Everyone here says the Saw Stop is a fine Table Saw.So are a lot of other saws.What I was wondering is,will there come a time when such a wonderful safety device is available to all saw manufacturers?
It was mandated that Riving Blades be on all tables saws.Does anyone think that Saw Stops will one day be mandated on all table saws as well?
Just wondering.
Capt Keith
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
Keith,
Sawstop started making their own saws because they couldn't get any other companies to incorporate their brake into their designs. I wonder how many of those companies are now kicking themselves.
and www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com)
- Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
Chris,
This copyright thang.....
Now, were others to incorporate a sawstop safety mechanism or similar into their wares, they would no doubt be required to pay a tribute to Mr Sawstop for every one sold. Some will see this as a just reward for Mr Sawstop and his moment of illumination. Personally I tend to another viewpoint:
Mr Sawstop is being greedy and this delays the adoption of his fine mechanism within saws from other manufacturers. If and when they do decide to buy the right to use the sawstop mechanism, the price of the saw to us customers will increase.
Well, you say, what is wrong with that? Nothing, if one is a fan of copyright. However, from the point of view of one of the 99.9999999% who do not have such a right and fine financial fountainhead it brings, the delay and eventual extra payment seems a bind.
You see, I don't mind paying extra for the manufacture and physical implementation of the device, as this requires effort and materials from the provider. But Mr Sawstop's effort to have his bright idea was over long ago, so why exactly do we all have to pay him forever for that one little bit of brain-work?
This isn't just a rhetorical question. If someone can provide a pesuasive reason why we should all pay a chap forever for his momentary brainwork, one might change one's mind. However, it must be said that of the several "cases made" for the copyright of ideas I have not yet found a pesuasive one. They all assume that greed and obscene monetary rewards for a momentary effort are somehow OK; and that the rest of us should have to pay twice - once for the machine and again for the ideas that form it.
I think ideas are just part of the environment and that they belong to us all. No one has a bright idea all by hisself. They are rather just the tip of a vast evolution of already extant ideas available to everyone who is born into a society, culture, language and so forth. Copyright is really something of a con trick. Worse, it holds back progress and therefore actually depresses rather than builds-up the market.
Lataxe, drumming his fingers whilst waiting for a Scheppach TS to include a sawstop mechanism (and hoping he will continue to have fingers to drum).
First of all, copyright has nothing to do here.
Mr. Sawstop (as you call him) has a patent on his product, a patent that cost him quite a lot of money and effort.
Second, I don't think that this was just a 5 minutes effort for him to come up with such an innovative device.
Mr. Sawstop probably went to school for more than a couple of years, came up with something very valid and should be compensated accordingly.
"Mr. Sawstop (as you call him) has a patent on his product, a patent that cost him quite a lot of money and effort.
Second, I don't think that this was just a 5 minutes effort for him to come up with such an innovative device.
Mr. Sawstop probably went to school for more than a couple of years, came up with something very valid and should be compensated accordingly."Actually, touch switches have been used in hundreds of products over the last three decades. The switch could be a $0.50, ubiquitous LM555, a schmidt trigger and latch, etc. Mount the blade and arbour with insulators and a brush, and add a big-#### solenoid. That did not take me five minutes. It might take a bit of money to finess and tool for production, but the idea was not all that brilliant. Brilliant would be applying it to all the tools in the shop and in a way that would not cost $200 every time it 'fired'.If another poster is correct, and they are patent lawyers, people that get rich from not producing anything, then they have probably read dozens of patents using such switches and the *new* idea was only to apply it to a tablesaw. *I* think that's ironic. I lawyer would think that was perfectly valid. I agree the application was a good idea, but it was not an amazingly brilliant engineering feat that some seem to think. If even full-time woodworkers (that already pay >$3k for a saw) all thought so, there would be a lot more SawStops.Andy
"That did not take me five minutes. It might take a bit of money to finess and tool for production, but the idea was not all that brilliant."Not brilliant... but then again you didn't think of it until after they did...
"Not brilliant... but then again you didn't think of it until after they did..."Moot point and smart #### answer. I don't value it much at all or I would have bought one. Thought I made that clear. Fwiw, if the actual patent was to use a touch switch to stop the saw, then both ideas have been done in spades and even lawyers could add two and two together to get SawStop. Was that worth the protection offered? Not sure because I have not read the patent to see what it prevents others from doing but suspect, like others, that it is broadly worded so as to be arguable in court.If I thought it was that worthy and was interested to produce one, I would argue that they cannot patent the only way to make a saw safer, any more than M$ can patent windowing programs on a computer. That's like patenting the idea of spinning the blade to cut wood or making a hole in your wall and filling it with glass so you can see out.What I was trying to inject, was just how simple the technology was. It is not rocket science. The fact that no other manufacturers were willing to pay for its use may be why no one built it before -- not enough value, and not necessarily because no one thought of it. Touch switches have probably been used in countless safety devices not involving tablesaws.Andy
I don't think it was a moot point at all (but yes, it was a little smart ####). The fact is someone else invented it, you have the advantage of knowing how he did it.You're using a lot of 'if's' to describe the patent. The thing with patents is it doesn't matter who COULD have done it, it's who actually did it. Lots of other people COULD have made this, but none did."The fact that no other manufacturers were willing to pay for its use may be why no one built it before -- not enough value, and not necessarily because no one thought of it. "The fact that Sawstop is still around shows that here is value in it. The saw has generated considerable excitement, and I see it popping up all over the place. Most of the shop sin town that offer public classes now have Sawstops.Personally I think its the simplicity of the brake that makes this saw so interesting.
C,
Well, I for one think you make a very good case there. :-)
Mr Sawstop has made a better mousetrap and should be rewarded for each and every one he has made and sold. However, we cannot give him extra for other mousetraps from different manufacturers just because he wants a label on them saying "It was me that thought of mousetraps". He is then making a grandiose claim perhaps.
Lataxe.
Sorry I was busy recently or I could have been your co-Devil's advocate. I like that role, but most on this forum don't understand or appreciate the balance and I just get shot at by the NRA types. Andy
C,
Well, I yam well into a nice academic book that summarises a great deal of research into various flavours of what is now termed Open Innovation. There are a lot of interesting attributes to the many incidents of such practices across various industries that manufacture modern and still-evolving products.
In a while I will be able to summarise a few of these open innovation practices and perhaps also imagine them into a woodworking scenario such as the Sawstop safety innovation. The interesting parts of this academic research are those that illuminate how commercial and profit-making motives can and do ally with other motives; and how everyone (all the manufacturers in the arena, customers and otherwise dormant innovators "out there") can benefit, one way and another.
*****
FG mentions that the discussion may be "political". Well, of course all discussions between humans concerning communal processes (such a the market) are unavoidably political - assuming we mean by the word not "party politics" or "ideological dogma" but rather those practical arrangement between human beings that reconcile their differing needs, wants, beliefs, motives and traditions.
The question here is (as I recall) when and how will safety facilities such as those currently offered only by Sawstop come into the market via implementation within the TS of other manufacturers......
It seems like a very relevant question in a woodworking forum, n'est ce pas?
Lataxe, moving out of the C20th.
I've opined, elsewhere in previous posts, that the tool industry does operate like the old auto industry - government regulation had to be passed to mandate manufacturers to implement safety features we all now regard as standard.Would you choose now to buy a new car without air bags or anti lock brakes and drive your family around in it? Well, of course we want what's best for our family, so...yes please. The air bags and ABS.Saw Stop asks the same question - now that this safety feature exists on a commercially available production tool, why would you choose to buy a saw without the added safety layer?Safety starts and ends with the operator, we know this. However, there are moments in life which are called accidents. (Happens with cars, too.) In the case of the poster who said he only nicked his thumb instead of sustaining major damage, the benefit of his decision to buy a tool with one more layer of safety than offered by Powermatic, Delta, etc. is particularly close at hand. (Ha!)The other tool makers have fumbled, just like the auto makers. The repercussions are at the user level who are taking the brunt of saw blade bites. It's just not an acceptable situation anymore.Cheers,Seth
Designing, manufacturing, testing, and refining the item below, along with the other electronics involved was not simple, cheap, or quick.
View Image
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Edited 10/22/2009 11:55 am by forestgirl
Forestgirl Thanks for that pic. I made me suddenly think that technology is missing a couple huge markets. How about a Mouth Stop for whinning teenagers and co-workers. Then a Cel Stop. to fling the cel phone out of the hand of the hamerhead in front of you in traffic.Finely The BSStop for them people who promise us the world, every four years.........Have you seen that new show The Shark Tank. It is about all these people trying to present there product/service to a bunch of sucessful business people. It is an absolute hoot, some get financing, some get shark bitten. They have had the Canadian one going called the Drageon's Den, for a couple years. You should see the money and time people had put into something that was not "Intellectual property".Shoe who would love a Stopsaw.
It looks like you could plug a printer cable into it.
> Designing, manufacturing, testing, and refining the item below, along with the other electronics involved was not simple, cheap, or quick.Apologize for the late reply (busy), but, what exactly is that mess? If you are referring to the SawStop's electronics, then, with due respect, I'm here to burst your bubble. :( I was building the basic touch-switch circuit in projects as a preteen. Show me a microprocessor in there that distinguishes between flesh and wet wood and I'll be impressed. I don't buy the brake being very complicated, either, but it would be interesting to see if it is. As to the reason they sell so well, I can only guess its the reputation of how well the saw is made as a saw. It may well be worth every penny a $3000 machine for those who will make use of it, but I don't spend that much on any one tool so I'll never know first-hand. (Maybe I'm just jealous.) Andy
Ooooo. Guess he beat ya to it huh.
