Posts: 10,722
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Orlando, Florida
(11-16-2016, 04:57 PM)Alan S Wrote: Maybe this will work:
The AHill quote should be "Has anyone done a test using a human hand analog at a controlled speed that is determined to be near the fastest a human can slap down on a surface?" For the record, that's not my quote. I quoted someone else who asked that question in an earlier post. That part got stripped out of the subsequent post where it looked like I asked that question.
Still Learning,
Allan Hill
Posts: 21,259
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: IA
Yep Dumb people everywhere
To me the biggest money maker for sawstop in the future is all the knuckle heads using this all the time and having to replace the blade and stop. So they sell the saw and maybe 3 to 25 stops. Boy the auto business should learn from this and make Trillions
As of this time I am not teaching vets to turn. Also please do not send any items to me without prior notification. Thank You Everyone.
It is always the right time, to do the right thing.
Posts: 42,638
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2002
Don't know when the SS patent expires, but patent infringement might be hard to prove. I saw the Bosch demonstrated on Ask TOH, and while the sensing method may be similar to SS, the action, simplicity of resetting and cost is WAY different than. SS.
I've been saying, since SS was introduced, that it was no substitute for safe table saw practices. If a person chooses to ignore safety, eventually someone will be injured despite a SS-like system.
Dave
Posts: 2,819
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2004
Location: Eagle River Alaska
If these test are worth anything they show both saw saved the operator any major damage. I'd rather have two 1/8th inch scratches than support the politics of SS.
Alaskan's for Global Warming
Eagle River AK
Posts: 13,415
Threads: 4
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
(11-20-2016, 06:43 PM)daveferg Wrote: Don't know when the SS patent expires, but patent infringement might be hard to prove. I saw the Bosch demonstrated on Ask TOH, and while the sensing method may be similar to SS, the action, simplicity of resetting and cost is WAY different than. SS.
I've been saying, since SS was introduced, that it was no substitute for safe table saw practices. If a person chooses to ignore safety, eventually someone will be injured despite a SS-like system.
Initial determination was infringement of 2 of a total of 4 patents claimed. There will be appeals.
https://www.forums.woodnet.net/showthrea...id=7323817
Infringement doesn't have to mimic the original product, just a patented aspect of the product. Think an electric potato peeler with flesh sensing power shutoff.
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
Posts: 10,722
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Orlando, Florida
(11-20-2016, 06:43 PM)daveferg Wrote: Don't know when the SS patent expires, but patent infringement might be hard to prove. I saw the Bosch demonstrated on Ask TOH, and while the sensing method may be similar to SS, the action, simplicity of resetting and cost is WAY different than. SS.
I've been saying, since SS was introduced, that it was no substitute for safe table saw practices. If a person chooses to ignore safety, eventually someone will be injured despite a SS-like system.
The two patents the judge initially ruled were violated were the two key patents for SS. One was the flesh sensing technology. The other was retraction of the blade. While the appeal process may find the Bosch version does not violate the patents, it's an uphill climb for them. A couple of months ago, I downloaded and read every patent SS introduced in the lawsuit. Many of those patents are quite broad. They have words like, "a retraction method as described, or with a spring or any other method of retraction." I don't know how the lawsuit will end. I'm not an attorney. But I'm interested to see how it turns out.
Still Learning,
Allan Hill
Posts: 5,653
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Location: Centre County Pennsylvania
patents expire in 5 years. Bosch is in a really good position when that happens. I find it hard to believe they have valid patents that SS violated, but I'm waiting for that lawsuit to drop. I reluctantly agree with the ruling on the two SS patents. Now that we know that you can design a saw that will not cut flesh, they seem obvious. But the standard is prior to that invention
Posts: 31
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2012
Wouldn't it be fitting if the court(s) ruled most of Saw Stop's patents too broad and invalidated them.
Doing it right cost less than doing it over
Posts: 13,415
Threads: 4
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
(11-22-2016, 01:02 PM)texaswally Wrote: Wouldn't it be fitting if the court(s) ruled most of Saw Stop's patents too broad and invalidated them.
The judge in the link I posted above ruled on Bosch's claims of patent invalidity and they lost, at least with regard to the two patents found to be infringing.
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
Posts: 5,653
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Location: Centre County Pennsylvania
I suspect that SS was careful enough to cover the particular implementation that they used in their patent. The over-broad patents that have been ruled invalid don't have enough specificity about the implantation. "and then something magical happens" is not good enough. There was a patent troll in image processing that had many patents thrown out because of this. Although it worked for many years.
|
