Slashdot Mirror
Company Sued, Loses For Not Using Patented Tech
bdcrazy writes "A man was recently awarded $1.5M in a jury trial after his hand was injured by a Ryobi table saw. The saw did not include the patented 'Saw Stop' technology that the plaintiff argued would have prevented all the problems." 60 similar cases have now been filed nationwide. TechDirt makes the argument that this jury decision is completely crazy: "If the government is going to require companies to use a patented technology, it seems that the only reasonable solution is to remove the patent on it and allow competition in the market place." If the decision stands, not only will the price of table saws go way up, but other hungry patent-holders will probably get a gleam in their eye.
By his own logic, seems he should also be liable for not buying a saw using the "Saw Stop" technology. I hope the jury sees that.
Do you have ESP?
sounds like a safety law suit jackpot and not a patent thing.
The case is not about patented software, it's about liability due to lack of modern safety technology. The fact that the currently accepted solution is patented is irrelevant, a FOSS alternative would be just as good.
Caveat Utilitor
You have only yourself to blame !!
The ultimate irony...
Many companies did not embrace this tech. and put it on their saws for the sole reason they were afraid they'd be sued just in case the saw didn't stop fast enough.
In this case, the "requirement" is not coming from the government, but from a jury... The lawsuit was not brought by a government agency, but by a private individual...
Nice to see an opposition to government-required purchases, though... Health insurance, anyone?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
These are one of the most dangerous tools you can use. Not because they're particularly dangerous themselves, but because people like to cut their thumbs off when they use them.
A chainmail glove reduces the chance of this.
Deleted
When we decide that certain items must include certain safety features, we pass a law specifying that. Did anyone ever sue an auto manufacturer who did not include airbags? I don't think so. If we want all saws to have this technology, we need to pass a law, otherwise, this is a horrible blurring of the separation of powers, amounting to legislation from the judiciary.
That being said, I don't think we should pass such a law. Power tool injuries are just too hilarious.
"Whad'ya do there buddy?"
"Oh, I chopped off all of my own fingers with a table saw."
COMEDY GOLD!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Requiring manufacturers to use this patented safety device would be denying me my right to cut off my fingers. Stay out of my self-mutilation, government!
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
The government has in the past forced the use of patented tech. It is not new, it is just a rare case that was not done out of court.
How is this any different from Congress requiring car manufacturers to incorporate electronic stability control in their new cars?
Slashdot and the Law: Unsafe at any speed.
It's been years since I was in Torts class, but this is a product liability suit... NOT a patent suit. The only reason the "patent" is being bandied about is because this guy's argument boils down to this: Riyobi knew (or should have known) that there was a safer way to make the saw. Riyobi presumably did not choose the safer way. Therefore, Riyobi should be liable for my injury.
Note that this argument by itself is nowhere near sufficient to win a product liability lawsuit. For example, it's easy to say that you could make any car safer by preventing it from going over 5mph, but just throwing that fact out in court by itself will never win a product liability case. Usually there are lots of extra factors like industry standards and cost-benefit analyzes that are argued over by lots of expert witnesses. Could Riyobi have "reasonably" adopted the improved design? etc. etc.
The ONLY reason that a patent has anything important to do with this case is that patents are, by definition, publicly available and it makes an easy argument to show that Riyobi knew or could have known about what was disclosed in the patent. Also, there is NO REQUIREMENT that Riyobi would HAVE to use the safety system described in the patent. Instead, the safety system is just an example of what is known, and Riyobi could argue that its own systems were just as good or even better. The patent was likely just one data point of MANY data points used to establish what a "reasonable" safety system would look like. One interesting point would be to see if Riyobi itself is the assignee of the patent....
In a nutshell: Don't read too much into this case. Like most legal cases discussed on Slashdot, somebody saw a buzzword like "patent" and wanted to score points with the mouthbreathing site admins.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
A jury verdict is not a government order. The jury, for whatever reason, found that the plaintiff had a good argument and they agreed with him. That doesn't immediately mean every saw manufacturer must now and forever include this patented technology. Certainly it doesn't men they must license it at whatever price the patent holder demands. It only means the plaintiff had a good lawyer, Ryobi had a not so good one, and the jury decided Ryobi could have made a safer product. The rest is just outrageous hyperbole.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
I wonder, at what point does a feature that saves lives, limbs, or fingers go from "nice to have" to mandatory? Seat belts, for example -- once they were an option, now you have to have them and *use* them.
I often hear the ads for GM's OnStar, where someone is in a crash and the OnStar response saves their life or that of someone in the other car. They tout some large number of OnStar crash activations as a reason to buy a GM car. But if it's such a critical safety feature -- if nobody in their right mind would consider buying a vehicle *without* OnStar -- then shouldn't it be mandatory on *all* vehicles?
Where *do* we draw a line between "buy this to save your life, if you want to" and "buy this to save your life, you're required to"? I'm sure there's strong arguments on both sides... the issue of licensing patented maim-prevention systems is just part of the debate.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Was the guy using all possible safety devices available, including those that cost a lot? If not, then by his logic he's responsible (which can't be, because he's clearly irresponsible). Or, did he verify that the saw used all possible safety mechanisms before he used it? Hell, what if I patent the "has no power cord or battery" safety mechanism; does that mean anyone can sue a power too manufacturer for not incorporating my 100% safe device?
there used to be a link on the darwin awards website to another site, honoring this kind of law suits.
there was one particular award given to a family who lost their child due to a lawnmower accident at school(?).
the family first sued the school. after realisin that a school can't be cash-milked, they sued the lawnmower company.
the suit was won, because the company had not in cluded some safety feature in that particular model, even though the feature was introduced _after_ the model was built!!!
can someone find the site? (iirc the award is named after the woman who sued McDonalds because the coffee was too hot)
...that should be the title. Take the airbag that deploys in a car to help prevent death or serious injury in an automobile accident. The airbag is patented.
http://www.patents.com/Airbag/US6866291/en-US/
If a car company manufactures an automobile, and there is a production error, and the airbags aren't installed, they will be liable for damages suffered by the owners of the car who suffer accidents. They sold a product without standard safety features. It has nothing to do with a patent.
"In documents submitted to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Power Tool Institute has claimed that replacing the cost of SawStop's brake, $69, and blade, about $100, after an incident would burden consumers."
Yeah? So it is less of a burden to replace my fingers?
Saw Stop is one of the best things to ever happen to power tools. It is the airbags and seatbelts equivalent for power tools. Actually, it is even better than airbags, as it avoids an accident altogether. I hope their approach spreads to all other power tools. I am a woodworker, and am terrified by the fact that in a fraction of a second I can screw up and change my entire life.
...but I have no doubt this will be appealed.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Seems like Americans must always sue everyone even if they are simply stupid. Would you also sue a knife producing factory just because you did not know you could kill a human with it? Hello! It's your responsibility!
1. You shouldn't have to license a patent even if it lowers chance of an injury by 50%
2. If you have to license a patent to add the injury prevention widget, such a license should be compulsory.
3. You shouldn't be able to patent things that prevent injury
Seriously, folks, we live in an IP based world, and if someone makes an invention that makes a product significantly more safe, and the manufacturer knows about the patent, knows that their product is unsafe without the patent, and decides to sell the product anyway, why is it OMFG!ZMOG!EVILSBROKENJURYOUTOFCONTROL that the company is found liable for an injury?
From the article link:
According to the Journal of Trauma, an estimated 565,670 table-saw-related injuries were treated from 1990 to 2007 in U.S. emergency rooms. The vast majority involved a hand coming in contact with the blade, and about 10 percent ended in amputation.
Thats a lot of sawed hands.
Wow... Humanity never ceases to amaze me. They lost because the guy is a moron? It's a freaking-power tool. If you don't know how to use it safely you have no business being around one.
,Slushie and popsicle?
I hope the company appeals and wins that time. I don't want my product's prices going up because people are too stupid to use them properly.
Seen on a hairdryer *Do not use while sleeping or in the bathtub* .
*Contents might be hot* on coffee cups. Because of such morons.
While we're at it, why not put a warning on every ice cream tub
*Warning might cause brain freeze if eaten too fast*
Or *Eating junk food will make you fat* on McDonald's menus.
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
It is a patent issue because the flesh detection technology is patented and the patent holder wants a very high licensing fee, otherwise saw manufacturers would have adopted the technology years ago.
Several saw manufacturers have been negotiating with the patent holder for years, but the last I time I read about it (3 years ago), the patent holder was asking the equivalent of half of the gross profit on every saw sold. Needless to say that is the equivalent of a lot of law suits.
On the other hand, this definitely qualifies as frivolous law suit. Power saws are dangerous, and if you don't know how to use one safely, you shouldn't be playing with them.
1) Buy sharp scissors
2) Run with scissors
3) Sue manufacturer on the grounds that they weren't safety scissors
4) Profit!
I haven't bought a saw recently, but I don't think Saw-Stop is standard. (In fact, the point of the linked article seems to be that it is not, but the creator thinks it should be.)
If you bought a car without an airbag installed and they told you that that model didn't have an airbag, unless it's against the law not to have one, you're SOL. If you bought it and, as you said, they had simply failed to install it, then you you have a case because now we're talking about something that they claimed to have and didn't.
If you are sick and there is medical consensus that Blobbitol (a patented drug) can cure you, and your doctor gives you some other treatment and you die, he is probably liable for malpractice, wrongful death, etc.
sounds like a safety law suit jackpot and not a patent thing.
Definitely. I haven't read the Saw Stop patent, but I can think of three completely different ways to implement the same basic idea of stopping the saw blade quickly. None are as good as Saw Stop (which is frelling brilliant and definitely non-obvious), but not implementing what might be considered basic safety technology (like a deadman's switch on a lawnmower, for example) can reasonably drive liability. The unusual part of this case is that we are on the cusp of adoption of this particular -- but important, IMO -- safety technology.
In the article, Saw Stop claims to have sold 20,000 units with their proprietary brake technology, and to have saved 700 fingers. That is an insane injury rate, and if correct, shows how inherently dangerous table saws really are. There's a solution to this safety issue, but Ryobi fully aware of the problem apparently chose not to license said solution. Therefore they are liable. I'm certain there's more to it than that (and, naturally, I'm not a lawyer), but there would seem to be a thread of logical reasoning in the decision.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
"It seemed, for this industry, a fundamental discovery," Fanning said. "I'd never seen anything like it."
