SawStop Video

[andvari]

And if you get into a situation where we are mandating that inventors turn over their patents for some payment that is limited and not what they would get in a free market, what inventor or company is going to be attracted to the idea of working on safety systems? Such a policy will slow down the progress of technology in this area. Not to mention that this sort of law would likely be unconstitutional in the US anyway.

This is the bit that makes me shudder.

Assumption 1 - Greed is good, only tackle safety if there's a massive bucket of money in it for you ...

Assumption 2 - It's OK to force people to buy something - even if they absolutely don't want it (mandate), but it's "unconstitutional" to offer a reasonable payment to inventors rather than leaving them to patent and profit ... rather than structure for the potential of easy future innovation.

If both of these assumptions are true - I'm very glad to be living in Australia.  [big grin]

I'll say this - believe me if you want to, if I came up with a concept that would improve safety or save lives - I'd give it freely, with no desire for personal benefits. If the effort to develop it cost me personally in terms of R&D, all I'd like in return is reasonable reimbursement.

(based on this thread and a few others posted recently, I'm beginning to think my value set is quite different to values held by many here)

Kev.

In the United States anyway the laws of the country take a pretty strong view as to property rights. That is the government can't just pass a law that allow them to take from you without offering fair compensation. It's embedded in our constitution under the 5th amendment.

Australia, last I looked has similar laws in its constitution. I believe you call it "resumption/compulsory acquisition" down under.

As far as offering your inventions free, that's noble. But I can tell you that the field of safety engineering involves some pretty sophisticated work using equipment that is not free, and is full of competitive risks and liability issues.

Its noble for you to offer your idea freely, but not everyone feels that way, and by imposing that ideal on others you are excluding some very capable and sophisticated people from the field of safety technology. That is a very undesirable result.

 

[Kev]

To be clear, I said "give away a concept" ... not a complete invention that I've spent fifty million dollars developing. I also didn't suggest other people should do as I - it'd become a terrible world if every person became selfless and generous.

I also said that governing bodies should buy patents for reasonably generous amounts - I think it's simply wrong to force people to buy a product or mandate a product.

BTW, last time I looked, I saw a wish list on this forum with lots of ideas given freely. This giving is very common. It's called "sharing".

What would I know - I'm just a hippie that believes in open source software and real freedom.

 

[peter halle]

Kev,

I will leave you with a feel good story.  I have three brothers and we all share varying degrees of certain qualities.  My younger brother has numerous degrees in electronics engineering from MIT.  While in school he developed some software that the medical industry was very interested in.  He was invited to a prestigious conference in Geneva to do a presentation.  He informed the selection committee that he was not interested in going.  But, he said that he would be interested in demonstrating the software from the comfort of his home in Boston thru the remote software that he had built in.

The selection committee was both shocked and smiling at the same time.  The software was a hit and as you can image he had some very interesting offers.

In the end he declined the offers and allowed open source access to what he had developed.  What did he develop?  His development was the ability to take the data obtained thru MRIs and CAT scans and use it to create holograms to be used instead of X-rays so that surgeons and others in the medical field could hold images in their hands and get a sense of size and mass thru a slight rotation of the wrist.

It takes all sorts to make the world go around!

Peter

 

[andvari]

I also said that governing bodies should buy patents for reasonably generous amounts - I think it's simply wrong to force people to buy a product or mandate a product.

What would I know - I'm just a hippie that believes in open source software and real freedom.

Well, what you said was this "but it's "unconstitutional" to offer a reasonable payment to inventors rather than leaving them to patent and profit"

This is what would drive people away from this area. The "patent and profit" part is what attracts a lot of investment and motivates a lot of good work in areas like safety and medicine that we would be much worse off without.

Yes, you will still get volunteer contributors. But you will miss out on many areas too, much to the detriment of everyone.

Here's an interesting story for you. Some years ago I did some work as a graduate student for a professor by the name of John Fenn. Here is his obit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jan/13/john-fenn-obituary

His research led to a way of analyzing proteins that won him part of a Nobel Prize. This analysis technique has been used to help develop many drugs, including protease inhibitors such as Saquinavir which was one of the first AIDS treatments, and later similar drugs used against Hepatitis C.

John's work was funded by some large biotech companies which are very much motivated by "patent and profit". Without that who knows what would have happened.

