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?
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.
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
Actually, yes.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
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?