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.
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.
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.
Ah, power tools. Cheap, don't require a license or even a class to buy or operate, and potentially deadly to the untrained. One of the last bastions holding out against the evil nanny state. Of course, this particular bastion is guarded by a cadre of thumbless idiots, but that just makes it all the funnier for the rest of us.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It isn't irrelevant. This is setting precedent that if a company doesn't implement a patented technology, they are liable. This would pretty much force every company to license and implement every other companies' patents or be held responsible for any negative consequences.
It might not be about software, but this isn't the "News for software nerds" and patent law is something a lot of the people at the site have strong opinions about.
-SaNo
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!
The jury held that the law required the company to do so. The law requiring something is pretty much the definition of something being required by "the government".
(And in any case, a jury is a government institution, albeit a temporarily constituted one.)
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Actually, yes.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
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.
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.
This isn't about patents. It's worse. This is classic legislation from the bench. If we want all saws to have this safety feature, we need to pass a law. Otherwise, if you want this safety feature, spend the extra bucks to buy a saw that has it. Hopefully this ludicrous and dangerous precedent will be overturned on appeal.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yeah? So it is less of a burden to replace my fingers?
If it isn't, then you pay $169 more for a saw that'll save your fingers.
Otherwise, you do what this guy did: buy the cheap saw, lose your finger, then sue because you bought the cheap saw.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
As the tip of the blade hooks into the loop of the chain mail glove and tries to pull it, and your hand inside it, through the slot in the table and being partially successful, you'll wish you'd just cut your finger off.
Some tools are much safer without gloves. Drill Presses and vertical band saws are in this category.
This sentence no verb.
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.
I cant say that I have ever seen anyone use a chainmail glove with a tablesaw, hobbyist or professional. A average table saw would be able to cut right through chainmail. Ef. There are special blades you can use when cutting lumber with nails in it. It doesn't even flinch when cutting an 8d nail. So its back to basics:
Pushsticks to keep your fingers away, featherboards to reduce kickback,common sense and RESPECT for the machine!
The jury found, that saws without such devices are defective. I agree, that this is nonsense, but most people cheered, when an automaker was crucified for not making their gas tank safer. GM did not break any law, but were found responsible for the deaths anyway.
The saws weren't defective before the device was invented, but they are now — according to the jury...
There is a much worse example of this problem, one that actually involves the (Executive) Government — I am talking about building codes, which get tightened every year. An unelected government official can force you to rebuild your house "to code" whenever you ask them for a building permit. But we don't read about that outrage in newspapers...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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?
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.
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..
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.
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
Not to mention what it would do to the saw!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
One of the well documented problems is that if you cut wood that is "too wet" then the brake will activate, thinking that it's hit flesh.
So really the article should say "Each time you cut wood that's too damp (which you have no way to determine beforehand) you pay $169 to replace the blade and brake". That puts into focus why some woodworkers who know how to be careful do not WANT the safety feature.
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.
The only one who was doing anything shoddy was the guy who didn't use the saw as directed. 1-1/2 thumbs down.
A consumer grade table saw can go for as little as a couple of hundred bucks. You'd be marking a $500 saw up 10% just for the patent royalties, which would probably equal or exceed the manufacturer's profit on the saw... and for something like a sub-$100 Harbor Freight piece of junk, the markup would be absurd.
Note, I went to the website and watched the videos. This appears to be an extremely clever invention, certainly deserving of patent protection, and the world should beat a path to their door for building a better mousetrap. But I disagree that licensing their patent should be compulsory.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The problem is that there is a simple, preexisting and free way to use a table saw where you never risk getting limbs cut off. This method has been available to everyone since table saws were invented. Here it is: Do not put your limbs in the damn saw blade while it is spinning.
When driving a car there is no way for a driver to ensure that other drivers are not going to hit them and risk injury that could be mitigated by an airbag.
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.
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.
If you are using your saw correctly you will never be in a situation where a "normal" accident will cause you to loose a thumb.
Someone startles you!, You are distracted! Good thing you were using the saw correctly (not standing over the blade, using a push block for small pieces, etc) and didn't have your hand within inches of the blade. You might have gotten hurt if you were doing something wrong.
Someone pushes you into the blade! Quick, run out and sue the guy who made a sidewalk that a criminal decided to bash your head against.
Something weird happens, like the building collapses, a car drives through your garage, magical gremlins pick up the saw and throw it at you. Well, you just might loose a thumb. Oh well.
A roofing hammer is more dangerous under normal operation than a table saw. You actually have to place your finger at the point you are aiming for as you strike. You miss the nail or the nail fails, punches through, deflects the blow and you can smash a finger bad enough to require amputation. With a table saw, you never have to put yourself in harms way. It requires extraordinary external interference or doing something stupid to loose a thumb to a table saw.
Imagine buying a roofing hammer instead of a nail gun because it is cheaper. Then imagine roofing with a blindfold on and smashing your finger badly. If you had bought a nail gun instead, you could have avoided smashing your finger while blindfolded. Now imagine suing the maker of the hammer for this reason. This is analogous to what happened here.
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.
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]
Imagine buying a roofing hammer instead of a nail gun because it is cheaper. Then imagine roofing with a blindfold on and smashing your finger badly. If you had bought a nail gun instead, you could have avoided smashing your finger while blindfolded. Now imagine suing the maker of the hammer for this reason. This is analogous to what happened here.
He was using his table saw, blindfolded, on the roof?
Kid-proof tablet..