’ts early.
E Suter
Brake cartridges: When I bought my SS contractor 6 years ago the cartridges were around $80 CDN, now they’re around $140. You’d think that as SS sold more units ( and more models) the price would come down or at least stay consistent with inflation. As much as I like my SS contractor, the dust collection is an embarrassment as much as the stamped steel wings are
JoeM
Yeah, I will never buy a SawStop saw. As in the Company. This “News” just proves to me that the only thing that buying a SawStop branded saw will bring, is higher prices across the board, for a company that attempted to slime their way into the market using lawsuits and bullying.
If they cared one iota about our safety, it would be an Open Patent from the beginning. No, instead it’s their launchpad to violating Anti-Trust Laws globally, which will definitely be shot down in Canada, and the EU, where our business regulations will ban a company from doing business before we pass a law that mandates they be the sole owner of an entire component of an industry.
They’re going to increase every type of Saw’s prices outside the range of any kind of individual trade or workshop level user, if they are allowed to continue. Instead, they should be left to die of lacking sales, thus forcing them to either sell the Patent to a Globally-Complient Open Source company to avoid being blocked in Regulated Markets… Or go bankrupt of their own volition while the patent expires, and everyone else does a better job of making the device than they could. Mind you, this second option is more ideal, as it would only result in an increase in prices for such compatible Saws by approximately the rate of inflation at the time. Which, if you’re in the market for a safe saw, is a far more reasonable investment, with a guaranteed ROI as payment for your patience in the matter.
I will greatly look forward to watching SawStop die. They’ve been hyper-litigeous, and overtly abrupt regarding their demands to be allowed to skirt regulations and established stabilization laws for the global trade economies. When asked what justifies any sort of privilege they’re demanding, all we ever get is demos of hotdogs and demonstrator fingers not being cut off. They’ve got no legal leg to stand on, regardless of how hard they try.
I had the same objection to Apple from the start. How do you justify the higher prices, and dependence on proprietary parts? Out would walk Steve Jobs, holding up the item and saying “Look how Stylish it is… It’s designed to be more personal now!” While stamping out identical items by the millions at a time, thus erasing all credibility that they were anything they were promised to be. Plus, I’ve had to actually repair Apple products before… I’ve opened them up and seen inside… They aren’t worth what the claims say, they’re just pretty for no reason. You could easily rip out any component, replace it with a standard one, and it would operate no different except for the inconvenience of the Apple-Specific layouts.
Maybe I’m just jaded after fixing things for so long, and maybe running a few businesses as a Teen taught me not to trust these kinds of people. Perhaps, also, it is all the drilling of Morality and Law that I received from family traditions on both sides. But SawStop, like Apple, are companies I can’t, in any kind of good conscience, support in any way.
Larry Nelson
I am not a lawyer or technical expert. My whole issue with this is when anyone uses any tool or other piece of equipment, education of that equipment is the main key to safety! When will the government realize that you can’t legislate common sense. A band saw, router, planer, etc, all have safety issues. It’s the user who should learn how to use it properly. One of the problems is caused by taking woodshop out of school. Many if not all of the issues would be occur less frequently. This is going to price out the DIYer and only make more profit for the tool companies. Woodworking for me is a hobby and helps me relax from the garbage happening today. Make it more difficult, and for me, would make it harder to escape. I originally got into this because too many companies are selling garbage that doesn’t last long. If they really want to solve this, safety education is worth more than making certain companies wealthier than what they already are!
Mark
2 points
1. CPSC is required (like all regulatory agencies) to perform a cost benefit analysis around this technology. Fairly important piece as the “seatbelt” argument shows (what’s the marginal cost to production to add seatbelts to a car vs the tech needed here onto the saw). Informed discussions become moot w/out this info as it underlies the entire regulatory predicate
2. For those who are irritated/annoyed about the patent issue, that’s more on the oligopoly of Big Tool companies. Not like they didn’t recognize the value of the feature, just didn’t like the license terms which is fine, but essentially forced the IP owner to prove economic value add in the market, hence the creation of SawStop. Naturally, this now is part of the larger overall value of this safety technology in the market, enough so that Bosch entered/infringed (from Sawstops perspective ) into the market.
