Pro Tool Reviews: Here we go again. The latest SawStop Vs Bosch Reaxx lawsuit has found in favor of SawStop with the ruling coming from Administrative Law Judge Thomas B. Pender. As it has been since the Reaxx was first announced, the lawsuit is based on patent infringement.
7 comments:
I feel mixed about the results of this lawsuit. On one hand, I’m really glad that SawStop put in the research to come up with a safer table saw, and I think patents to guarantee their investment is successful is important in order to encourage innovation. On the other hand, I’m hoping that eventually table saws that stop when flesh touches them become the standard since they are so much safer. If SawStop doesn’t allow any other companies to use that safety feature, then it will never be able to become the standard in the way it could if all companies had that technology. I understand why it is the best interest of SawStop to have as unique of a product as possible, and the potential gain from having that unique product is what inspired the new technology, but I can’t help but feel like having their patent be so broad that they have a monopoly on an important safety feature just isn’t what is best for the world.
There are a lot of different ways to peel a potato. There are different kinds of potato peelers, you could boil them, you could even use a normal knife. However you do it, peeling a potato is an achievable task. Similarly, stopping a table saw when it touches a person is an achievable task. You can do that with Saw Stop or Bosch. The Mechanism that stops/brings the blade below the table are two completely different mechanisms. They operate differently and they even do different things. I do not see how a patent can cover something that has the same conceptual idea. That is like saying the people who hold a patent for a pairing knife can sue the people who invented the potato peeler. That might be an exaggerated example and I am pretty sure there isn’t a patent for the pairing knife but the idea remains true. I understand that Saw Stop put a lot of time and money into their product and want to have a monopoly over the “safe saw” industry but I think Bosch’s design deserves to be available.
SawStop has been an overly litigious patent troll from it's very conception. I mean come on, the founder's main background is in patent law as an attorney. It is unreasonable that this company is seeking to establish a monopoly over this market sector by preventing all entry with patent lawsuits while simultaneously fighting for legislation that mandates the use of a table saw active safety device such as the SawStop. I hope that Bosch and other table saw manufacturers continue to seek to enter this market. The SawStop is such a racket too. It is a huge buzz word for EHS and OSHA safety types, all the while encouraging unsafe shop behavior and a casual attitude of safety around power tools as a whole. Meanwhile, SawStop is the sole supplier of the necessary cartridges required to operate the saw after it has been tripped. I really hope that this judge’s decision to rule in SawStop’s favor is due to a misinterpretation of the law and the patents in question, and will eventually be overturned.
I've been following this legal battle for awhile and I remain quite intrigued. Good for SawStop, to be honest. I think both products are equally effective and efficient with their intended purpose; However, SawStop is legally more tactful and intelligent for wanting to corner the market. They will make a lot of money and in the end be the most successful company as a result. Such a financial gain can also lead to the research and development of new products that can continue to keep carpenters safe.
This was such an interesting read. This situation has been debated for a long time. I don't really know how to feel about the lawsuit. I, do however, agree with john when saying Sawstop is more efficient and has been patented for a significant mint to time.. Both of them will end up wildly successful, i have no doubt. I hope the judge is fair and pray that he/she uses facts provided. I never realized how much drama goes into these lawsuits. I look forward to seeing how this case pans out and presents self..
I just had my first class working with the table saw and the saw stop. It's a brilliant invention I now have a ton of respect for. What I didn't realize, that there would be more than one. Of curse there would be, it just didn't occur to me this way. I would think that the market for protected table saw's is pretty vast, but perhaps I'm wrong. I think this will be an interesting case to follow, as both saws look like they have their own benefits, yet it does seam to be a patent issue, which is fair.
While I do think that the use and enforcement of patent law is crucial to the American economy, I do think that some companies use laws designed to protect innovation as a way to create a monopoly within an industry. While the results did not indicate exactly which specific aspect of the design resulted in the infringement, from what I know about these two devices, they are different enough in their mechanisms for the market to need both. I think that limiting a market to one specific product or company could result in that company becoming more relaxed in terms of quality and reliability because they know that no matter what there isn't anywhere else to go. Especially with a product like this, which relies entirely on ensuring that each and every piece is perfect in order to do it's job and prevent major injury, creating a monopoly would do much more harm than good, which is what I think might happen based on the results of this lawsuit. That said, I do hope that they can find a way to change the design enough that they can continue production .
Post a Comment