S'plain me this: if the whole thing is so darned simple, why did they take so much time testing and revising and testing again before bringing it to market (and keep testing afterwards, IIRC making the system better as they went along).
Oh well, this is feeling way too much like a political argument.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
I feel the same way Forestgirl.Did someone accuse someone else of being a commie pinko.LOL
>Did someone accuse someone else of being a commie pinkoThat's purely an american term used, I believe, on other americans. Some of us here are not american. Think of another insult and be more direct.
Yeahhhhh I think Im finished with this site
>S'plain me this: if the whole thing is so darned simple, why did they take so much time testing and revising and testing again before bringing it to marketI don't know. I work in an industry where much more complicated electronic projects are regularly brought to market in less time. So, let me know if you ever find the answer. My bet: it has more to do with producing a fine saw (since it sounds like it is). Andy
How many of these complicated electronic products you mention would result in an amputated hand if they didn't work right? Part of the answer may lie in that particular issue.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
>How many of these complicated electronic products you mention would result in an amputated hand if they didn't work right? Telecommunications products? More than would a SawStop if it didn't work right. The whole e911 issue is but one example of that. I could provide more. As for the TS, you're not supposed to be putting your hand into a moving blade in the first place (...searching for wood...).Andy
<<As for the TS, you're not supposed to be putting your hand into a moving blade in the first place>>Hee hee, your post just about summarizes why the SawStop is going to be a great success. Folks like you.
Edited 10/30/2009 9:29 pm by PeterDurand
Ahhh, I see you haven't bothered to reply to John White's post. Being selective about whom you engage in this lame argument?forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Andy, I think you just got spanked . . . and by a girl too! (But, ahhhh, what a girl she is; you be nice to her now.)
>Ahhh, I see you haven't bothered to reply to John White's post. Being selective about whom you engage in this lame argument?Yes. Most of what John puts on this forum is reasonable and straight to the point, unlike most people here. My personal peeve is an unanswered machine question I directed at him a while back. Since I have developed more repect for him than most others here and do not believe his statement in this thread, I have no reason to reply.As you can see, there are other replies to me in this thread that are just personal attacks. There are a lot of people in this forum with no debating skills so they resort to personal attacks. Since the average age here is much higher than mine, I feel they should know better. If there is no one providing dissenting viewpoints (correct or not) to the conversation, people seem to just accept what has been said. Lataxe has agreed to be that advocate. He also has a thicker skin than I. I will choose which branches of the argument to avoid, by filter (PD) or no reply. I think that's better than an online fight.AndyBtw, the "Squeeling bandsaw" thread is a case for my first point. I won't engage in an argument with him here but just saying that I am wrong is not a strong argument. If you want a not-so-lame argument, bring some meat to the table. Any more websites you care to quote?
Edited 10/31/2009 7:49 am ET by Carya
My personal peeve is an unanswered machine question I directed at him a while back.
And that relates how? Hmmmm, my first impression is that you're saying this perceived slight of you is why you don't engage in a healthy discussion with him about the topic at hand. Ooooops, wait, then we have the next sentence......
Since I have developed more repect for him than most others here and do not believe his statement in this thread, I have no reason to reply. Have to think about that one for a minute....OK, one shouldn't reply to someone with whom you disagree and respect? Sorry, I don't buy it.
Of anyone involved in this discussion, John White can discuss this with the best credentials and the greatest level of understanding and experience. The fact that you won't engage him in the discussion tells me everything I need to know. Bye, bye.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
>Sorry, I don't buy itThen you didn't understand it. Wouldn't be the first time. I don't know why you're trying to make a side argument in this discussion. We were talking about the merits of patents and the SawStop technology.>Of anyone involved in this discussion, John White can discuss this with the best credentials and the greatest level of understanding and experience. Fine, then he can describe the technology used. My guess is that he knows well the mechanism that provides the basic TS functionality. You will not get me to believe he is an expert of electrical engineering. Nor are you in any position to judge the knowledge everyone else brings to this discussion. (Think about that one carefully.) I am certainly not going to start an argument with him because you are goading me. If he wants to discuss the technical merits of the device, then he can explain them (good luck to him), rather than a blanket statement I am supposed to take at face value (which I do not).>The fact that you won't engage him in the discussion tells me everything I need to know. Bye, bye.The fact that you are willing to jump to such conclusions tells me that you are frustrated that I won't believe your word for the statements made. You can not just tell me something electromechanical is complicated and better than anything else without support. You do not have the technical knowledge to make such statements. I know that because I have been reading this forum on and off for over three years.The fact that you say "bye" at the end tells me that you feel the need to have the last word... oopsAndy
word.your turn..
I doubt that the developer of the Sawstop is either greedy or making "obscene monetary rewards". They are making a superbly engineered product with an excellent fit and finish, for not all that much higher a price than ordinary saws. I suspect that they probably don't make any more profit per machine than Grizzly or Delta does on their saws.The group that developed the saw spent many years, and were risking hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money, before the first saw was sold-and you think they should have just given it away to other manufacturers for free?I write books and magazine articles and design shop equipment and tools for a living, I expect to get paid for my work. If a lot of people like what I write and design then I believe they all ought to pay me a fee for using what I created.By the way, patents and copyrights eventually run out and then the material becomes public domain and everyone is free to use it.John White
Shop Manager for FWW Magazine, 1998 to 2007
Well said, John.
JP
Lataxe,
Pooh, pooh silly man.
If what you argue/debate were true the ought all the manufacturers would be giving tablesaws away? I suppose you think they should give away improvements/innovations made to machines over the years?
Did ye and thee pay for Mr. Marcous time developing his fine planes, Mr. Spruce for development of his chisels, or the Sheppach chap for the purfek slider of yourn? I think you should apply for a heavy discount.
Perhaps you should remove all memory from your puter as soon as possible so as not to contribute to Mr. Wangs' coffers. Will ye be switching out all your electrickery in favour of a pedal machine, of your own design?
It's quite ok to have a senior moment, now and agin. It helps the rest of us ol pharts cuz we laugh and grin thus keeping those aging lines at bay.
Jolly good man, keep up the good work.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
"Mr. SawStop" must have gotten something right. His saw is the best selling cabinet saw in the US.
As a side note, the developer offered rights to his patent to all manufacturers including those in the EU. To date none have licensed the system mostly due to legal matters. Were they to put the brake on their top of the line saw and someone buys a lower grade saw without the brake and is injured, they open themselves to serious legal ramifications.
After 17 years, when the patenr runs out and the technology is fair game, I expect that virtually every manufacturer will rush to include it! The greedt Bas******.
I have a SawStop and last week my pushstick slipped and my thumb hit the blade. The result was one drop of blood. Didn't even need a bandaid. Had I not had a SawStop, I would have needed a hand surgeon. As it is, I needed a new blade and brake cartridge (<$200).
Dick
What a wonderful testimonial! I hope many will read it. I've repaired a few saw lacerations.
Tom, M.D.
Bob,
You and some of the other lads have missed my point. I would be happy to pay what Mr Sawstop asks for his fine saw, inclusive of the safety thang. It is a real physical object that he has to construct using real material. Each one needs construction effort and materials.
What I question is the concept that design-ideas should be regarded as a standalone commodity that one may make once but sell endlessly again and again.
The design is useless unless implemented in a real product. So, by all means add something to the cost of a real item (such as the sawstop saw) because it has added value from its design and special functions. But why should a chap be paid over and over again just for having the idea? I believe he deserves payment only for his idea if he implements it in a concrete object that utilises the design as a collection of functioning parts.
Let us consider books. Authors often want a royalty per copy sold. However, they only wrote that content once, whereas Mr Printer has to make a copy for each customer. Let Mr Printer pay Mr Author once for his content, at a price they agree. However, if Mr Printer makes and sells lots of copies, let the cost per copy reflect the cost of production: an actual price for the actual paper, the ink, the binding, the distribution, etc; and the content. There is only one lot of content, which does not increase with the number of books sold, as does the paper, ink, et al.
Does it not strike you as somehow wrong that one good idea should be resold constantly again and again? Should ideas not be like other elements of commodities, sold by the pound, as it were?
Where is that Protestant work ethic for these idea-men, eh? Must we subsidise them all their lives just because they used the ideas of 99 previous folk and added a little extra bit to come up with something novel? Let them have some more ideas to earn their crust!
Lataxe, stirring away.
"Authors often want a royalty per copy sold. However, they only wrote that content once, whereas Mr Printer has to make a copy for each customer."
That assumes the publisher is able to guess exactly how many sales the book will generate doesn't it? And perhaps the author spent many, many hours to put the book together. By hours I mean sometimes the equivalent of years or months of a full time job.
So let's say a publisher is willing to pay an author up front for, let's say, 4000 hours at some figure such as £100, or any other way of coming to a total you prefer. That looks like £400,000.
I imagine your proposals, or anything along the lines you suggest, would kill the book trade dead, and pretty much stymie anyone writing anything, in one shot. Slainte.richardjonesfurniture.com
I must answer a few propositions from you copyright fans.......
