Saw Stop/Bosch Patent Infringement
#21
SS is a company with a patent, period. They are enforcing it, period. They seem to be correct on two patents. Bosch can pull the saws from the US or license the patent. For heaven's sake, Gass ain't Donald Trump!
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
Reply
#22
You must have missed when he went to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to get them to mandate only his invention. Maybe you were napping when he tried to force the entire tool manufacturing complex to use his weiner stopper at prices that they couldn't find buyers for their saws. He isn't just a guy with a patent. Guys with a patent who actually make a product the world wants, at an affordable price, do NOT have to try to get government to mandate the use of their product. Their product sells itself without laws being passed.
Worst thing they can do is cook ya and eat ya

GW
Reply
#23
Ah, no, not asleep, I just pay attention and happen to know a little bit about the topic. CPSC, so what? Totally legal and totally within the rights of a patent holder, and analogous strategies are pursued all the time by patent holders who want their invention to be a standards-essential patent, this is just a normal part of the global patent ecosystem.  The CPSC didn't bite, so no harm, no foul, and if you really think about it, that exercise actually delayed SS from starting its own manufacturing business.  In hindsight, I would think that SS would now agree they should have bypassed the CPSC "standards" strategy and immediately set up their manufacturing arm (which eventually they had to do anyway) to demonstrate the robust market that exists for their technology and the fact that people are willing to pay a bit more for safety, and then their licensing business would have gained traction much earlier in the life of the patents.  This the fundamental mistake I see, from purely a patent licensing business perspective, that SS made; all the whining and hand-wringing about CSPC is more politically-infused "nanny state" type stuff, which in the real world of the patent business has absolutely nothing to do with the strategies of patent licensing.

As far as his licensing prices, gee, I license patents regularly for a large multinational technology company, and nobody publishes what the bid/ask is on individual patents (except in certain cases involving FRAND licensing of certain standards-essential patents, and from time to time in the licensing of large pools of patents), so I guess you were part of the negotiations, as everything else is just hearsay, puffery by the patent owner or sour grapes posturing by those who didn't license the patent.  Much more likely is that the industry made an individual (or collective, but jeepers, that would violate anti-trust laws now, wouldn't it!) decision that the market was not ripe for the technology, and decided to wait out the patent expiry.  Then SS put on its iron jock strap, raised some money and went on their own as a manufacturer, and demonstrated there was, indeed, a pretty good market, and you have to give SS credit for creating a viable business.  Then at least Bosch changes its mind and wants in, but doesn't license at least two of the patents, and they get caught with their pants down, and will certainly appeal, and litigate until they can't anymore.  This is standard operating procedure in the big dance of patent licensing.  And so it goes . . . .

In the end, this illustrates the very nuanced business of patent exploitation (the whole patent concept being a Founding Fathers constitutional concept, by the way, see: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8), and such dances go on every day in the technology field among patent holders and prospective licensees, nothing to get your knickers in a knot over.

As an aside, actually, if the CPSC did impose such a requirement, it would be analogous to a "standards-essential patent" requirement and the notion of FRAND (i.e., Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory) would arguably apply, totally undercutting any claim that SS's goal was to secure excessive amounts of money for their patent licenses.
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
Reply
#24
There is one other addition to the situation. Gass was a lawyer before he was an inventor, and he has a bank of lawyers on board. He should have,in my unlawyerly mind, been smart enough to figure out most of the major complications and acted accordingly.

What if the other companies had paid the royalties and adopted the SS technology. How many lawsuits would they have had to endure when more people sued them for producing unsafe saws---even before the SS technology had been invented.

Gass invented a really good product. He said it was because he wanted every user to be safe. His actions after the invention showed many of us he was more concerned about cornering the market and building a monopoly---even when such action was legal. Just belieing his stated concept. In my mind, he was greedy, period. Legally greedy, but greedy all the same.

Had he simply taken the non compliance of the rest of the saw manufacturers as a normal part of doing business and began producing his technology, he would have been lauded.

Instead, he tried to strongarm the entire industry plus the American people into adopting his technology.

And there are a lot of people who do not like that, no matter the rewards.
Reply
#25
(10-21-2016, 10:48 AM)K. L McReynolds Wrote: What if the other companies had paid the royalties and adopted the SS technology. How many lawsuits would they have had to endure when more people sued them for producing unsafe saws---even before the SS technology had been invented.

