So the article takes Harbor Freight's view (and presumably a similar view any power saw manufacturer probably shares) that SawStop should be required to make their patented technology available....
So the article takes Harbor Freight's view (and presumably a similar view any power saw manufacturer probably shares) that SawStop should be required to make their patented technology available. Not at market rates, but at some government mandated rate that is certainly less than market, else Harbor Freight would not be requesting such.
So because HF can't compete, SawStop should be required to lose their main (arguably only) competitive advantage? Patents only last twenty years, which is deemed a reasonable exclusivity period for an inventor to suitably profit. Copyright, just as an aside, enjoys 70 years plus life of author, so patents are obviously more conducive to free trade. The SawStop wiki page informs me SawStop patents began expiring in 2021 and by 2026 some "continuation patents" will be expired as well.
So basically, in just a few years, SawStop's competitors will be free to use that technology without a licensing fee. Use it however they want. After they forced SawStop to come into existence in the first place, back in the early 00s, when they refused to license it when the inventor made the rounds offering it. He created the company to leverage the technology (patent) when they didn't want to play ball. Several years went by between the creation of the tech and the commercial availability of it in SawStop products.
So what am I missing here? HF can't wait a few more years to leverage the tech free of charge? They want to jumpstart it by a couple of years just because ... what, they can't wait? They're upset about a safety rule that means they'd pretty much have to make their products safer, after they and the other manufacturers declined those opportunities already? Patents exist to encourage innovation.
While there might be occasional (very occasional) examples of technology that's so world breaking it is (arguably) immoral to lock it behind patent protection (insulin was famously released, only for other drug companies to begin playing patent games to lock their improvements behind the legal fences), I don't really feel a safer table saw meets that bar. Especially not when we're down to a handful of years before the tech is unlocked.
The article mentioned 4K people might lose fingers annually? That's quite unfortunate, but they could have bought a SawStop to use, or refused to work at an employer who didn't. And accidents do happen. It's not like SawStop is the first safety technology to be patented, not by a very long shot.
Seatbelts were released free by Volvo, but the airbag was patented. Car manufacturers waited out the twenty years before they began experimenting with builds that included them. I wonder why they waited? Probably because of cost. I remember the guy who invented intermittent wipers was also turned down, and had to sue (which took decades) to get judgments in his favor when the auto manufacturers didn't wait, but just ignored the patent and used the tech anyway.
Side with a corp, or side with a guy. Considering how corporations are not well known for being bastions of compassion, generosity, or morality ... I'll go with the guy. Wait it out Harbor Freight. Or, write a check.
From my understanding their system can't easily be retrofitted into existing table saws; it has to be built to accomodate it to ensure it works properly. This means that from Harbor Freight's...
The article mentioned 4K people might lose fingers annually? That's quite unfortunate, but they could have bought a SawStop to use, or refused to work at an employer who didn't. And accidents do happen. It's not like SawStop is the first safety technology to be patented, not by a very long shot.
From my understanding their system can't easily be retrofitted into existing table saws; it has to be built to accomodate it to ensure it works properly. This means that from Harbor Freight's position, the only solution people if they want to have a safe table saw is to not buy their product, which isn't exactly a fair marketplace. But it's actually worse than that; the government is considering having these safety measures as a requirement for all table saws. To make things worse, it appears that SawStop is refusing to license the technology to the manufacturers that Harbor Freight contracts with. So they are basically being ejected from the table saw market entirely.
Marketplaces aren't supposed to be fair. They're supposed to be competitive. Steve Gass came up with a frankly brilliant invention. Nothing was stopping delta or jet or DeWalt from coming up with...
Marketplaces aren't supposed to be fair. They're supposed to be competitive. Steve Gass came up with a frankly brilliant invention. Nothing was stopping delta or jet or DeWalt from coming up with it, but they didn't. He then tried to sell it at a very reasonable price in retrospect to a number of different manufacturers, who balked at the price and refused them. He's now wiping the floor in their market, not only because his invention is so groundbreaking, but the saws are extremely high quality appliances as well.
I bought a new table saw a few years ago, and I knew the sawstop was what I wanted because it's light-years ahead of the competition in its market.
The company deserves all the success it's been having in my opinion, and all the whining from its competitors are just sour grapes at this point.
It's rare that someone can upend an entire entrenched market with a brilliant idea and a good business plan these days, but sawstop's story is kind of a text book case study that a competitive, free market (with the aid of patent protection) still kinda works sometimes.
If all you took from this is that Harbor Freight is trying to take down SawStop you have the wrong idea entirely. Right now the government is considering making a rule that all table saws need to...