Richard Jones: "I imagine your proposals, or anything along the lines you suggest, would kill the book trade dead, and pretty much stymie anyone writing anything, in one shot".
You assume that folk only write things to make money. I believe that many write to offer their knowledge, as a polemic or simply because they enjoy it. Those who do also hope for a financial reward but have no guarantee of getting one. Therefore they must be motivated by something in addition to the potential fortune from royalties. Perhaps by their creative urge?
Many authors will benefit from accepting a small lump sum for their work rather than royalties, as the book may never sell. In fact, doesn't this actually happen in many cases?
Davcefai: "Sawstop have a product which distinguishes them from their competition. When they license their patent they are, potentially, losing sales".
If all saws had sawstop mechanisms, they would sell on the basis of the quality of the saw - its build, cutting ability, materials-used, safety, versatility etc.. The sawstop saw would be competing on a level playing field; customers would have a genuine choice, as other saws would be safe too. Why should Mr Sawstop have a monopoly on safety or require us customers to pay both for a safety mechanism and the idea of a safety mechanism if buying a saw other than his?
Mr sawstop makes a good saw (as well as a safe one). Let it sell for that reason not because it is the only one in which the safety mechanism has to be paid for once rather than twice.
Meanwhile, the development of better and cheaper safety mechanisms, evolved from the sawstop original, is being suppressed in the financial interests of one person - again to the detriment of all we customers.
MattinPA: The promise of fortune has created just about everything. Can you name something that somebody developed for another reason?
Well Matt, from my perspective virtually everything is developed because the developer enjoyed the process - may even have been driven by the innate need to follow their "dream", as you fellows like to call such ambitions. Naturally it is pleasant to make some money, or at least to remain solvent, whilst developing away. But if you think grubbing for dollars is the only reason anyone does something then that is a sad and cynical outlook not reflected by reality.
Mr sawstop, I suspect, developed his safety thang because he believed it was a right and proper facility. Naturally, since he lives in a land of avid profiteers, he has also formed the expectation that his idea should be resellable a zillion times - fame, respect and a decent living are not deemed sufficient in the Land of Mammon. Somehow I suspect he is happier making his own saw and implementing his safety idea as an integral part of a product that is excellent for many other reasons too - value for money.
****
In short, I believe people do most constructive and innovative things for reasons other than money. It is an unfortunate thing that we are all tutored by the accountancy hegemony that money-making is the only true and valid motive held by all human beings. This is nonsense, unless one is a yuppie wall-street kreeture-beast with Friedman-psychosis.
Lataxe
Lataxe, it's true that authors write for multiple reasons, including just for fun, to generate income, and so on. I write for a variety of reasons.
When I write for fun I don't expect financial rewards, although if some comes along that's a bonus. When I write primarily with the intention of generating income there's less fun. If I knew I could only generate a specific and relatively small one-off sum for all the work that goes into writing a large text I probably wouldn't make the effort.
I suppose part of the motivation for me is the possibility of generating income for a long period; years rather than a few months. I don't really see why I would want to do a lot of hard work over a long period and near enough give it away to people.
I don't buy your arguments regarding the SawStop mechanism and the inventor of it. You seem to be suggesting the inventor should give the rights to the device to other saw manufacturers. Why? They could have invented a similar device, or even one that is identical, but they didn't. The patent prevents them simply ripping off the guys intellectual property, the investment of his time, the (possibly) hundreds or thousands of dollars he invested in its development, etc.
As I recall, the device was offered to all the saw makers in the US for a fee. None took it up. Therefore it could be argued that the device was made available as you suggest, but the other saw makers didn't like what it would cost them to get it, and that is surely their choice. The inventor of the device only has a monopoly on it because no-one is willing to buy at the price he's asking. I'd say that's the free market in operation, whatever its faults. Slainte.richardjonesfurniture.com
LataxeFirst of all Mr. Sawstop’s name is Steve Gass. He and his two partners went to every manufacture and could not get them to adopt the brake. I suspect that the reason is because the manufacturers did not want to spend the cost to retool for the new design. Wether you think Steve should give away his design for free is a question of personal values. As for reality, Steve and his partners were patent attorney’s before starting Sawstop so I’m sure the design is well protected.Dennis
Edited 10/18/2009 2:10 pm ET by dennis2
Maybe I'm missing something here but if Steve were to just allow the other tool companies to use his idea wouldn't they be profiting from the technology and for doing far less than he did?
Lataxe,I usually find myself agreeing with your views but not this time."Mr Sawstop" invested a lot of time and money to come up with his final design. Developing an idea is a gamble. This one paid off. So now he reaps the benefit for 20 years.There are a LOT of worthless patents, nowadays usually for software. However one like the sawstop is an example of what the patent system was intended to achieve.Sawstop have a product which distinguishes them from their competition. When they licence their patent they are, potentially, losing sales. Ergo they need to charge a licence fee to compensate for that. This could be a lump sum from the licencee or a per unit sum. It's up to them which method they choose and how much they charge. If they are too greedy then, in the medium term, they will lose out.
Lataxe,
Hmmmmmmmm, I also believe in supply & demand. With your model I'm not sure that will work.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
yes, you are stirring the pot and enjoying it too!
You wrote, "Let us consider books. Authors often want a royalty per copy sold. However, they only wrote that content once, whereas Mr Printer has to make a copy for each customer. Let Mr Printer pay Mr Author once for his content, at a price they agree. However, if Mr Printer makes and sells lots of copies, let the cost per copy reflect the cost of production: an actual price for the actual paper, the ink, the binding, the distribution, etc; and the content."If we were to accept your argument above, then we would also have to tell Mr. Printer that he may only profit enough per book to recoup his initial pre-press expenses of the first printing run, after which all succeeding books must be printed, distributed and sold at cost. After all, it's just not fair for him to continue to profit beyond the initial "momentary" act of deciding to publish the book.BruceT
Edited 10/18/2009 2:52 pm by brucet9
No copyright would result in no device. He wouldn't have spent his time doing it.
You make a great argument for complacency and ultimate regression.
copyrights don't hinder progression, they promote it. The promise of fortune has created just about everything. Can you name something that somebody developed for another reason?
No representation without taxation
Edited 10/17/2009 5:36 pm ET by MattInPA
Microsoft and Apple would certainly disagree with you strongly.
JP
Yer musings fly in the face of all that is inspiring. Are you daft or sumpin?
You must be really pizzed knowing that you have paid all that money for that which you scorn. I don't blame ye! Would ye deny Phillip his due, Mr. Blue Spruce, Mr. Sheppach?
You're a naughty boy and you should stand in the corner, facing the wall. Wait till Ray hears about this.
Regards, Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Robert (I must use your Sunday name as you are issuing admonishments),
That sawstop (and many other WW inventions) are indeed inspiring. However, we are not questioning the goodness of innovation but rather the economic mechanisms surrounding its manifestation via the market in the form of real products.
There are buyers and competitors as well as new technology innovators with a patent. One is merely examining the case from everyone's point of view.
I understand its called "discussion". :-)
Lataxe, suspicious of all self-serving measures, including patents and the propaganda that seeks to justify them.
Lataxe,
I think it's inevitable that at some point in time a SawStop mechanism is bound to fail. Not sure I'd care to make any predictions on how that will all pan out.
I can't say I have anything against paying for someone elses innovation if it represents value to me. On the other hand if one does nothing but reap the rewards afforded by the mechanisms you point to then that would disappoint me to some degree.
Does this suggest the mechanisms are at fault? It would be interesting to hear what life was like before copyright and patent laws came into effect. I'm not quite old enough to remember, or is it that I'm too old to remember..........
If Mr. SawStop were to, let's say improve the design such that the blade didn't get destroyed, should we all feel bad for blade manufacturers? Or should I loathe accountants?
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
"I think it's inevitable that at some point in time a SawStop mechanism is bound to fail. Not sure I'd care to make any predictions on how that will all pan out."
that's easy... they'll be sued quicker than McDonalds was by that elderly woman who spilt hot coffee on herself.......and they'll lose just as quickly as McDonalds did...
I for one, think the Sawstop is a blessing... I just talked to a man who lost 3 fingers and a thumb yrs ago in a commercial woodworking plant ...a sk him how much he wished the SS had been invented ......
That was overturned, McD's didn't end up paying (other than huge legal fees of course).
didn't hear that, but she shouldn't have won in the 1st place.... glad some judges have some common sense..
No doubt...
Butch,
I hope I didn't imply that I was knocking SawStop. I think the device should be on all tablesaws, and proper guards, and provide for good DC; as standard equipment.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
I don't think Gadot will be coming tonight, but he may come tomorrow
not at all.... I was just thinking out loud, actually... I see the issue from the safety point 1st, then the "legal" point 2ndly.... I wish all saws were such equipt.
Butch
Lataxe, the purpose of rewarding inventors for their intellectual work is so that they will gamble with their time, and money, up front to actually think about and solve problems.
Designing things, so that they actually work correctly, is complicated, and hard work. I know that you have done some original designs, and have some understanding of the process.
BIRCH: The designer of the sawstop, is a patent attorney, who has a degree in mechanical engineering, and happens to be a woodworker. Like all of us who have been around tablesaws for any length of time, he was aware of the high level of damage, done to our hands, with a bit higher frequency that many want to think about.