The demo is pretty impressive: http://www.sawstop.com/howitworks/videos.php
Seems to test conductivity, probably between the table and the blade
The mechanics are pretty cool. It seems to use the momentum of the blade itself to stop the cut. The electrics are trivial, combining the electrics and the mechanics to create a safety feature isn't something I would have thought of... it'd destroy my saw :-)
When we decide that certain items must include certain safety features, we pass a law specifying that. Did anyone ever sue an auto manufacturer who did not include airbags? I don't think so.
Taken from the original article:
Carpinello likens flesh-detection technology to airbags, which fueled a similar slew of litigation when they were first installed in cars. Automakers without airbags got sued for not adopting the better safety design. Now, all cars have airbags.
RTFA. This is not a "standard" safety device.
Lawyers are the scourge of the earth, and will not be finished mining the product liability goldmine until everything in existence has giant safety warnings on it, and commonsense is abandoned.
There is no mandate to implement an emergency stop in a table saw. Maybe there should be, but there isn't. So it ain't the same.
Could you sue car-makers that did NOT introduce safety belts as soon as they became available?
Mind you, I am in two minds about this. A working safety feature exists, so why is it not implemented? This story has come up before, and while the guy who has the patent wants money I find it hard to sympathize with the poor power-tool companies who of course do NOT expect to be paid for the patents they own.
I think much like the seatbelt thing, this is a case of greed and not wanting devices to appear to be unsafe. Because maybe if you put on the box "can cut your finger off" people would just hire someone to do their DIY for them. Could ruin the entire industry.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's the Stella Awards
http://www.stellaawards.com/
This is bullshit, SawStop is not a "standard safety device." 99% of the table saws on the market do not have an equivalent safety mechanism.
Tools are dangerous, and if you buy a tool the risks are explained in the manual. You want 'safe' tools, shop around and pay more. OR choose average tools and keep your fingers out of the way like the rest of us do. ( this assumes no fundamental defects of course )
This will get over turned on appeals.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I didn't read this story properly the first time, which is why I ended up interpreting the story different (might be because the title was a little vague).
What happens if a company has a patent on a safety feature but then chooses NOT to implement it. Example: If a company has a cure for cancer but chooses not to produce it, and its patents prevent other companies from producing it, are they liable?
Bad example - airbags are required by law on all new cars (every new car after april 1 1989 has to have either airbags or automatic seat belts.)
I am unaware of any legal requirements for table saws.
define injury?
it's really easy to say "lowers a chance of injury by 50%" but that is MEANINGLESS
if you go to saw stops website (I suggest it strongly the videos are cool)
you'll see even when it works it takes out a sliver of skin--
it requires a little moisture (skin breaking) to work..
(It does greatly reduce the amount of damage inflicted)
so technically it doesn't lower the chance of injury at all a lawyer would see that
"law says 50% reduced chance of injury- same chance here- MAJOR FREAKING LOOPHOLE"
in your 'so simple' off the cuff solution.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The good news is that patents have a short lifespan. The core patent will expire in 2022, at which point the manufacturers will be free to use the patented technology without paying the licensing fees. This also means that the company in question needs to pull its head out of its butt rather quickly and stop being so greedy or else it will find itself getting nothing at all.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
When I took wood shop in school, our table saw had a guard over the blade, and we were taught to use push sticks so that our fingers did not get near the blade. I see people all the time doing dumb stunts with power tools. RTFM, dude, that's why Ryobi put one in with the saw.
I have a feeling the reason why Ryobi didn't put the flesh detector stuff on their saw is because the flesh has to come in contact with the saw to activate it. They probably figured they would get hit harder if they had new safety tech on their saw and it failed one time, because, hey, it was claimed the saw would stop if touched by flesh.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
From the article...
What!?
That's exactly what a company does! It's a company, not a charity!
It's a power saw, for crying out loud! It's supposed to be able to do that! (Or how else will I get rid of the bodies?)
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
It's highly likely that the 20,000 users most likely to be injured would be the first buyers especially given the price. Also, having something that makes the blade injury proof, is exceedingly likely to cause users to take risks that they probably wouldn't consider if they had a regular table saw.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
From TFA: "Osorio's legal team, ... pointed to SawStop's sales as evidence that the technology is not only mechanically feasible but financially viable"
SawStop's cheapest saw is $1600. To get the saw working again after a stoppage costs $169 in parts. That alone is more than I paid for my table saw, brand new. These a**holes are basically trying to destroy woodworking as a hobby. Yes, saws are dangerous, that's why I'm always incredibly careful when I use one.
This tech is great for schools or shops where saws are used all the time, but to insist that no saw be sold without this technology is nuts.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
But this guy knowingly purchased a Ryobi, rather than a unit with SawStop, which was probably more expensive.
Are all car manufacturers that don't implement Mercedes new radar-guided emergency braking systems now liable when drivers rear end someone?
I spend most of my weekends during the fairer months outside climbing. You would not believe the stupid shit you see people doing with belay devices that attempt to make climbing safer by nature (Petzl GriGri, Trango Cinch, etc). Last year I saw a guy belaying with a GriGri while laying in a hammock. I don't think anybody using a tubular device (ATC, etc) would even consider this. Attempting to make the system safer breeds complacency in some people.
I also heard about a bad ground fall that happened because somebody belaying with a GriGri grabbed the climber's end of the rope during a fall, preventing the GriGri from locking and arresting the fall. In this case, attempting to make the system safer led to misuse, probably because of a fundamental lack of understanding of how it worked in the first place.
Another neat potential failure mode of auto-locking belay devices occurs when the belayer gets pulled up into the lowest point of protection (because of a long lead fall, which is not an inherently unsafe thing, nor is it uncommon. I've fallen 25' (4.5 m) and that's a pretty short lead fall). Some devices can be forced into an unlocked state if they jam up against a bolt hanger or. If the belayer isn't paying attention and doesn't have a hand on the brake end of the rope, the climber falls. I won't even try to count the number of times I've seen people using an auto-locking device without their hand on the brake end of the rope.
I honestly believe that adding safety features *CAN* make dangerous activities safer, but if and only if people treat the added safety feature as a backup to their own training and understanding of the activity in the first place. I trust these devices in the hands of the people I climb with because I trust the people I climb with to act safely without the added safety features. The takeaway lesson is that people need to be safe, not devices.
Also, I don't mean to pick on the GriGri, it's just the oldest and most common of the auto-locking belay devices on the market.
Saw Stop claims to have sold 20,000 units with their proprietary brake technology, and to have saved 700 fingers. That is an insane injury rate, and if correct, shows how inherently dangerous table saws really are.
Yeah, but 680 of those fingers were probably pinkies... which are like the lizard's tail of the human body.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
If a car company manufactures an automobile, and there is a production error, and the airbags aren't installed, they will be liable for damages suffered by the owners of the car who suffer accidents. They sold a product without standard safety features. It has nothing to do with a patent.
Right. If a manufacturer screwed up its assembly line to the point where somehow a car was made without airbags then they'd be liable as hell. If a consumer bought a cheap car that didn't have air bags--back when before airbags were universal and specifically required by motor vehicle safety standards, but cars with airbags were available (for more $)--he should rightly be laughed at for trying to sue the company that made the cheaper car, because he chose the cheaper car. That's basically what this lawsuit was: Sawstop is expensive and new (and still covered by patents) and it's not a 'universal' safety feature by any means. There are no legal safety standards (or even industry-produced ones afaik) that require or even recommend Sawstop technology for all table saws, and yet the jury somehow mistakenly decided that it should be universal. I probably wouldn't pay much extra for Sawstop; using a table saw is always dangerous, and the slight reduction in danger doesn't justify the substantial price increase. But I definitely don't think it should effectively be legally required on all table saws sold in the U.S.
I didn't RTFM, but your question about whether he used safety measures himself has varying degrees of relevance depending on what state he lives in.
Some jurisdictions will completely bar him from recovery if he is found to be negligent himself, pretty much AT ALL.
Other jurisdictions will allow him to recover only if he was how negligent he himself was (although, typically the party he is suing has to be more negligent), but will reduce recovery by the percentage he was at fault.
E.g., the jury finds man 25% liable, company 75% liable, and awards $100,000. The plaintiff gets to walk away with $75,000 ($100k - 25%)
Then there are crazy rules, like some states that allow a plaintiff to recover 100% of the damages from any of a group of negligent parties, regardless of how negligent they were found to be.
E.g., Manny sues Bob, Phil, and Company Q for negligence and wins $1,000,000. The jury finds that the man's injury was 0% his own fault, 50% Bob's fault,49% Phil's fault, and 1% Company Q's fault.
Who do you think has $1,00,000 lying around? Manny can recover all $1,000,000 from Company Q, even though their "share" of the damages is only $10,000. It is then up to Company Q to sue Bob and Phil to try to get the money back. Betcha' Bob & Phil are broke.
This is why you see lots of big corporations get named in tort suits and why lots of big companies settle (in exchange for indemnification) before a suit goes to trial, even if it seems like the case has no merit at all. Why risk that chance that you are found to be the tiniest bit liable? Juries feel sorry for injured people and know big companies have deep pockets.
One detail: a saw table with this feature will cost about 70% more to manufacture than one without.
A saw table is an extremely simple tool. A saw, a table, a motor, two bearings, one belt, one switch. I've seen countless ones home-made. This system at least doubles the complexity.
What if I prefer to save the money? If I want to choose a table without this simply because it will be vastly cheaper?
Or if I know I will be using it only with conductive materials, and so the feature is useless for me?
Next, following http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/01/30/0137220/Gun-With-Wireless-Arming-Signal-Goes-On-Sale-Soon?art_pos=1 entering PIN code will become mandatory to shoot any gun.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
One thing this is not is legislation from the bench. For one thing it was a jury verdict, not a ruling from the judge. For another thing, there is existing law passed by the legislature, and regulations defined by the executive branch for requiring safety features on various devices (though not necessarily specific to saws).
Where I can see the jury coming from is that the Ryobi saw was measurably less safe than the existing state of the art for such saws. They aren't necessarily requiring Ryobi to buy a license, but they are saying "either license the tech or develop your own that provides a comparable level of safety."
However, I still disagree with the decision because there are plenty of safety features on saws, as well as standard practices to prevent accidents. The fact that most saws available still don't incorporate the patented tech means that while the state of the art is better, the generally accepted standard for safety is lower. Unless the legislature or the CPSC actively steps in to raise the safety standards to include flesh-detection technology, the generally accepted standard of safety should apply. This verdict sets the bar for "callous disregard for safety" way too low.
We are the 198 proof..
Exactly.
Once again, people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own free-market actions.