If all you took from this is that Harbor Freight is trying to take down SawStop you have the wrong idea entirely. Right now the government is considering making a rule that all table saws need to have this kind of safety system installed in order to be sold. If it goes through then Harbor Freight and everyone else that SawStop refuses to license to will no longer be able to sell table saws, which is going to depress the competition you value so much. By petitioning the government to force SawStop to license its technology, Harbor Freight is actually attempting to pay SawStop for their technology, not take it away from them.
I think this is what I took from the article most. Safety is our goal but not at this expedited timeline. We want more options on the market that are safe, but I don't think this process is fair...
I think this is what I took from the article most. Safety is our goal but not at this expedited timeline. We want more options on the market that are safe, but I don't think this process is fair for any manufacturer other than SawStop.
From a safety perspective, any solution seems okay as long as new equipment is available at a decent price. (If it's not then people will keep using the older, less safe equipment for longer.) But...
From a safety perspective, any solution seems okay as long as new equipment is available at a decent price. (If it's not then people will keep using the older, less safe equipment for longer.)
But I'm not sure if we should care that much if Harbor Freight has to exit the market. Then again, I'm not sure if we should care that much about protecting the SawStop patents either. Maybe the government should buy them out?
Basically the end of HF's argument. The proposed rule effectively creates a SawStop monopoly. Either the government open sources their design (like a forced three point seatbelt situation) or...
Without a FRAND mandate for both the patented technology and the implementation know-how (including at least the software used to detect the presence of flesh and initiate a mitigation mechanism), the patent and trade secret owners will be able to easily seek unreasonable royalties in order to achieve a table saw monopoly.
Basically the end of HF's argument. The proposed rule effectively creates a SawStop monopoly. Either the government open sources their design (like a forced three point seatbelt situation) or doesn't impose the rule because it creates a monopoly.
Harbor Frieght has always been garbage-tier tools and not exactly the first place I would look if safety was my primary concern. I wouldn't trust them to implement it correctly even if the patent...
Harbor Frieght has always been garbage-tier tools and not exactly the first place I would look if safety was my primary concern.
I wouldn't trust them to implement it correctly even if the patent wasn't in their way.
While the bar is certainly lower at HF, I've bought tools from name brands that turned out to be complete shit too. If you deep dive some of HF's hammer drills and impacts, for example, some of...
While the bar is certainly lower at HF, I've bought tools from name brands that turned out to be complete shit too. If you deep dive some of HF's hammer drills and impacts, for example, some of the models can be quite competitive and worth the money. Similar story with hand tools.
To be clear, if you're in the trades your main tool set isn't going to be HF, but for someone building a first toolbag, amateur mechanics, DIYs, homeowners, etc these value brands serve an important entry point into the market that are a step above the 500-in-1 kits at Walmart and the like.
I don't think it's the fact that they don't want to pay or cannot develop their own tech, it seems to be risky for them to put the time in if they are going to be sued : "SawStop successfully sued...
I don't think it's the fact that they don't want to pay or cannot develop their own tech, it seems to be risky for them to put the time in if they are going to be sued :
"SawStop successfully sued Bosch after a competing Reaxx system with completely different brake system was introduced to market."
I'm not onboard with this take making SawStop the good guy. Gass's initial move when being granted the patent was to lobby for legislation requiring his technology in every table saw. The...
I'm not onboard with this take making SawStop the good guy. Gass's initial move when being granted the patent was to lobby for legislation requiring his technology in every table saw. The technology which only he could legally license, for an 8% fee.
Since then, SawStop has had over 20 years to produce this product without competition. Bosch attempted to produce a competing product, and SawStop sued. Since the stopping mechanisms were different, Bosch was banned from selling this product because of the way they detected flesh--via conductivity (this last bit is me reading between the lines). Since then, no other manufacturers have tried. Because why bother? Either you build it in the obvious working way and get sued, or you pay SawStop a significant chunk of each sale.
Now that original legislation is up for consideration, and the industry is facing a choice: every one who sells a table saw must pay SawStop, or lobby to defeat safety legislation. No one benefits from this but SawStop. Consumers have fewer safe choices, face higher prices, and one brand gets dominance delivered to them via government mandate.
I read your comment first and then looked at the link, what you said seems drastically misleading from the situation....
I read your comment first and then looked at the link, what you said seems drastically misleading from the situation.
Harbor Freight recently wrote to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), addressing proposed rulemaking that could potentially mandate industry-wide table saw safety standards.
The government is proposing a rule that could potentially lead to a government mandated monopoly over a market because of existing patents. This part you did not seemingly explicitly acknowledge. You seemed to implicitly deny its importance by saying the patents are expiring or near expiring, while there is some validity to that, I don't believe it's an accurate portrayal of the circumstances.
