Consumer Product Safety Commision (USA) may be making moves

Your summation was that Felder could do whatever it wanted because it was in europe and that sawstop US patents did not extend there.  That is wrong.  Whether there is an active/inactive lawsuit case is immaterial.  It requires someone to step on that landmine which no one is stupid enough to do.

Any case,
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2017210091&_cid=P21-LRW0DY-61493-1

Is the relevant PCT summary page.  It also has the National Phase tab which summarizes the individual national-level patent filings that sawstop has since the initial PCT filing obtained in relation to it.

Also Felder's PCS design specifically avoids most sawstop patent claims.  It avoids the contact claims, as well as some older related spring+brake patents.  The camera/optical triggers from other mfgs also avoid said claims.  They very much know what the patents claim and have actively avoided it.  Unlike YTers, they don't just stop at the title saying "Active Injury Mitigation" and assume Sawstop patents extend to all things that does that.

 
Mini Me said:
ChuckS said:
The Bosch Reaxx in Canada has not been affected by the lawsuit and court decision which applies only to the US market. It has always been available north of the border all this time, but it has been sold out in most local retailers because Bosch has stopped the production.
Click to expand...

The SS patents were only applicable in the US. Felder and other manufacturers have developed other methods with no regard for the US patents.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that SawStop took Bosch to court in the States, but opted not to do so in Canada. Without a Canadian court decision, retailers in Canada are not obliged to stop selling their Reaxx.

I tend to agree with Woodferret that Felder has taken measures to not infringe SawStop's patents, and hence SawStop found itself having no or a weak case to launch a legal case against Felder. Felder wasn't free to ignore SawStop's patents. If it were, Felder could simply make a cosmetic change based on SawStop's technology instead of developing a more superior system.

In many infringement cases, especially those found in Asia, it isn't that Asian countries can freely ignore the patents registered in the West, but that the companies concerned do not have the resources to go after the violators.
 
Do the Felder and/or Altendorf systems infringe on SawStop patents? I am pretty sure you can buy both systems in the states but I could be mistaken.
 
Altendorf does not, it used cameras to watch your hands and it actually turns the trunion screw to lower the blade very very very fast
 
jronman said:
Do the Felder and/or Altendorf systems infringe on SawStop patents? I am pretty sure you can buy both systems in the states but I could be mistaken.
Click to expand...

The Felder, Altendorf, and SCM implementations use different methods to the SawStop. The Altendorf uses a system of cameras to detect proximity, I forget how the SCM system works, and the Felder system measures the electrical field around flesh, similar to a theremin. All three systems are preemptive, and activate prior to contact with flesh.

The above systems are also non-destructive to the blade, so once the safety feature is used it takes ~30 seconds to re-set the machine and you can continue using the same blade, and you don't need to install a new cartridge.
 
In a sense, all the three better systems have been made possible because of Dr. Gass' invention, and his commercial success (demonstrating the demand for a safer saw).

I hope a breakthrough improvement would happen to the miter saw soon enough before it maims any more woodworkers.
 
From what I read, the original inventor tried to license his SawStop technology, but none of the saw manufacturers were interested. 

He believed in the product and got some investors together and had to produce it himself to get in the game.

About 30 years ago, I designed a greatly improved life raft. I made drawings and a scale model and had an attorney do a patent search.  He told me that the best I could hope for was a weak design patent, and if someone came to him to get around that patent, he could do it easily.

Instead of dropping it, I offered the design for free to three different life raft manufacturers.  All I was asking was that the design be named after me.  All of them turned it down. 

They all agreed that it was likely to be a much better life raft, but the effort to gain acceptance on a new design (based on a historical design) was too much to bother with.

I’ll bet that a handful of lives were lost because of those refusals on my design. 

The patent attorney said that, basically the only likely way a newly patented product is brought to market is when the patent holder proceeds to produce it himself.

At any rate there was no rush to accept SawStop tech from what I read.  It was a fight to bring it to market.
 
I have read a couple of articles recently since the comment phase for a new safety ruling has closed.

One article indicated that SawStop wanted the licensing fee to be based on the cost of a complete saw, not just the cost of the safety module. This made the cost much higher.

Another comment was about the possibility that the safety module included some programming that was not included in the patents. This would mean that a simple license for the module might be useless.

All other saw makers were pointing out the need for a fair licensing agreement before such technology is made mandatory. It was not clear whether the Bosch technology would be clear from expired SawStop patents.
 
I bet that the other manufactures didn't see that coming.  Good for Sawstop and TTS.  Now competitors will have to find ways to compete with the market leader.  My guess is that the regulations will be approved and Sawstop will get plenty of goodwill for this gesture.  [thumbs up]

Peter
 
I disagree this is a positive develop done for the right reasons. This was a face saving attempt and was only put out there because they know/have been urged (privately) or are assuming the CPSC was going to enact a rule that forced Sawstop into a far license agreement.