The reason we have the government we deserve is because we're unwilling to take responsibility for our own actions.
If this had been a case where he was injured because the saw turned itself on due to a bad switch, or some other example of extremely bad design it would be different. This is a case where he bought a cheap saw KNOWING it was a cheap saw.
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
for condoning and even rationalizing a system which allows people lay claim to logical constructs and designs and not use them to do anything, but to extort money from those who attempting to use similar ideas.
so patent hoarding and trolling is not crazy, but 'use it or lose it' is crazy ? well ... american mindset alright. defies logic.
Read radical news here
The StopSaw tech is not a "standard safety device". It is only used by StopSaw. Airbags in cars sold in the US are mandated by federal law. There's no law mandating StopSaw. Whether there should be such a mandate is open to debate, but should not be decided by 12 randomly picked jurors.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
shouldn't he be liable for sticking his hand into the blade of a running saw?
not sticking his hand in the blade would have prevented injury. Perhaps chainmail gloves would have prevented injury. etc.
Unless there was an actual mechanical failure of the saw, this man got cut because he was misusing the saw. If you are using a table saw correctly there is no risk of loosing a finger at all.
Certainly people do loose fingers all the time while using table saws but thats mostly becaue they either dont know how to use them or they use them all the time and they become complacent about safety and that 1 in a million mistake ends up biting them in the ass because they use the tool all the time, eventually you get distracted or unlucky.
I have little doubt that he was using the tool in a way that is specifically warned against in the documentation. There is no reason for your finger to get within a foot of the blade on one of these things if your using it properly with a guide and a jig.
All that said, I misuse tools all the time, one day I might be this guy.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Interesting news:
http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerability_management/security/client/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=223200163
Ya gotta love this lovely tidbit of fine print from the SyncMyRide
terms and conditions:
http://www.syncmyride.com/Own/Modules/PageTools/TermsAndConditions.aspx
Ford's Service provider Tellme Networks, Inc. ("Tellme"), a subsidiary
of Microsoft Corporation, may record and retain user voice utterances
("recorded utterances"), which are recordings of sounds made when the
TDI Service is in listen state and waiting for a user command or
response. These recorded utterances may include all sounds in the
vehicle, including the voice of the user and voices of other vehicle
occupants, while the service is in listen state. Tellme may also, at
Ford's request, randomly record and assemble in sequence, all voice
communications made from the time the Service is connected (by the
user pressing the VOICE button) to the time the Service is
disconnected.
("Whole call recordings (WCRs)"). WCRs will include voice utterances
and may include any other sounds in the vehicle, including the voices
of the user and other vehicle occupants, during the entire time the
Service is connected. Both recorded utterances and WCRs may be
associated with you or the cell phone number assigned to the Service.
The liability should not be on Ryobi any more than it should be on the guy filing the lawsuit. Ryobi could have paid for the licensing rights, or the guy could have bought a Saw Stop instead of a Ryobi. The only possible way for Ryobi to have any kind of liability in this is if they claimed to have the functionality of a Saw Stop saw, but did not.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
In the interest of reducing healthcare costs, Congress will postpone the passing of the healthcare reform bill so that it can be amended to include provisions that require all table saws (both new and existing) be equipped with "Saw Stop" technology. Due to the jobs created by this mandate, a "Saw Stop" subsidy will be created to cover the cost of retro-fit kits to bring existing table saws into compliance for owners of table saws that can not afford the mandated table saw safety enhancement. This "Saw Stop" subsidy will be part of the ever increasing economic stimulus plan.
Anyone not living in Cheney's spider-hole has seen the
automobile ads with drivers executing absolutely dangerous maneuvers in vehicles.
These ads promote l the virtues of dangerous driving and I want compensation for the all the psychotic drivers I encounter in my drive to and from work.
I guarantee BILLIONS of U.S. $ in this lawsuit.
Yours In New York,
Kilgore Trout
peoples aren't lose-ing fingerers until said digits are rolling around loose in the sawdust on the floor.
If you RTFA, you would see that they're trying to license for 3% of the wholesale value of the saws. Hardly half.
The tool makers are balking because they feel the customers will be put off by the pricetag....$69 every time the saw brake engages, and $110 a blade (+ 3% increase in the wholesale cost of the saw). That might be true too...but hey, if you invented something, you'd want to make money off it too. And this is actually an invention, not the usual patent troll crap we see here on /.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Because it would only save a few billion dollars, and when someone is working with a multi-trillion dollar issue, it doesn't really matter?
Yes. Considering what I have to give up to send the government those billions of dollars they simply want run over with a lawnmower, because they find it convenient.
muddying up the waters with malpractice reform would harm the goal of getting every American insured.
No it certainly wouldn't. It would practically solve it. Malpractice is one enormous CAUSE of the high price of healthcare in the US. The other is patented medical technology. (A hospital can't use a ROCK as a paperweight unless it pays the guy $6,000 who thought of using a COMMON, SMOOTH RIVER ROCK in a hospital.) Both are litigation-based and have expanded 2000% past their usefulness.
Obama can't fix that, because he's a lawyer, and doing so would be treason to the bar.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
for the sake of argument, many people have raised the fact that there were lawsuits regarding cars with and without airbags. the major difference between laws about cars and those about powertools, is that cars are used in groups, there are other people on the road who may need to be protected from your negligent driving. since you could be injured by another's car, as well as yourself, there is some area where the legislated (or court mandated,) safety equipment may be necessary. when govenrnments pass laws, (when done properly) they are intended to govern or limit interactions between citizens.
however, outlawing tablesaws without sawstop tech because some idiot thought they knew how to use a table saw is legislating to protect you from yourself. and like many other current morality laws, is equally stupid.
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
...that should be the title. Take the airbag that deploys in a car to help prevent death or serious injury in an automobile accident. The airbag is patented.
http://www.patents.com/Airbag/US6866291/en-US/
If a car company manufactures an automobile, and there is a production error, and the airbags aren't installed, they will be liable for damages suffered by the owners of the car who suffer accidents. They sold a product without standard safety features. It has nothing to do with a patent.
From the article
Then, suddenly, the hubbub fell silent. In 2002, Ryobi, which initially signed a contract with SawStop, pulled out. Manufacturers, interested at first, refused to license their device.
Gass remembered they told him, "Safety doesn't sell." So, the trio decided to design their own line of saws, raising about $3 million from friends, family members and strangers.
The only company using this "standard safety feature" is the company that the inventor started.
As for the cost
SawStop asks for licensing fees of 3 percent of the saw's wholesale price to start. As the device becomes more widespread, the fees could increase to 8 percent. The price of table saws range from $200 to several thousand dollars.
If I was buying a saw I'd probably pay an extra %3 for this feature, but then again I'm not buying a saw.
What obligations do manufactures have to include safety devices that are an economic loss?
I stole this Sig
For one thing it was a jury verdict, not a ruling from the judge.
The jury verdict is made in the context of what the judge allows, disallows, instructs, etc. Maybe the judge did everything properly and the jury still came to this conclusion, or maybe he steered the proceedings to a preferred outcome.
I question the 700 number too, but if you consider that someone may loose up to 5 fingers on one hand, and that the Saw Stop is used in schools (for which the $1500 is small compared to a single law suit), the number starts to make a bit more sense.
The issue I have, is once again society proves it was founded on a stupidity clause. Some members of our species are too dumb to live, but society steps in to save people from themselves. Almost anyone who has ever looked a table saw, miter saw, band saw, etc. understands these are tools that deserve respect and can cause serious injury. The book that came with my purchase of a miter saw had more pages of warnings than instructions; I'd have to pull it out, but I bet it told me I could cut fingers off if I weren't careful. Every time I use one, I make absolutely sure I know where all my digits are in relation to the blade.
Ultimately, it would be nice if Ryobi implemented this safety feature in their saws, but I don't expect them to save me from myself in every case. I'd have paid 8% more for my saw to have the feature, but I still would want to be extra careful around power tools. I don't consider it Ryobi's fault if I'm using my miter saw with a dangling neck tie and something happens.
It's not a consumer product safety standard and Ryobi shouldn't be held liable for making table saws the same way they've been made for decades. If the customer wanted a more expensive saw with which was safer he should have bought one. Instead he bought a Ryobi saw but apparently he has buyer's remorse since he is suing them for selling exactly what he wanted to buy.
This system apparently adds ~$150 to the purchase price of the saw, plus $170 every time it triggers (new brake and new blade), so it's hardly a foregone conclusion that all saws should have it, given that most people never injure themselves on their power tools. To be fair a table saw is often regarded as the most dangerous common power tool, but that's why you always treat it very carefully and follow certain safety rules like using a "push stick" instead of putting your hand near the blade. It's a lot like using a vertical bandsaw.
If you read the article you see that the lawyer who filed this suit was hired by the user's health insurance company. So that's the real story: the health insurance company doesn't want to pay for people injuring themselves with power tools. So the user gets a settlement, the health insurance probably gets a portion of it, and the lawyer definitely gets a portion of it.
If I crash a rear-wheel-drive car while cornering in the rain can I sue the manufacturer for not giving it all-wheel-drive?
Porquoi?
From the summary: "If the decision stands, not only will the price of table saws go way up, but other hungry patent-holders will probably get a gleam in their eye."
Indeed - and it's the predatory gleam in Gass's eye that probably stopped Ryobi and other sawmakers from using his technology. He was demanding a royalty of up to 8% of the gross wholesale price of the saw, per saw sold.
And let's keep in mind that serious table saw accidents requiring emergency room treatment are actually pretty rare (31,000 per annum with something over five million table saws in use in the US). Further - 72% of table saw accidents are caused by kickback, when the workpiece binds with the saw blade and is kicked away from it (with tremendous force and right back at the user), which the SawStop device does nothing to prevent. (Kickback accidents should soon start to decline, as saws sold in the US are now required to have riving knives installed which will prevent some of the common causes of kickback.)
Disclaimer: I am a hobbyist woodworker and have been following the issue in various professional and semi professional woodworking blogs and in woodworking forums. The numbers in the paragraph above come from Popular Woodworking's Editors Blog.
The owner of the "Saw Stop" patent will shortly be announcing that they will be license it to anyone for the low low royalties of $43,127 per saw.
I would assume they would be sued because the car says it has the safety standards and doesn't, not because they didn't include it in the first place.
The question you are looking for is whether or not you could sue a car manufacturer who simply didn't include airbags at all in that model.
Come on. Stupid people can never be protected from themselves.
In my state, the tobacco companies lost hundreds of millions of dollars because folks claimed they didn't know smoking was harmful the last 40 years.