If you have a patent on something that others cannot produce, even once the patent expires, you still have a huge lead because you have years of producing something and learning nuances and finer details about how to make that product and so forth. If the market is relatively free other than the patent laws that exist to uphold your right to monopolize a certain product design or implementation, then that is fine, however if the government then institutes regulations that mandates that particular patented product design or implementation be used, then that is a totally different circumstance. Even in the event that the regulation doesn't go into effect until right after the patents expire, it gives a huge advantage to the expired patent holder because they already have a fully developed product, manufacturing, sales, distribution etc. that others don't have. Considering how long they've let this go without mandating such safety requirements, letting it go several more years until a market matures and viable competitors emerge is the more consumer friendly option, yes even accounting for safety hazards happening in the meantime. People who have the money can pay for the SawStop now if they want to ensure their own safety, but the government mandating it before the market has had a chance to mature is creating a dynamic where the best product doesn't necessarily win in the long run, and that could mean worse safety hazards in the future.
But that doesn't really address the 'less than 2 years' bit. Or the fact the company only exists because nobody would license it 18 years ago. Oh, and their primary arguement is that they and...
But that doesn't really address the 'less than 2 years' bit. Or the fact the company only exists because nobody would license it 18 years ago.
Oh, and their primary arguement is that they and their suppliers are too incompetant to design their own detection software.
None of the table saw manufacturers from whom Harbor Freight buys table saws know how to program the software to ensure the sensing module functions in accordance with the proposed rule.
Well, shit, they better get hiring then. One dude figured it out, I'm sure somebody else could without stealing the existing implementation. But I'll bet that it'd drive the price point high enough that they won't be able to sell the barely-compliant garbage instead of their competition.
I think a short-term monopoly granted to a company that previously offered licensing for a safety patent is reasonable. If only to send a message: "Hey, if you refuse to license safety features, there's a chance you get locked out of the market for a few years."
Disrupting the big players who don't play ball with the small players is the entire reason we have patents.
If I invented a magical way to prevent cars from ever killing pedestrians, and every other car mnufacturer refused to license it...so I started to make it myself...I'd say it'd be both pretty reasonable for the government to mandate it and for me to be allowed to charge whatever I wanted to disrupt said market that felt they are entitled to wait out a patent.
What doesn't? To the extent that I did address the discussed patent expiration, I also noted that there's an added latency period post-expiration of patents before viable competitors will actually...
But that doesn't really address the 'less than 2 years' bit.
What doesn't? To the extent that I did address the discussed patent expiration, I also noted that there's an added latency period post-expiration of patents before viable competitors will actually have a chance to emerge.
Also the wiki page linked in the top comment broadly covers the patent expiration but without more detailed analysis of the patents it doesn't tell us what ones are most critical to the designs that meet the proposed requirements. Furthermore, the 2026 date mentioned on the wiki page specifically was cited to cover the patents that were considered as "continuance" granted ones, not any other potential patents that the company had developed in the years since having exclusivity to manufacture this design. Meaning they could have developed improvements or alterations to the design or manufacturing of the system due to experience gained by having the exclusive right to make the first iterations of the product, and those patents could have later expirations. The broad strokes of the patent situation mentioned in the wiki does not have enough detail to adequately determine the patent landscape of the technology in relation to the proposed rulemaking.
Or the fact the company only exists because nobody would license it 18 years ago.
Not particularly relevant to the discussion and seemingly is made as though it's justified retributive proposed regulation. To what extent it could be considered relevant, the wiki also mentions the patent holder for this technology at the time it was granted was a patent attorney himself. If there's anyone that is in the greatest position to leverage the position, it'd be someone who literally works in patent law by career trade.
I think a short-term monopoly granted to a company that previously offered licensing for a safety patent is reasonable. If only to send a message: "Hey, if you refuse to license safety features, there's a chance you get locked out of the market for a few years."
That's not how regulation is supposed to work. Again, this is some weird retribution mentality where you're holding safety in such a regard that you're basically saying it's mandatory but not mandatory, by saying that they should have licensed it when it was exclusive to a patent holder and if they don't, then regulations will mandate a company to have a monopoly over a particular market as a punitive measure to the companies that didn't license it, while ignoring it comes at the expense of consumers because you innately place such high value on safety that you don't consider violation of consumer choice to matter.
If I invented a magical way to prevent cars from ever killing pedestrians, and every other car manufacturer refused to license it...so I started to make it myself...I'd say it'd be both pretty reasonable for the government to mandate it and for me to be allowed to charge whatever I wanted to disrupt said market that felt they are entitled to wait out a patent.
