Any time a product injurs someone, their lawyer argues to the jury that a different design could have precluded the injury and therefore the product was defective. Usually, manufacturers are required by that body of law to be fairly close to average safety standards.
The problem here is that the sawstop device is still under patent.
This is not a problem of the patent system. No one really believes that Sawstop didn't invent something that was novel and useful to at least some consumers.
The problem is that for the last century the American public, including most of the posters above, have let product liability run amuk. Disclaimer: I am a patent attorney. But the result of this case could have been predicted by a first year law student because it is completely unsurprising in terms of product liability law.
But try to get legislation passed that rationalizes the system and everyone cries that the legislation is pro corporation and anti safety.
Face it people. We have the legal system we asked for. Crying about it now does no good.
Charles E. Runyan, Ph. D. J. D.
4836 Zeniff Rd.
Heber, AZ 85928
Tel. (480) 205-9365
Fax. (866) 593-3697
View my LinkedIn profile here: http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesrunyan
Disclaimer: The fact I may communicate with you via electronic communications, letters or the telephone does not mean that I am your attorney or that I am giving you legal advice unless and until: (i) you first elect to hire me, (ii) we sign an engagement agreement that sets forth what legal services I will provide and how you will be charged, and (iii) you pay any required fee or security deposit. Otherwise, my comments are general and non-specific and you should not rely on them as legal advice.
So I write a book, a very good book, it takes all of my spare time for 5 years. I have it published. Another company takes the book and publishes it themselves. They get to make all the sales because they can inherently charge less for the book. Why? Because my publisher has to pay me something for the work I did to make the book.
I think it is unethical to strip artists of the right to compensation for their creations, which is what abolishing copyright would do.
Trespassing has been a cause of action in a civil suit under the common law, which we inherited from England, for probably a thousand years. In fact, in this case the judge is letting the trespassing claim move forward.