Let's blame McDonald's for that first hot coffee case they lost.
As to that saw, I bet in the instructions were many warnings that dismemberment was possible if the saw was used improperly. Too bad they didn't cut the head off.
I thought that Sawstop demo video is freakin' awesome when I first saw it.
But unfortunately, "finger" is the first appendage that's brought to my mind by their abuse of the hotdog.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
If you RTFA, you would see that they're trying to license for 3% of the wholesale value of the saws. Hardly half.
Not if this case holds up. Lets see...60x1.5...add in even more cases, probably 1000's...I'd say that licensing fee goes up at least an order of magnitude.
Who is John Galt?
When courts mandate the use of patented or copyrighted or licencable technology, they also set a reasonable licencing fee. The court's ultimate goal in its ruling is to protect the consumer, so creating a de facto monopoly for a patent holder and allowing him to charge $1,000,000 per use doesn't meet that goal. If the SawStop technology becomes legally mandated by this ruling, the court will also set a reasonable fee for SawStop to charge.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Sawstop's system is nice but the cheapest model is 1599.00 vs 200 or so. I know I'd like to have one but seriously there arn't many non-pro/wealthy people who can even think of affording even that saw. I've also read on some other forums that the patent holder is himself a lawyer and alledgedly been lobbying and testifying in just such cases that all saws should have his patented tech .. that seems to me to be just a TINY bit of conflict of interest there. Not to mention that the design of the saw stop model and swing arm would tend to prevent it from being used on competitors saws without major mods. If this sort of crap build precedent then you can forget about being able to buy reasonably priced power tools period because I also read that the system could be used on band saws, chop saws etc which would be a matter of time before it was universally required ... Those of practices make me sick .. If you use a table saw properly with feather boards, push sticks guards etc the risk can largely be mitigated. Heres a cool vid though of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3mzhvMgrLE
From TFA:
Saws currently on the market can not be retrofitted with SawStop's device.
Manufacturers would have to redesign saws, which could cause a price increase of about $150.
In documents submitted to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Power Tool Institute has claimed that replacing the cost of SawStop's brake, $69, and blade, about $100, after an incident would burden consumers.
The industry group also stated that "table saws are a relatively safe product."
First off, they would have to make these new saws cheap enough for the customers to completely replace all of their existing saws.
And since most saws are priced between couple of thousands of dollars - even cheap is not cheap.
Cause, if they want the safety, they need the new tech.
And unless customers already have robot employees that can continue to work on those old unsafe saws, while fleshy humans take over the new safe machinery - old equipment will do nothing but take up space and collect rust and dust.
Alternatively, they can hire some "lesser humans" to work on those old saws.
Or only use them when they plan to have an accident.
On top of all that, first time you stick a finger (or a hot-dog) into one of those - someone has to pay 170$ to replace the saw and the break.
And unless they are going to claim that the warranty on the safe saws does no cover using the saw in a such way that would require the use of the built-in safety measures - those 170$ go directly out of manufacturer's pocket.
Meaning a direct 170$ price increase for the consumer. And repeating it every time "the incident" happens again.
Patent or no patent, most people would not be able to afford buying these.
And since manufacturer would still have to sell "unsafe" regular saws to stay in business - those would also have to increase in price since they would have to include the costs of continuously additionally informing the customers that those old saws are NOT the new safe saws.
Basically, it would be like the government creating a new tax to finance the campaign that would inform people that the sky is blue. Or that the fire is hot.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
And the bad part about all that is now we have to defeat airbags for people under a certain size, and kids. A law mandating use of lap and shoulder harnesses would have saved just as many lives, with no additional expense, and saved fuel (the extra weight of the air bag systems). It would have also kept fewer people from being ejected from their cars in roll-overs or guillotined by the door as it pops open, their head goes forward and to the side, and the door slams shut again (had a surgeon explain how that happens).
this has to the the worst ruling ever. any type of saw can mangel you pretty good. we all know this and we use them with extreem care. so some dumb redneck buys the cheapest thing he can buy like most Americans do and of course its not the best saw money can buy and he injures himself and sues the makers for being stupid. and the redneck jury agrees with him. people have been cutting libs off for a very very long time long before any kind of decent tech was out to prevent that. thers no safe saw and anyone who thinks so is a retard i dont care what kind of stuff you put on it.
It is interesting that, while they claim that the licensing would START at 3%, it would climb to 8% as the mechanism was more widely adopted (interesting logic - once you're stuck, we'll screw you vs. as you make more you get a volume discount). Also, although he claims it takes $150 to install the device, his saws which incorporate it appear to cost 2-3X what comparables cost.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Air bags go back a long way. The initial patents begin with the number "3" from the 60s or early 70s. There are many air bags that are not patented. For example, the floating horn design of Mercedes-Benz (air bag system has horn actuator underneath so that pressing the center of the steering column operates the horn) is off patent. The Mercedes-Benz patent was largely the reason why for years horns were activated by buttons on the steering column spokes or the like. Flexible air bag covers with film switches embedded that encased the air bag and its deployment explosive that had the horn closer to the surface were produced in thermoset plastics by Morton and later into thermoplastics by Morton and Venture Industries. GM preferred designs that had harder thermoplastic inner layers covered by softer thermoset outer layers initially. Then the Mercedez-Benz patent expired and the floating horn design regained some popularity. The reason people worked around Mercedez-Benz was because Mercedez-Benz wanted royalties. By no means did someone have a meaningful monopoly over air bags for any length of time when they were in wide use. So the message is: come up with your own safety solution. If someone else did it, you can too.
Sir —
As a matter of interest: A jury decides matters of fact. A judge decides matters of law (and fact, where there is no jury). There is no jury made law. There is judge made law, through the principle of stare decisis in common-law systems – known as binding precedents, which obliges judges of courts to follow the existing decisions of higher courts (and in some cases the same level of court).
... to get leading manufactures to adopt their technology. Only after there was no taker did they decide to start a table saw company of their own. This story can be gleaned from their own website.
I also remember an interview with the inventor from several years ago where he voiced his frustration that none of the leading manufacturers where interested in the technology. Unfortunately I can no longer find this interview but I am not the only one remembering it.
No it certainly wouldn't. It would practically solve it. Malpractice is one enormous CAUSE of the high price of healthcare in the US.
Uh huh. All the research showing that it's a tiny fraction of the cost must be wrong, and you're right. And I'm sure malpractice insurance rates went way down in Texas when they implemented your beloved reform. Oh wait, they went UP? Huh.
It is a patent issue because the flesh detection technology is patented and the patent holder wants a very high licensing fee, otherwise saw manufacturers would have adopted the technology years ago.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, no? I'm no expert at the saw-stopping tech, but it seems to me there'd be some way to do it that doesn't infringe on the patent.
One thing this is not is legislation from the bench.
You're right - it's legislation from the jury box. So instead of having an experienced legal expert make the law, we've let a bunch of yoyos too stupid and/or unemployable to get out of jury duty do it. Wow, what an improvement.
It cut to the bone on my left index and middle finger. Doctor sowed it all up and they work but are partially numb. I left the blood on the wall as a reminder to be more careful. If these suits catch on, home woodworking is in trouble.
one wonders whether the injury rate is indicative of the inherent dangers of a tablesaw as much as it is indicative of the nature of the types of people who buy sawstop saws...
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
If you RTFA, you would see that they're trying to license for 3% of the wholesale value of the saws. Hardly half.
He said "half of the gross profit", not half the price of the saws.
That might be true too...but hey, if you invented something, you'd want to make money off it too.
Of course. But I wouldn't want to make money off it in this way, by effectively threatening to sue anyone who arranges saw parts in a certain way unless they pay me royalties. I prefer to get paid for doing work, rather than charging rent on work I did 20 years earlier.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Actually, once upon a time I saw a demonstration of the technology and heard the presentation of the company behind this story. The company that licenses this technology makes it available at a very cheap price IIRC. It can be adapted to a cheap ($400) table saw and does not require $169 in parts to restart the saw. They demonstate the feature using a hot dog weenie...and I believe they turned the saw on again in the presentation I saw. The jury is quite capabile of taking the mfg cost into account when making this award. It is not clear that the jury was over-zealous. You need to see the same numbers the jury (and the mfg) saw.
I agree with the poster above who said someone wanted to make an argument when they read the word "patent". There are more facts to this story than the posters imply. Read the original article as a first step, and take particular notice of the part about the $200 saw. SawStop does not want to be in the business of building saws. They couldn't compete with Black and Decker, Ryobi, etc. But there is nothing wrong with licensing their technology. These mfgs are just waiting for the patent to expire and deserve what they are getting.
This feeling that "the government" or "the law" must protect the idiots from themselves has got to stop. I guess we'll need to convert gas stoves to electric because they should have eliminated the flame so that a towel dropped onto a lit burner would light up quicker than if it was an electric burner. But then again, maybe it shouldn't be electric because that will likely start a fire eventually so we should all just have magnetic induction stoves.
While the licensing fee is 3%, the extra cost would be considerably more when it comes for smaller table saws. You would need to redesign everything to be able to stop a blade traveling around 50 mph at the cutting edge in a fraction of a second. A large cast iron saw could withstand that sort of force, but the smaller, fixed drive ones would tear themselves apart if they weren't totally redesigned.
"Last week, a Boston jury ..."
That's all I needed to read to understand. While East Texas juries are reknown for their patent infringement jurisprudence, Boston juries never met a victim they didn't love, no matter the circumstances. And they never met a corporation they didn't think deserved to pay out a little cash. No surprise at all here.
The secondary problem is that saw manufacturers are well aware of SawStop technology, but refuse to give it any credence. They both ignore and discreidt it for three reasons:
1) To admit it is effective is to make it desireable for their products, and implicitly state that their products are less safe than they might otherwise be.
2) To actually incorporate it in their products wuld increase prices, possibly to the point that sales could decline. A little.
3) SawStop is expensive - when it is triggered, you get to replace the triggered components AND the saw blade. Yes, please stop the flames, I KNOW IT IS CHEAPER THAN A FINGER OR THUMB. But it will annoy people who have to pay out $100-$200 or more very time they trip it. And many will claim it 'just triggered' and demand refunds and free parts. Witness the Prius fiasco, with at least one likely hoax. Multiply that by thouands. Just saying.
4) Admitting your product is this dangerous will bring out all the past victims demanding compensation. You think asbestos was expensive?