Last thing to note is as someone IDd above if industry isn’t careful, things can go bad very quick. Wooden ladders are just the tip of the iceberg. Google what happened to portable gas containers with the free flowing spout.
Regardless, about the only thing one can guarantee is that the price of ALL table saws will only be going UP
John H
One problem with dedicating the patent effective on the date the regulation becomes effective is that competitors to SawStop can’t manufacture that product in the US or import it into the US before that date. That leaves the channels empty of competitor saws until new saws are imported and shipped to retailers.
There are other issues related to design and manufacturing which might be proprietary to SawStop. Just because competitors can see the end product doesn’t mean they can reliably manufacture an equivalent unit. There may be details important to the safety feature which are not revealed, and if the other manufacturer doesn’t build certain parts identically, there could be a sawdust accumulation which prevents the blade from completely retracting, to make up a possibility.
Jow
So saw stop will make the technology available to other manufacturers when the gov passes the law requiring in all table saws. Problem I see is it will take time and considerable dollars for the other manufacturers to redesign the third saw to use it and more time to retool their manufacturing. I bit the bullet and bought a Harvey 4hp saw before the regs kick in. Once the gov get control you’ll pay $1000 -$1500 more for any full size TS. Plus more for new blades and brakes for the accidental trips from wet wood as you figure out how not to get an accidental trip
Stuart
That is false.
All this suggests is that they won’t sue other companies on the basis of just this one patent, at the time when government mandates go into effect. They haven’t committed to making know-how or tech available to other companies.
Bart
The writer of the article says that the mandate makes sense and that SawStop’s petition makes sense. I disagree with both statements.
First, there are no design defects in standard table saws, a design the has been around for almost 100 years. Table saws operate, for the most part, exactly as they are designed to. New saws are sold with guards and push sticks. If you choose to remove the guard, or not use a push stick, that is your decision. If you don’t understand the ramifications for doing that, you shouldn’t be standing near a running table saw, let alone using one. It is not the government’s job to protect us from out own stupidity. If they want to put in rules to protect consumers from unscrupulous manufacturers who created defective designs or use subpar materials, then fine, but as stated above, there is no design flaw in standard table saws. If this goes through, I expect to see hammers with flesh sensing tech to keep people from hitting their thumb.
Secondly, the petitioner makes sense to anyone but SawStop, because SawStop is the only one who will benefit from it. They claim their petition is altruistic and meant to benefit the consumer. BS. If that were the case, they wouldn’t have sued Bosch to stop them from making their saw. They would have licensed the design years ago, and wouldn’t have extended their patent protection into 2030. The statement that they will release their patent tech is non-binding, and i don’t trust that they will. They will be forced to do it, then they will sue to keep from doing it, and even if they are forced to, it will take years in the courts, most likely running right up to when their patent extension runs out. All the while, SawStop is raking in cash. This is a money grab by SawStop and will benefit only SawStop.
Lastly, think of what this do to the secondary market. Now, if you go out and buy a new saw, with this new tech, spending twice as much, don’t even think of selling your old saw to help recoup some of that cost. If the person who buys it from you injures themselves, they can now sue you for knowingly selling the a defective product.
This whole thing is a bad idea, all the way around.
Stuart
Consumer advocacy and safety groups make cogent points about how table saws cause a high number of injuries every year, and that more needs to be done to remedy this.
JR Ramos
“No party comes out on top here…”
Parties that manufacture thin plate/thin kerf saw blades may stand to prosper from this if it happens!
I don’t know all the various patents that apply here, but if through restriction or adoption the industry uses SawStop’s cartridges in current form, SawStop may stand to profit a lot from what would be greatly increased sales there. With so many users that will be exposed to the technology (e.g. DIY users and those who use the cheapest models available) there are bound to be many more replacement cartridges needed. Unless others are allowed to manufacture and sell those cartridges, too (and if that’s the case, perhaps their scale and abilities can make the cartridges available less expensively…for implementation on new saw sales as well as replacement parts).
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. I don’t think I have an opinion on SawStop or their reasoning for offering “early release”, but that news is surprising for sure.
