sdunmire

And, for the record, no one is trying to force something on you. You can do whatever you want. Someone (in this case the people whose JOB it is to do so) is trying to force an industry to minimize danger. They are not going to tell them exactly how to do it, so Mr. Gass's invention may be one of many this time ten years from now.

I find it funny that people get so bent out of shape over this.

And I find it sad that people with no knowledge of product safety (other than using them) are so bent on trying to convince the world that this is bad for the industry, bad for the economy, bad for our society, etc.

Do you really know? Because unless you're in the business of developing products, you probably didn't realize that this sort of discussion goes on every day across America and around the world.

Everyone uses the seatbelt analogy, but product safety surrounds us. And it didn't come from the manufactures, I can tell you that much.

Without the CPSC, I'm guessing many of us wouldn't have made it to adulthood. Sure, they are annoying sometimes. But is it really the end of everything great and good about our society if they're just trying to make something dangerous a little less dangerous?

So many unsubstantiated claims. Tsk, tsk.

The amount that the Power Tool trade association thought it would cost to add this feature?

- $50.

Gass's "get rich" scheme. License a technology to the industry. For how much?

- Purportedly it was 3% of the wholesale selling price.

Which, unless he convinces a giant portion of the industry is probably not enough to run any substantial company on. Certainly not enough to continue to innovate and develop new and interesting technologies--thus rendering SawStop a "one hit wonder."

As someone who works developing products for a career, I can tell you that 3% of wholesale is not high. In fact, if I would've been the guy he came to (I'm in another industry) I would have offered him 5% and substantial guarantees in exchange for a 24-month exclusive license to his technology. It's that good. Of course, I would've built a more mainstream-priced product and sold more numbers than he did, though I do love my ICS Sawstop.

Personally, I respect a businessman who believes in his product enough to fight for it. The big guys do. Why should Gass be held to a different standard?

Another thought on who is the good guy and who is the bad guy here: On the measure of raising awareness about safety--the score is:

Mr. Gass: 1
Everyone else: 0

@Mettius,

I liked your comments, (and am also a SawStop owner!) but there is little precedent for robbing the CPSC of its powers based on any constitutional limitation. The Constitution is sufficiently vague in this area that none but the most conservative of courts would throw out an existing agency that, by most people's view, does more good than harm.

I am not a fan of government overreach, but this doesn't rise to that level.

Also, if Gass thinks that he has a way to help people avoid mistakes that they will likely regret, wouldn't it be a bit unethical for him to not promote it? And isn't' it a bit '"anti-american" to suggest that it would be wrong for him to profit from that at the same time?

What is funny to me is that executives from tool manufacturers passed on licensing SawStop because they were afraid that they would be opening themselves up to liability on products they made that are already in use and people think GASS is the bad guy? Wow.

Making safer tools does not signify the end of personal accountability.

Furthermore, utilizing the court system to compel companies to make safer tools does not signify the end of personal accountability.

Arguably, the courts are just another tool. And the ultimate personal accountability is represented in the freedom for ANY of us to utilize them to change things that one believes should be changed. That is, after all, why they are there.

Reasonable people may disagree on the role of government in regulating an industry, but I fail to understand why this man shouldn't be entitled to at least make his claim.

And, unless you heard all of the testimony, you're just spouting opinion by disputing the jury's decision. Don't lay claim to the facts.

How many of you could honestly say you never did anything that was "against the rules" in favor of time or convenience? Never turned the garbage disposal on or off with wet hands or one hand on the faucet? Well, a more expensive GFI might've saved your life. Think no one ever sued and won, even though personal accountability should've been considered?

Products are safer than they ever have been, thanks to the courts. Lawn mowers cut off fewer fingers due to better blade guards, paper shredders strangle fewer necktie-wearing idiots, fewer children of lazy (not supervising their kids) parents die in locked car trunks, fewer mattresses burst into flames when their owners smoke in bed--the list truly goes ON and ON.

The point is--every one of these products was implemented under threat of litigation and cost the company money that was passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

But ultimately, many of the above arguments prove the point. Saying he could've prevented the accident by putting the guard on is to admit that at least SOME safety features are a good and necessary evil and the cost that was added by their presence is reasonable based on their ability to effectively prevent injury when used correctly. So go ahead and state your opinion, but I'm guessing that the jury--after being presented with expert opinions from both sides of the case--is more likely to make the right choice than a bunch of us spouting uninformed opinions based solely on our personal experiences.


By the way, it is extraordinarily difficult to disable the safety feature from a SawStop saw.

(And, no--I don't work for or otherwise benefit from SawStop. But I do like my SawStop Cabinet Saw...)