+- Woodnet Forums (https://www.forums.woodnet.net)
+-- Thread: Bosch (Reaxx) Lost Suit to SawStop news (/showthread.php?tid=7327525)
RE: Bosch (Reaxx) Lost Suit to SawStop news - K. L. McReynolds - 02-01-2017
I agree the techniques Gass used are less than desirable, but there were bigger reasons other tool companies did not buy in on his technology.
Insurance claims. All those companies making/selling conventional saws would have been the victims of class action lawsuits if they had started using his technology. Plain stupid---since that technology never existed before he brought it to market. But, if companies started using the system and still made conventional saws---BOOM!!!
RE: Bosch (Reaxx) Lost Suit to SawStop news - Huxleywood - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 05:10 PM)K. L McReynolds Wrote: I agree the techniques Gass used are less than desirable, but there were bigger reasons other tool companies did not buy in on his technology.
Insurance claims. All those companies making/selling conventional saws would have been the victims of class action lawsuits if they had started using his technology. Plain stupid---since that technology never existed before he brought it to market. But, if companies started using the system and still made conventional saws---BOOM!!!
I have seen this 1,000 times but the reality is that isn't how products liability works.
RE: Bosch (Reaxx) Lost Suit to SawStop news - JGrout - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 05:23 PM)Huxleywood Wrote: I have seen this 1,000 times but the reality is that isn't how products liability works.
so how did Sears craftsman have to deal with a recall of radial arm saws from in the 60's to the 90's that did not meet some safety standard?
RE: Bosch (Reaxx) Lost Suit to SawStop news - Huxleywood - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 05:30 PM)JGrout Wrote: so how did Sears craftsman have to deal with a recall of radial arm saws from in the 60's to the 90's that did not meet some safety standard?
Completely different scenario. K. L. McReynolds was talking about being able to use the introduction of a new safety feature as evidence the previous saws were inherently dangerous. In general this is precluded from products liability cases because it would have a chilling effect on the introduction of new safety measures and thus is against public policy. 1L torts stuff.
The issue is less black and white if they introduced some safety feature only on part of the saws a manufacturer sold. Manufacturers do this all the time though, a good example being the car industry.
RE: Bosch (Reaxx) Lost Suit to SawStop news - Robert Adams - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 05:30 PM)JGrout Wrote: so how did Sears craftsman have to deal with a recall of radial arm saws from in the 60's to the 90's that did not meet some safety standard?
Bingo.
As for the tech issue. Have you been to Japan or shenzhen? Ever wondered why tech companies in ca poach their engineers from china and her them H1b visa?Innovation is rampant there and the products that our companies come out with today have been on the market for months to years before it's a new fancy thing there. A friend of mine was well off in Nokia when the offered him a position in Beijing. I learned quite allot of that trip...
RE: Bosch (Reaxx) Lost Suit to SawStop news - Admiral - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 05:30 PM)JGrout Wrote: so how did Sears craftsman have to deal with a recall of radial arm saws from in the 60's to the 90's that did not meet some safety standard?
Sears had a design defect within the guard assembly. Saws without SS technology, that was available in the market, are subject to the argument that their design should have incorporated the technology but the maker chose not to incorporate it. Both arguments are quite similar, but legally there is a nuance, th former being easier to prove than the latter.
RE: Bosch (Reaxx) Lost Suit to SawStop news - Admiral - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 05:47 PM)Robert Adams Wrote: As for the tech issue. Have you been to Japan or shenzhen? Ever wondered why tech companies in ca poach their engineers from china and her them H1b visa?Innovation is rampant there and the products that our companies come out with today have been on the market for months to years before it's a new fancy thing there. A friend of mine was well off in Nokia when the offered him a position in Beijing. I learned quite allot of that trip...
Tech companies get them from China because they are cheap. In China, even cheaper, and they throw dozens of engineers or code writers at a problem using the brute force method, and at least with code, the end product works, but has to be further refined and improved to be commercially acceptable to customers, and is lacking in terms of future use, and bugs are rampant, requiring fixes on a scale not acceptable to end users. America is an innovation engine. The "imports" lack real world experience and don't think outside the box, and are mentored continuously in how to do their jobs. This is just my experience in one industry, but I believe it's a common view among those in tech. The Chinese are good at copying, true innovation, not so much.
RE: Bosch (Reaxx) Lost Suit to SawStop news - Steve N - 02-01-2017
SawStop saws have a defect too, it's called Steve Gass. I disagree that ALL companies behave the way he has, I've never heard of a company try to force only sales of finger nanny technology on TS's through the CPSC.
RE: Bosch (Reaxx) Lost Suit to SawStop news - Admiral - 02-01-2017
With all due respect, you are confusing sound business practice with political scatology, i.e. "nanny".
RE: Bosch (Reaxx) Lost Suit to SawStop news - JGrout - 02-01-2017
(02-01-2017, 05:44 PM)Huxleywood Wrote: Completely different scenario. K. L. McReynolds was talking about being able to use the introduction of a new safety feature as evidence the previous saws were inherently dangerous. In general this is precluded from products liability cases because it would have a chilling effect on the introduction of new safety measures and thus is against public policy. 1L torts stuff.
The issue is less black and white if they introduced some safety feature only on part of the saws a manufacturer sold. Manufacturers do this all the time though, a good example being the car industry.
I would imagine that once the safety issue was resolved and implemented bringing the flaw to light they kinda set themselves up for the recall
doing the right thing by rectifying the issue, to be sure past that well I fail to see the difference other than the nuance Admiral indicated
even that seems pretty thin to me