The same retribution based mindset again. That's now how government regulations should be used. That's asinine. The government is there to represent the people, not play kingmaker in markets based on subjective values of safety, especially in relation to emerging technologies that are still covered under patents.
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al. (petitioners) requested that the CPSC require performance standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries associated with contact with the blade of a table saw. The petitioners were associated with SawStop, LLC, and its parent company, SD3, LLC (collectively, SawStop).
Also notably, the push for this began back in 2003. It's been over 20 years, and there have been several proposals over the years to attempt to make this a requirement and the reason it hasn't in all that time is because it would result in a monopoly.
In April 2016, the proposal to add AIMS requirements did not reach consensus because the ballot received 12 negative votes and 5 affirmative votes. The comment matrix for the ballot vote indicates that the reason for many of the negative votes was the perception that no technology besides SawStop could meet the AIMS requirements.
I'm not against safety, I'm in favor of safety, but how you're pushing the role of patents in this context is not the purpose of patents. They aren't there to promote safety, they are there to promote innovation and consumers decide the value of that innovation in the market. Government bodies regulating emerging technologies that are still covered under patents should at least try to meet the same standard, if not exceed the standard, that standards bodies attempt to meet with FRAND licensing.
They are intended to prevent members from engaging in licensing abuse based on the monopolistic advantage generated as a result of having their intellectual property rights (IPR) included in the industry standards. Once an organization is offering a FRAND license they are required to offer that license to anyone (wishing to access the standard), not necessarily only members of the organization.[1][5] Without such commitment, members could use monopoly power inherent in a standard to impose unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory licensing terms that would damage competition and inflate their own relative position.
So why shouldn't government organizations that are proposing regulations in similar circumstances not have equivalent or greater responsibilities?
I think you also missed the part they are hesitant to do that cause Sawstop has already sued and won against a company that did just that (Try to make their own safety thing). It's risky to even...
I think you also missed the part they are hesitant to do that cause Sawstop has already sued and won against a company that did just that (Try to make their own safety thing). It's risky to even try to go against them if you make your own design. And to put all that money into doing it only to be sued and forced to stop is not a risk a lot of companies are going to take, particularly if it has already been shown that the company with the patent will do so and on top of that has won against some one who already tried the same thing (and their product was not exactly the same either).
As stands, this regulation will create a monopoly for SawStop unless the government also makes it so sawstop cannot stop people from using the technology (they are made to sell it.. HF is not askign for it to be free. But Sawstop at this point will not sell licenses to use it and will sue if you try to make your own technology).
This could be used to argue against every sort of mandatory safety. Why don't you just refuse to work at a company that won't implement OSHA regulations?
The article mentioned 4K people might lose fingers annually? That's quite unfortunate, but they could have bought a SawStop to use, or refused to work at an employer who didn't.
This could be used to argue against every sort of mandatory safety. Why don't you just refuse to work at a company that won't implement OSHA regulations?
Some really great points in this article. I am all for safety in equipment if it can be developed but this seems to need some improvements. I'd really like to have a safer tablesaw than the one I...
Some really great points in this article. I am all for safety in equipment if it can be developed but this seems to need some improvements. I'd really like to have a safer tablesaw than the one I have now. The best thing I did was upgrade to a larger non- job site saw...but it's still scary as hell.
I bought a SawStop a few years ago. Read about the tech, attempt at licensing, and all that. For just $150 or so more than a table saw from traditional brands (at the time), it was a no-brainer to...
Exemplary
I bought a SawStop a few years ago. Read about the tech, attempt at licensing, and all that. For just $150 or so more than a table saw from traditional brands (at the time), it was a no-brainer to buy, especially as a hobbyist that often works alone in the shop. Right now, I think it might be $300-500 more, depending on where you buy.
My father was helping me with a project (he's much more experienced than I am) and inadvertently tested the flesh-sensing feature. The saw did its job, he barely had a nick on his finger, and I sent off the saw/brake/black box off to the company and they sent me a replacement unit in return. Because they're so focused on developing a good, digit- and life-saving product that they'll give you a new saw/brake/black box unit in exchange for the data collected by the black box. There's no way Harbor Freight or many other companies are going to be doing that.
As an aside, I'd love to see band saws and radials be able to incorporate a similar technology. My great grandfather was a professional cabinet maker and lost most of his ring finger to a blade. If we have the technology to avoid these incidents, we should.
What about a table saw scares you? When making cuts, your hands should never be touching the wood near the cutting surface. Rather you should be using a push block IMO table saws aren’t that scary...