Unlike the rest of us, he actually did something about it. He devoted a year, of time, and quite a bit of money in the design, prototyping, and testing of his brake system.
The odds of coming up with a truly functional, patentable, and saleable idea are really quite low. So, the return on investment of developing an idea, is really quite low overall.
So, from my perspective, he deserves the money he might get as reward for his hard work.
At one point in developing the blade brake Steve (or Mr Sawstop as he is being called) had to actually touch a spinning saw blade to make sure is would work with skin as well as it did with hot dogs. How much compensation does he desirve for that?Steve has a fantastic shop at his home outside Portland. I understand he doesn't have any to use it anymore. So how come there isn't a demand that Mr Biesmeyer give away his fence, or Mr Keller or Mr Krieg etc.?
Edited 10/21/2009 3:10 am ET by dennis2
Spoken like a true liberal. The 60's called, they want there ideals back.
Matt,
I confess I still don't really know what a Liberal is (in American). In Britain a Liberal is a member of a not very successful political party that is, nevertheless, indistinguishable from the other two. :-)
You lads seem unable to grasp the concept of "range". This is where there is not just black & white, right & wrong, left & right, us & them, commies & capitalists but a number of different modes between; and also in other directions entirely.
Nor are the alternative modes of genertaing innovation mere pipe dreams or ideals. Nor are they mutually exclusive (unless a society allows a single interest group to dominate at the expense of all the others - hardly a democratic condition).
Historically, there was a great deal of technological innovation before there was even money, let alone the modern practices that use money in modern systems such as a business. And today, especially in the electronics and software industries, there are many forms of collaborative innovation in which ideas are either shared across manufacturers or provided freely to anyone who cares to use and develop them.
***
Imagine that sawstop offers the interface defintion for employing its brake - not just the physical dimensions but the necessary qualities of a saw's build to handle the brake and its forces. Making this apsect of the sawstop technology available allows other manufacturers to use a sawstop brake in their own new machines. Sawstop sells many brakes albeit less saws. It may or may not make more money to sell the brake or their saw (it's a business risk and decision).
*****
Imagine that sawstop makes their patent available cost-free to other manufacturers but controls who those manufacturers are via licensing. This grows the market in which the sawstop mechanism is the default technology for avoiding finger removal. This is likely to see the sawstop technology remain the de facto standard for such things, which benefits sawstop when other safety technologies are invented and begin to compete.
*****
Imagine a scenario in which sawstop gives completely free access to their patent. They meanwhile innovate with the original technology to make better inserts (that do less damage to the blade and are replaceable as such) and better blades (that are built to better-withstand sawstop braking forces). Sawstop keeps the patents on these newer innovations and sells loads of them to people who have bought the many saws (from expensive to less expensive) that now have implemented the sawstop braking technology.
****
These scenarios are direct analogues to some of the electronics and software practices (there are many more) that use open innovation practices. These practices benefit the original inventors and manufacturers of a new technology, other manufacturers who adopt it and the customers. It creates further and dynamic improvements built on shared innovation practice, as well as a much bigger market and reduced prices (as well as more choice) for customers.
Now, I have no idea (not being a businessman) whether these open innovation techniques will work for technologies such as those found in woodworking. But why dismiss them out of hand or stick some sneery ideological label on them such as "Liberal" (whatever that means)?
Lataxe
Well, the wheel was invented about 5,000 BCE in Mesopatamia, and various forms of commodity money (cattle, grain, etc.) came into use at or before that date. In Mesopatamia itself, it wasn't all that long--a few 1000 years or so that writing was invented--mostly likely as a mechanism to keep financial accounts. Money just happens (actually more that happenstance) to develop as innovation begins to create civilizations.
Ah, It makes so much more sense now. You should preface all of your posts explaining that your European and I wouldn't have even replied to your post. Most people that aren't American don't understand, or just can't grasp the concept of benefiting from your hard work, inventiveness, and sacrifice.
Matt,
Tee hee - most non-Americans can't understand Americans, you think?
You know, I thought it was entirely the other way around, given that Britain is the 51st state and the rest of the world is currently being colonised either physically or culturally by both McFud and McEconomics.
Do you know of the term "jingoism"? It was a mind-state once the bane of The British Empire. The resultant blindspot concerning johnny-foreigner and his strange ways was one large contributor to the demise of that empire (there were many more contributions to the demise; but a surprising number of them were based in some form of national parochialism and rigid-mindedness).
However, America is certainly still replete with that excellent can-do attitude. It is very evident here in Knots, for example; I greatly admire it and seek to emulate it from time to time.
Unfortunate, then, that those with the most money and power within your current domestic cultural scene are so intent on creating conditions where can't-do is the forced norm for most of the population. Why does 1% of the population need 99% of the wealth, just remind me? Where is that trickle-down that the Friedman orc was always promising? Wouldn't a full-sized spring be better, anyway? Alas, the rivers seem dry as dust. Them hedge-funders and other parasites seem to have sucked up all the juice for themselves.
Never mind, greed is good. ;-/
Lataxe, a lazy, good-fur-nuthin of the Nanny State (but surprising capable at this or that).
>In Britain a Liberal is a member of a not very successful political party that is, nevertheless, indistinguishable from the other two.Wow, we like to think of ourselves as independent and innovative where I am, but we're still just a mirror of the 'old country'. ;)Tempted to comment further on your point, but I believe we are seriously outnumbered. :)>And today, especially in the electronics and software industries, there are many forms of collaborative innovation in which ideas are either shared across manufacturers or provided freely to anyone who cares to use and develop them.Indeed -- the open source movement. Started with software but has moved beyond that. In the last few years, many patent-based corporations have successfully integrated patented and closed IP with OSS, just to prove your point.Andy
"Everyone here says that Sawstop is a fine table saw. So are a lot of other saws. What I am wondering, will there come a time when such a wonderful safety device is available to all saw manufacturers?"
All this writing and I don't see your question answered directly. The answer is yes. The rights to the device was offered to all the major manufactures (at a price) long before the Sawstop came into existence. Since no one bought the idea, Mr. Sawstop proceeded manufacturing it himself. After a given time (it used to be seventeen years but it may be more now) the idea will be free to the public.
These laws apply to all patents. The word is profit. Some call it greed and that may be so, but name a business or individual that doesn't want paid for its efforts. Let's face it. We are all greedy. Back in college, we used to call it maximizing profits and minimizing loss and that is what puts bread on our tables and a roofs over our heads.
Patent laws, and I'm not too sure of myself, but I believe originated in old France when the king realized that inventions were much more prolific if the inventor was monetarily rewarded.
This may be a little radical but I suspect that without these laws in effect, we would still be living pretty much as the Europeans did in the middle ages. Chances are that America would not have been discovered yet. We are at odds with China whose people steal billions of dollars worth of our copyrights and patents. The Chineese authorities say they are unable to control the theft.
Think! Can you imagine a drug company developing a drug that cost them many millions of dollars if they could sell only one bottle at their price. The US patent laws were put into effect at its inception. Folks like Ford, Edison, McCormic, and on back, would they have bothered if they sold only one of each machine that they developed at their price.
Edited 10/19/2009 12:24 am ET by Tinkerer3
I think he is having us all on. At least I hope he is.Cheers,Peter
Better life through Zoodles and poutine...
Peter,
You suggest, "I think he is having us all on. At least I hope he is".
Well, I do confess to making a devilish advocacy for an antithesis to the copyright concept. In truth I have no idea whether the copyrighting of ideas (as opposed to copyright of their physical manifestation in real products) encourages or discourages further innovation or the "rate of evolution" of various technologies. And of course, neither does anyone else, since the effects of such customs/laws cannot really be tested unless we can arrange a counter "experiment" where such customs and laws are reversed.
So, the discussion is really just a method of trying to explore possibilities by doing "mental experiments".
What is interesting is the degree to which populations at large accept without question the "rightness" of intellectual copyright and the consequent monopolies it creates, not to mention the concentration of wealth in the hands of a very small group of people. It may be that copyright laws do encourage innovation in some ways; but I suppose my devilish questions are trying to discover if copyright may also have adverse effects on innovation. And on wider conditions in society as a whole.
For example, if a software vendor manages to use intellectual copyright and other monopolistic methods to gain 90-odd percent of the world market in operating systems, does the consequent lack of choice and stunting of the competition actually slow the pace of software innovation (and of its whole market; and all the markets that depend on computers and their operating systems)? This question has been debated for many, many years and the answer is still unclear.
There are other modes in which intellectual product is given freely to anyone who would care to use it. There are also modes where groups of people accelerate innovative technologies by co-operating and sharing research rather than trying to monopolise it. Universities (well, some of the more old-fashioned ones); freeware makers/distributers; pan-industry R&D facilities. Consider, for example, the history of Philip Noyce and the Silicon Valley phenomenon.
Perhaps it is just difficult for a society based on extreme individualism to conceive of mechanisms whereby everyone (including the individual innovators) benefit much more via co-operation and sharing than via the "economic war of all against all" that seems to be the trend of modern capitalism.
After all, here is Knots where information (including innovatory hints&tips-style information) is freely given. I would say that this enhances the world of woodworking and tends to help the commercially-involved folk as much (if not more) than the amateurs. As people are encouraged and helped to do more woodworking, more tools are developed/sold, more plans; woodworking businesses may grow as there is awareness of the product and skilled folk to make that product.
