Bosch to Compete Against Saw Stop
- Thread starter Ajax
- Start date
Any company can try to develop a safer saw providing that they do not infringe on the Sawstop patents. It appears that the patents are in force until 2022.
It really does not matter how much Sawstop is disliked, this is a legal issue about patent rights. The Bosch implementation may have been better, but the ruling says that they infringed on Sawstop patents, so they do not have the legal right to sell their saw in the US.
The interesting question will be the Bosch response if their appeals are eventually denied. If Bosch is truly interested in providing a superior, safer saw, then they will work out a royalty agreement with Sawstop.
It really does not matter how much Sawstop is disliked, this is a legal issue about patent rights. The Bosch implementation may have been better, but the ruling says that they infringed on Sawstop patents, so they do not have the legal right to sell their saw in the US.
The interesting question will be the Bosch response if their appeals are eventually denied. If Bosch is truly interested in providing a superior, safer saw, then they will work out a royalty agreement with Sawstop.
AlexThePalex
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 7,808
Paul G said:
I read it more as domestic gets a win over import.
WarnerConstCo.
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 4,205
Alex said:
Saw stops are not US made.
WarnerConstCo.
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 4,205
bobfog said:
Still not US made. I may be inclined to cut the guy some slack if he stepped up and made them here as well.
WarnerConstCo.
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 4,205
Paul G said:
Sorry, other than its a safety feature on a TS, they really share no technical similarities.
Just another example of his douchiness.
Hurricane Whisperer
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2014
- Messages
- 97
Michael Kellough said:
That article seems odd. I have no real idea, but, it sounds like the ITC would have no say over the cartridges produced in the U.S., but it would seem that if the cartridges represent infrigement, then some U.S. entity would be able to prevent their sale unless Bosch makes some sort of agreement with Sawstop to allow their sale.
I wish the article would explain itself better.
bkharman
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,072
Paul G said:
May be true but I would (and have) gladly spend more money for a high quality slider like a Hammer or such just so a DB like Gass doesn't get my money. Small or large business owners that treat people like numbers and dollars pay for that mentality one way or another.
Disheartening new indeed.
Cheers. Bryan.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I neither like nor dislike the inventor. Patents are to protect intellectual rights while still allowing progress by others. It's a delicate balance. From my limited knowledge of the technologies involved that balance has not been achieved. Hence, we are stuck with an inferior product from a monopolist.Paul G said:
"Sorry, other than its a safety feature on a TS, they really share no technical similarities.
Just another example of his douchiness. "
The whole point of the patent case was about the safety feature. An inventor has a right to defend his patent even if you do not like him.
Just another example of his douchiness. "
The whole point of the patent case was about the safety feature. An inventor has a right to defend his patent even if you do not like him.
It took me over a year to decide on which cabinet saw I should purchase, literally agonized over it while wondering how such a fun purchase could be so painful. Sawstop was absolutely one of the two saws that I was considering but I decided to go with a European sliding saw. My logic was that there were other safety factors (kickback) to also consider.
With that said, I've had my saw throw a piece of plywood into my chest (hurt and bruised like heck) because I forgot to re-attach the splitter. I am also convinced that the ability to slide the fence toward me, when I am cutting material, has absolutely prevented kickback a number of times..which would have been highly likely with any American style fence.
My point is this: Sawstop has done a great job of building a quality saw and an even better job of marketing their blade technology. But these conversations seem to be dominated by the blade technology when there other safety considerations. Bottom line, there are still choices in the market and you can always decide which saw is best for you.
With that said, I've had my saw throw a piece of plywood into my chest (hurt and bruised like heck) because I forgot to re-attach the splitter. I am also convinced that the ability to slide the fence toward me, when I am cutting material, has absolutely prevented kickback a number of times..which would have been highly likely with any American style fence.
My point is this: Sawstop has done a great job of building a quality saw and an even better job of marketing their blade technology. But these conversations seem to be dominated by the blade technology when there other safety considerations. Bottom line, there are still choices in the market and you can always decide which saw is best for you.
bkharman said:
Most companies treat their customers like numbers and dollars. And when they have patents to defend their intelectual property they have a right to defend it and their business. Bosch, Apple, Microsoft, whoever, many build their products around their patents or ones they license, nothing new there. My consumers desire for a 3rd party iPhone doesn't justify a 3rd party to infringe on Apples technology.
Svar said:
I'd imagine they could have, might have built a fabulous business if the did and we'd still have modern planes today. That's the nature of a utility patent, as the USPTO describes it: "In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works..."https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html
Is a REAXX used substantively differently than a sawstop? No, not really in regards to you touch the blade when spinning and a safety mechanism drops the blade and you're spared cutting your finger off.
https://www.law360.com/articles/835248/ptab-got-brake-patent-invalidity-wrong-judge-says
The discussion in the above article shows that the Wright brothers argument is not valid. It appears that the basic safety concept was covered in a 1974 patent. However, the details of how to make it work quickly enough to avoid injury to a finger was the basis of the Sawstop patent. It was not just a use patent.
The discussion in the above article shows that the Wright brothers argument is not valid. It appears that the basic safety concept was covered in a 1974 patent. However, the details of how to make it work quickly enough to avoid injury to a finger was the basis of the Sawstop patent. It was not just a use patent.
bobfog said:
Agree with this. I'd love this safety feature to be on all saws going forward. But I want the functionality and safety of a European sliding saw more than the SawStop safety feature on a US style saw. Someday eventually a saw will have both a European sliding table and the SawStop safety feature.
Similar threads