 

[Kev]

Kev,

I will leave you with a feel good story.  I have three brothers and we all share varying degrees of certain qualities.  My younger brother has numerous degrees in electronics engineering from MIT.  While in school he developed some software that the medical industry was very interested in.  He was invited to a prestigious conference in Geneva to do a presentation.  He informed the selection committee that he was not interested in going.  But, he said that he would be interested in demonstrating the software from the comfort of his home in Boston thru the remote software that he had built in.

The selection committee was both shocked and smiling at the same time.  The software was a hit and as you can image he had some very interesting offers.

In the end he declined the offers and allowed open source access to what he had developed.  What did he develop?  His development was the ability to take the data obtained thru MRIs and CAT scans and use it to create holograms to be used instead of X-rays so that surgeons and others in the medical field could hold images in their hands and get a sense of size and mass thru a slight rotation of the wrist.

It takes all sorts to make the world go around!

Peter

That's AWESOME !

 

[Kev]

I also said that governing bodies should buy patents for reasonably generous amounts - I think it's simply wrong to force people to buy a product or mandate a product.

What would I know - I'm just a hippie that believes in open source software and real freedom.

Well, what you said was this "but it's "unconstitutional" to offer a reasonable payment to inventors rather than leaving them to patent and profit"

This is what would drive people away from this area. The "patent and profit" part is what attracts a lot of investment and motivates a lot of good work in areas like safety and medicine that we would be much worse off without.

Yes, you will still get volunteer contributors. But you will miss out on many areas too, much to the detriment of everyone.

Here's an interesting story for you. Some years ago I did some work as a graduate student for a professor by the name of John Fenn. Here is his obit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jan/13/john-fenn-obituary

His research led to a way of analyzing proteins that won him part of a Nobel Prize. This analysis technique has been used to help develop many drugs, including protease inhibitors such as Saquinavir which was one of the first AIDS treatments, and later similar drugs used against Hepatitis C.

John's work was funded by some large biotech companies which are very much motivated by "patent and profit". Without that who knows what would have happened.

Interesting - but it doesn't change my opinion in any way.

Don't start me on why we have some of these amazing diseases in the first place either.

... and what I said - was simply and exactly what I said.

Kev.

 

[andvari]

Don't start me on why we have some of these amazing diseases in the first place either.
[/quote]

I bet you think the reason is one or more of the theories on this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discredited_AIDS_origins_theories

 

[Mac]

Come on guys, let's keep this thread in the normal spirit of the FOG! Live and let live, right? 

Here's a story for you...was speaking to one of the students I teach today and he told me that his big brother (22 years old) works for his dad in the family business of selling industrial bandsaws. His brother was working in their own workshop a few weeks ago and whilst not paying attention pushed his hand through the bandsaw blade, severing ALL of the fingers on his right hand just above the base knuckle. Ouch. As he told me this I thought of this thread...

Cheers,
Rick (still with all digits but now frightened of his bandsaw)

 

[Kev]

Don't start me on why we have some of these amazing diseases in the first place either.

I bet you think the reason is one or more of the theories on this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discredited_AIDS_origins_theories

[/quote]

Hah - not even going to read it.

I have my own opinion on things, not other people's - but honestly, I'm done with this.

Thanks Mac - and back on topic ... safety in the workshop. Grim story. That "not paying attention" thing using a bandsaw (or table saw for that matter) is something that I hope I never develop. Complacency.

Truthfully, big bandsaws scare me!

 

[spikfot]

Come on guys, let's keep this thread in the normal spirit of the FOG! Live and let live, right? 

Here's a story for you...was speaking to one of the students I teach today and he told me that his big brother (22 years old) works for his dad in the family business of selling industrial bandsaws. His brother was working in their own workshop a few weeks ago and whilst not paying attention pushed his hand through the bandsaw blade, severing ALL of the fingers on his right hand just above the base knuckle. Ouch. As he told me this I thought of this thread...

Cheers,
Rick (still with all digits but now frightened of his bandsaw)

Hear Hear!
-Rick: Thank you for sharing this story, having experienced the sight of of bone shards and tissue more than once provides me with a relative focus here.
Thankfully, some folks have taken their time to pass along ideas, experiences and examples- with an open mind, we all benefit from this. We (woodworkers) expose ourselves to variables on a regular basis that without extreme caution place (us) in danger. This is serious business. Please, let us create another thread for such divergences as intellectual property rights, propriety and political infringement...so we can focus on keeping our hands intact.

