Thread: SawStop and gory details

The Saw Stop system WILL reduce injury and suffering .... of that there is no doubt.

I respect my table saw ... and take all the precautions i can to avoid entering into dangerous situations. Taking precautions and applying safe work techniques requires conscious thought at all times. 100% attention and no distractions. I have no statistics but anecdotally I know that all my close shaves (and nicks) came when I least expected it .. and did not anticipate what would happen in the next few milliseconds.

I expect that some day in the future we will seen the Saw Stop technology applied to all types of applications ... not just in the workshop but wherever this system can turn a profit.

Just a thought

Rob

I find it amazing that a dude with a good idea can set out to achieve so little with it.

How many years has the patent got to run? Can he file an extension? At what cost?

It seems to me that he has tried to tie up all control of "like" technology, i.e.: the flesh sensing, and has set out to have that legislated as a requirement and it just hasn't worked that way for him. If that is the case then the greedy, petulant little man should get over himself. I find it a great shame that the Bosch option was killed by the courts.

While I prolly sit on the fence as to whether not "like" technology should be included in all machines, I can see value at a hobbyist / DIY level.

Cheers

Originally Posted by Enfield Guy

I find it amazing that a dude with a good idea can set out to achieve so little with it.

I don't know Gass has sold apparently 80,000 saws

Originally Posted by Enfield Guy

It seems to me that he has tried to tie up all control of "like" technology, i.e.: the flesh sensing, and has set out to have that legislated as a requirement and it just hasn't worked that way for him. If that is the case then the greedy, petulant little man should get over himself. I find it a great shame that the Bosch option was killed by the courts.

I can't help but see the parallels from 25 years ago with Apple and Microsoft over the early versions of Windows and other "tussles" over tech stuff.

for me I see nothing wrong with using the courts to defend a patent -- after all it's what the patent holder is supposed to do.

Where I do have a problem is where the patent office issues a patent for pre-existing "art" (the case for Apple vs Microsoft) or for stuff that is "obvious" -- check boxes come to mind.

I would not be surprised if at the end of the day, it was found that the "flesh sensor" is prior art. I'm thinking that the sensor technology is very similar to that used for lift buttons.