Then we have high finance, where very few people have contived a situation where 1% of people own 99.9% of the wealth, via alsorts of monopolistic practices, including intellectual copyright, whilst the rest of the population is slowly becoming poorer and poorer, to the point where the whole world economy is constantly on the brink of catastrophic failure................
***
So, no nice right-wrong answer then - although the concept of intellectual copyright does "win" by being extant and remaining unchallenged even by those who have to pay through the nose to support it (we customers).
Lataxe
Lataxe,Unfortunately you intermix "copyright" and "patent" where the two are different.Copyright: Literally "The right to copy". If I hold the copyright on a work, it may not be copied without my express permission. That way I control the income from it. Otherwise you can copy my work and sell it without paying me anything. Note that this does not preclude imitation. I can copy your unique style with a fair degree of impunity. However there are lines drawn such that a Russian rip-off of the Harry Potter novels, starring a trainee witch named Tanya Grotter was deemed to infringe JK Rowling's copyright. (I'm not going to argue either way on this one.)Patent: This was supposed to be a way to protect and reward inventors. In return for publishing full details of their invention inventors were rewarded with a 17 year protection of the implementation of their idea. Thus, for example, the ring-pull can was patented and, until quite recently, the inventors recieved a royalty on every ring-pull sold.However along came the greedy bunch who patented everything in sight, largely OTHER PEOPLE'S ideas. They then proceeded to rake in the millions by sueing people who were infringing their patents. The problem is that defending such lawsuits costs millions. Moreover in the USA - where just about all these lawsuits happen - when you win you do not get to recover costs from the loser.Even worse people like microsoft are patenting IDEAS and CONCEPTS.Essentially a good system for protecting inventors has been totally corrupted.So I disagree with your initial thesis about sawstop and similar inventions but do agree with you in your broader statements.For the record, I am a strong exponent of Open Source in software and very anti software patents and anti 90 year copyrights.
D,
You're right that I have a poor grasp of the detail of copyright and patent law, history and such. The questions I ask (and some of those semi-rhetorical answers) are prompted by a naive consumer's view of a mechanism that seems to favour one producer over not just other producers but also over the customers.
In short, when does copyright, patent or other mechanism of monopoly encourage innovation and when does it stifle it. Also, what is the balance between the rewards of the innovator and the costs to the benficiaries.
However, I merely ask questions and put other viewpoints from the convential one as a stimulus to a discussion around the OP's question about when, how or if TS safety mechanisms with the same effect as the sawstop's will come to market.
I need an education in these matters; so today saw yet more of my poor pensioner's dosh winging its electronic way to Amazon in exchange for a couple of books concerning the history of technology and its evolution, with special emphasis on the mechanisms and channels of innovation via the marketing of technological items. They are only books, so the education will be merely academic. Still, I have no end of experience of the practical effects of copyright and patent law, since I am an avid consumer of all sorts of techno-gubbins. :-)
Where would we all be without the gracious gift from Tim BL of this web thang? Paying a certain Large Software Company for the priviledge of a very inferior version of it, probably.
Lataxe
The patent and copyright systen is unfortunately broken - probably beyond repair.I believe that the basis of it is sound. Who would risk putting money into developing something without the prospect of a return?However we now have a system where unscrupulous operators are making a killing from using patents as a weapon to blackmail people who _make_ things.Open Source, works on a sharing principle. Ten people do an hour's work each. Each of them enjoys the fruit of 10 hours' labour. They still retain copyright in their work and are thus able to enforce the Open Source concept.If a similar concept were available for patents then the system might re-evolve into something where we all benefit.
D, you ask:
"Who would risk putting money into developing something without the prospect of a return"?
Well, lots of people. Science was conducted like this until quite recently (and still is, where the capitalist-men have not insinuated themselves into the labs and classrooms). We are currenrtly corresponding in a medium that Tim Berners-Lee developed and gave to the world. Many people who have incomes from some other source are happy (indeed anxious) to investigate, experiment and generally develop ideas for the sake of doing so. They are often keen to tell the rest of us about their discoveries, without thoughts of commercial exploitation.
Just think how much Newton or Einstein could have made from a patent! But they were otherwise motivated.
But what if their ideas are exploited commercially by someone else, who then reaps a large reward. Well, I say that the developer's work to turn the idea into a real and commercially viable product, then market, distribute and sell it, is a just reward for their producer-efforts. How does the idea-man lose out, if his pleasure was in developing the idea and he is still able to eat, keep warm and go home to his loving wife in the evening? (Forgive my genderism).
We have been tutored by the capitalist-men to believe that the only real and worthy motive to do anything is the getting of money. Not only that, a lot of money (greed is good).
I must apply a technical philosophical term to refute this false proposition:
Poppycock!
Lataxe, who is hisself motivated by a hundred pleasures besides the getting of dollars.
<<who is hisself motivated by a hundred pleasures besides the getting of dollars.>>Do ANY of these pleasures require the spending of ANY $$? You can see where this would lead to. :-)
Better life through Zoodles and poutine...
Just to clarify the blade issue with SawStop, when I had a finger save on my saw, SawStop advised me to send the blade out for testing and sharpening. I sent it to the manufacturer and paid for 2 teeth and a sharpening. About $30.
Well made blades are not destroyed by a SawStop. Braking forces are in line with the plate and only a defect in the steel would cause the plate to crack on a top line blade.
Dick
Lataxe
I did a paper many years ago it was about occupational health. I wish I could dig up the exact quote but this is close, (Some old Roman dude)" to do labour for yourself is honorable, to do the same task for others for compensation is dishonorable" Nice saying, but I do not have any slaves to gather my crops and make my grog!! IIRC Buckminster Fuller did not give the geodesic dome to the masses.I do believe in intelectual property rights. What is real greed is when you patent a seed that has been around for thousands of years. Yes it has happened. Also the patenting of Geneticly modified crops, Canola seed, Flax, Corn, then you have to use patented chemicals on it. The big Agro his litigated farmers for growing there patented seed with out a fee paid, even though it has blown on to the field and not planted.This effects all the farmers, as the European Union has zero tolerance for GMO's.Currently there is a fuss over flax having a couple GMO flax seed in a shipment that was GMO free, also Some Canola contaminated some mustard seed, headed for France.
We produce 3/4 of all the mustard seed in the world. Now that whole market is in jeprodey. But I don't see big Agro paying compensation to the farmer's effected.Do not think I believe in GMO crops, not a bit. They were developed with feeding the masses for cheap, but it sure has not happened.Stopsaw good idea serves a real purpose. Patenting a seed, DNA, etc bad thing.
You didn't mention the cost of research and the fact that one research development with corn has more than paid for all agricultural research to date.
Sir, you persist in misunderstanding me.Einstein and Newton did not need to invest money to develop their ideas. Mr Sawstop did.Albert and Sir Isaac did not produce a tangible product. They did not need to borrow money and possibly risk the roof over their heads.There is a Hades of a difference.
D,
Ah ha! There was me thinking I was the misunderstood one. :-)
I issued no question about the patents involved with real products. That 17 year rule might be a bit long (and patents granted a bit too readily for very small innovations) but it stands to reason that a genuine new invention should be encouraged; and one channel for doing so is the market. (There are other non-commercial channels for innovation to emerge, though; do you deny it)?
My question concerns the patenting of just the idea - intellectual copyright. I suggest (without knowing whether it is the case or not) that intellectual copyright may stifle and hold back innovation rather than encourage it. Also that one good idea should perhaps be treated as one product rather than as an eternal fountain of wealth for the fellow who happened to add 0.1% to 99.9% of other concepts already extant and freely available as part of the culture.
So, I applaud Mr Sawstop's actual saw. It not only introduces a worthwhile (and worth paying for) safety device but also represents a high quality saw for a fair price. As such, it competes well with other saws.
But I suppose, as a customer with his own selfish desires (hope Napie is pleased), I want other saws to be available that have similar safety attributes, without having to pay for that attribute twice - once for the actual (manufactured) mechanism and again for mere idea of it.
But it does then become an issue: how to allow Mr Sawstop to reap a just reward for his good saw (not just the idea of a good saw) without us all having to pay an extra $100 for the priviledge, for ever and ever amen, should we want a Scheppach or Powermatic with such safety built in. (Just to be clear, I have no objection to paying Scheppach or Powermatic for the cost of constructing that mechanism but I don't want to pay yet again to Mr Sawstop's patent account because he happened to make the first version).
Can't Mr Sawstop be satisfied with making a good saw, selling lots of them to pleased customers and reaping a decent profit thereby? An honest day's pay for an honest day's work, not to mention the glow he must get from doing all owner's an immense favour with the safety aspect. (But of course, altruism and the resultant high regard of others is worth nothing in a Randian universe, I was forgetting).
Perhaps the answer is, I have to wait 17 years or buy a sawstop? As the sawstop lacks a sliding table and cannot be had from a Blighty WW emporium anyway, I'll be waiting then.
***
Perhaps a better answer would be that other TS manufacturers invent another way to achieve the same safety. Why has Mr Sawstop's successful innovation not stimulated the other manufacturers to innovate in their own way?