Now, I've seen SawStop demonstrated. It is frighteningly effective. And the testimonials are similarly shocking. Like a school teacher testifying that it saved him and a student's thumb the first semester it was used. I was taught safety as part of everything I did with a table saw, and the demonstration back then was, coincidentally, a hot dog. Boy, does a Delta saw go through hot dogs real good... We understood that our fingers would not be saved. And our teacher failed one kid and sent him to study hall after he violated safety procedures a third time. I know this teacher saved me a finger 25 years later. I might buy a SawStop some day, but I watch what I'm doing, and I don't do enough to become comfortable and lazy. Yet.
SawStop is expensive to use, but the cost of a finger/thumb/whatever makes that a bargain. One most saw users will just not pay. Do you know any long-time woodworkers? How many of them have all their digits? Not 100%, I bet.
But the industry is avoiding this until the patents expire, and then they can incorporate it and charge up the wazoo. IF they can get over the potential liability, the false claims of false triggering to avoid the parts cost, and the inevitable claims for injuries where the victim will say it didn't work.
And you can bypass SawStop on a saw, slice off something, and reconnect it. Niiice. Of course, who leaves blade guards and kickback pawls on anyways...
We are our own worst enemies. And we expect someone else to pay.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Every table saw has a guard that covers the blade, though it is not usable for every possible cut. Was he performing a cut where the guard could have been used but didn't have it in place? How many of the safety procedures spelled out in the manual did he ignore? It is very difficult to hurt yourself with a table saw while following all the safety rules, and common sense.
I would say it is legislation from the jury box.....
Sort of like "legislation from the bench" but done by a committee of people specifically selected to have no relevant expertise in anything relevant.....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Malpractice is one enormous CAUSE of the high price of healthcare in the US.
That's a myth.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Are all car manufacturers that don't implement Mercedes new radar-guided emergency braking systems now liable when drivers rear end someone?
Oh God no, don't say things like that! An ambulance chaser is going to read that, and within a year, you won't be able to buy a car for less than 30k!
All table saws come with safety devices. They are mandated by law. Every table saw MUST come with a saw guard and an anti kickback device. The saw guard alone should have either kept his hands away from the blade, or give him an indication that his hands are too close to the blade. If he would have read the instruction booklet, it would have given him plenty of safety info. I did not see anything in TFA that indicated if the safety devices were removed, a move that most woodworkers require every once in a while, but apparently he is the only person who was not aware that w razor sharp blade spinning at high RPM is dangerous.
Perhaps a certain set of users would see things differently but I personally would much rather pay for a replacement table saw than to have to have my finger(s) sewn back on...
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
This verdict sets the bar for "callous disregard for safety" way too low.
...by setting the bar for "regard for callous safety" too high.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
Malpractice is one enormous CAUSE of the high price of healthcare in the US.
No. It isn't!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
I wanted to mention something else that may be of significance in this. I wouldn't doubt that there are many patent holders out there who are paid by companies to keep their patents from being used. Would those companies be liable and could the patent holder be held for criminal intent to increase planned obsolescence? Is personal health and safety the only concern of these new patent reverse-infringements or could it be used in other ways. Oh, and speaking of said possibility, anyone know the history of the Sony AccuCore Technology? (No, really, I want more info.) Scratch resistant polymers could have saved a good number of my CDs from getting torn up over the years.
Though this may be about patents, this is also about whom has the responsibility of safety. Its dangerous to put the responsibility of safety in technology and not on the operator. Technology will fail and people need to know how to react when that happens. In this case, sure Ryobi can get a licence to use the technology but it but the operator should just have been more careful.
"I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
The Ryobi saw he was using costs about $150. The only Sawstop saw available at the time cost over $3000. There is currently a cheaper one for a modest $1750.
Some members of our species are too dumb to live
And who, mister high-and-mighty, will decide if you deserve to live?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
With the Malibu, the issue was that GM violated standard practices of automotive design (as of 1979) as to where they placed the fuel tank in ways that were known to be unreasonably hazardous. While I think the judgement was excessive, I think it was reasonable to find that GM was responsible and that placing the fuel tank behind the rear axle was negligent.
In this case, however, you have a new technology, no guarantees that it is flawless or perfect, which is expensive to implement, which nobody currently implements, and which is under patent. This is a very different case from placing the fuel tank of a car in a location well known at the time to be unsafe.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I saw a slow motion video of the thing in operation (they used a hot-dog to trick it). It looked like the brake took serious damage when the safety mechanism engaged, but the saw did stop very quickly (the saw also appeared to warp and buckle, but it seemed to end up in the same shape it started in).
$ make available
. . . they become complacent about safety and that 1 in a million mistake ends up biting them in the ass . . .
If you are complacent enough around a table saw that your ass comes in contact with the spinning blade, you deserve what you get.
I cut it three times, and it's still too short.
What about the self-parallel-parking units?
$ make available
from the article "the company tried to license the invention to various table saw makers, but after evaluating the technology, many were not convinced how well it worked and felt that the cost was way too high (both for themselves, and for consumers). In fact, some appeared to fear that if they did adopt this technology and then someone still got hurt, they were asking for a big lawsuit for promoting this technology as a safety feature.
This shows you can reason both ways. The question is, is this safety feature available nowadyas, or not? If it is it is his onw question. If nobody implemented it for legal reasons then the legal system is more ill than you can think of.
To be honest, the saws that he makes are top of the line saws irregardless of the sawstop feature. However, I have a $400 saw at home that serves me quite nicely. That saw would probably end up costing at least $600 if they had to add this technology and since I keep the darn blade guard on my saw, it would not provide much extra safety.
Sometimes I think the man would be more at peace with Creationism than with what our legal system validates.
Quick thought, though....
How accurate is this device (what is the false positive rate)?
If my saw has this device and I cut something to make it activate, can I sue the company to get the saw repaired? The cost of an activation is not trivial. Should my saw destroy itself because I decide to use it to open my hotdog packet? Will I even be able to buy a table saw in the future to cut my hotdogs?
I think this technology is awesome, but what is the liability if it is mandated? I am personally in favor of having choices.
"SawStop asks for licensing fees of 3 percent of the saw's wholesale price to start. As the device becomes more widespread, the fees could increase to 8 percent. The price of table saws range from $200 to several thousand dollars." Doesn't seem high to me. Companies make sociopathic cost-benefit decisions; look at the Ford Pinto.
The table saw.
I take it you are talking about the blade. In that case, the blade is ruined as it gets fused onto the stopping block. The saw is mainly thick cast iron so I don't think it would warp that much.
Where I can see the jury coming from is that the Ryobi saw was measurably less safe than the existing state of the art for such saws. They aren't necessarily requiring Ryobi to buy a license, but they are saying "either license the tech or develop your own that provides a comparable level of safety."
Well, the jury obviously didn't think before their verdict.
A car with ABS, EPS, and airbags all around is obviously a safer choice than one with less of such features. I'd say that my VW Touareg is a lot safer than a Toyoya Echo, I doubt anybody would argue there. I'd say this is s because of all the additional safety features built in to the Touareg, which are pretty much "state of the art" for mass produced cars.
Does that entitle me for a lottery payout if I hit a tree in the Echo and come to harm? If we follow the Jury's argument, we'd have to.
If we followed the Jury's argument, we'd soon be left without the choice of buying something cheap that fits the purpose for us, or always having to spend through the nose in order to buy state of the art. The verdict destroys both choice and competition.
The tool makers are balking because they feel the customers will be put off by the pricetag....$69 every time the saw brake engages, and $110 a blade (+ 3% increase in the wholesale cost of the saw).
Having had close calls with woodworking equipment, and knowing a few guys that are short fingers, the notion of paying $180 if the brake engages bothers me not at all.
But it is true that an extra $150 at time of purchase is going to cause pain for the first manufacturer to go with it. And given that blade selection is something of a religious issue with woodworkers, the notion that you have to use the SawStop blade to get the benefit of the technology is going to cause consumer resistance as well.
If I recall, the number one cause of injury on a table saw is caused by kickback and not amputation. This is where the blade catches the wood and throws it back at the operator. The sawstop does nothing to prevent this.
Gass had given the same dog-and-pony show a dozen times, mostly for woodworkers, contractors, and a few industry executives. But this audience was different. It consisted of lawyers for the Defense Research Industry, a trade group for attorneys representing the power-tool industry. SawStop could help prevent thousands of serious injuries caused by power tools each year, Gass believed -- if the industry would license it. He returned to his seat thinking he had made his case.
Then Dan Lanier, national coordinating counsel for Black & Decker, stepped to the podium. His topic: "Evidentiary Issues Relating to SawStop Technology for Power Saws." Lanier spent the next 30 minutes discussing a hypothetical lawsuit -- in which a plaintiff suing a power-saw manufacturer contended the saw was defective because it did not incorporate SawStop's technology -- and suggesting ways defense counsel might respond. Lanier recalls it as a rather dry exploration of legal issues. Gass heard something different. To his ears, Lanier's message was this: If we all stick together and don't license this product, the industry can argue that everybody rejected it so it obviously wasn't viable, thereby limiting any legal liability the industry might face as a result of the new technology. (Lanier denies this was his point.)
He Took On the Whole Power-Tool Industry: Why wasn't anyone else interested in building a safer saw?
I suspect that this article was read by many a lawyer...
Your Slashdot ID suggests you're old enough to remember "faceslappers". For a while there was a law requiring a car to have a "passive restraint system", either an airbad or an automatic seatbelt (shoulder harness). The automated shoulder harness was cheaper, so many cars did that - the top of the belt would slide along a track. Not a very nice solution, and many people disabled the system, but it didn't kill children and old people the way the early airbags did.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Dunno, but they'd sure be liable if they didn't mean certain safety thresholds.
Preponderance of Evidence >= Survival of the Fittest
i used to work in manufacturing.
one day, a new guy cut several fingers off on the table saw.
new guy stands there, bleeding everywhere, screaming "help me! help me!".
this body-builder ex-con mexican, rafael, stands across the isle from him, eyes as big as saucers and says:
"uhhhh, you gotta help yourself, homes. i can't help you if you can't help yourself". read that with all the LA Mexican Ex-Con accent you can imagine.
to this day, when people come to me with PEBKAC problems, i tell this story, with the accent and all. then i just walk off, all yoda-like, as if it means something.
THL phish sticks
Court cases finding liability are not cases where the government mandates the use of saw technology. Rather, by not having fundamentally safe characteristics to the saw, or appropriate warning labels, the court is finding the manufacturer liable for distributing a dangerous or defective product.
The authors on Techdirt just don't understand how the court system works, or what this means for power saws.