Brandon Nordin
I don’t understand either the POV that Sawstop – a company that by definition is supposed to maximize profitable return and growth on shareholder/stakeholder investment – is acting unfairly by a) requiring equitable license fees and b) enforcing its protected patent position. Those would be the obligations of any company that has successful IP that game changed the market. Without that type of financial incentive, innovation and investment dies. Indeed, it’s why patents exist in the first place, to reward inventors and prevent copycats from benefiting from their work without compensation.
Sawstop has clearly demonstrated the value of its IP by successfully launching saws several hundreds (in some cases thousands) more than the prevailing price point for each class of saw. Ultimately this should be good news for all vendors – as it prevents comoditized, race to the bottom pricing. And Sawstop using its license fee to both recoup the value of its innovation investment as well as to protect the price point of its current saw lineup, seems good business practice to me.
The argument that somehow Sawstop should act in the public good to give away its IP is pretty naive – at least from a commercial perspective. The “safest saw” is effective product positioning for Sawstop and indeed, is truly their primary competitive advantage in a market that had been fairly static for decades in terms of performance or safety innovation. It clearly has helped it break into the category against once dominant competitors. But this product position carries no moral obligation ( to share with competitors) beyond actually delivering the product that works as advertised.
While one can argue that consumers’ may suffer by not having either this technology available thru multiple manufactures or from the potentially higher cost of saws licensing SS tech, any one that’s even been to a hospital ER for as much as a nosebleed, never mind a traumatic amputation, knows that the cost of care basically zaps any real logic from the “savings” argument – not to mention the lifelong inconvenience of a table saw injury.
Manufactures that try to cast Sawstop as the “bad guy” because they won’t license them the technology for a peppercorn fee are being incredibly devious. They had the chance to license the tech but chose to ignore it, comfortable in their status quo bubble. They’ve also had a decade plus to figure out how to develop and better mousetrap, but failed to do so. The fact that Sawstop’s technology is difficult to clone or improve on without infringement, shows again the absolute value of Sawstop’s innovation and IP
Johnez
You’ve written a lot of words but have failed to consider the fact that SawStop has actively lobbied lawmakers to make safety features such as theirs mandatory. Sawmakers have tried to create their own safety stop mechanism, to which saw stop has filed suit against. Literal decades and manufacturers coming together to form their own safety stop mechanism has resulted in patent infringement suits. There is no argument regarding whether saw stop should give their tech away or not, but rather whether it’s fair to the consumer and other manufacturers to force mandatory features that only Saw Stop has available.
Clientgraphics
How many preventable injuries should be attributed to SawStops failure to freely license this technology over the past 20 years and potentially 6+ future years?
SawStop should release any and all patents related to and in use on their table saws for safety not just 1 or 2, but All.
CA
Wouldn’t it make better business sense to go ahead and share the patent and reap the rewards…plus make things safer across brands? Maybe they figured they could sue for even more money than a person could dream of if someone came out with a product that implemented their “Top Secret” classified patent. I don’t know what to think of it.
John
Never trust anyone who says, “TRUST ME!”
Words to live by…..
KC
So, Mr. Gass invented a safety device to mitigate many table saw injuries. He tried to market the device to TS manufacturers at the time, who were more concerned about profit than safety years ago, which SS is being accused of now. After two years with zero result, he decided to build a saw himself and the company has gained a respectable amount of market share over the years. The mission of SawStop to have a safety device on all table saws has remained constant over the years. It has played out in multiple arenas from courthouses to government agencies. At this point, the original goal of the SS technology seems very much in reach for the company. The other TS manufacturers are still fighting it, or at least trying to delay the implementation of a rule change. The way this ends is up in the air. Maybe the parent company that now owns SS expands their facilities and capabilities to include manufacturing saws for other brands who don’t know how (or want to know how) to make the safety device? Or maybe the higher end TS market goes into decline because there are other less costly options available, like a track saw, parallel guides and a router, to handle many of the tasks we use a TS for. Maybe more sliding table saws, which by design can be safer to use than a traditional TS, enter the market at more affordable prices? After all, the gap in price is not near as wide as it once was! I do wonder if we are at the point that Radial Arm Saws were at as the sliding miter saws entered the market? And all the while, as this plays out, a huge threat to safety is not being talked about as much as it should be. How many out there, like me, have seen the videos posted in different spaces online that show the many ways NOT to use a power tool? I remember one with a TS that was rented to do a van to camper conversion. The saw operator was complaining that the on/off switch was on the wrong side of the machine and the saw wasn’t cutting very fast. Yep, the riving knife was non-existent and wood was being fed into the saw from the back side. Watching it mortified me and I immediately posted a comment to that video. Isn’t a lack of experience / knowledge as big a threat to safety as anything else when using power tools? Where would we be if Mr. Gass had not invented the technology? Do you actually believe the other big manufacturers would have spent the money to develop and test such a device and add it to their machines? Most of my shop machines are Powermatic. I do not own a SS, nor do I plan to own one. I just believe more good could be done in the education arena than anywhere else. And I believe complacency can be a threat if there is a single machine in the shop that is not supposed to cut your fingers off.