In fact, an associated question might be, why are American WW tools often so very old-fashioned that they have to be dragged kicking&screaming into the C21st century by legislation concerning items like riving knives? Could it be that all that mad patent activity concerning ideas (as opposed to real products) is....stifling innovation?
****
You lads that ask if I'm serious with these posts should understand that I'm serious about asking the question and considering all the possible answers, not pushing one particular answer. It's just that no one in the land of the free seems inclined to ever question the status quo in these matters (or many others). Have you all forgotten what discussion is and how it often involves (shudder) considering different points of view? Does no one else want to take the divvil's seat for a while?
*****
Incidentally, D, you have no idea how much Newton and Einstein invested in their work, either in effort, money, life-sacrifice or loss of potential income.
Presumably you wish also to disallow from patent any bright idea that occurs to a fellow in a flash rather than as a result of much time and experimentation, since your test seems to be "need to borrow money" in developing an idea?
Lataxe, who always enjoyed them Socratic dialogues.
PS I do so enjoy a good argument. :-)
David,Trying to tackle your points one by one.OK, so we agree on patents on real products. THAT is and was meant to be the point of patents. And yes, there are non-commercial cjannels for innovation to emerge.Copyright, defined as the protection of the _product_ of inellectual endeavour is, in my book, a Good Thing. An author is entitled to reap the fruit of his labour in whichever way he chooses. He can give it away or charge a fortune for it or request postcards telling him how wonderful it is..... A good idea is simply that; a Good Idea. Unless it has been expressed as a product, ie a book or a device, it is not eligible for any protection. Anybody who wants to retain sole ownership or custody of an idea can simply not publish it.Now back to sawstop. Mr Sawstop expressed his idea as a device. If other people are allowed to copy it freely then they can probably price him out of the market. A major maufacturer can usually afford to lose money for a couple of years in order to see off a particular competitor.This _is_ a market matter. Buyers have the choice of buying a sawstop or a possibly better (or more suitable) but more dangerous saw. Sawstop do not have a corner on the concept of stopping a saw blade dead in next to zero time. They do however have exclusivity on that spring-loaded piston gadget which does precisely that. The legal fun could start if sawstop claim "intellectual property" on the method of detecting that the blade is now sawing up people rather than wood.
<<if sawstop claim "intellectual property" on the method of detecting that the blade is now sawing up people rather than wood.>>
I would think that the physical method designed and used (sensor, whatever) would be part and parcel of the patent. Or am I missing something here?Cheers,Peter
Better life through Zoodles and poutine...
If I could answer that question perfectly I'd be a patent lawyer!A patent is granted (or should be) for an "non obvious" innovation. "Prior art" invalidates a patent.Question: How obvious is it that you can detect a person by a current leak to earth? Would an ELCB count as prior art?I am not a lawyer or a patent expert. I just happen to have learned more that I'd like to during the recent debates on patents and software.If you go to http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7472634.html and download the pdf, on page 29 it states that all of the inventions have been previously disclosed, ie there IS prior art. The patent seems to be on the _combination_ of all the ideas.Anybody setting up in competition to sawstop is going to have an interesting time working around the patent.
D,
Like you, I would like to learn more about "open innovation", which is apparently now a real mode of R&D/product development that operates via sharing of information and co-operative efforts across industries, rather than the old-fashioned competition of all against all. I have acquired, as a first step in getting this understanding, a book:
http://www.amazon.com/Open-Innovation-Researching-New-Paradigm/dp/0199226466/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256204853&sr=1-1
Meanwhile I believe that Knots (and forums like it) are a sort of low-level model for sharing innovative practices. True, the scale and impact of the knowledge we exchange freely here is very small. Nevertheless, the fact that folk are able and willing to share even these small innovative practices of woodworking is a clear demonstration that we can all benefit (and contribute) via the useful thoughts of others without the exchange of money entering the picture.
All it takes is an acceptance of the possibility that there are many kinds of relationships and exchanges that are non-commercial. Some will call these exchanges of knowledge "a trade" but it would be yet another linguistic fallacy to imagine these kinds of trade are like those of a market.
Lataxe
If you want to compare a society that has, and enforces, patent law with one that doesn't, I would sugggest looking at the old Soviet Union and other communist countries versus the United States and Europe. Which fared better in terms of innovation that made life better for the masses?
No "inventor" in their right mind would spend the kind of money and time needed to create some of their patents if there were no reward for it, or if they were forced to give it away when done. Innovation is the race for the better technology. Innovators see a need, and can invest vast resources to bring products to market. Sometimes these efforts fail.
Look at the medical industry. They fund the research for new drugs with the profits made of existing drugs. If they didn't have patents on those drugs, which they spent millions to develop, their market share and margins would fall, and their profits would sink. They then wouldn't be able to focus the same resources on the next generation of drugs.
Many of these new drugs take years to develop by large teams of scientists and chemists, followed by years of studies to make sure they are safe. Somehow those costs have to be recovered. If another drug company can just "take" that drug and copy it as it wishes, the developer company would have to compete with a company that has spent no money on development, and since they don't do any further research for new drugs, can live nicely of slimmer margins.
Who wins? The general population misses out on better treatment, so they don't win. The company that developed the drug can't recover the cost of development, so they don't win. The only entity that wins is the company that got their free ride. Kinda like China!
Edited 10/29/2009 11:29 am ET by FingerJoint
I would also like to add that if patents did not exist, the SawStop would likely never have made it to fruition. I doubt the inventor would have been able to gather the funds necessary from investors and bankers in order to start a manufacturing company. If the big companies, such as Delta and Powermatic did not buy the concept, where would that leave the inventor?
He had spent a lot of time and money developing a product he believed in, but nobody was buying. With no patent protection, he wouldn't be able to get the funding to bring it to the market on his own. Investors and bankers would not be willing to risk capital to bring the SawStop to market if they knew anybody could copy it. I don't see anybody winning in that situation either.
Mr Joint,
Your point that a patent monopoly on a design will allow the holder to make money without suffering damaging competition, and the consequent motivation this monopoly provides, is certainly one valid scenario. Who denies it? But valid questions are:
Are there additional methods for stimulating innovation; and even additional motives besides making as much money as possible?
Can these alternate methods & motives operate in some circumstances to produce a better win-win (for innovators, manufacturers and customers) than the old-fashioned hoarding of knowledge by private firms and jealously-guarded patents?
Note, by the way, that patents are often held by large companies rather than the person who performed the innovation. Sometimes the company pays for the R&D but often they merely buy or "steal" the innovatory idea from its inventor. Being a wage-slave, purveyor of inexpensively-bought ideas or even a "victim" of idea-appropriation does not seem to demotivate many innovators. So the getting of lots of money isn't necessarily the primary motivator of those who seek and find innovatory ideas.
If you want a big example, consider academic science where lots of research results are freely-published, even today, without the publisher thinking instead of how much he can make via a patent. The clever people in academe are often doing such work for its own sake; or to gain status and further thinking/experimenting opportunities from/with their peers.
One does not need to necessarily spend a lot of money to have bright ideas. It's their development into real products that takes significant capital investment and no one is arguing that there should not be financial mechanisms to compensate and reward such efforts and investments.
***
I hope to paint a scenario (using those open-innovation concepts and practices I just read about in that fine book I mentioned) to illustrate how the sharing of bright ideas about woodwork-related technologies could reward a much wider range of those involved - innovators, many more manufacturers and all their customers. The central concepts are that
Freely sharing innovatory ideas about potential technology implementations can stimulate the market (more producers make more products with the technology).
Such stimulation provides a vastly greater scope for further innovation which builds on the first new technologies following the new design paradigms.
The innovatory scope and activity balloons, concerning the new technology, along with the size of the market for the ever-increasing range of technologies involved.
The original innovator benefits more than if the first idea had been patented and exploited only by him, because although his market share of the new technology products is smaller than 100%, the market has been stimulated by making the innovation patent-free to the point where even a very small percetage market share is huge because the market has proliferated and grown by the increased opportunities underpinned by the innovation.
Think software and electronics-based new technologies such as computers, mobile phones and similar. Much of those markets have been grown via technology sharing, either via patents shared by multiple manufacturers in the sector or via out & out patent free publishing of innovatory ideas in the form of concepts such as open-standards or software development kits.
******
The Soviet Union failed for many, many reasons, one of which was poor industry & product caused by over-planning, vertically (mis)managed industries and the failure to create a bottom-up sense of involvement or obligation by those on the factory floor. The State provided plenty of motivation to innovate (remember Sputnik and a thousand other examples) when competative success against the West was more important than following ideological claptrap and pleasing the more destructive whims of some evil oligarch.
Many quite bright contemporary commentators (from Left, Right and Centre) are concerned that the West too is sliding down the slippery hill to economic meltdown, for not dissimilar reasons - too much disengagement of the workforce, too much vertical and unco-operative behaviour by manufacturers; interference by powerful politicians (often acting as partisans for some big company or other) in issuing laws or other rules that everyone has to follow despite the law or rules being against their interest and against the interests of the wider society.
Lataxe
Just a few points. You mention academia. Yes, it is true that ideas are widely published. But, those ideas are NOT freely appropriated. In the academic setting, plagerism is pretty near a capital crime. You can use and extend others ideas, with attribution, but never claim them as your own. In fact, one academic "scoreboard" is the number of times one's work gets cited by others. And, even in academia, if an idea looks to be potentially moneymaking, then it gets patented before publication puts into the realm of "prior art".