This isn't about LAW at all. They took 12 people too stupid, or boring to get out of jury duty, and put two saws in front of them. On one saw, they try and cut a hotdog and it fails to damage the hotdog significantly. On the other, they cut a pigs head in half. Blood and brains going everywhere. Done.
I am not saying this is actually what happened, but I'll bet it's not too far off.
Do not stand at either end of a table saw. Use a device to push with and stand out of the way of the object being cut.
That is the part cost, the patent licensing is 50% of gross profit.
TFA says the licensing is 3% of cost. Tools are a relatively low markup, but I haven't seen any documentation that support 50% gross profit.
This means that the SawStop guys are going to be very wealthy. If you want to avoid product liability you need to license this technology. Now it's going to get expensive. It was cheap the first time they were offered it but they decided that "Safety doesn't sell". And they got sued before the patent ran out. Boo hoo. I guess safety will sell now!
Why bother
I wonder about that cost number. I mean, the technology at work here is rather primitive. In simple terms, it measures an electrical signal for change, and deploys a (probably spring loaded) brake to freeze the blade. Now, mechanically, I can think of a couple of ways to accomplish this. The electrical signal processing is childs play. Literally, you can do it with a radio shack science fair kit, or any volt/ohm meter. So the question is, where the hell is the cost coming from?
Secondarily, why hasn't someone created their own version? Are his patents that good?
If the government is going to require companies to use a patented technology, it seems that the only reasonable solution is to remove the patent on it and allow competition in the market place.
The government is saying nothing about requiring this technology. The populace (in the form of a jury) is saying that, if you have a reasonable way to reduce injuries and you willfully do not use it, we're probably going to give people who sue you a buttload of money. Think of it as democracy in action!
That is all.
Why do I find it much more likely that this guy stole the idea from a patent application on his desk which belonged to a recently deceased individual? The idea that he, a patent lawyer, came up with something himself which contributes to society directly completely spoils the suspension of disbelief.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
I'm reminded of a Pratchett quote. "Safe? It's not meant to be safe. It's a sword." Really, when you purchase a cutting disc that spins around at several thousand RPM and sticks up out of a flat surface, you should expect to cut the odd minor appendage off occasionally and act accordingly.
[FUCK BETA]
Let's see what questions do you, as Ryobi's lawyer, ask the plaintiff on cross examination: "Could you explain the safety warnings on page 23 of the manual? What! You don't know what warnings are on page 23? You expect us to believe you read the manual? You read ALL of the manual? Do you speak and read French? How about Spanish? Japanese? German? You just told us that you read ALL of the manual, but now you are telling us that you did not understand fully 80% of it." ... After having demonstrated that the plaintiff didn't know what was in the manual with any degree of accuracy you continue. "What certification do you hold in the use of power tools? What accredited training programs have you completed in the use of power tools? Don't you think that you should have taken some sort of refresher since your 7th grade shop class?" And in the tradition of shows like Perry Mason ... "Isn't a fact, sir, that you were born without a thumb on your right hand - that as a young man you attempted to hitchhike across the USA only to be thwarted by your lack of an opposable digit, that you bought a table saw because while you desparately wanted to be a dress designer you were unable to hold scissors, and that this trial is just a means for you to finance your bid to get on 'Project Runway' " Yeah, the jurys love that stuff!
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
If you check the web for info about the sawstop you'll see that in addition to cramming an aluminum block into the blade, the entire blade mechanism rotates down and into the table. I would imagine that it does this to try to absorb some of the energy caused by stopping everything suddenly. I know that if I tried to suddenly stop the blade on my (rather inexpensive)saw that it would probably tear itself apart.
How can you KNOW that he bought the Ryobi over a SawStop?
He may have found out about the SawStop after mangling his hands.
Of course. But I wouldn't want to make money off it in this way, by effectively threatening to sue anyone who arranges saw parts in a certain way unless they pay me royalties. I prefer to get paid for doing work, rather than charging rent on work I did 20 years earlier.
Let me guess: you're not an American. Because I would LOVE to be paid bucketloads of money for something I invented 20 years ago . . . only I would REALLY prefer if it was life + 20 years, so the rest of my lazy family could benefit from that as well. Once the time comes up though, I'm sure someone will argue that life + 100 is more fair, so I'm not too worried. Because I really shouldn't have to do more work. I did enough 20 years ago!
but I am annoyed by peoples flip
"here's the solution"
answers that really suck.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
To avoid being sued, doctors view patients with two sets of eyes. One set is the caring, compassionate, medical professional. The other set is a defensive strategist, looking at an individual who tomorrow may call a lawyer to sue. And, to be fair, sometimes doctors make avoidable, even negligent mistakes and injured patients are entitled to be compensated for their losses, and perhaps for some pain and suffering.
The defensive strategist dominates medical practice today. Doctors use excessive tests and other procedures to avoid lawsuits, and stay out of certain areas of medicine--most notably obstetrics. The net result is higher costs for medical care.
-Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor
If you could be sued for 5 times your annual salary for every program you send out that had a bug, or COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER code-wise, and you are expected to write 4-8 programs a day (each taking 30 minutes to 3 hours to write) would you start charging more for your services? Would you write simpler programs that you know are guaranteed to work and can arguably satisfy the customer instead of tailoring each program to be exactly what the user wants or needs? Your quality of life would deteriorate, your quality of work would deteriorate, and the cost of being one of your customers would rise -- because they're not just getting what they asked for, they're getting what they MIGHT have asked for, just so you don't end up getting sued because it COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
This was with a skill saw. I got the saw for $25 bux. I was screaming at the top of my lungs for him to stop!
A safety device like this will come down in price and frankly its worth the price!
Besides he was asking for something like 8% according to the article.
Maybe the next new invention will be a computer eye that watches the operators hands. How about something can can detect metal going into the blade? There are lots of ways more safety can be built into equipment.
Furthermore in the situation that went to trial apparently the guy was in a professional shop and lost the use of his hand.
So with a skill saw for instance... would it be possible to put a depth sensor on it so if the blade extends more than say 1/8" past the wood that it won't work? One would need an over-ride I suppose but I've seem more than a few contractors set the blade at maximum depth and this is just asking for an accident.
But then I did have a friend chop the end off his thumb and why? There was no wood in the saw. He was done. He forgot the blade was still on and reached over for the board! He only took 1/2 the nail off. It took over a year to heal. And why did the accident happen? Because he took the guard off and chucked it - that is why.
I think the answer is a manufacturer can only accomplish so much but they should still do what they can. In this case it looks like they are hiding behind legal arguments motivated by money.
Sure but the materials aren't free either. It appears a safe stop saw runs about $700 more than similar saws. That's acceptable on a 3k granite topped cabinent saw, but pretty unacceptable on a $300 tabletop saw (that's designed and priced for people who will use it a couple times a year).
Saw stop
Similar delta model
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
... Take the airbag that deploys in a car to help prevent death or serious injury in an automobile accident...
You're sure you're not confusing the airbag with a seatbelt? The seatbelt is a very good safety device and probably saved many, many lives.
The airbag, though, is arguably an expensive gadget that maimed and killed quite a few people. How does it prevent death or serious injury?
Especially in US, this low-yield bomb is quite dangerous if you happen to be a short driver or wear glasses. If I knew how to disable it in my car, I would do it; I don't like the prospect of getting blind just because the frigging airbag deployed from a mild bump...
If you RTFA, you would see that they're trying to license for 3% of the wholesale value of the saws. Hardly half.
the patent holder was asking the equivalent of half of the gross profit
I don't see how these are contradictory statements if the saw manufacturers are making about 6% profit per saw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_lawyer#United_States
My recollection was that the "automatic" seat belts went away, in part, because of some gruesome neck injuries to folks who were too lazy to manually buckle the lap belt. I believe, in a few instances, decapitation was the result for those poor folks.
Was it advertised to contain the StopSaw tech? Because if not, he's just a dumb ass for not buying one that did and then sticking his hand in it. I mean seriously people the fact that this even went to court shows how screwed up our court system is. People need to take responsibility for their actions. If he wanted something with StopSaw, he should have bought something with StopSaw.
Now if it was supposed to have it and it didn't, then he has a lawsuit. If it didn't say that it did and he expected it to, then he needs to be charged for wasting our judicial system's time. Just because I buy a car and complain later that it doesn't have power seats doesn't mean I can sue someone for repetitive stress injuries related to moving the seat. It means I should have bought the damn power seat and got on with my life.
-=JML=-
It you hit a tree with an Echo, would it make a sound?
If you could be sued for 5 times your annual salary for every program you send out that had a bug, or COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER code-wise, and you are expected to write 4-8 programs a day (each taking 30 minutes to 3 hours to write) would you start charging more for your services?
Sure - specifically, I'd purchase insurance to cover those payouts, and I'd charge just enough extra to cover the cost of that insurance.
BTW, capitalizing "COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER" doesn't make it true. Do you have a citation for that claim?
Also... if a doctor could amputate the wrong limb or remove the wrong organ, and the compensation you could receive were legally capped to an inadequate amount, wouldn't that make you less likely to seek medical care? Do you have a proposal for reducing doctors' malpractice risk while still ensuring that the victims of malpractice are compensated fairly?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
I'm afraid the article is quite miss-leading, but the metafilter thread dissects the ruling more carefully. You'll find that this ruling is actually a major win for technological progress.
Saw Shop had perused licensing the technology with virtually every major saw manufacturer, but nobody was interested at at any price. All decided the current no liability status was better than risk incurring liability by making any safer saws, which is ant-technology and evil. All these saw manufacturers are now liable for injuries, not because saws are dangerous, but because they killed off safety technology.
In fact, traditional saws will not be replaced by saw shops saws because saw shop saws cannot cut wet wood, but saw shop's approach works quite well and most people should be encouraged to buy it.
Yes, clearly the saw shop technology should be lessened under an FRAND like license, ideally lifesaving should licensed under FRAND terms too, but fighting against technology that saves lives and prevents injuries should make you liable for those injuries.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
As I recall you're also likely to blow a cartridge cutting wet wood. I rarely cut wet wood but some people will, and when they return their "broken" saw to the store it raises the cost for everyone else to buy a new saw.
Just my $0.55 (US inflation, 1774-2008, for $0.02)
The professional customers will be ENRAGED to be charged PROPRIETARY tech because some shithead hurt himself. They want and need STANDARD, simple blades.
I want simple tools because they are tougher and easier to maintain. Many professional users keep tools and equipment for years, and don't need the inherent "planned obsolesence" that goes with implementing complex features.