I have said this before, I don’t object to sawstops protection of their IP (suing Bosch). I dont object to them choosing a business model in which they didn’t want to license their tech after Dr.Glass approached the manufacturers and they all said no years ago forcing SS to make their own product. I do however object to sawstops crusade to use an intrusive govt entity to force this rules creation and adoption. I object to the Sawstop pretending/saying they did all this in the name of safety for consumers. If they cared about safety- they would’ve made this free from day 1 like Volvo did with seatbelts.

 
I think all the big and well-prepared saw manufacturers have been preparing for this whether or not they saw the SawStop's announcement coming.

Everything is now water under the bridge, and let's look forward and see how this will benefit those who want but can't afford such a technology at this moment.

5 or 10 years from the date the Sawstop alternatives are rolled out to the market, we may be able to see studies that analyze and report on how significantly the SawStop technology and its alternatices together have been able to reduce hospital visits, etc.

As a SawStop user or owner since 2007 or so, I always hope that more people could have access to the same protection. That day of happening is one step closer today given the SawStop news.
 
I bet they still make tons of money selling their devices to people as this only means they don't have to worry about getting sued for patent infringement, but the investment to make your own system vs buying the SS technology would probably be in the best interest of most companies.
 
PaulMarcel said:
Today, SawStop posted a news release stating it will dedicate its key patent to the public on the effective date of a rule requiring safety technology on all table saws.

That seems pretty big to me

SawStop To Dedicate Key U.S. Patent To The Public Upon The Effective Date Of A Rule Requiring Safety Technology On All Table Saws
Click to expand...

Kinda of fascinating.  The Bosch ITC ruling (https://www.itcblog.com/images/commopin965.pdf) was based on '927 and ’279.  By my reading, it seemed like it was because Bosch had a _spring_ in their activation cartridge system.  At no time was '840 ever used to litigate... but '840 does seem to cover in very much detail their specific current implementation.

* '840 was never used because no one actually ever implemented it exactly like SS - which kinda made it the weakest in their patent portfolio - other than against outright clones.  Bosch was cleared of its motion detection '712 and logic flow '455.

This does seem to clear the way for someone to make it exactly like SS though.  Grizzly must be happy.

** rant addendum: 'Spring' *SIGH* This is the reason why some have bent over backwards to use electromagnets and other non-spring systems to hold the arbor in place.  As an engineer, F&# the ITC.
 
I wonder if the result we will see will be that small corded tablesaws disappear from the new market, since the technology supposedly can't support cordless saws?
 
Wow! Power Tool Institute has really taken statistical analysis to a "new" level.... 

Unintended Consequences Of The SawStop Technology

    Data supplied by SawStop concerning the number of table saw units sold and the number of reported blade contact incidences, demonstrates that operators are nearly five times more likely to contact the saw blade of a SawStop saw as opposed to the operator of a conventional table saw.
    Logic dictates that this increase in accident rate on SawStop saws is due primarily to a user’s decision to use the blade guard less frequently or not at all due to a “sense of security” in having the SawStop flesh-sensing technology on the saw.
    The reduced rate of using the blade guarding system will result in increased rate of facial or eye injuries caused by high velocity particles ejected by the saw blade or injuries caused by workpiece kickback.
    The increased cost of even the least expensive table saws, as discussed in this document, may result in power tool users resorting to unsafe methods (for example: using portable hand held circular saw in inverted position) to accomplish cuts normally performed on a table saw.
    The rising population in the 1980's of the affordable and safe benchtop saw resulted in a decrease in accidents from circular saws being used improperly. If benchtop saws become drastically more expensive or manufacturers withdraw from the market, there is likely to be a return to improper use of circular saws and unintended declines in safety.
https://www.powertoolinstitute.com/pti-pages/it-table-saw-facts.asp

Simply s-p-e-e-c-h-l-e-s-s.
 
There's lies, damned lies, and statistics...

Cancer rates are higher now than before we had a way to detect cancer.  I'm sure that air bags in cars also have a higher rate of deployment now that cars can "phone home" and report every little thing that they do.

Funny how having a more reliable way to track something (vis a vis sales of new cartridges and a desire to learn why incidents are happening) seems to increase its rate of occurrence...
 
I think it's very possible much of these new cartridges are for people sticking conductive things into the blade rather than injuries. Seems practically impossible to get an exact number

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned throughout the entirety of this debate is the fact that on the saw stop you can turn off the safety break, rendering it useless. How is this any different than someone simply removing the blade guard as is done today? So, even if the CPSC mandates the inclusion of technology, they are going to have to permit the functionality to be disabled for situations where you are cutting wet wood (as one example). So in the end, what exactly will they have accomplished other than driving up with the cost of the saw to consumers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top