Are there other motivations. Sure, I suppose you could give medals. But who decides what is a good innovation? Government with constituencies; magazines with advertisers; non-profit organizations, with donors; a benevolent dictator? Makes more sense to me that judgment of "the market" decides what is useful. That is people voting with their pocketbook.
The consumer and light commercial woodworking industry has been virtually devoid of technological invention. The small cabinet saw was fully developed by 1940. Yeah, there is change resulting from battery technology, but most is just marketing "innovation", not technological invention. So not much seems to have been "lost."
The Saw Stop technology isn't locked up forever, either. The seventeen year life isn't all that long a period, in the scheme of things. I don't know when exactly the clock started running (there are quite a number of patents filed by Saw Stop) but some time in 10-14 years from now it seems likely that other manufacturers would be able to use the same concepts. And, as the remaining patent term gets less and less, licensing terms are likely to become more and more affordable.
Of course, patents offer protection against appropriation, but they don't hoard knowledge, in fact it is the reverse. To get a patent, the innovation must be adequately described and published. Without patents we might see many more trade secrets--electronic gadgets truely encapsulated in black boxes, etc. Those could remain secret forever.
Steve,
In the groves of academe there is certainly a great deal of freely available and freely reused innovation. Of course there is attribution to the initial innovator but the reuse of ideas, concepts, techniques and other innovatory thinking does not always incur a monetary charge or proprietory ownership.
Sadly, the money-men have invaded academe of late. I suppose in the US they were always there to some extent. Personally I regret the attempt to bring about the reduction of every innovatory activity to a value expressed as a bottom line in a balance sheet. When thinking is channelled towards only the obviously profitable ideas then a great deal will never be thought about or discovered - including much that could in fact have been profitable if productised.
Why do you feel that only the market is an apt judge of what is worthwhile activity? Can you not allow that other motives besides monetary gain are valid and have their own values and rewards? Why impose a monoculture of businessmen? This demeans and reduces culture; becomes an de facto ideological dictatorship in fact.
You tell me:
'The consumer and light commercial woodworking industry has been virtually devoid of technological invention. The small cabinet saw was fully developed by 1940. Yeah, there is change resulting from battery technology, but most is just marketing "innovation", not technological invention. So not much seems to have been "lost."'
That is a fine circular argument: woodworking tools have not seen much innovation therefore no innovation is possible. In fact your premis is untrue in Europe as there have been many innovations in, for example, TS technology and the associated products. Every TS in America looks like a 1940s Unisaw whereas there are dozens of different models with all sorts of capabilities available in Europe. Are European patent laws somewhat more stringent concerning what is a new device or innovation, one wonders? (I don't know but something is different).
17 years seems a long time. In other industries, such as electronics, technologies can be redundant within a couple of years. This means that any manufacturer not sharing or freeing innovatory technologies will have a very small opportunity to make a profit. Is this why it is the electronics and software industries that are currently the leaders in freely sharing innovation? It certainly means that their new ideas and techniques are much more likely to survive and develop, along with the time and opportunities to productise them.
Incidentally, I read that many firms, particularly pharmacutical manufacturers, typically use (productise) less than 20% of their patents because the knowledge involved does not suit their production facilities or their preferred market. The potential benefits of those patents are thus denied to everyone for a long time. Apparently this is a great demotivator to the scientists who make the discoveries involved, as their work is deliberately made redundant even if it has high potential value to one of the firm's competitors; and to humans in general.
In short: the single model of jealously-guarded patents is one valid mode to encourage and exploit innovation. To pretend it is the only one is a rather blinkered attitude. What is the problem with exploring, allowing or even encouraging other options? In practice, many modern manufacturers are doing this, or so the extensive research contained in the book I'm reading proposes. It ain't just a theory, this sharing and co-operation.
Lataxe
There isn't US technology or European technology--European products are, and have been for quite some time--been available in the US. (Not the converse because of regulatory mandates) US table saws are the way that they are because of the market in the US, what Americans choose to purchase, not because of technology. Which of those innovations, other than the electronic control aspects, weren't in use during the 19th century, albeit in industrial form, not modified for DIY application.
The "monoculture" of business may not be the only "apt" judge of worthwhile activity, but all the other "systems" for making such choices are even more flawed and subject to arbitrary or capricious decisions. The market is more likely than any other system of discovering innovations that are less "obvious". It's the venue a man or woman with a dream has a chance to get their idea into production--much more likely than convincing some "committee" or than passing some ideological test?
You can propose all the alternative value systems that one wants, but in the end, it is still about the money--money needed to turn an idea into a product and a product into a market. If that isn't realized, then you are just dreaming in cloud cuckoo land. You can assert that there are other ways of encouraging innovation besides a patent system, but wishing doesn't make it so. What are the specifics. Where in history have these been successful. For how long outside of mobilization for war.
There are plenty of other venues where one can eschew the values of monetary gain, but making products for distribution--which is the only place where production can take place, still must-- of it's essence-- come down to money or it's equivalent. Replace it with five-year plans and quotas, or great leaps forward, if you will, but those alternatives are almost universally discredited.
"Cooperation" and "sharing" among business, usually is just a way to achieve market power to allow pricing at levels about that which competition and the costs of production would allow. In other language it's called "cartels", or "combinations" or attempts "to monopolize".
As far as companies which bury patents because they don't fit their own particular production, that's a pretty dubious proposition, since if profitable opportunities were actually available for those ideas, they could be sold, and profit collected from the sales price and royalties if not from production.
Just because production is organized around monetary profit doesn't mean all of society must be. Soldiers don't fight for money. Believers don't choose a church on those grounds. Poets are seldom in it for the buck. Artists do starve. Teachers can be dedicated.
>Soldiers don't fight for money.Hee hee... good one!
>The seventeen year life isn't all that long a period, in the scheme of things.Yes, it is, but we have very different perspectives. Some industries move much, much faster than the woodworking industry. 17 years ago, there was no WWW, cellphones were a rare novelty, and we were all cursing VHS tapes.In the woodworking industry, people jump on forums celebrating the combination of a 30 year old touch switch circuit with a basic rotary brake as a huge leap of technology. Thwwwpptt! ;) Andy
The SawStop does not combine a simple touch switch and a basic rotary brake, the components are far more sophisticated than that. Using your standards, an F-15 fighter plane is just a minor reworking of the Wright brothers first flyer.John White
Shop Manager for FWW Magazine, 1998 to 2007
"Are there additional methods for stimulating innovation; and even additional motives besides making as much money as possible?"
Yes, of course there is additional methods to stimulate motivation. But, who is supposed to do this stimulating? The government? And yes, people do things for other rewards, whether selfish or not. Some people like ot help others. It makes them feel good. Some people seek fame. Some people are just curious about how things work, and accidentally make a discovery or design a new, better mousetrap.
"Can these alternate methods & motives operate in some circumstances to produce a better win-win (for innovators, manufacturers and customers) than the old-fashioned hoarding of knowledge by private firms and jealously-guarded patents?"
Only if we all get along and have a group hug. Seriously, I don't have an answer to that question. The system we have now isn't perfect, but it works pretty good. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.
"Note, by the way, that patents are often held by large companies rather than the person who performed the innovation. Sometimes the company pays for the R&D but often they merely buy or "steal" the innovatory idea from its inventor. Being a wage-slave, purveyor of inexpensively-bought ideas or even a "victim" of idea-appropriation does not seem to demotivate many innovators. So the getting of lots of money isn't necessarily the primary motivator of those who seek and find innovatory ideas."
Yes, big corporations often do hold patents. Big corporations also are owned by individual persons like you and me. Whether in stock portfolios or retirement accounts. Often they fund research and development, and hire a lot of people to do the innovation for them. Often these people get bonuses when they make breakthroughs. Sometimes they buy the patent rights from the innovator for large sums. And, yes, sometimes they downright steal them. It's not a perfect world, and humans, however imperfect, are involved. Some people are dishonest.
"If you want a big example, consider academic science where lots of research results are freely-published, even today, without the publisher thinking instead of how much he can make via a patent. The clever people in academe are often doing such work for its own sake; or to gain status and further thinking/experimenting opportunities from/with their peers."
There is a lot of money in academic science. Schools do hold patents. They often publish research, for sure, but that doesn't mean they don't retain the rights to make money on it. There is a lot of research that does not have much to do with commercial interests, such as anthropology and history. These programs are for a better understanding of our world and where we came from. There is a lot of status in these programs. They are also funded by contributors. Some of them are large corporations (who own patents) or wealth individuals (who also own or sold patents, which is why they were wealthy enough to donate in the first place.)
"One does not need to necessarily spend a lot of money to have bright ideas. It's their development into real products that takes significant capital investment and no one is arguing that there should not be financial mechanisms to compensate and reward such efforts and investments."
No arguments there, but the operative word is necessarily. Some ideas are less complex than others. Some pay a lot of money for an education which leads to these ideas. Bright ideas don't happen in a vacuum. They are largely based on experiences through life. They come from a set set of skills or knowledge acquired through life.
***
"I hope to paint a scenario (using those open-innovation concepts and practices I just read about in that fine book I mentioned) to illustrate how the sharing of bright ideas about woodwork-related technologies could reward a much wider range of those involved - innovators, many more manufacturers and all their customers. The central concepts are that
Freely sharing innovatory ideas about potential technology implementations can stimulate the market (more producers make more products with the technology).