Table saws aren't just toys for hobbyists. They are a vital construction industry tool. I sincerely wish the idiot who started the lawsuit had died (without suing!) instead. The burder of such proprietary tech is, in this case, more costly than a life or several.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Yup, the problem we have as a society is that nobody wants to accept substandard quality to save money. Sure, we all choose to spend less money, but then we turn around and sue the people who sold it to us because we were too cheap to buy a better item.
If you want the SawStop(TM) system, buy it! Just don't complain that you can't get it for $150.
Health care is in the same mess. If a rich person can get some treatment, then everybody wants the homeless to be able to have it as well. Well, that's nice in theory until somebody has to pay for it...
I think the point is that he himself would make that decision. You see, if one decides to do something stupid then they have decided to be removed from the gene pool.
The slider was especially nasty when the belt was removed from it.
Besides that, there was another "solution" to the passive restraint requirement. Remember the belts that anchored to the door?
The idea was that the occupants could, technically, get in and out without fastening or unfastening the belt. I heard stores about those belts actually ejecting people from the car rather than restraining them.
If you hit a DUCK with an Echo, would it make a sound, surely?
The good news is that patents have a short lifespan. The core patent will expire in 2022, at which point the manufacturers will be free to use the patented technology without paying the licensing fees. This also means that the company in question needs to pull its head out of its butt rather quickly and stop being so greedy or else it will find itself getting nothing at all.
The the inventor and holder of the core patent was a patent attorney so I believe I can say with 100% confidence that the pulling of the head from the butt and the ceasing to be greedy will not be occurring.
I think all of these asinine patents should be enforced. Go for the reductio ad absurdum approach.
Then, everyone will be buying Chinese tools on the black market, and the US economy will collapse even further.
if you had bothered to read the post you replied to, you'd see it referring to profit, not wholesale value.
How about not using a table saw if you don't know how to not stick your thumb in the blade?
It sets the bar so low that now the users of such devices ARE allowed to have a "callous disregard for safety." Its funny, because every now and then a fairly serious injury will happen in one of the university labs I work in or near. No one ever sues, and they say "yeah I was a dumbass for not being more careful with ." They are often embarrassed at their carelessness.
In fact, this reminds me of another issue. So we have lots of random chemicals around, all have safety info on the label nearly all of them (even harmless things like our $50 can of table salt) will say something like "Wear safety goggles when using, can cause skin irritation, toxic, warning warning!" Even particularly dangerous chemicals will have the same warnings. Companies put this on the label to protect against lawsuits, but the effect is that unless you have experience its difficult to know how dangerous a chemical is. The result is, inexperienced people are often careless. Once an undergrad was working with THF, which is normally done in the hood, but it was being used so she decided to do it at her bench since based on her experience most things we do in the hood are because its smelly, not because its particularly toxic. Naturally everyone knew (by smell) what was up and stopped her, but the warnings on the bottle were no more severe than whats on a bottle of acetone, acetic acid, ethanol etc.
The point is, people don't respect hazardous disciplines. Our litigious society makes this worse with "safety exhaustion" (people learning to ignore warnings on things which we all do, how many people use a stepladder alone?), and the result is more injury.
Cutting timber is another thing untrained people try to do and hurt themselves. Usually its when they are cutting up a felled tree and get their teeth knocked out when they cut through it and release hidden tension.
Or rednecks who decide to do the wiring on their house themselves, or inexperienced people who want to keep cattle/horses/pigs/chimpanzees as pets.
Or my favorite example, dumbasses who blow themselves up cooking meth. Ether is flammable y'all!
Speaking of, Breaking Bad starts Sunday!!
I would just LOVE to see the government remove the patent and make the technology free for all.
At least it'd be consistent with the jury's ruling!
Would they have implemented an onw technology preventing this injury - ok. Would they have written in the manual that "this saw does not contain state-of-the-art protections against injury, use on you own risk" -ok. Would they have used a patented scheme to protect against injury - ok.
when it comes to injuries i think machines and tools must avoid well-known risks, and that is the task of the designer of the machine.
Besides IT I do some carpentry, etc. A very few of my tools have electro-dynamic braking. When you shut them off they stop FAST- no long coast down.
There are several ways to implement this, but basically you apply DC to an AC motor and it will stop quickly. Or apply DC to the field of a brush motor and short the armature (brush) contacts- it will stop fast, or apply a short to the armature (brushes) of a PM motor- it will stop fast. It's not rocket-science or patented technology and SHOULD be REQUIRED on ALL power tools. I should do some HW hacks on mine- I stupidly cut a finger slightly last week on a power-planer coasting down- I was in a hurry and my mind went to the next task rather than thinking about the still coasting blades. So easy to fix...
The idiot who knew sawstop exists and chose not to buy it, then ignored multiple pages of warnings in the table saw manual gets to decide whether or not he gets to live, or keep all of his digits, etc.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
they also want to eat your brain
Are all car manufacturers that don't implement Mercedes new radar-guided emergency braking systems now liable when drivers rear end someone?
By the precedent set in this particular case - Yes.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go drive around the block a few times. In reverse.
Seriously, woodworking uses inherently dangerous equipment. Can you imagine whats next, lets sue X name router company because that sharp ass bit spinning at 18k rpm, removes all your flesh.. guess what, there is no saw stop tech for routers, or planers, or thickness planers.. and those all can do way more damage then a table saw.....
Where does it stop.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
*sigh*
Grownups, these days. They ruin fucking everything.
Kid-proof tablet..
On the other hand, this definitely qualifies as frivolous law suit. Power saws are dangerous, and if you don't know how to use one safely, you shouldn't be playing with them.
Without Saw Stop technology, there is no other hand.
If this is anything like the small Ryobi saw I have, you must assemble it before using. The Manual has countless warnings about using the tool safely, you get to hold the blade in your hands and see the sharp nasty teeth, surely it is obvious that this equipment can hurt you. Once it is assembled and it is turned on, the sound it makes is obviously a sound that should alert you again that you better respect this tool. There is a standing rule here at my house, if you need me or there is a phone call for me or whatever, if the saw is running, do not even open the door to the garage until the saw is off. Same thing applies to routers and many other tools. It's not very difficult to use a table saw safely but it is a tiny bit less efficient ASSUMING you dont mangle a body part. I see contractors with those saws with no blade guard or kickback pawls and just shake my head, the same guys that disable the blade guard on their Skilsaws. What if all saws are mandated to use saw stop and someone bypasses it electrically and then gets hurt ? Sue saw stop for making their technology bypassable ? This is absurd........
One problem with many safety features is complacency, when you know something "can't" hurt you, you tend to not bother trying to stay safe around it. In some cases injury rates actually INCREASE with safer products because people stop being careful, and this particular technology is a great candidate for that increase, it will do nothing to stop you from getting injured by the wood kicking back (the leading cause of injuries on table saws), and who knows how well it will work after 10 years of sawdust accumulate in the electronics, but people know they have a "safe" saw so they'll happily jam their hand right in there without thinking.
If the saw blade flies out of the machine and hurts someone, they have every right to sue (assuming they followed the manufacturer's instructions when they installed the blade) however if they didn't realize that a device designed for cutting wood could also cut humans, it's entirely their fault.
Not to mention how many men are born with 6 fingers.
Yeah, but 680 of those fingers were probably pinkies... which are like the lizard's tail of the human body.
They grow back?!
... and then they built the supercollider.
I think such things need to be tested for safety standards by some external organization, who approves it.
And if some fool manages to cut his thumb of anyway, bad luck.
Actually I live in Germany and here stuff gets tested for safety and approved, but it doesn't need to be idiot-safe.
I've used table saws, chainsaws, angle grinders etc. as a teenager already, but my father told me to take care and have some respect and actually a spinning sharp blade causes respect by itself imho.
I think there should be safety standards that reduce the risks, but some tools are just more dangerous than others and dangerous tools shouldn't be operated by people, who are careless and lack the respect for it or have no clue.
People have some responsibility to care of themselves and know, what they are doing, before they do it. Such saws aren't toys.
3% of wholesale == large % of profits.
Crazy? Why? On the business end, a patent license costs money. So, if you break it down, these people had forgone safety for profit. I don't see why they should not be sued?
And it's not that horrible, TFA says the price would be about $150 on top - and we're talking about machines costing from 2000 to 5000 bucks here, so that's a few percent. For not losing your hand.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Kickback is the number one cause of all power tool injuries.
I watched my pal use a piece of wood on a joiner, broad-side, against safety regulations. one blade bit into a very wide knot (that it would have gone through normally if he was working the narrow plane) and threw the wood out from under his hand, where his weight on the wood plunged his hand right into the again-rotating triplet of joiner blades. Adios fingertips.
Of course, I must say that from my experience, most kickback is caused by sheer stupidity or carelessness.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The brake is a huge aluminum block that clamps and slips onto/into the blade path. Blade damage is irreversible. I would never use a sudden-stop saw blade ever again after being triggered, anyways. Too much worry about metal fatigue or mechanical stress.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
What needs to be written is that patent examiners and lawyers need to have degrees related directly to the product which they are attempting to get patented/judging for patent validity.
I'm betting we're seeing chemical engineers judging patents related to plumbing.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The guys insurance company hired the lawyer to file the lawsuit (in TFA). It makes sense for them, they have to pay out the nose every time somebody who doesn't know what they're doing cuts a finger off, they want another party to share the financial burden.
Make that 11. Most men have two hands
Yeah, but 680 of those fingers were probably pinkies... which are like the lizard's tail of the human body.
You mean they grow back?
"either license the tech or develop your own that provides a comparable level of safety."
I will bet you ten million dollars that those jurors had NO technical knowledge of the patent system, nor the patent in question.
The exact method used for the mechanism cannot be duplicated in any other way. I love tearing things apart and finding new ways of doing things, from what I read and from what i've seen in action, fat fucking chance of doing it without directly violating the patent in question. In fact, the only other way I could think of would be so destructive you might as well just give the saw operator a frag grenade, pull the pin, and release the fuse lever.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Yes.
CRUNCH!
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Actually the pinkie finger is very important, it is prehensile and thus can move away from the ring finger, which makes it extremely useful for grasping objects. IIRC, this is also a trait unique to humans.
Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
If you use a table saw to cut your hotdogs this device isn't for you - you should be looking into nice shelfs for your pending darwin award...
... Take the airbag that deploys in a car to help prevent death or serious injury in an automobile accident...
You're sure you're not confusing the airbag with a seatbelt? The seatbelt is a very good safety device and probably saved many, many lives.