What about a table saw scares you?
When making cuts, your hands should never be touching the wood near the cutting surface. Rather you should be using a push block
IMO table saws aren’t that scary as long as you’re smart and careful around them. If you are, then the risk is minimal
I’ve always thought the idea of sawstop was cool, but having grown up using my dads table saw without safety mechanisms, as a hobbyist I don’t think I’ll ever actively have a need for it
Of course it’s easy for me to say all this when I use a table saw maybe 3-4 times yearly (for several days at a time). If I used one for a living: A, I would NEVER use a HF. B, I could see the safety feature being beneficial just because the longer you do something, the more you let your guard down
Im a hobbyist, I've been building furniture, cabinets and other items for about 10 years. I've had 2 instances of kickback, one actually hit me in the chest. Both times they were completely my...
Im a hobbyist, I've been building furniture, cabinets and other items for about 10 years. I've had 2 instances of kickback, one actually hit me in the chest. Both times they were completely my fault cutting some crappy scrap pine pieces in a pinch. I have basically a cabinet saw, and I'm slightly comfortable with it. I use it probably one day a week at this point.
I have a bunch of different push sticks, all of them give me some comfort. Not that I need a SawStop to keep me from killing myself, but it's a little bit of an insurance policy. I am always deliberate in my actions when using a table saw but there will always be a little bit of fear in the back of my mind regardless if I have technology like this.
All powered saws make me overly aware of safety. Not fear, exactly, but definitely cautious. So unless I’m doing bunch of crosscuts and trying to finish a project in an afternoon I tend to leave...
All powered saws make me overly aware of safety. Not fear, exactly, but definitely cautious. So unless I’m doing bunch of crosscuts and trying to finish a project in an afternoon I tend to leave them sitting in favor of hand tools.
Long rips aren’t super fun, but, they’re not so bad… And I wouldn’t give up the impact driver for most tasks, but whenever possible I’ll take a brace and bit over a power drill.
The people that are buying a HF table saw are the people who likely need the tech the most: amateurs that possibly lack training and materials to do things safely.
The people that are buying a HF table saw are the people who likely need the tech the most: amateurs that possibly lack training and materials to do things safely.
I'm willing to admit I am not knowledgeable enough about IP protections, but shouldn't the government be encouraged to buy out these sort of patents at fair market prices? Same with life saving...
I'm willing to admit I am not knowledgeable enough about IP protections, but shouldn't the government be encouraged to buy out these sort of patents at fair market prices? Same with life saving medications and other safety patients.
So the article takes Harbor Freight's view (and presumably a similar view any power saw manufacturer probably shares) that SawStop should be required to make their patented technology available. Not at market rates, but at some government mandated rate that is certainly less than market, else Harbor Freight would not be requesting such.
So because HF can't compete, SawStop should be required to lose their main (arguably only) competitive advantage? Patents only last twenty years, which is deemed a reasonable exclusivity period for an inventor to suitably profit. Copyright, just as an aside, enjoys 70 years plus life of author, so patents are obviously more conducive to free trade. The SawStop wiki page informs me SawStop patents began expiring in 2021 and by 2026 some "continuation patents" will be expired as well.
So basically, in just a few years, SawStop's competitors will be free to use that technology without a licensing fee. Use it however they want. After they forced SawStop to come into existence in the first place, back in the early 00s, when they refused to license it when the inventor made the rounds offering it. He created the company to leverage the technology (patent) when they didn't want to play ball. Several years went by between the creation of the tech and the commercial availability of it in SawStop products.
So what am I missing here? HF can't wait a few more years to leverage the tech free of charge? They want to jumpstart it by a couple of years just because ... what, they can't wait? They're upset about a safety rule that means they'd pretty much have to make their products safer, after they and the other manufacturers declined those opportunities already? Patents exist to encourage innovation.
While there might be occasional (very occasional) examples of technology that's so world breaking it is (arguably) immoral to lock it behind patent protection (insulin was famously released, only for other drug companies to begin playing patent games to lock their improvements behind the legal fences), I don't really feel a safer table saw meets that bar. Especially not when we're down to a handful of years before the tech is unlocked.
The article mentioned 4K people might lose fingers annually? That's quite unfortunate, but they could have bought a SawStop to use, or refused to work at an employer who didn't. And accidents do happen. It's not like SawStop is the first safety technology to be patented, not by a very long shot.
Seatbelts were released free by Volvo, but the airbag was patented. Car manufacturers waited out the twenty years before they began experimenting with builds that included them. I wonder why they waited? Probably because of cost. I remember the guy who invented intermittent wipers was also turned down, and had to sue (which took decades) to get judgments in his favor when the auto manufacturers didn't wait, but just ignored the patent and used the tech anyway.