Such stimulation provides a vastly greater scope for further innovation which builds on the first new technologies following the new design paradigms.
The innovatory scope and activity balloons, concerning the new technology, along with the size of the market for the ever-increasing range of technologies involved. "
"The original innovator benefits more than if the first idea had been patented and exploited only by him, because although his market share of the new technology products is smaller than 100%, the market has been stimulated by making the innovation patent-free to the point where even a very small percetage market share is huge because the market has proliferated and grown by the increased opportunities underpinned by the innovation."
There are only so many dollars chasing around out there. At some point the market becomes saturated, and nobody makes money anymore. People rarely need more than one cell phone. Maybe two if you use one for business only. And such is it with any industry. Not everybody is interested in woodworking. I might not understand why, but that's the way it is. It's not an unlimited market, and the potential is not unlimited either.
"Think software and electronics-based new technologies such as computers, mobile phones and similar. Much of those markets have been grown via technology sharing, either via patents shared by multiple manufacturers in the sector or via out & out patent free publishing of innovatory ideas in the form of concepts such as open-standards or software development kits."
Yes, but I don't think there is really that much "sharing" of patents. Selling, yes.
******
"The Soviet Union failed for many, many reasons, one of which was poor industry & product caused by over-planning, vertically (mis)managed industries and the failure to create a bottom-up sense of involvement or obligation by those on the factory floor. The State provided plenty of motivation to innovate (remember Sputnik and a thousand other examples) when competative success against the West was more important than following ideological claptrap and pleasing the more destructive whims of some evil oligarch."
Yes, I agree with what you say here. But, it wasn't really the failure of communism that I was referring to. It was more the state of the innovation among the private people living in the Soviet Union and other communist countries. The Soviet Union was very successful in some government sponsored programs, such as the space program and military programs. On the other hand, the people of the Soviet Union did not benefit much from these programs. True entrepeneurs often put in 18 hour days and take ownership of their businesses and careers. This happens in Russia now, but hardly ever happened then. Yes, there were people who did, and took great pride in their work, but it wasn't the norm.
"Many quite bright contemporary commentators (from Left, Right and Centre) are concerned that the West too is sliding down the slippery hill to economic meltdown, for not dissimilar reasons - too much disengagement of the workforce, too much vertical and unco-operative behaviour by manufacturers; interference by powerful politicians (often acting as partisans for some big company or other) in issuing laws or other rules that everyone has to follow despite the law or rules being against their interest and against the interests of the wider society"
We, as Americans must and let our voices be heard. We have that right. I know it's not a perfect society we live in, but we are relatively free to do whatever we like. There are a lot of people who didn't like the job they had, and struck out on their own and became successful. They took initiative. The people that came to America to start a better life did so because they saw an opportunity to better their lives. It was gutsy, and frought with risk. Today, we have the choice to work where we please. If a job is a bad fit, change jobs. If somebody thinks they are stuck in a bad job, I question what has made them "stuck," and who is really at fault?
I think your views are valid, but they are also idealistic. I think people work hard to get food on the table and provide a comfortable living for themselves and their families. Some take higher risks in hopes of higher rewards. I don't really think that most people on this board would turn down an extra $100k if they had the opportunity. I think we all, by nature, are a bit greedy. We would all like to go to our favorite tool store and buy the nicest tools, or best lumber at the lumberyard.
Surely you jest or have you never driven a Lada?I do think that the comparison of any Russian dominated Federation to one comprised of the US and Western Europe has to take into account their relative degrees of prosperity, etc., at the time the Soviets took power. The fact that you have made such a comparison suggests to me that the Soviets gained ground on the West during their reign.
Actually, I have ridden in several Lada's. I lived in Norway for a while when I was younger, and they were quite common there. A joke of a car! The bodies are pretty much made of toilet paper and resin.
Actually, my point was that during Soviet rule, there was very little technological progress what-so-ever. At least not for the common people. The concept of communism is that everybody works and shares for the common good. There is no incentive to work any harder than necessary, as the reward is the same. You may have visions of creating a business and being successful, but it is impossible with that system of government. Very demotivating! When communism fell, the name of the country changed back to its former Russia. Businesses were privatized, and people saw opportunity to better themselves, which they have. The middle class has sprung up in Russia, where none really existed before. It's a completely different society now than what it was 20 years ago.
So, what does this have to do with patent law? Well, patents helped many companies that started protect their intellectual property, and compete in the market place. Patents are not just for big corporations; they also help small companies. Often that is what makes them able to grow.
This is only a small part of the equation, however. It's much more complicated than just that.
At root, your issue is with individuality that puts you in good company:<!----><!----><!---->
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." -- Ayn Rand<!----><!---->
The two follow-up quotes to Ayn Rand’s above comment on Individuality are: <!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." –Hillary Clinton<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
"We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." – Adolph Hitler<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
The very reason collectivism fails is that it is at odds with human nature. The collective requires altruism which is always in very short supply (despite all those attempts to “educate” it into us.) The capitalist needs only greed which is endemic to the species. <!----><!---->
Nap,
As you know, I always find it surprising that an ex-soldier pretends to eschew altruism. I feel that the role of soldier and the degree of sacrifice it can (and sadly does) involve makes members of the armed forces the most altruistic people there are. Are you going to tell me they all just do it for the pay?
Hitler, incidentally, was also a vegetarian. Does that make all veggies evil? I will have to condemn the ladywife, despite the fact I know her to be an angel. You are employing a cheap sophism with your Hitler quote, though, are you not. (Yes, you are).
As to the Hiliary quote (same cheap sophism): is she a Bad Person then? I suppose anyone who isn't an out-and-out Randian is Very Bad; or so would claim Ayn herself, a most intolerant lassie and not exactly keen on individuals or groups who disagreed with her very hard and fast views.
But these "heroes" and "villians" to the side....
Do you deny the efficacy of social co-operation then, at least in some circumstances? Surely you cannot believe that you survive in this world only and entirely by your own efforts? If so, take off them blinkers, lad!
Lastly, I note a recent study by some Australian academics (published in Scientific American Mind) that discovers great health and well-being effects to those who engage socially, whilst loners and unsocial folk sicken and die much earlier. To some of us, this is hardly news. Even as an utterly spoilt only-child of a one-parent family, I find great value and comfort in friends and neighbours. I manage to do so without exploiting them, except for their friendship of course. Indeed, many of them have furniture I made and gave them. I don't really need that many dollars, you see.
You Ayn-lads! How did you get so lonesome and suspicious? Too many cowboy movies with John Wayne in 'em!
Lataxe, probably infected with evil Fabian memes got from Clement Atlee or even Nye Bevan.
All relationships are, in the end, based on trade, being married you should know that. The currency differs but the trade is always there. Look at yourself, you must buy friendship and company with fine handcrafted furniture, (BTW I’m starting a hay rake table myself, thanks for the inspiration!). Individuality does not negate interaction but places it in its proper role. <!----><!----><!---->
Nap,
"All relationships are based on a trade".
My dear chap, here is the fount of your erronius agreement with that Rand woman. You have assumed that the only kind of relationship is a trade. Perhaps all those other kinds of relationships I have (and have had) contain hidden accounts somewhere? I confess that I have failed to notice them, possibly because the currencies involved were arcane.
Or maybe there was no account and no currency exchange?
I think you may have fallen for that linguistic fallacy that states: All selves do things for motives, therefore all motives are selfish. But a "self" often inlvoves and merges with other selves (being married you should know that) which we call "society". Mrs Thatcher may have swallowed some Ayn and pronounced that there is no such thing as society. You and I know that there is, as here we are in one called Knots.
And I must keep poking with case of the soldier. What does the soldier get in return for laying down his life or suffering life-degrading wounds? I feel that it greatly demeans such sacrifice to call it "trade".
Lataxe
"I think he is having us all on."
I had thought of that but the more he keeps going, it makes you wonder. You note that my post was to the OP. Kinda went out on the limb. Surprising that no one questioned the authenticism.
No matter how great the technology. The currenty manufacturers will "NEVER" incorporate this safety device. Reason being this will give every product liability lawer ammunition in regarding previous saws that did not incorporate saw stop technology.
The lawers will argue that if you got hurt on a table saw that did not have this technology, then the manufacturer goes ahead and incorporates this technology into there new saws it is implying that the manufacturer knew that there was a safety issue with the old saw, hence the liability factor
I don't think that would be the case, Fotze. Seatbelts were an option for a several years before the government required them, and I don't think that anyone ever sued GM becuase they got injured in their '47 Buick - even though seatbelts were available in '57.
hi keith,
up until five years ago, or so, guys like me could charge students five dollars/term as a shop fee. with this money i purchased all of the sandpaper, glue, band saw blades etc. some lawyers got a hold of this issue and for some time now it has been illegal to take money from kids to fund education or to buy the essential supplies for my class, with student generated funds. yesterday i discussed, with a friend, that it may be only a matter of time before the lawyers make it so that i must have saw stop type machines in the class. and then it will only be a matter of time before some smart kid figures out how to really impress his co-horts by bravely activating the saw stop features on the machines. and guess who will pay for the replacement stuff?
eef
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled