scooteruk

Well at least we know who butters Mr. McKenna's toast in the morning.Is FWW a wholly owned subsidiary of PTI? Don't bother going to the PTI site to read there 'rationale' for opposing the 'mandatory' option-it all in McKenna's article.

What is most disappointing about FWW's/PTI's position is that it is the same lame lobby ploy used by pharma companies: If you are going to regulate us and cut into our profits, we are going to leave the market and then you'll be sorry! The PTI controls 85% of the market! Do you think they do it because they are dedicated stewards of woodworking? No! They are in the business of maximizing their profits at all costs. Do you really think they will walk away from this market? No, they won't. Business decisions, not woodworking/personal responsibility factors drove every decision made by Ryobi and the others. They will adjust as the market demands and any CPSC ruling will get factored in. I also note the FWW/PTI keep talking about the increase of cost...what would it be? Who would it price out? Saw Stop is currently thriving by making and charging for this technology. Someone is obviously willing to pay for it-the technology must make good personal and business sense to a number of people.
FWW has turned into little more than a shill for it's advertisers...not that this should be surprising. There was a time when 'buy American' was highly touted. Now that all the players have had a chance to catch their breath and get back on the gravy train by moving overseas, well, nary a word from FWW. If PTI controls 85% of the power tool market I can only imagine what percentage of FWW's ad revenues come from them.

Let's see:
I do not believe there are any 'guvrment' mandates to buy or use this product at this time.
Salespeople at both Rockler and Woodcraft have told me that SawStop is the number one selling cabinet saw. I do not know if this is true and would really like to know what the sales numbers are for all tablesaws.
If true (big if-but certainly SawStop is at least a competitive force in the industry) then, the market is setting the rules, not the 'guvrment'.
That makes sense. If you are in the market for a cabinet saw (not a frequent purchase I might add) and you have a choice and can afford it, why wouldn't you choose a product that offers this safety? By prudently exercising a strong sense of personal responsibility by limiting the massive costs and pain associated with a tablesaw injury I am making my life a little better not only for me but my wife and family and customers and everyone else who gets the fallout of a bad injury.
My next saw is a SawStop. I just can't get my 1969 PM66 to die.

"Ya know, this SawStop video makes a lot of sense..."

For those of you with any interest in the facts of the case (I'm hoping there are some on this db) the case was filed in United States District Court-District of Massachusetts and has the case #:Case 1:06-cv-10725-NMG Document 150 Filed 04/05/10. (N. Gorton, Judge)
It is under appeal. Most recent documents are defendants memorandum in support of a New Trial and Judgment as a Matter of Law (Renewed). With the above information you should be able to access the docket and filings as they are made available. I could not find transcripts yet reported so those that imply that they have read them, please let me know where you found them.
If you read the memorandum above you will be reading Ryobi's arguments as to why the verdict should be overturned. I did not find Plaintiff's response (maybe still out...don't know).
It is an interesting read in that it lays out the legal framework of products liability law as it applies to this case. As you read it, you can get a good idea of how our legal system handles many of the arguments you have posed (e. g. "How can a manufacturer be required to employ a new technology, What are the standards for 'alternative' devices, etc.)
Despite the verbiage that shoots across these boards willy-nilly, there is rhyme and reason behind what happened legally. Ryobi had counsel. I would be very surprised if Ryobi did not have an opportunity to resolve this matter prior to trial. If they did and decided against it, then they made a business decision not to...letting the jury make the decision. Ryobi now must rely on the judicial system to support it's appeal. When all is said and done, all parties will have had their day in court. The loser will complain, the winner will rejoice.

Oh ya, one more thing. If you are interested in some balance and maybe some debunking of myth you may want to read the following article on the McDonald's coffee case which has been cited above and is universally brought up by apologists for corporate America's own, occasional irresponsibility (always blame it on user). http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