OldDominionDIYer
Tragically this ridiculous tech might actually be mandated by our “nanny” govt. officials, how awful that will be. Just like helmets for motorcyclists in some states. Historically there is no statistical difference in fatalities between states that mandate them and those that do not, it’s just some people making themselves feel better. Now I’m not advocating to not wear a helmet, but I am all for personal choice. It’s part of the greatness of this country, like no other. If people don’t like that they’re welcome to leave.
Stuart
Can you back up your claim about helmets not reducing fatalities?
Everything I have seen about helmet laws contradicts what you’re saying.
OldDominionDIYer
Unfortunately, data isn’t readily available that differentiates the cause of death with or without helmet use. They just use raw numbers and attribute every fatality with not using a helmet. Due to the greater number of states with no or only partial helmet laws (31) than those that always require them (19) it’s difficult to pull the data.
Eliot Truelove
I too am with Stu on this.
Modern helmets and CE rated armor, whether hardshell or D3O/similar flexible stuff that hardens on impact, most certainly has prevented all major injuries and fatalities.
It should go without saying that if you land straight on your noggin at top speed or fly head first into a tree, no amount of armor will prevent your head catapulting through your neck bones, paralyzing you at best, killing you at worst.
But for all other glancing blows, rolling, sliding, tumbling incidents, helmets have statistically increased survival and recovery.
Both sides can cherry pick data sure, and anecdotes are a hole other thing, but my brother surviving being ran off the road at 70+ mph on a highway in 2004 with just bruises is a testament to his helmet and his CE rated armor under his leathers.
MM
I’m with you and Stu as well. I’ve been riding for more than 20 years and all the data I’ve seen suggests that helmets have had a major effect on lowering fatalities, reducing the risk of death in a collision by something close to 40%, and reducing the risk of head injury in general by somewhere around 60-70%.
Now that said, I do think that helmet laws are stupid: if you want to ride without one and want to risk splitting your melon open that’s on you. But I don’t think there’s any doubt they are effective in saving lives and reducing injuries.
Stuart
As I understand it, accidents and injuries don’t only affect unhelmeted riders. I’ve seen reports that cite the costs to society with respect to costly medical care and rehab.
e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7692981/
MM
Cost to society can be a problem but there are multiple ways to address that. The most obvious one is the state can simply not pay for your medical treatment if your medical problem is the result of your own bad decision. Another is to deal with it via insurance costs. The same way smokers pay more for health insurance, helmet-less riders would pay more for their coverage. Didn’t have insurance? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
If I were to go out riding without protective gear and crashed I wouldn’t expect one penny from the state. It would be no different if cut my fingers off in a table saw accident.
Scar
I get what you’re saying but the counter argument is that it doesn’t stop at a helmetless rider:
1) The societal costs of “splitting your melon open” are tremendous. Per NHTSA, this billions/year in direct costs of which millions come from publicly funded healthcare or disability coverage.
2) Motorcycling on public roads is a privilege, not a right.
3) Therefore helmet laws are warranted because the burdens imposed on others outweigh the minor limitation in individual freedoms.
This isn’t really a “maximum possible freedom so long it doesn’t impede the freedom of anyone else,” type example but rather wearing a helmet becomes one of the costs of participating in society (should you choose to ride a motorcycle).