Side with a corp, or side with a guy. Considering how corporations are not well known for being bastions of compassion, generosity, or morality ... I'll go with the guy. Wait it out Harbor Freight. Or, write a check.
From my understanding their system can't easily be retrofitted into existing table saws; it has to be built to accomodate it to ensure it works properly. This means that from Harbor Freight's position, the only solution people if they want to have a safe table saw is to not buy their product, which isn't exactly a fair marketplace. But it's actually worse than that; the government is considering having these safety measures as a requirement for all table saws. To make things worse, it appears that SawStop is refusing to license the technology to the manufacturers that Harbor Freight contracts with. So they are basically being ejected from the table saw market entirely.
Marketplaces aren't supposed to be fair. They're supposed to be competitive. Steve Gass came up with a frankly brilliant invention. Nothing was stopping delta or jet or DeWalt from coming up with it, but they didn't. He then tried to sell it at a very reasonable price in retrospect to a number of different manufacturers, who balked at the price and refused them. He's now wiping the floor in their market, not only because his invention is so groundbreaking, but the saws are extremely high quality appliances as well.
I bought a new table saw a few years ago, and I knew the sawstop was what I wanted because it's light-years ahead of the competition in its market.
The company deserves all the success it's been having in my opinion, and all the whining from its competitors are just sour grapes at this point.
It's rare that someone can upend an entire entrenched market with a brilliant idea and a good business plan these days, but sawstop's story is kind of a text book case study that a competitive, free market (with the aid of patent protection) still kinda works sometimes.
If all you took from this is that Harbor Freight is trying to take down SawStop you have the wrong idea entirely. Right now the government is considering making a rule that all table saws need to have this kind of safety system installed in order to be sold. If it goes through then Harbor Freight and everyone else that SawStop refuses to license to will no longer be able to sell table saws, which is going to depress the competition you value so much. By petitioning the government to force SawStop to license its technology, Harbor Freight is actually attempting to pay SawStop for their technology, not take it away from them.
If all the competition gets driven out of the market then SawStop becomes the entrenched monopoly that will need to be broken up.
I think this is what I took from the article most. Safety is our goal but not at this expedited timeline. We want more options on the market that are safe, but I don't think this process is fair for any manufacturer other than SawStop.
From a safety perspective, any solution seems okay as long as new equipment is available at a decent price. (If it's not then people will keep using the older, less safe equipment for longer.)
But I'm not sure if we should care that much if Harbor Freight has to exit the market. Then again, I'm not sure if we should care that much about protecting the SawStop patents either. Maybe the government should buy them out?
Basically the end of HF's argument. The proposed rule effectively creates a SawStop monopoly. Either the government open sources their design (like a forced three point seatbelt situation) or doesn't impose the rule because it creates a monopoly.
Harbor Frieght has always been garbage-tier tools and not exactly the first place I would look if safety was my primary concern.
I wouldn't trust them to implement it correctly even if the patent wasn't in their way.
While the bar is certainly lower at HF, I've bought tools from name brands that turned out to be complete shit too. If you deep dive some of HF's hammer drills and impacts, for example, some of the models can be quite competitive and worth the money. Similar story with hand tools.
To be clear, if you're in the trades your main tool set isn't going to be HF, but for someone building a first toolbag, amateur mechanics, DIYs, homeowners, etc these value brands serve an important entry point into the market that are a step above the 500-in-1 kits at Walmart and the like.
I don't think it's the fact that they don't want to pay or cannot develop their own tech, it seems to be risky for them to put the time in if they are going to be sued :
"SawStop successfully sued Bosch after a competing Reaxx system with completely different brake system was introduced to market."
I'm not onboard with this take making SawStop the good guy. Gass's initial move when being granted the patent was to lobby for legislation requiring his technology in every table saw. The technology which only he could legally license, for an 8% fee.
Since then, SawStop has had over 20 years to produce this product without competition. Bosch attempted to produce a competing product, and SawStop sued. Since the stopping mechanisms were different, Bosch was banned from selling this product because of the way they detected flesh--via conductivity (this last bit is me reading between the lines). Since then, no other manufacturers have tried. Because why bother? Either you build it in the obvious working way and get sued, or you pay SawStop a significant chunk of each sale.
Now that original legislation is up for consideration, and the industry is facing a choice: every one who sells a table saw must pay SawStop, or lobby to defeat safety legislation. No one benefits from this but SawStop. Consumers have fewer safe choices, face higher prices, and one brand gets dominance delivered to them via government mandate.