The airbag, though, is arguably an expensive gadget that maimed and killed quite a few people. How does it prevent death or serious injury?
Especially in US, this low-yield bomb is quite dangerous if you happen to be a short driver or wear glasses. If I knew how to disable it in my car, I would do it; I don't like the prospect of getting blind just because the frigging airbag deployed from a mild bump...
How does it prevent death or serious injury?
It prevents your head from smashing into the steering wheel.
The airbag, though, is arguably an expensive gadget that maimed and killed quite a few people.
Wikipedia lists 175 killed by airbags and 6377 saved by them, quite a good trade-off. Also security of airbags is constantly improving, so a current generation airbag is much more secure then a generation one airbag. And you won't go blind from an airbag.
It is very difficult to hurt yourself with a table saw while following all the safety rules, and common sense.
Up to 60'000 table saw injuries a year should be indication enough that the current safety rules are either not good enough or not practical enough to be used by everybody in each and every situation.
...takes second chair to liability. We award people that lack common sense with finanacial gain.
Put a hot cup of coffee between your legs and get burned? Cash!
Pump a tankful of gas and light a cigarette while wearing the gloves you spilled some gas on? Voila! CASH!
Cut your thumb off because you weren't paying attention to the rapidly spinning blade on the table? MORE CASH!
No one take responsibility for their stupidity or recklessness anymore. So next time I'm swinging a hammer and I bust my thumb open, I guess I'll have to find me a lawyer that can get me a few bucks for my pain and suffering.
SUCK IT UP LOSERS. Take some responsibility for your own stupidity!!!
To avoid corruption, one must remain dishonest.
And if you loose a pinkie you can always make yourself look like a bad ass by saying you "defaulted on a Yakuza loan".
Here are some facts. All of them were gleaned from web searches in the space of 2 hours.
Stephen Gass invented his table saw safety system in 1999.
He first showed it at the 2000 International Woodworking Machinery and Furniture Supply Fair.
He then pitched it to table saw manufacturers in the US, who all balked at the cost to add the system to their saws, the still experimental nature of the design and what they considered outrageous licensing fees.
In 2003, Gass petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to "...require performance standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw."
In testimony with the CPSC Gass admitted that the standards he proposed could only be met by his invention but that he would license the invention to any manufacturer. He also stated that the licensing fees would be 8% of the wholesale price of the product.
Such inventions are usually licensed as a percentage of the manufacturing cost of product and typically up to 5%.
There are now 50 lawsuits against various manufacturers to include "flesh-detection" technology in their products. Stephen Gass himself participated in the lawsuit mentioned in this topic as an expert witness for the prosecution.
Stephen F. Gass now has 56 different patents on various saw types (miter saws, bandsaws, etc) for safety systems.
Anybody with a moderate amount of web-savvy can duplicate this research. It's all a matter of public record. Draw your own conclusions.
What I see is a man who invented something, tried to charge more than the going rate for it and then decided to use government mandate to force adoption of his technology. At the same time he is using the judicial system and a lot of frivolous lawsuits to force manufacturers to pay his price. How long do you think it will be before the CPSC is petitioned to require standards that guarantee Gass's technology on every type of saw sold in America?
I have no financial interest in any of these proceedings except as a woodworker. Stephen Gass manufactures tablesaws that use his technology (SawStop). Not surprisingly, SawStop tablesaws are more expensive than equivalent tablesaws from other manufacturers. What I see in the future is an increase in the price of every piece of woodworking equipment sold just to include safety equipment that I do not need. I have all ten of my fingers thank you.
For those interested in seeing this technology in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3mzhvMgrLE Includes a demo of a guy trying to feed his finger into the saw.
Units like this are very popular at indoor construction sites, because with one machine you can do almost every wood cutting. And they are very easy to carry. And these are the machines that usually you cut fingers with. Pretty hard to implement this magical saw-stop tehnology to units like this.
http://www.werkzeug-news.de/news7/img/h-dewalt-d27112.jpg
Even SawStop had a good product, lawcases like this only give it a bad publicity!
If you RTFA, you would see that they're trying to license for 3% of the wholesale value of the saws. Hardly half.
read it again, that wasn't what he said
If this is truly a matter of public safety, such that saw manufactures will be required to use this patented technology (b/c of common law ruling), then the government should be able to intercede with some form of eminent domain, paying the inventor a reasonable compensation and making the technology public accessible.
I am appalled by this decision. He had a choice up front to spend a lot of money on 'saw stop' or a (much) cheaper saw. He chose the latter and then sued. That the jury agreed with him is astounding considering that he rejected the 'saw stop' choice up front. The consequences of this kind of decision are too easy to envision. The tree of life is self-pruning. Pity it was only his finger that got cut off... Hopefully this will be appealed and sanity will crawl back on the scene.
3% of the wholesale value may well be about 1/2 the saw manufactures profit.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Clearly, you're not an emacs user.
"Given the pace of technology, I propose we leave math to the machines and go play outside." -- Calvin
The problem with most guard/splitter combinations is that they are difficult to align and keep aligned to the blade. So people end up just leaving them off rather than have to keep dealing with it. Just last year a new requirement for riving knives instead of splitters went into effect, though this is to be UL listed not a government rule. Riving knives are far superior and don't have the alignment problem because of the way they are mounted directly behind the blade instead of at the back of the saw.
No matter how good the safety device is you still have to get people to use it. The Sawstop comes with an override switch to prevent false positives when cutting metal or very wet wood. How much do you want to bet that if this were on every saw a large number of people would just turn it off? Accidents are caused be people who think it's never going to happen to them.
50% of profit could be equal to 3% of of wholesale price, all it takes if the profit to be 6%.of the cost of the saw. I didn't even have to RTFA to realize that.
I have no problem with the inventors marking money off their invention. However, using force of law to require others to license your technology under your terms is not right.
Part of the problem is that even with air bags, people don't know how to drive - they sit WAY too close to the steering wheel. Not only does this mean more likelihood of early impact on either a not-completely-deployed airbag or the steering column, but it also means that they are less able to quickly maneuver the steering wheel to avoid accidents in the first place. All because they don't know how to properly adjust their seat.
Another consequence is that you have to move your eyes/head more to see out both side-view mirrors, making them less useful.
I get into the cars of people who are way taller than me, and I have to move the seat back. They're just accidents waiting to happen.
Little math, buddy.
Parent said "equivalent of half of the gross profit on every saw sold"
You said "3% of the wholesale value of the saws"
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but would a 6% profit margin be a pretty good profit margin for a mass produced commodity consumer good?
Would not a 3% increase in production price of the whole product be HALF of your profit margin? A few percent seems trivial until you realize the razor-thin profit margins of mass produced goods.
This whole mess smells of a stunt by the original patent holder to shame or legislate companies in to licensing the tech.
Hmm ... $100 a pop for some annoying safety feature, or $1.5 million for cutting my finger off.
Sounds like if anything the Safe Stop saws would see less demand from people who don't mind a reattached finger for a million or two.
Stop the patent trolls from holding on to patents just to sit around and sue people. The whole point of having a patent on something is to use it in the market place and license it to others so that you can make money off of it. If you are not doing that then you should loose it!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Bingo on the standard thing. Even riving knives (not splitters, although those too) aren't considered "standard." I think by the end of the year all new tablesaws will be required to include riving knives, making that "standard," but sawstop definitely is NOT a standard.
Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
There is a really horrible video on the interwebs, it shows some poor fool lopping off his thumb, while making cabinets for his wife.
It should be required viewing for any power tool user.
It's horribly shocking, and I was disturbed for quite some time afterwards.
If you must google 'minor tablesaw accident.'
I'm betting we're seeing chemical engineers judging patents related to plumbing.
They should be, if the patented technology is a new sealant for the joints.
If you read the post you quoted, you'd see that Gross Profit and Wholesale Value are not the same thing. 3% of the Wholesale Value could well be equal to half the Gross Profit.
TO DO: Invent and patent pistol that does not fire (no firing pin?). Fund lawsuit against firearm company for accidental shooting, requiring all firearms to license my patent.
It is one thing when you sue someone for not using industry-standard safety, but when you hurt yourself you can't really blame them for not using cutting-edge/not-yet-on-the-market/unproven(but well hyped) technology.
This ruling will not stand. Every industry in the world sees the problem, and will fight it. They don't want to be forced to always be buying whatever scam-of-the-week safety device is on the market. They can not be liable for not converting to unproven technology, even if it were free.
And by this logic, no-one would be allowed to earn interest off their capital, and no-one would be allowed to have any savings or pass on any of their wealth to their children, because this is nothing but earning money off work that has been done already.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Yes, there's always a simple way to get round any patent, it makes you wonder why they bother having them in the first place.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So, cash == patents? Interest earned == patent licensing? If you think patents and copyrights should last forever, then just say so. There is really no need to make up ridiculous analogies that make no sense.
Last I read the other problem was false braking. If the material conducts similar to a finger then the brake engages. Brake needs replacement ($70) and the saw blade is destroyed ($40 to upwards of $200). Material that caused problems: moist wood, wet spots in wood, green wood, some metalic plastics, hidden nails, unseen staples, etc. So there are reasons not to have this feature.
Do you have auto insurance? Ever seen what happens to auto insurance when you've been in a few accidents?
A doctor who gets sued for malpractice has his insurance premiums skyrocket, if the company doesn't drop him entirely. Then he has to pass that on to his customers as well, unless he's driven out of business completely.
Reduce malpractice risk while ensuring the victims are fairly compensated? How about capping the amount that they can receive for "emotional suffering", so that they can't stick, for instance, $300,000 pain-and-suffering onto a $2,000 cost-of-correcting-the-problem settlement?
Do you have auto insurance? Ever seen what happens to auto insurance when you've been in a few accidents?
A doctor who gets sued for malpractice has his insurance premiums skyrocket, if the company doesn't drop him entirely. Then he has to pass that on to his customers as well, unless he's driven out of business completely.
If being sued for malpractice (and losing) is really as unpreventable as the GP suggested, then perhaps we just need to prohibit insurers from jacking up premiums in the wake of these unpreventable events.
If it's not as unpreventable as he suggested, then isn't this the correct outcome?
Reduce malpractice risk while ensuring the victims are fairly compensated? How about capping the amount that they can receive for "emotional suffering", so that they can't stick, for instance, $300,000 pain-and-suffering onto a $2,000 cost-of-correcting-the-problem settlement?
Are you arguing that there is no amount of pain and suffering that justifies a $300,000 settlement, or only that it can't possibly result from an incident involving $2000 of actual damages?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.