 

[Brice Burrell]

Rick and William, thanks for getting us back on track here. 

I'll add a couple of comments here and see what you guys think.  First, I want to shed some light on why I feel strongly on this topic.  I understand some people (mostly hobbyists) are largely talking about this issue in theory or from the the perspective of not wanting to have a future purchase of a new table saw with the added cost of the Saw Stop technology.  Please understand my position as a professional remodeling contractor.  I see this topic through the eyes as one of the individuals at high risk of serious injury on table saws and other cutting tools.  I'm not just talking about theoretically saving someone from cutting off fingers, I'm talking the possibility of saving my fingers.  So how do you think those of us at high risk feel when people object to a potential safety device who have little, less or nothing at stake? 

Furthermore, Gass holds the patents for flesh sensing brakes so if he was able to put the Saw Stop technology on every table saw he would be a much better position to expand the technology to more tools.  This could increase safety over a much broader rage of tools.  Just imagine what that could mean for everyone that uses power tools.

I hate to sound like a broken record but this really isn't an issue for theoretical discussion, nor idealistic views when there are a lot real people at risk.   

 

[tiralie]

Great discussion.
One of the reasons I buy Festool's are the health (dust control) and safety (rail guides) factors. I don't want to be cutting sheet goods on site with a table saw. I will definitely purchase a (portable) Saw stop saw as I view it as much safer.

I agree with Brice that as a professional wood worker the probability of an accident is high and every effort should be made to make the environment and the use of tools safer. I have worked in some of the worlds most dangerous occupations (hard rock mining) and the regulations and rules in place do keep accidents to a minimum. Often accidents happen and lives are lost because workers ignore warnings and directions but sometimes it's just human error.

That being said I disagree that this technology should be mandated or put into law but I understand why folks believe that it should be and it will. When the governments are given the responsibility for the health of their citizens they will make every effort to protect that investment and to minimize loss.

I believe the inventor has (and should) every right to leverage his intellectual capital (saw stop technology) to increase his personal wealth and to lobby the government to mandate it's use. This is not only a fundamental (see Porters Five forces) strategy for increasing his business and creating a barrier to entry for his competitors but it also gives his employees, partners etc. some security. In a highly regulated industry (safety) I also see this is a good way to get some entrenched competitors to change their approach.

Tim

 

[JeromeM]

Kev,

I will leave you with a feel good story.  I have three brothers and we all share varying degrees of certain qualities.  My younger brother has numerous degrees in electronics engineering from MIT.  While in school he developed some software that the medical industry was very interested in.  He was invited to a prestigious conference in Geneva to do a presentation.  He informed the selection committee that he was not interested in going.  But, he said that he would be interested in demonstrating the software from the comfort of his home in Boston thru the remote software that he had built in.

The selection committee was both shocked and smiling at the same time.  The software was a hit and as you can image he had some very interesting offers.

In the end he declined the offers and allowed open source access to what he had developed.  What did he develop?  His development was the ability to take the data obtained thru MRIs and CAT scans and use it to create holograms to be used instead of X-rays so that surgeons and others in the medical field could hold images in their hands and get a sense of size and mass thru a slight rotation of the wrist.

It takes all sorts to make the world go around!

Peter

That is a noble choice. There is a little information that would help to know if it is a wise one. That is, is his invention being widly used?

I'm not making any value judgement. I would like to know. I can envisage 2 scenarios. In the first there is wide acceptance and use of the invention because it is freely avalable. In the second it is not developed, promoted and used because nobody makes money from it.

The first case is the one we hope will happen. The second may be the one that does. Do you know what is, or has happened?

 

[peter halle]

Jerome,

I can only tell you that one of the leading learning diagnostic hospitals in the US is using it.  I will not mention it's name or my brother's name not because I am being secretive, but rather I am a proud brother but do not want anyone to think that I am promoting nor do I want to invade his privacy.

I would imagine that based on the large well know names that were interested at that time there has been acceptance.

Peter

 

[Steve R]

Jerome,

I can only tell you that one of the leading learning diagnostic hospitals in the US is using it.  I will not mention it's name or my brother's name not because I am being secretive, but rather I am a proud brother but do not want anyone to think that I am promoting nor do I want to invade his privacy.

I would imagine that based on the large well know names that were interested at that time there has been acceptance.

Peter

Peter,
Next you will be writing in ciphers... [eek]
Cheers,
Steve