That's what this article is about.
I read your comment first and then looked at the link, what you said seems drastically misleading from the situation.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/11/2023-27133/safety-standard-addressing-blade-contact-injuries-on-table-saws-notice-of-extension-of-comment
The government is proposing a rule that could potentially lead to a government mandated monopoly over a market because of existing patents. This part you did not seemingly explicitly acknowledge. You seemed to implicitly deny its importance by saying the patents are expiring or near expiring, while there is some validity to that, I don't believe it's an accurate portrayal of the circumstances.
If you have a patent on something that others cannot produce, even once the patent expires, you still have a huge lead because you have years of producing something and learning nuances and finer details about how to make that product and so forth. If the market is relatively free other than the patent laws that exist to uphold your right to monopolize a certain product design or implementation, then that is fine, however if the government then institutes regulations that mandates that particular patented product design or implementation be used, then that is a totally different circumstance. Even in the event that the regulation doesn't go into effect until right after the patents expire, it gives a huge advantage to the expired patent holder because they already have a fully developed product, manufacturing, sales, distribution etc. that others don't have. Considering how long they've let this go without mandating such safety requirements, letting it go several more years until a market matures and viable competitors emerge is the more consumer friendly option, yes even accounting for safety hazards happening in the meantime. People who have the money can pay for the SawStop now if they want to ensure their own safety, but the government mandating it before the market has had a chance to mature is creating a dynamic where the best product doesn't necessarily win in the long run, and that could mean worse safety hazards in the future.
But that doesn't really address the 'less than 2 years' bit. Or the fact the company only exists because nobody would license it 18 years ago.
Oh, and their primary arguement is that they and their suppliers are too incompetant to design their own detection software.
Well, shit, they better get hiring then. One dude figured it out, I'm sure somebody else could without stealing the existing implementation. But I'll bet that it'd drive the price point high enough that they won't be able to sell the barely-compliant garbage instead of their competition.
I think a short-term monopoly granted to a company that previously offered licensing for a safety patent is reasonable. If only to send a message: "Hey, if you refuse to license safety features, there's a chance you get locked out of the market for a few years."
Disrupting the big players who don't play ball with the small players is the entire reason we have patents.
If I invented a magical way to prevent cars from ever killing pedestrians, and every other car mnufacturer refused to license it...so I started to make it myself...I'd say it'd be both pretty reasonable for the government to mandate it and for me to be allowed to charge whatever I wanted to disrupt said market that felt they are entitled to wait out a patent.
What doesn't? To the extent that I did address the discussed patent expiration, I also noted that there's an added latency period post-expiration of patents before viable competitors will actually have a chance to emerge.
Also the wiki page linked in the top comment broadly covers the patent expiration but without more detailed analysis of the patents it doesn't tell us what ones are most critical to the designs that meet the proposed requirements. Furthermore, the 2026 date mentioned on the wiki page specifically was cited to cover the patents that were considered as "continuance" granted ones, not any other potential patents that the company had developed in the years since having exclusivity to manufacture this design. Meaning they could have developed improvements or alterations to the design or manufacturing of the system due to experience gained by having the exclusive right to make the first iterations of the product, and those patents could have later expirations. The broad strokes of the patent situation mentioned in the wiki does not have enough detail to adequately determine the patent landscape of the technology in relation to the proposed rulemaking.
Not particularly relevant to the discussion and seemingly is made as though it's justified retributive proposed regulation. To what extent it could be considered relevant, the wiki also mentions the patent holder for this technology at the time it was granted was a patent attorney himself. If there's anyone that is in the greatest position to leverage the position, it'd be someone who literally works in patent law by career trade.
That's not how regulation is supposed to work. Again, this is some weird retribution mentality where you're holding safety in such a regard that you're basically saying it's mandatory but not mandatory, by saying that they should have licensed it when it was exclusive to a patent holder and if they don't, then regulations will mandate a company to have a monopoly over a particular market as a punitive measure to the companies that didn't license it, while ignoring it comes at the expense of consumers because you innately place such high value on safety that you don't consider violation of consumer choice to matter.
The same retribution based mindset again. That's now how government regulations should be used. That's asinine. The government is there to represent the people, not play kingmaker in markets based on subjective values of safety, especially in relation to emerging technologies that are still covered under patents.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-11-01/pdf/2023-23898.pdf
Also notably, the push for this began back in 2003. It's been over 20 years, and there have been several proposals over the years to attempt to make this a requirement and the reason it hasn't in all that time is because it would result in a monopoly.
