(02-10-2017, 02:41 PM)Bach1750 Wrote: We are not even to the crossroads between the two sides and Gass via court rulings refuses to allow similar technology to exist in the market as competition.  Mr. Gass does not have the power to allow or dis-allow anything.  He can simply defend is patent.  Any other manufacturer can engineer their own system and submit it for patent as Bosch did, they just can't infringe on the SS patent, as Bosch did. He certainly can and should defend his patents.  He was successful in getting ITC to rule that 2 of his numerous patents were violated.  Yet he has also actively lobbied CPSC to mandate his technology on all saws, and he has testified as an expert witness in the Ryobi case, where the injured user, who did not use any safety devices, claimed his saw was defective because it did not include his technology.

My stand has never wavered. One cannot protect your technology to the point no one can compete without creating the very issue that the past 6 pages ( or however many posts you have your browser set up to look at) without some give someplace. Perfect example: Bosch tried to bring the Reaxx saw to the market , Gass shut it down  Mr. Gass did not shut it down, he protected his patent.  Bosch failed to engineer their own system.  Only two of the 6 or 7 patents Gass claimed were violated were determined to be violated.  If you read the court documents and the patents (I did), the two patents violated are quite broadly worded.  (Sensing flesh contact with the blade and retracting the blade.)  I suspect Bosch was hoping the courts would rule that some of his key patents were too general. 

(02-10-2017, 02:41 PM)Bach1750 Wrote: we cannot slow injuries without eliminating the old saws or reeducating operators in safe use of said older saws.  Yes, older saws could be phased out over time as described in my previous post.  And you expect people not to cut off fingers in the meantime? 

and we cannot step on the feet of the manufacturers and tell them to stop making the very saws that injure people who do not use the existing technology ( guards /splitters/ knives/ anti kickback (that is setting up a monopoly by one manufacturer)  Yes, regulatory agencies could tell the manufacturers what to do, as described in my previous post.  This is what they do.  you are dancing around on a slippery slope with this one.  I expect under the current administration who is trying to create jobs instead of eliminating them this will not happen 

We are not even to the crossroads between the two sides and Gass via court rulings refuses to allow similar technology to exist in the market as competition.  Mr. Gass does not have the power to allow or dis-allow anything.  He can simply defend is patent.  Any other manufacturer can engineer their own system and submit it for patent as Bosch did, they just can't infringe on the SS patent, as Bosch did.  your understanding of this and mine do not mesh. Bosch had the technology sitting on a shelf under a different functional use. It needed modifications to make it work on the Reaxx  that is what Gass defended. one important point to make about the reaxx saw it the fact that the blade merely disappeared it did not stop it catastrophically like SS does.  no wonder he went after them they created a better system. 

My stand has never wavered. One cannot protect your technology to the point no one can compete without creating the very issue that the past 6 pages ( or however many posts you have your browser set up to look at) without some give someplace. Perfect example: Bosch tried to bring the Reaxx saw to the market , Gass shut it down  Mr. Gass did not shut it down, he protected his patent.  Bosch failed to engineer their own system. Again, I disagree and you will see Reaxx saws in Europe soon if not already. I expect 75% of Europe has never even heard of SS. Even if they had it would have to be put through the same rigorous testing that Euro Saws ( which except Reaxx have no such ability to stop a spinning blade).  Gass is stretched thin enough in the US protecting  his baby to even think about expanding to global markets  

Ergo Catch 22  This is a non-sequitur. As you wish In my opinion you cannot have it both ways,  at least not without compromise. Govco is not shutting down TS manufacturers ( yet) and Gass is not willing to play ball fairly. 

And with that Everyone loses on some level 

(02-10-2017, 03:06 AM)Steve N Wrote: In CPSC's favor during Gasses attempt to change TS's they did reach out to users for information. My understanding is there were available questionnaires for general users, advanced, and professional, as well as surveys for injured parties to submit data.


This isn't from CPSC but another outlet, likely Gass as the text always refers to the "other guard" like this. " include a new modular blade guard system, may not adequately address the operator blade contact injuries associated with table saw use. Although the modular blade guard design is a significant improvement over the traditional blade guard design" At least by someone attempting to appear impartial, but they drank some Kool Aid.


One survey from that time


I was really being snarky with the stupid belt and suspenders pic BTW, and no I'll not embrace that style soon.

I still think that picture of the PM guy is him doing set up for non through cuts, and that blade is NOT moving. But even the story is suspect. I once saw a train wreck happening, but now I don't remember anything about it, really?

(02-10-2017, 05:01 PM)Johnbro Wrote: Wow, I didn't expect to be called a liar on woodnet...

The blade is moving. You can clearly see it in the picture, both in the cropped version and the original post (drag the image window larger from the bottom right corner--didn't know you could do that on this forum software).

From 2001 until 2008 I was the owner of a sales & marketing consultancy (www.workpump.com). We had dozens of clients, one of which was a large boatyard. We did all their collateral, including print advertising in 4 or 5 magazines, website, trade shows, stuff like that. Typical marketing work. Part of that effort was to sell the human face of the yard, which required assets (photographs). Once or twice a year I would visit on site and do a photo session where I would wander around the yard with a couple of cameras taking pictures of people. All those would go on a hard drive to sift through when we needed some art for a piece of collateral. Now over the years I have changed computers maybe 10 times and haven't collected all my thousands of photos in a single place, particularly photos which related to this business which I'm no longer doing. And I'm not going to spend hours digging through files of images looking for the next snapshot in the series. So no, I don't remember any further details (which ones do you want? I never talked to the guy in the picture, he was one of 100+ employees whose names I never was told, 2 minutes later he was probably back inside a boat attaching that little strip of teak to a cabinet) from one of 1000s of pictures I took at the yard over multiple visits over multiple years. 

I asked a (former) principal--he's retired now--about table saw accidents and SawStop. He said he didn't remember them having any TS accidents at the yard and they did not switch to SS--he wasn't sure if it was required currently by OSHA but I checked and there's no mention of flesh-sensing technology, only things like guards and fences. 

I think I'm owed an apology. 

(02-10-2017, 08:51 PM)Bach1750 Wrote: AHill, I think we're in agreement here.  In the first point I was responding to JGrout's assertion that Mr. Gass refuses to "allow any similar technology" via court rulings.  I was trying pointing out that Mr. Gass doesn't have any power other than to defend his own patents in court which he did successfully and should continue to do vigorously.