On September 9, 2016, an Administrative Law Judge with the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) ordered that Bosch had violated the law under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337) with its REAXX table saws after they were determined to infringe upon two SawStop U.S. patents.
6 comments:
When SawStop became a thing a few years ago, all I was concerned about was that if they were going to make them mandatory for use as table saws, then I just wanted them to make a good table saw. I don’t really care if the saw is a SawStop or a Bosch, it just has to be a good saw. Actually, I take that back, I would not buy a Bosch table saw if the option presented itself and I had the choice. I don’t hate the SawStop table saws, they are fine enough saws, and I am all for market driven competition, but I am skeptical now if any company out there (any company that it is legal to buy a saw from) actually has the intention of making the best table saw possible, damn the cost. I am befuddled at how the California SawStop law could possibly have been accepted. Is it impossible to buy a Northfield in California?
This article brings to mind a interesting subject to me, and that would be the idea of protection of intellectual property rights in regards to products that could help save lives or prevent serious harm. You could make the argument that because products that would fall into the two categories serve as a public good that there should be more people producing them. However that be said as long as the patent holders are not charging exorbitant amounts for the licencing of their product I see no harm in heavily protecting their intellectual property. They developed a product that is useful and helpful pay them for it, to do otherwise is nothing short of stealing for the patent holder.
It's really unfortunate that such an effective safety measure that I honestly believe should be implemented and mandatory in all saws is in the spotlight of a legal battle. I understand SawStop's lawsuit due to patent infringement. At the same time though, it's irritating that these companies are looking at safety measures on saws more as a profit making spec rather than focusing on the safety of consumers. Saw companies should be working together to come up with the safest and most efficient way to produce their saws. In the business market, lines between profit and ethics are almost always blurred. I think it would be interesting if saw companies looked at safety measures more competitively, challenging each other to create newer and safer technology rather than focusing on stagnating the market with the same safety implementation and little evolution.
Obviously a law suit between two companies this big is not going to be over quickly and I foresee a lot of appeals down the road. One thing that surprises me is that Bosch isn’t dominating the lawsuit with big time lawyers and resources. Bosch is a huge company extending way beyond power tools. I would think anyone would be scared to file against such a large company and that a relatively small company (like SawStop) would not have such a great chance in court. I guess SawStop has a good case if they are doing well. The other aspect of this case I forgot about was how SawStop essentially said anyone who is not using flesh detecting technology is responsible for their own injury because they did not take the appropriate steps to avoid injury. This means that Saw Stop is trying to make it so anyone producing a saw has to buy their specific technology.
This certainly is a revolutionary technology that has in some way created a monopoly on the sales of table saws. So many people have converted over to this technology leaving these other companies, like Bosch in the “sawdust”. It is almost uncommon to see commercial shops without Saw Stop technology simply because of the liability. Here at Carnegie scenic, we converted to a Saw Stop table saw my freshman year and although we have never had the mechanism come into effect we all watched the video of the hot dog coming in contact with the blade. This technology will continue to save limbs and will for many years to come but as for the other unfortunate companies that are trying to come out with a similar product are pretty much shit out of luck. After reading more of the patent it is made pretty apparent that these competing companies are going to have a very difficult time replicating the technology that can stop at the drop of a finger… literally.
Although patents and copyrights are not the same thing, I have new found respect for these types of intellectual property laws and cases after reading about copyright laws for Production Personnel Management. It is interesting to me to see how much of the laws are very clear and how some of it still has a lot of grey areas. In terms of the SawStop, I can see both sides of the case. On one hand, SawStop developed a new technology for table saws. On the other hand, flesh detecting technology is not something new. What I see in this is the entire system as a package. The flesh detecting system, break, cartridge, etc. to the blade lowering mechanism as a unit I can see having a patent for. Just the flesh detecting system doesn’t seem worthy of a patent. In any case, I’m a big fan of the SawStop and this technology in particular. During my freshman year at Michigan a student cut off part of their finger on the table saw. I just wish that the SawStop (or similar) came in a 12” version.
Post a Comment