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/09-07-23-CPSC-letter-to-UL-Table-Saws-final.pdf?VersionId=68qr5BgsqPJuyO1Rl38im6YUamEHlRGM
I'm not against safety, I'm in favor of safety, but how you're pushing the role of patents in this context is not the purpose of patents. They aren't there to promote safety, they are there to promote innovation and consumers decide the value of that innovation in the market. Government bodies regulating emerging technologies that are still covered under patents should at least try to meet the same standard, if not exceed the standard, that standards bodies attempt to meet with FRAND licensing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
So why shouldn't government organizations that are proposing regulations in similar circumstances not have equivalent or greater responsibilities?
I think you also missed the part they are hesitant to do that cause Sawstop has already sued and won against a company that did just that (Try to make their own safety thing). It's risky to even try to go against them if you make your own design. And to put all that money into doing it only to be sued and forced to stop is not a risk a lot of companies are going to take, particularly if it has already been shown that the company with the patent will do so and on top of that has won against some one who already tried the same thing (and their product was not exactly the same either).
As stands, this regulation will create a monopoly for SawStop unless the government also makes it so sawstop cannot stop people from using the technology (they are made to sell it.. HF is not askign for it to be free. But Sawstop at this point will not sell licenses to use it and will sue if you try to make your own technology).
This could be used to argue against every sort of mandatory safety. Why don't you just refuse to work at a company that won't implement OSHA regulations?
SawStop To Dedicate Key U.S. Patent to the Public Upon the Effective Date of a Rule Requiring Safety Technology on All Table Saws
Love to see it!
Some really great points in this article. I am all for safety in equipment if it can be developed but this seems to need some improvements. I'd really like to have a safer tablesaw than the one I have now. The best thing I did was upgrade to a larger non- job site saw...but it's still scary as hell.
I bought a SawStop a few years ago. Read about the tech, attempt at licensing, and all that. For just $150 or so more than a table saw from traditional brands (at the time), it was a no-brainer to buy, especially as a hobbyist that often works alone in the shop. Right now, I think it might be $300-500 more, depending on where you buy.
My father was helping me with a project (he's much more experienced than I am) and inadvertently tested the flesh-sensing feature. The saw did its job, he barely had a nick on his finger, and I sent off the saw/brake/black box off to the company and they sent me a replacement unit in return. Because they're so focused on developing a good, digit- and life-saving product that they'll give you a new saw/brake/black box unit in exchange for the data collected by the black box. There's no way Harbor Freight or many other companies are going to be doing that.
As an aside, I'd love to see band saws and radials be able to incorporate a similar technology. My great grandfather was a professional cabinet maker and lost most of his ring finger to a blade. If we have the technology to avoid these incidents, we should.
What about a table saw scares you?
When making cuts, your hands should never be touching the wood near the cutting surface. Rather you should be using a push block
IMO table saws aren’t that scary as long as you’re smart and careful around them. If you are, then the risk is minimal
I’ve always thought the idea of sawstop was cool, but having grown up using my dads table saw without safety mechanisms, as a hobbyist I don’t think I’ll ever actively have a need for it
Of course it’s easy for me to say all this when I use a table saw maybe 3-4 times yearly (for several days at a time). If I used one for a living: A, I would NEVER use a HF. B, I could see the safety feature being beneficial just because the longer you do something, the more you let your guard down
Im a hobbyist, I've been building furniture, cabinets and other items for about 10 years. I've had 2 instances of kickback, one actually hit me in the chest. Both times they were completely my fault cutting some crappy scrap pine pieces in a pinch. I have basically a cabinet saw, and I'm slightly comfortable with it. I use it probably one day a week at this point.
I have a bunch of different push sticks, all of them give me some comfort. Not that I need a SawStop to keep me from killing myself, but it's a little bit of an insurance policy. I am always deliberate in my actions when using a table saw but there will always be a little bit of fear in the back of my mind regardless if I have technology like this.
Part of my fear is knowing that if I hurt myself I'm going to be very angry with myself for being cheap and not getting saw stop.
All powered saws make me overly aware of safety. Not fear, exactly, but definitely cautious. So unless I’m doing bunch of crosscuts and trying to finish a project in an afternoon I tend to leave them sitting in favor of hand tools.
Long rips aren’t super fun, but, they’re not so bad… And I wouldn’t give up the impact driver for most tasks, but whenever possible I’ll take a brace and bit over a power drill.
The people that are buying a HF table saw are the people who likely need the tech the most: amateurs that possibly lack training and materials to do things safely.
I'm willing to admit I am not knowledgeable enough about IP protections, but shouldn't the government be encouraged to buy out these sort of patents at fair market prices? Same with life saving medications and other safety patients.