In my mind, he was greedy, period. Legally greedy, but greedy all the same.

Instead, he tried to strongarm the entire industry plus the American people into adopting his technology.

And there are a lot of people who do not like that, no matter the rewards.

As to the first quoted point, it is black letter law that evidence of subsequent corrective actions are not admissible in evidence to prove negligence or product liability, so much so that this concept is embodied in a specific rule of evidence, here's FRE 407, to that effect.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_407

To put it another way, if someone trips on your sidewalk because of a raised lip of the slab, and you fix the slab, evidence of the repair is not allowable to prove your initial negligence in failing to maintain the sidewalk.  Same thing with products liability and saw technologies, or Samsung if they issue a replacement battery for their fire prone smartphones.  So if the saw manufacturers were going to be sued, they would still be sued but adoption of new technology would be a neutral consideration.  I think they did the economic calculus, a la Ford and the Pinto gas tank, and figured the cost of licensing would exceed the cost of products liability litigation.

As far a greed goes, well, first why not consider the "greed" of the other saw manufacturers, who again likely did the financial calculus and decided they'd make more money continuing to stick with the old technology and designs?  More to the point, why should someone who wishes to be compensated for her developmental work, on an admittedly good product, be limited in seeking the benefit of her ingenuity and/or business risk taking when she acts in compliance with the law?  Certainly not the American way.  Witness the "carried interest" tax treatment of hedge fund managers, corporate domicile inversions, Microsoft's virtual monopoly on PC operating systems, Oracle's database and middleware near monopoly or Trump's use of the tax loss carry forward.  SS is a mere piker compared with many of those enterprises.  Yet no hue and cry about those who massively exploit legality?

As to the third quoted point, we can agree to disagree about what 'strongarm' means, but patent holders approach standards boards and governments with regularity to seek widespread adoption of technologies of benefit to various industries.  Nothing new.  As I noted earlier, such efforts if successful would result in a FRAND licensing scheme, which may be less than could be yielded in royalties if the particular patented technology were individually licensed and not part of a broader, standardized scheme.

Finally, those who don't like it should not own or buy patents, as that is simply the way the business works.  That, or you have the choice of tilting at windmills, or perhaps become energized to encourage congress to change the laws, and good luck with that . . . .
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
Reply
#26
(10-21-2016, 10:48 AM)K. L McReynolds Wrote: Instead, he tried to strongarm the entire industry plus the American people into adopting his technology.


Outside of the aforementioned cool aid drinkers, and apparently Lawyers I think everyone else sees it this way Mac. I sure do. Having a patent, or being a Lawyer doesn't mean you have to try to ramrod your product down anyone's throat. As I have already said, if it truly is a well priced product, and fills a need, people will come to your door, no ramrodding needed.


I disagree that he GARA for any of our safety, he just cares about his wallet getting fatter. At least this is what his actions as a seller have led me to believe. However, saying touchy feely stuff like I want no more fingers cut is the first step to winning their hearts and minds, and he hoped make the gubmit think he had a needed product. We know how that ended for him.
Worst thing they can do is cook ya and eat ya

GW
Reply
#27
My Sawstop arrives next Monday (or Tuesday... the driver wasn't 100% sure)

I applaud the technology and the laws which provide the inventor his legal right to have and defend the patent on his invention

I agree 100% with the legal system which did not choose to force this technology on every maker,
but I would never let either of my sons use a tablesaw which was not a sawstop, knowing that I had the option for
a safer tool.

The other tool companies should be lining up outside Sawstop's doors trying to license the technology- and anyone that harms
themselves should litigate against the companies that choose not to do so.  I leave it to jurys to decide the outcome of this
litigation...

(and yes, I'm excited to get my new tool... along with a new 22-44 osc. drum sander and epilog helix laser engraver for my
business in the next couple of weeks)

Lawrence
Shazam!! You could be right!!!!!!!
- Timberwolf, 12/23/14

my portfolio
http://s171.photobucket.com/user/ldr_klr/slideshow/portfolio?sort=6
Reply
#28
I am curious about two things- first is speculation the second needs legal interpretation-

I would think a company, or more correctly a large multi-national corporation, like Bosch would have closely examined the technical design and issues, and legal ramifications before making any decision to proceed with the Reaxx, don't you think?  Maybe they weighed the pros and cons and took out a hefty insurance policy, so potential financial loss due to infringement and product termination are acceptable in view of the potential for gain from sales of the Reaxx.