For those of you who are blaming Mr. Gass for this I think you may be barking up the wrong tree...I believe the suit was initiated on Mr. Osorio's behalf by his insurance company-not SawStop.
Second, remember a jury-people like you and me, sat and listened to all the testimony from both sides (who were ably represented I would guess) and applied the facts as they found them to the law as presented to them by the judge (jury instructions often are drawn up by the attorneys for each side and haggled over...again-Ryobi had input and a fair chance to present it's case). You can cry about 'common-sense' and all the other faldoral, but the jury found that Ryobi blew it. The jury also found that Mr. Osorio was 35% at fault thereby reducing his award.
Unfortunately, in our country manufacturers very rarely offer 'safety' improvements until they are forced to...it is a simple cost benefit analysis. Products liability law was developed as a safeguard against this reality, forcing manufacturers to improve safety of products placed into the stream of commerce or face expensive and punitive suits like this.
I'm guessing the jury faced an issue of 'accountability'. Did Osorio use the saw in a way that was unintended by the manufacturer? Did the Ryobi put an inherently dangerous product in the market knowing there was an available device that would have obviated the injury? They seemed to answer yes to both.
"Common sense" will tell you, especially if you are a contractor, that people use tools customarily without guards and in ways that are 'unsafe' all the time-especially in the field. Common sense will also tell you that the manufacturers know this and plan accordingly.
We all might want to sit back and see what the jury saw and why they thought Ryobi should have made a safer saw.... Maybe they thought that Ryobi not only knew about a safer way, but they had a sort of agreement to use SaWStop technology and then changed their minds? Maybe the jury felt that the 'industry' was trying to subvert safety technology for their own fincancial gain thereby depriving consumers a very real safety product? Maybe they thought Ryobi should be accountable for making these types of 'business' decisions...not unlike Ford in the Pinto case? I don't know, I wasn't there, but I do know a jury was...you might want to think about giving them a little respect.

Hey,
I look forward to the show but I am skeptical. The underlying attraction to Norm was a project that, when done, the viewer could say, "I could do that...I think!?". The new show looks more like it will feature..."Wow, I could never do that, that's amazing!", in which case, they'll lose me. Less 'wow', more 'how' and lots of working info...beauty and design will take care of itself. Less is more.
Scott

Wow! Marketing Econ 101. There are lots of reasons all of us by tools: price, availability, specific use, durability, design/function and even origin. First off, there is no such thing as a 'free market' and there never really has been. Patents, trademarks, tariffs, duties (and countervailing duties), NAFTA are just some of the tools governments use to reward innovation and increase competition/protection. Living in Detroit for the past 4 years has made this painfully clear. You can stop stomping on Detroit, we are way ahead of the curve on self-loathing at this point, but I will point out that one of the bigger reasons the Big Three got caught with their collective pants down around the ankles was, well, ah, you guys. The number one selling vehicle in the world for many recent years was-the Ford 150. Not to mention SUV's and pickups in general. Demand was so high and the profits so great it would have been criminal from a business point of view not to make 'em. Now really, did you need it? Was it stupid for Big3 to build them ad infinitum? I don't know, why don't you ask Nissan and Toyota and Honda how their pickup and SUV sales have been after sinking billions into the US market based on perceived demand. The vaunted Japanese carmakers thought they were clever and stole the great idea for the great automotive icon-the truck and make it better. High gas prices, low credit availability dashed many 'big ride' egos.

And so it goes with planes. You are the demand. Go on eBay and tell me why used L-N planes sell for as much or more than their new ones (especially if you buy them from Clarence Blanchard at FineTool Journal)? I've been buying LN planes and paraphenalia since the '80's. You know, Thomas LN could have made a lesser quality plane when he started, but he didn't. I'm guessing he geared his business plan towards an ill defined market that wanted the best product he could produce and let the chips fall. Go to his store in Warren, Maine and see what years of constant attention to detail and demand by fine woodworkers has lead to... Ask yourself who else was willing to provide 'floats' for planemakers? Who invested heavily in a new on-site casting facility to control quality and cost? Recently, on a Sunday afternoon, I sent an email to LN customer service with a question about the vintage of an LN beading tool I picked up. Within minutes I got a response Based on the information I supplied. I was told it was an early model without A2 steel but would be perfectly fine for my applications. The note was signed 'Thomas'.
To me, there is great value in that and all the other amenities that come with the purchase of a LN product. I don't have to compare, I know what's good enough for me. It's not a charity buy by any means. There's lots of people who have more dollars than sense who use 'price' as their only guide. What Thomas LN makes is perfect for his market and great for his community and employees. A nice bit of busniness stewardship that adds great value to my pride of ownership. They will always have a 'leg-up' on any competition as far as I'm concerned.