MM
My argument is that there is more than one way to approach this problem.
Requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets to reduce the burden they apply on others is one approach. Another is to eliminate the burden altogether by not paying out healthcare costs from public funds to motorcyclists who choose to ride without protective gear.
You wrote that this isn’t a case of “maximum possible freedom…”, but it easily could be, because it is only by our own choice that there is a cost to society for this at all. We can choose not to pay benefits to people who make poor safety decisions, like riding without a helmet or taking the guard off their table saw. When it becomes more complex is when third parties are necessarily involved, i.e. if a drunk, high, or texting driver blows through a red light and T-bones someone.
Alas, I fear this particular discussion is headed into political territory so I’ll just leave it at that.
Scar
@MM I can’t reply to your comment, but thanks for the discussion. Certainly not an easy / one size fits all solution (otherwise it would have been done already).
nicholas contos
Tyrants
Raymond Brigley
I feel that many of these types of parents are so wide they prevent innovation. For instance Namco (maker of arcade games) has a patent that forbids the use of interactive loading screens. Meaning while your game on pc, xbox, PlayStation or even just basic web browsers Chrome, Firefox for example download and load content they cannot load a mini game like Galactica or Tetris while you wait. So your just sitting there. Broad regulations like this are hurtful inventer, engineers, designers that could otherwise change the markets with better products. Namco literally did not design anything in this case they just loaded a mini game when loading . They didn’t design the game or the content loading or the operating system or browser or even load screens they just don’t want anyone else to have fun. And have a patent to sue you if you try!
Bruce
I am a patent agent and I just took a look at the patent office history of the 9,724,840 patent. It is very interesting because it spent a long time (about 8 years) being appealed in the court system before it was allowed. While patents are provided with a 20 year life from their initial filing date (Mar 13, 2002 for this patent) there are laws that extend the life of the patent to compensate the inventor for delays that took place during prosecution. The patent office initially stated that the patent was entitled to 305 days of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) and that is what is printed on the face of the patent. But the law also allows for adjustment due to delays in the courts, which the patent office didn’t initially include. So SawStop petitioned to have the delays due to the court appeal added and their petition was granted indicating that it was proper to add those court delays to the PTA. So the PTA was extended to 4044 days, meaning that this patent doesn’t expire until 4/8/2033!
The other interesting thing about this patent, is that its claims are very broad. Claim 1 basically covers ANY type of saw with a circular blade that stops within 10 ms of detecting contact with a human as long as the stop mechanism is “electronically triggerable.” It would be VERY difficult to work around this patent and meet the CPSC rules. So the fact that SawStop has promised to dedicate this to the public is at least somewhat meaningful.
BUT, SawStop has many other patents that it has not dedicated to the public. I have not analyzed their overall portfolio, but is is very likely that the other patents create an environment that still makes it difficult to design a saw in compliance with CPSC rules. So it is entirely possible that the dedication of the one broad patent was done to provide PR cover while still not creating a competitive market.
Stuart
Thank you for the explanation!
JR Ramos
Bruce, if you haven’t already, you may be interested in following the Viking v. Wang case about those hyper-step twist drill bits (Astro and Matco being the most famous branding from the inventor I think, but sold under several brands as are CTD’s/Norseman’s/Viking’s line us US-made versions). Quite an interesting case – was granted institution last summer, patent owner’s lead attorney was sanctioned for some pretty bonehead and underhanded actions, and to me at this point it sure looks like the patent will be invalidated (pretty sketchy grant anyway, imho). All of the exhibits are sealed but most pleadings are available. Finally gearing up to a decision, likely this summer or fall.
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2023-00473
Skye A Cohen
Hey look it’s me! Ha! That’s me in the pic. I posed for them awhile back and see the pic sometimes in promotional pics and on their website, but there I am again on the very prestigious cover of Toolguyd!
Will
This will be an interesting change in tool development if this becomes mandatory on table saws. Like most of these nanny state laws, they will eventually expand. The days of reasonable priced power tools may be coming to an end in favor of very expensive, federally approved safety power tools. Remember what cars cost before heavy federal regulation?