Secondly, is it possible that Sawstop, having so tightly wrapped up this and all remotely similar safety technology, is in danger of being charged with restricting trade?- like the case of the car safety belt.
Reply
#29
(10-22-2016, 12:32 AM)Alan in little Washington Wrote: I am curious about two things- first is speculation the second needs legal interpretation-

I would think a company, or more correctly a large multi-national corporation, like Bosch would have closely examined the technical design and issues, and legal ramifications before making any decision to proceed with the Reaxx, don't you think?  Maybe they weighed the pros and cons and took out a hefty insurance policy, so potential financial loss due to infringement and product termination are acceptable in view of the potential for gain from sales of the Reaxx.

Secondly, is it possible that Sawstop, having so tightly wrapped up this and all remotely similar safety technology, is in danger of being charged with restricting trade?- like the case of the car safety belt.

As to the first, companies will examine outstanding patents and make decisions based on how they think their technology would or would not be covered by a particular patent; in essence, they can claim "non-infringement" based on their design as a defense, and second, they can claim that the patents asserted against them are invalid, the "invalidity" defense.  For both, they put before a Judge their arguments, which is what happened in the case I linked to above, then the Judge decides.  Here, he found non infringement with respect to two of the asserted patents, the other two he found valid, and that Bosch infringed.  The downside for Bosch is that they have the choice to either license the patent and pay royalties to SS, but that financial risk is calculable and was likely baked in to their decision to market the new saw a long time ago, or not sell the saw in the US, as this case only concerns US issued patents.  I assume SS has patents in the EU as well, and SS's next step would be to assert those patents.

Your second concern is absolutely correct, in a way, as the worldwide patent system is just that, a means by which an inventor can restrict trade in their inventions.  That's the whole idea behind patents, and governments have made the decision that restriction of trade, in this case by requiring the payment of royalties for a set period of time, encourages investment in innovation, and the trade off of a time limited monopoly on an invention is worth it.  Historically, this has worked out, as companies, and individuals, invest a lot of time and capital in pursuing innovation and they have to have a return on that human and financial capital.  Otherwise, people would only have a "time to market" advantage with an invention, and that time period would be equal to the time required to reverse engineer a particular product and then get a copy into production.  This is illustrated by the fashion industry, as clothing design is not patentable nor copyrightable, so the minute models walk down the runway with new clothing designs, their competitors are already planning on how to knock them off and sell for less money.

The whole area of patents and copyrights is a pretty interesting topic once you get into it deeply.  It sure keeps me busy.
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
Reply
#30
(10-21-2016, 04:26 PM)TucsonLawrence Wrote: My Sawstop arrives next Monday (or Tuesday... the driver wasn't 100% sure)

I agree 100% with  the legal system which did not choose to force this technology on every maker,
but I would never let either of my sons use a tablesaw which was not a sawstop, knowing that I had the option for
a safer tool.

Lawrence

You won't regret your purchase decision. The quality of the saw is close to being perfect (no saws are perfect!) once it is probably set up. You'll also find tremendous confidence in your cuts as well as improvement in shop efficiency because every cut is square and straight. With a WWII blade, I can joint boards without using my jointer -- that's how good the cuts are. In the past, I hated using my Delta saw or Ridgid saw as cuts were not consistent. SawStop's saw fence is very robust.

Thousands of fingers have been saved by the SawStop technology and although I have had no close encounters of the like (I don't change my safety habit just because my car has airbags and seatbelts), I know two woodworkers personally who triggered their saws. You can find many of such documented cases on the internet, of course.

The overhead dust collection -- if you have included it in your order -- is second to none and has greatly reduced saw dust (above table collection is over 95% in my case), even when cutting MDF sheets! For most rip cuts, I don't even need to wear a dust mask.

Simon
PS Please consider putting away the keys that allow you to turn off the SawStop feature in a safe place, unless you cut wet wood or plan to use the saw to cut metal often (I don't).
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Product Recommendations

Here are some supplies and tools we find essential in our everyday work around the shop. We may receive a commission from sales referred by our links; however, we have carefully selected these products for their usefulness and quality.