Hello 500.00 cordless drill.
Koko The Talking Ape
It’s a little hard to follow your argument, Stuart, maybe because of the many single-sentence paragraphs. But you say, “Consumers will likely have to pay more – lots more.” The reasons, as far as I can tell, is that there will be litigation costs if somebody claims tablesaws without AIM are defective, and that SawStop promised a $400 saw in 2017 but never delivered, and “If a flesh detection table saw at the $400 price point were possible, wouldn’t SawStop have followed through with it?’ Are there other reasons why prices should go up? You mention license fees to SawStop, but if they release their remaining patent, there should be no fees.
Anyway, I don’t think the logic behind “If a cheap AIM saw were possible, SawStop would’ve released one” is sound. They had monopoly rights to a desirable feature for decades. Basic economics shows that a monopoly will create an unearned price premium over what an open market would settle on, and that’s called a “market failure.” (Sometimes that premium is a kind of payback for the development costs, as in drug development, but as you say, the AIM feature is very simple.) So that $900 saw might have a 30% profit margin, compared to the rest of the market’s 15% (I’m making up these numbers.) That price is set by what the market can bear, i.e., how much people value their fingers, and not on what it actually costs to make AIM. So that $900 saw might actually cost $600 (2/3 x 900) to build, plus a 15% profit makes $640, which is what the saw might cost retail without SawStop’s monopoly. And it’s not a basic table saw. So given that a basic table saw costs $300, a $400 saw with AIM may actually be possible. We don’t know, and we CAN’T know until we see SawStop’s balance sheets.
As for why SawStop didn’t come out with a $400 AIM saw, maybe they could’ve made money from it, but they wouldn’t make ENOUGH money from it. They could sell more, but the profit margin would be thinner. That would be a management decision, not a technical one.
Re the argument that people will sue, claiming that non-AIM saws are defective, it would only take one case to establish they aren’t defective for the entire industry. And who knows if anybody will actually sue? For a lawyer to take on a case, they have to feel it’s winnable (I’m an ex-lawyer) and such a case many not be winnable.
Bosch claims it will take them 6 years to redevelop their AIM saw, and Harbor Freight claims they don’t know how to do it (?) But we have no reason to believe them. They’re trying to slow down CPSC just because it would be a change to their established procedures. Manufacturers ALWAYS claim some added safety feature will add costs and be an undue burden, etc. Car manufs did that with seat belts, and later with air bags. I’d be willing to bet that if the mandate goes through, they’ll miraculously come up with AIM saws within months.
Stuart
There have been at least several injury lawsuits where the injured parties argued table saws without AIM tech are inherently defective.
I believe that Osorio v. One World Technologies was the first.
Here are details about Ryobi’s unsuccessful appeal: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca1-10-01824/pdf/USCOURTS-ca1-10-01824-0.pdf
Bosch has many different product divisions, including sensor technology. The Reaxx seemed more like a Beta product, but I don’t for a second believe that can’t develop competitive and competent table saw AIM tech.
Harbor Freight, on the other hand? Some of their suppliers can put together tools that resemble jobsite table saws. But can they be trusted to get AIM tech perfectly right?
There are so many different factors here, and as you mentioned there’s no telling which company can be trusted – if any of them. They’re all lobbying in their own interests.
Cost estimates look to be all of the place. I really don’t know what to think anymore.
Michael
I’ve just gone and read the ‘840 SawStop patent. It’s rather specific, and seems like it would be easy enough to design a non-infringing alternative safety system were a company so inclined. For example, any of the competing systems that stop the blade before it comes into contact with a person would not infringe. Also not infringing is any system that detects contact without an electrical connection to the blade. Also not infringing is any system that retracts the blade in more than 10 ms. An 11ms retraction would still result in only superficial injuries.
I personally don’t have much sympathy for the competing brands. SawStop tried to sell the industry a safety system, and they didn’t care, thus resulting in the company deciding to make it’s own saws instead. You can hardly blame them for trying to ensure they profit of their invention after investing to build saws.
I also don’t see this as a regulatory overreach, considering that there are roughly 10 amputations a day in the US due to table saw injuries, and many more less serious blade contact injuries.